Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Rea David Skelton, Senior Planner Mel Howe Susan Kozub, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Scott Hedglin Elissa Zavora Randy Carpenter Michael Pentecost Visitors Present Johanna Mercen Chris Budeski Dave Jarrett Mike Jarrett Jeff Goode ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 14, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Pentecost arrived and joined the DRB. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris. There were no items to discuss at this time. ITEM 4. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to elect Randy Carpenter as Vice Chairperson and Scott Hedglin as Co-Vice Chairperson. The motion carried 7-0. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Gallatin Center, Lot 11 SP/COA/DEV #Z-05263 (Kozub) Northwest of the intersection of North 19th Avenue and Cattail Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Deviation to allow the construction of four tenant spaces in three buildings totaling 74,399 square feet and related site improvements. Chris Budeski, Dave Jarrett, Johanna Mercen, Mike Jarrett, and Jeff Goode joined the DRB. Associate Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report noting the location of the property. She stated Staff did not support the requested parking deviation to allow more parking and that Staff recommended 13 conditions of approval in addition to the code provisions and DRC conditions. She reviewed the conditions of approval. She presented photos of material examples from Lot 10 of the Gallatin Center development and added that Building D would also face Max Avenue and would require more architectural detail on the façades. She stated Staff would require a color palette be submitted for the proposal and Staff would not support a drive-thru facing Max Avenue or North 19th Avenue. Mr. Hedglin asked if it was possible for the applicant to provide connections to the surrounding developments. Mr. Budeski responded there were existing pedestrian connections to Lot 10 not depicted on the plans. Mr. Rea asked why Staff did not like pea gravel. Planner Kozub responded the does not often not stay in place; she referred to Hastings on West Main Street as an example. Mr. Rea added it was a migratory material. Vice Chairperson Carpenter asked the status of the detention ponds on the site. Planner Kozub responded the applicant would need to add detention ponds due to an increase in impervious surfaces. Mr. Budeski responded there would be an additional detention pond and curb with gutter installed to route runoff. Mr. Hedglin asked if there were any intermediate catch basins. Mr. Budeski responded there were not, but the swale line would be moved to re-route the runoff and send it to a detention basin. Mr. Budeski stated the project would be completed in two phases and listed which items would be completed in each phase. He noted the location of the access for the delivery vehicles. He stated the request for a 20 percent increase in parking was due to the city parking requirements being less stringent when the PUD was originally approved and the applicant had an obligation to provide a certain parking allocation per tenant. He added the additional parking would be utilized during peak shopping seasons. Mr. Goode stated that the design of the structures had been positioned around Building B as a tenant had been arranged for the structure. He stated the split face material had been intended to be proposed for the project to present appealing façades to the surrounding streets. He stated the intent was to soften the larger facades with landscaping. Mr. Hedglin asked if the plaza area depicted was to be all hard-scape. Mr. Goode responded that the location of the soft-scape area had not been identified at this time and re-iterated that the facades would be split-faced instead of smooth-faced as the elevations mistakenly depicted. He stated the applicant knew the importance of having an appealing façade facing the streets and added that the existing masonry patterns would be repeated. He added that the contrasting material of stucco would discourage the appearance of a blank rear elevation. Planner Kozub requested clarification of which features of Building A were intended to be stucco and which were intended to be glass. Mr. Goode delineated each area on the elevations. Mr. Budeski stated Staff Condition #1 requested that perimeter landscaping be completed with Phase I, but the sidewalk had to be in a certain location and could cause landscaping difficulties due to the narrowness of the area. He asked if Condition #7 related to the 2/3 split-faced rock requirement was intended to be for vertical or horizontal coverage. Chairperson Smith stated she needed clarification about which set of plans the DRB would be commenting on at this time. Planner Kozub responded that the DRB would need to comment only on the originally submitted plans that they had received in packets. Mr. Rea asked if the landscaping shown covering a blank wall would be deciduous or coniferous. Planner Kozub named the species on the landscape plan. Mr. Rea responded there would be minimal leaves to soften this façade in the winter. He asked if there was a need for 4 to 1 parking. Mr. Dave Jarrett responded parking stalls were unusable in winter in front of Michaels and Borders due to snow removal areas and added that the applicant had not realized the parking requirements would change after the approval of the PUD. Ms. Mercen added that snow covered the delineating lines, shopping carts were left in the parking