Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 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 Elissa Zavora Susan Kozub, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Scott Hedglin Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger Visitors Present Johanna Mercen Chris Budeski Dave Jarrett Mike Jarrett Jeff Goode Randy Twist Eugene Graf Heidi Graf Mike Jarrett David Jarrett ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2005 Mr. Rea stated that on page 4, paragraph 7, the first sentence should say split-faced block instead of split-faced rock. Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 11, 2006. MOTION: Mr. Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes with corrections. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Susan Kozub. Mr. Pentecost asked for clarification regarding an e-mail from Senior Planner David Skelton. Associate Planner Susan Kozub explained the memo. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. 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, Randy Twist, Shelly Engler, and Eugene Graf joined the DRB. Associate Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report on behalf of Senior Planner David Skelton noting that Planner Skelton had roughly drafted out comments the DRB should consider in addition to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report. She suggested the applicant explain the changes made to the proposal since the last DRB meeting. Mr. Budeski stated the applicant agreed with Planner Skelton’s comments regarding the entrance from Max Avenue and a straight path into the parking lot from Max Avenue would be easier for the public to maneuver, but the applicant would prefer to institute stop signs (or another control device) at that location. Chairperson Smith asked if the drive aisle had been moved. Mr. Budeski responded the drive aisle had been relocated to the north and requested the location of the access be worked out with the City Engineering Department. He illustrated which drive aisle had been moved to accommodate the pedestrian walkway going directly into the plaza area. Mr. Twist added that the spacing would be more even between the landscaping and sidewalk strips. Ms. Zavora asked how Planner Skelton’s third site comment had been addressed. Mr. Twist responded that he would clarify with Planner Skelton what would need to be done to the plaza area along the south side of the site to the west. Mr. Budeski responded there would be landscaping and planters inserted in that location, but nothing new had been done to that area. Mr. Pentecost asked if he was to understand that there had been no further attention given to that area. Mr. Budeski responded he had not been aware that it was a concern. Chairperson Smith stated it was condition of approval #9 from the previous meeting. Mr. Hedglin asked how the parking reduction would rearrange the site if the City Commission would not allow the requested parking deviation. Mr. Budeski responded that some of the perimeter parking would be removed and landscaping would take its place. Mr. Twist added that another option would be that the stalls could be enlarged from 9 to 10 feet wide. Mr. Twist stated the smooth faced block proposed for the loading area facing the creek (west elevation) would be offset with canopies and different color schemes to break up the façade. He stated there would be metal scuppers and downspouts, but they were not depicted on the plan. He stated the applicant had requested the use of screen walls to screen the mechanical equipment so that the parapets could be used for articulation instead. Mr. Graf added that Planner Skelton was amenable to the use of screen walls as long as they were reviewed by Staff. Mr. Budeski noted that the mechanical units were not on the edge of the structures but had been setback. Ms. Zavora asked how much variation would be available. Mr. Twist responded there would be six or seven feet available. Mr. Twist stated Planner Skelton had requested a second storefront onto Cattail Street and it would be difficult to do a true storefront with no tenant in that location, but architectural treatments could give the appearance of a storefront (windows, canopies, banding around the doors, etc.). Mr. Graf suggested dressing up the treatment of the fire doors in that area. Mr. Twist stated the wainscoting would be continued around the structure to the loading dock areas of Building D. Mr. Twist agreed that the modular use of masonry could be addressed by bringing Building D before the DRB for review once a tenant had been arranged. Mr. Pentecost stated that at the development of Building D the applicant had fallen away from the overall character with a deterioration of the language from structure to structure. Mr. Budeski stated the lack of a tenant made the design of the structure difficult. Mr. Twist stated the applicant was working with potential tenants and he would meet with Planer Skelton for clarification of his comments. Planner Kozub suggested that Planner Skelton wanted to see similar elements used on Building D that had been used on previous buildings (i.e. the treatment of the entrances). Mr. Twist stated that raised planters could be scattered throughout the plaza area, meeting Planner Skelton’s 1st plaza recommendation from the memo dated January 26, 2006. He stated the scored, pigmented concrete had already been proposed and he did not understand Planner Skelton’s recommendation to institute more. Chairperson Smith stated that he may have meant to bring the pavement out into the parking lot and plaza further. Mr. Budeski