lot, abandoned vehicles took up spaces until they could be removed, and the patrons of the establishment did not always park appropriately; all of which contributed to a lack of parking stalls. Mr. Howe stated that the proposal appeared to resemble many other standard commercial projects and he was concerned that the appearance of the structures was too similar to other projects and not unique to Bozeman. He asked the purpose of the rooftop features on the corners. Mr. Goode stated the rooftop features made the project more timeless and less trendy and that he intended to continue the design established by the PUD. Mr. Rea asked if there were two hip towers proposed for building A. Mr. Goode responded there were and that they would be located on opposite diagonal corners. Mr. Rea asked if the west face of building B would be signage. Mr. Goode responded it would be secondary tenant signage and relatively minor in size. Mr. Rea asked if Building A would be two stories tall. Mr. Goode responded it would be single-story. Mr. Hedglin asked the reasoning behind the service drive between Buildings B and C. Mr. Budeski responded there were grade issues on the site that made the relocation of the drive impossible. Mr. Hedglin suggested an alternate location for the drive and was informed by Mr. Budeski that the access could not be that near an intersection and the drive should be across from the access. Mr. Hedglin asked if the transformer was required to have screening. Mr. Budeski responded that it was. Chairperson Smith asked how the shared parking agreement between Bob Wards and PetsMart affected the proposal’s parking deviation request. Mr. Budeski responded there was a parking agreement in place throughout the development. Mr. Jarrett responded each tenant had cross-agreements to share parking stalls. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be seating areas. Mr. Budeski responded there would be seating areas and added that the specifics of the plaza had been set aside until the parking deviation had been decided. Ms. Zavora asked if the rear entrances to Building A had sidewalks. Mr. Budeski responded they would be user exits with a concrete slab; mainly for emergency exit and service entry. He added there would be a space provided for the delivery vehicles. Mr. Hedglin asked if the applicant had considered a berm along North 19th Avenue. Mr. Budeski responded the site was 3 ½ feet higher in elevation than North 19th Avenue and the parking would be partially screened by the grade change. Mr. Rea asked if the east side of Building B had a proposed pedestrian space. Mr. Budeski responded there would be a pedestrian area in that location. Mr. Rea asked if there would be a pedestrian connection to Lot 12 from the site. Mr. Budeski responded the pedestrian connection would be the sidewalk on Cattail Street. Vice Chairperson Carpenter stated everyone had experienced difficulties with parking requirements and added that a private agreement was not a statutory requirement. Mr. Hedglin stated he had a difficult time considering approval due to the blankness of the facades and without knowing tenants. He stated there were still too many unknowns. Mr. Pentecost stated his initial thought was to dissect Staff condition #7 as he thought Building A was acceptable as proposed. He added that buildings B, C, & D had exaggerated parapets and suggested lowering entrances instead of elevating the parapets. Mr. Howe stated he was concerned with forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for plans that were not formally submitted as part of the original application and suggested conditioning the project as such. Mr. Rea stated he supported the proposed Building A if the building was split faced block and the south elevation was windows not stucco. He stated he was concerned with the vegetation on the east side of Building B as the tenant signage located there would be obscured and suggested more architectural features. He suggested a pedestrian connection in front of the buildings on the site to the sidewalk on Max Avenue across East Catron Creek. Ms. Zavora suggested using more landscaping around the entrances and blank facades. She stated she would like to see the plaza plan once it was complete as the proposed vegetation was not acceptable. She stated she would like to see more diversity of Evergreen species and more groupings of native shrubs along the creek. Chairperson Smith stated that, over all, she liked the layout of the structures in relation to the existing structures as the backsides were facing each other. She suggested one building facing 19th Avenue and/or Max Avenue would look better. She stated she would like to see larger, more obvious crosswalks with sidewalks through the parking aisles and she agreed that there should be some type of pedestrian connection across the stream. She stated Building A would need to address Cattail Street and North 19th Avenue and suggested that a restaurant could have a patio area in that location. She added she did not support the second set of plans that depicted a stucco wall addressing Cattail Street and North 19th Avenue and that she would not support the requested parking deviation. Mr. Goode stated the applicant was committed to the height and profile of the structures despite the tenants. Mr. Jarrett added that a blank façade along a streetscape would not look good. Mr. Goode stated that Building B would have mature vegetation around it for the screening of the blank façade and added that the applicant would prefer plaza and landscape improvements as opposed to more architectural features. Mr. Budeski stated Building B would have an architectural treatment that used three different block materials for articulation. He stated the pedestrian connection to Lot 12 was not feasible as a mid-block crossing would be unsafe and added that a corner entrance for Building B would not work if the parking was no longer located in that area. He stated there would be more landscaping instituted on the site with more of a variety of vegetation. He stated the sidewalks within the parking aisles would not be used as people are inclined to walk directly to the entrances. MOTION: Mr. Pentecost moved, Vice Chairperson Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Gallatin Center, Lot 11 SP/COA/DEV #Z-05263 with Staff conditions; the modification of Condition #7 to include that the “Final Site Plan elevations shall depict split-faced, concrete masonry units for all elevations facing public roadways and parking lots; that Building A be approved with glazing, as originally submitted and not spandrel glass, stucco, or EIFS; that the south elevation of Building B be revised to lower the front entry instead of elevate the parapet; that any significant (as determined by ADR Staff) modifications to any building be reviewed by the DRB prior to Final Site Plan approval. AMENDMENT: Mr. Rea suggested the addition of Condition #14 to include a pedestrian connection from the plaza to the sidewalk along Max Avenue across East Catron Creek. The amendment carried 6-1 with Mr. Hedglin voting in opposition. AMENDMENT: Ms. Zavora moved to amend condition #2 to include “with enhanced landscaping”; to amend condition #4 to have shrubs and perennials included with the shade trees; and the addition of condition #15 that native shrub clusters be incorporated into the landscaping. The amendment carried 6-1 with Mr. Hedglin voting in opposition. Chairperson Smith stated there needed to be two more crosswalks and an additional raised sidewalk within the parking lot for pedestrian flow throughout the site and suggested the addition of condition #16 to include said items. Mr. Budeski responded that the U.D.O. requirements had been met with one crosswalk within the parking lot and added that the applicant had willingly provided two crossings. Mr. Jarrett added that the ability to move the snowfall would be hindered with the institution of raised sidewalks. Chairperson Smith stated she did not have a preference and scored or pigmented pavement could be used. Mr. Budeski reiterated that he disagreed with the institution of more pedestrian pathways as there were two solid pedestrian connections provided on the site. Ms. Mercen added that the maintenance aspect of instituting more crosswalks and raised sidewalks would be detrimental. The DRB discussed if there was a need for an additional raised sidewalk and concluded that there was not. The DRB agreed that widened crosswalks would be beneficial. AMENDMENT: Chairperson Smith moved to amend condition #6 to include a minimum of four crosswalks and the widening of at least two crosswalks for greater emphasis. The amendment carried 6-1 with Mr. Hedglin voting in opposition. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Pentecost moved, Vice Chairperson Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Gallatin Center, Lot 11 SP/COA/DEV #Z-05263 with Staff conditions; the modification of Condition #2 - the Final Site Plan shall depict sidewalks (for Building A) that connect to the sidewalk along Cattail Street and to the path along North 19th Avenue with enhanced landscaping at the corner.; the modification of Condition #4 - the pedestrian plaza along the south elevations of Buildings B, C, and D shall include additional pedestrian features including benches, picnic tables, and additional landscaping clusters with large canopy shade trees, shrubs, and perennials; the modification of Condition #6 - the Final Site Plan shall confirm that all pedestrian crosswalks will be installed as colored, scored concrete similar to that already installed throughout this mixed-use commercial Planned Unit Development. A total of four crosswalks shall be shown on the Final Site Plan with at least two of the crosswalks having a minimum width of the landscape island; the modification of Condition #7 - Any “significant” modifications to the submitted elevations, as determined by ADR Staff, shall be reviewed by the DRB prior to Final Site Plan approval. The Final Site Plan elevations shall depict: Split-face concrete masonry units for all elevations facing a public right-of-way or parking lot; Building A with glazing facing Cattail Street and North 19th Avenue as originally submitted, and not spandrel glass, EIFS, or stucco; and Building B with a lower front entry to better distinguish it from the rest of the building mass, the addition of Condition #14 - the Final Site Plan shall include a pedestrian connection from the plaza on the south sides of Buildings B, C, and D to the sidewalk along Max Avenue across East Catron Creek; and the addition of condition #15 - the Final Landscape Plan shall depict additional native shrub clusters along the East Catron Creek corridor. The amended motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Hedglin voting in opposition. B. Gallatin Center, Lot 12 SP/COA/DEV #Z-05270 (Skelton) Northwest of the intersection of Max Avenue and Cattail Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the construction of one building with multiple tenants totaling 129,034 square feet and related site improvements. Chris Budeski, Dave Jarrett, Johanna Mercen, Mike Jarrett, and