responded the applicant would have no problem bringing the scored, pigmented concrete further into the parking lot and plaza areas. Mr. Pentecost asked if the west elevation had been modified only with the use of color and not vegetation. Mr. Twist responded banding had been instituted. Mr. Pentecost suggested the colored bands wrap around the structure as it appeared to be a “front side” since it was facing a residential area. Mr. Twist asked if the DRB would be satisfied if the split faced block were wrapped around the side on the west elevation. Mr. Pentecost responded he could not suggest designs, only that there needed to be more architectural features to make the west façade more appealing. Mr. Twist responded the west façade would have loading areas and canopies and added that the landscaping would play a big part in the overall strategy for screening the loading areas from the residential development. Ms. Engler added that the landscaping along the back of the curb would be 8-10 foot high shrubs to separate the structure from the trail and pedestrian view. Mr. Pentecost stated the landscaping in a vacuum was a good design, but the building in the same vacuum was not as good a design and suggested making it better. Ms. Zavora asked if the landscaping would be reviewed by the DRB at a later date. Mr. Budeski responded that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board and the applicant were finalizing the location of the trail and added that the landscaping had been greatly enhanced to address the corridors. He stated that with a CUP there would be landscaping along the rear. Mr. Rea asked if there were plans to take the existing paint scheme into the current proposal. Mr. Twist responded the plans at this stage were only for Lot 12. Mr. Twist stated that he wanted to explain the rational for the continuation of the requested parking deviation; the Entryway Corridor location made the tenants appealing to travelers who would be passing by. He stated it was in the commitments and covenants between the owners and tenants that the current parking ratios be maintained. He added that there would have been lost sales without enough parking stalls to accommodate patrons. He stated the delays in the SID process prevented the owners from obtaining their building permits in time to maintain the original parking requirements. He added that the applicant had 30% open space in addition to the landscaping requirements. Mr. Graf stated that continuity would be a concern. Mr. Twist stated that some of the users of the trail system would use the parking on the site and put extra stress on the existing parking; he added that in order to attract quality retailers they would need to have adequate parking in their own minds. Chairperson Smith asked if the existing parking lot entrance was failing because it opened onto a landscaped aisle. Mr. Budeski responded he thought it was a failure due to the lack of control at the intersection. Chairperson Smith stated people cut through the open areas of parking causing the condition to worsen; she suggested curb stops. Mr. Budeski responded that curb stops could not be used due to snow removal conditions, but the raised islands would cause linear thinking as opposed to cutting across. Mr. Budeski stated the wider dimensions of the drive aisles would make it easier for people to navigate through the site; he suggested the applicant could put stop signs to better control the traffic flow. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be a three-way stop sign on Max Avenue. Mr. Budeski responded they would not need a three-way stop there as the avenue did not go through and added that pre-warning signs would make the crosswalks safer. Chairperson Smith asked if the applicant was requesting that Buildings A, B, and C be approved at this DRB review with building D being reviewed by the DRB once a tenant was arranged. Mr. Budeski responded that was the case. Mr. Rea stated the west elevation was not supportable with the smooth-faced block proposed, he liked the articulation but not as paint with split-faced CMU and Wainscoting, he would be willing to relax the parapet issues as the surface treatment was more critical than the profile line given that the landscaping was in place, the break-up of the facades was critical for the surrounding residences, he liked the alignment of the pedestrian walkway with the stream to the south, he was fine with the site plan as proposed, but he was concerned with the plaza area as a result of snowplowing. Ms. Zavora stated it would be nice to see the raised planters in the plaza area. Mr. Hedglin stated he agreed with Mr. Rea regarding coloring and use of smooth-faced block but thought eliminating the smooth-faced block altogether was unnecessary as it could be used for articulation, he thought the proposed screening as opposed to using the parapets would be acceptable as the parapets could be used to play with the masses, he suggested a raised area for the driver of a vehicle would be the first indication of a need to slow down, he stated there were a lot of unknowns regarding the site (parking, landscaping, etc.) that made him uncomfortable forwarding a recommendation of approval for the project, that the articulation on the west elevations of Buildings A, B, and C had bump-outs that presented good opportunities for breaking up the uninterrupted massing of the structures with building D not having that same opportunity, and he suggested maintaining nine foot wide parking stalls to accommodate landscaping if the deviation request was not granted by the City