Jeff Goode joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting he would be giving the DRB a sense of the lot’s relationship to the rest of the PUD as a whole, as well as the surrounding area. He stated the PUD approval allowed the re-routing of West Catron Creek to accommodate the development of the site and added that Cattail Creek Subdivision was located to the west of the site. He noted the surrounding zoning designations and possible changes to those zonings and stated the shell of the structure could be designed to allow for future tenants of the site while maintaining the vocabulary of the subdivision. He stated the tenants would probably change causing a variation in tenants and site components. He presented Staff conditions noting that he had set design parameters for the landscaping of detention ponds. He stated the grades for each lot to the north did not match up and suggested the perimeter, in its entirety, be developed with the initial phase. He stated the point of discussion would be how to develop a legitimate streetscape along Max Avenue. He stated whatever the design was going to be, it would need to be developed in the initial phase to prevent grading differences. He stated the parking lot design mirrored the same design issues for the previous application for Lot 11. He stated there would need to be a stronger emphasis on the landscaped features and suggested the use of native species of vegetation in addition to the more common features. He stated the PUD requirements would be modified to reflect a minimum 2 inch caliper of tree to be installed and the need for perennial and annual flowering type species would be necessary at the main entrances and accesses. He stated Staff was recommending a hard-scape plan be submitted and the site would be required to have irrigation with drought tolerant species reducing the amount of water needed. He stated Staff would need clarification of the storm water detention facilities. He stated the raised section of pigmented pavement was intended to be used in front of the plaza area. He stated Staff recommended a substantial part of the easement along Max Avenue be used for landscaping. He stated the use and treatment of masonry was different from the rest of the subdivision and suggested the use of the masonry be carried through to building D. He stated the west elevations needed architectural detail with stronger emphasis on entries and Staff recommended a covered walkway around the perimeter of the structure. He stated there would need to be a stronger variation of roof form and offset of building heights. He stated there was a need for canopies over the entrances and walkways due to Staff’s concern that the principal collector street, Cattail Street, had a lot of visual exposure at the southwest corner of the lot. He stated Staff had defined the signage based on the PUD developmental guidelines and suggested the site plan mirror those guidelines. He stated the raised sidewalks within the parking aisles would only work if they were wide enough to be easily identifiable. Mr. Jarrett stated the larger tenants would drive the design of the exterior shell. Planner Skelton stated the DRB could review the shell of the structure with each tenant and further review the site with future tenants to ensure that any future revisions are compatible with the site design. Mr. Rea asked if there was a problem instituting a pedestrian pathway from Lot 11 to Lot 12. Planner Skelton responded there were only a couple of natural amenities on the site and Staff had discouraged too may pedestrian crossings other than with the principal street intersections. Mr. Jarrett added that most pedestrian traffic would be from the residential areas to the west along the creek. Ms. Zavora asked for clarification regarding irrigation in the courtyard. Planner Skelton noted the irrigation would be required. Ms. Zavora asked for clarification of the term ornamental rock. Planner Skelton responded the intent of the term was to get away from the traditional 1 ½ inch washed gravel and pea gravel materials. Mr. Budeski added it could be cobble. Chairperson Smith asked if the PUD approval banned the use of natural materials on the front of the building. Mr. Budeski responded it was the use of timbers on the front facades of structures that was not allowed in the PUD. Chairperson Smith asked if building modulation had been mentioned in the Staff report. Planner Skelton responded he did not mention offsets in the Staff report, but building D was his primary concern. He added that a closer look at the facades of the buildings would offset the structures themselves. Mr. Budeski asked for direction on how wide a specific landscaped area would need to be. Planner Skelton suggested the sidewalk should be placed inside the right-of-way, still avoid difficulties with the swale, but provide adequate room for some legitimate landscape between the sidewalk and parking lot. Mr. Budeski stated the applicant would prefer to reduce the size of the structures instead of the amount of parking. Mr. Budeski stated the canopies over the service areas on the south and west elevations were feasible, but the wells of the loading docks prevented the use of canopies. He stated condition #10 should read southeast instead of southwest. Planner Skelton commented that regardless of the position of the loading docks that they would need to be properly screened and include adequate architectural features. This would include, but not be limited to, canopies. Mr. Goode stated he understood the boards concern regarding building D, but