Commission. Mr. Krueger stated he would like to see additional plaza pedestrian treatment as it turned the corner to accommodate the adjacent residential development, he agreed with Mr. Pentecost regarding the treatment of the facades, he would like to see the intermixing of the split-faced and smooth-faced CMU, he liked the use of scored concrete out into the plazas and parking areas of the existing structures, he supported the build-out of the perimeter of the site, and he was not supportive of the requested increase in parking. Mr. Pentecost stated the back of Building A was presented as a black painted decal and the thickness of the CMU in the black area would give articulation to the façade giving depth to the elevation, the front facades of buildings A, B, and C appeared to have met Staff’s intent, and he suggested the screening of the mechanical units would be expensive and a waste of money since they would not be seen anyway. Chairperson Smith stated the she would like to see the scored and pigmented pavement extended into the plaza and the Max Avenue entrance, she supported Building D returning to the DRB for review, and suggested the Final Site Plan, including landscape plan and elevations, be reviewed by the DRB. Planner Kozub stated all mechanical equipment was required to be screened because a professional study of line-of-site screening was very difficult for the common man. She added that Staff would support alternate screening of the mechanical equipment since it was set back enough of a distance. Mr. Pentecost asked if it was possible to simply screen the mechanical equipment if they could prove that no one could see it. Planner Kozub responded Staff would be amenable to screening. Mr. Twist responded the intent of the design would be to screen as much as possible with as little cost. Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Mr. Pentecost regarding the screening and would suggest a relaxation of the requirements for screening instead of abolishing the requirements so that it would not be precedent setting. Ms. Engler stated the raised planters would be a nightmare for snow removal and pedestrian safety. She suggested the consolidation of the planters into fewer, larger planters which would also assist in the livelihood of the plants therein. Mr. Budeski cited the planters at the Museum of the Rockies and the inclination of skateboarders to use the planters as jumps and slides, ruining the limestone. Mr. Budeski added that the applicant would prefer to see the parking stalls eliminated from the perimeter of the site if the deviation request was not granted. Mr. Krueger asked if the applicant would be supportive of some type of seating in place of the raised planters in the plaza area. Mr. Budeski responded they would. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Rea seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Gallatin Center, Lot 12 SP/COA/DEV #Z-05270 with Staff conditions; the deletion of Staff condition #3; the modification of Staff condition #4 that the design of the off-street parking for the parking lot be designed as demonstrated in the January 25, 2006 submittal; the modification of Staff condition #7 to remove the typo regarding parallel parking stalls along North 19th Avenue; the amendment of Staff condition #9 to read southeast instead of southwest; and the amendment of Staff condition #12 to remove the final sentence regarding the parapet walls exceeding the height of the mechanical equipment and the addition of a sentence stating the rooftop mechanical equipment be screened to allow the articulation and modulation of the parapet wall. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Gallatin Center, Lot 12 SP/COA/DEV #Z-05270 with Staff conditions; the deletion of Staff condition #3; the modification of Staff condition #4 to include that the design of the off-street parking for the parking lot be designed as demonstrated in the January 25, 2006 submittal; the addition of condition #6K to introduce additional scored, pigmented pavement that extends further into the plaza and the Max Avenue entrance; the addition of condition #6J that the plaza shall include raised planters that allow for seating large enough to accommodate woody plantings; the modification of Staff condition #7 to remove the typo regarding parallel parking stalls along North 19th Avenue; the modification of Staff condition #8E to state that pigmented split-faced CMU be used throughout the structure with smooth-faced CMU being allowed as accent only and not to exceed 20%; the addition of condition #8H to state that the west elevation shall incorporate architectural features including, but not limited to, metal scuppers/downspouts, a strongly articulated top of parapet wall, and the use of another material; the amendment of Staff condition #9 to read that the “southeast” corner of the structure instead of the “southwest” corner; the amendment of Staff condition #12 to remove the final sentence regarding the parapet walls exceeding the height of the mechanical equipment and the addition of a sentence stating the rooftop mechanical equipment be screened with setback mechanical units to allow the articulation and modulation of the parapet wall; the addition of condition #15 that Building D return to the DRB for review with elevations; and the addition of condition #16 that the FSP, including landscape plan and elevations, be reviewed by the DRB as a consent agenda item. The amended motion carried 6-0. ITEM 5. 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 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board