the tenant had withdrawn and the re-submittal for the remaining buildings and would be reviewed at a later date. Planner Skelton responded that he hoped that the site plan submittal would include detailed elevations for this area and be submitted in a timely manner to be presented to the DRB before City Commission review. However, this did not happen. Mr. Budeski responded the infrastructure would be installed before any of the approvals and would give the applicant time to rework some of the drawings. Mr. Budeski and Mr. Goode agreed that the DRB would be reviewing the proposal at a later date and prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Mr. Pentecost asked if the 46,000 square feet of cinderblock could be changed to a different material. Mr. Mike Jarrett responded the use of cinderblock was a requirement of the PUD. Mr. Goode responded there would be several different colors of metal used on the structure. Mr. Pentecost stated that the west elevation had only cinderblock proposed. Mr. Goode responded he was hesitant to institute any more materials due to the potential for a cluttered facade. Mr. Pentecost noted there would be a residential area facing the cinderblock façade and suggested various alternate materials need to be considered. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be franchise architecture instituted on the site. Mr. Goode responded the franchise design would be the stair stepping location of the front entrance feature, but there would be different colors. Chairperson Smith stated the U.D.O. works in concert with the D.O.P. to discourage franchise architecture. Planner Skelton responded that building D was going to be revamped and the franchise architecture should not be an issue. At such time that a tenant for unit D is considered, a determination on franchise architecture will be made at that time based on the façade design. Chairperson Smith stated that Ms. Zavora had noted locations where wooden trellises were proposed which would go against the design guidelines of the PUD. Vice Chairperson Carpenter asked Planner Skelton to reiterate the landscaping, streetscape, and access concerns. Mr. Rea stated the concerns being noted by the DRB might help the applicant in his dealings with his tenant and the east elevation was unacceptable. Mr. Howe asked the status of the application. Planner Skelton responded that the City Commission would most likely have the same concerns that the DRB was expressing. He stated the proposal could be seen by the DRB on a number of occasions until such a time as the board can achieve a recommendation of approval to the City Commission. Mr. Dave Jarrett suggested the approval could be for building A and the applicant could build out a predetermined number of square feet with the architectural features remaining within the existing character. Mr. Budeski suggested a condition for final review of the facades of the structures by the DRB before Final Site Plan approval. Planner Skelton added that the City Commission might not have the information necessary to make a comfortable decision on the matter. Planner Skelton suggested the City Commission meeting be opened and continued for two weeks and the modified plans be reviewed by the DRB in two weeks. He stated his concern was that the whole lot needed reviewed and not just a single tenant. The City Commission prefers to not make a decision on site plan review projects without first receiving a formal recommendation by the DRB and knowing what their concerns are and how those concerns are being addressed. Chairperson Smith suggested the applicant work toward meeting existing Staff conditions so that some of them may be deleted at the next DRB review. Ms. Zavora stated she was confused where the sidewalk would end. Planner Skelton responded the sidewalk should be located on the inside edge of the lot line within the right-of-way and end tie in with the existing sidewalk to the north. Mr. Budeski concurred on the location of the sidewalk. Chairperson Smith stated she thought some type of purposeful alignment would be useful in directing people through the parking lot. Mr. Budeski concurred that the intersection would not work as the best design would be straight into the parking lot instead of turning. Chairperson Smith suggested there should be four way stop signs at some of the exits and the use of interior parking lot walkways as there were narrow areas of sidewalk. Mr. Budeski responded the proposed sidewalk got wider immediately after the necessary connections. Chairperson Smith suggested an open corner, entrance, etc. to soften one of the edges. She stated the blank facades on the rear of the structures needed architectural detail. Mr. Hedglin stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and added there would need to be more detail on the facades. Mr. Carpenter asked if the traffic generation calculations had been considered. Mr. Budeski responded that without tenants there would be no way to get an accurate count on traffic generation. Mr. Pentecost stated he would like to make four individual comments – that the architect expand the material palette to be continuous to all four facades, that he establish a design composition language that identifies each building as a part of a greater whole, that the design composition language is fully and continually expressed on all facades, and that he articulate the front facades on buildings A, B, C, & D. The project was opened and continued until the January 25, 2006 meeting of the DRB. ITEM 6. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board