Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 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 Jami Morris, Associate Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger Mel Howe Christopher Livingston Steve Kirchhoff Visitors Present Ron Fiscus Ted Mitchell Jim Ullman John Davidson Allison Adams ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 25, 2006. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 7-0. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Susan Kozub. Chairperson Smith stated Mr. Hedglin had only agreed to be Co-Vice Chairperson and asked him if he would be willing to be Vice Chairperson as Mr. Carpenter had resigned from the DRB to be a member of the City Planning Board. Mr. Hedglin agreed to be Vice Chairperson if a Co-Vice Chairperson would be elected at a future meeting. Chairperson Smith asked Liaison Kozub to explain the checklist for submittal materials. Liaison Kozub explained the Site Plan checklist and requested the DRB make suggestions to ensure the submittal of complete applications. Mr. Rea asked if any projects had been reviewed by the DRB that were not sufficient but had been submitted with the checklist completed. Liaison Kozub cited the Gallatin Center, Lot 12 application that had needed to be reviewed twice. Chairperson Smith asked for topics for Liaison Kozub to look in to for the board. Mr. Rea suggested Staff figure out a strategy to make the DRB the “bad guys” as far as the conditioning of projects. Liaison Kozub responded Staff was always looking for ways to make the DRB appear as the bad guys (jokingly, of course). Mr. Pentecost stated it was difficult for him to make architectural recommendations without color renderings for materials and elevations. Mr. Krueger stated the checklist already required the submittal of those materials and added that a Staff Report often held references to revisions that the Board did not see as they had received the original submittal in packets. Liaison Kozub responded the initially submitted materials were given to Boards and Commissions and the applicant would need to be made aware that the late revisions would not be seen by those entities. Chairperson Smith stated she would like to see more Informal applications to help reduce the number of pending issues brought up at the time of the formal review. Liaison Kozub stated a possibility would be Staff recommending DRB review to the applicants on Informal Applications. Liaison Kozub added that the by-laws would need to be updated at a later date. She stated the format of the meetings might need to be reworked and recommended the board members attend Planning Board, Zoning Commission, or City Commission meetings to see the method by which they are run. ITEM 4. CONSENT ITEM A. Rib Crib CUP/COA #Z-05295 (Morris) 1921 West Oak Street * A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of alcohol within Stoneridge Square PUD. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved to remove the item from the consent agenda. The motion died. The project was approved as presented. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05217 (Skelton) Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B-2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. Ted Mitchell, Jim Ullman, and John Davidson joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the project had received Preliminary Plat approval. He stated the anchor tenant (supermarket) would be reviewed by the DRB. He stated the issues that would need to be addressed would be highlighted at this meeting. He stated the development guidelines document was good as a whole, but there would need to be more detail on the proposed information centers and the transit stops. He stated the review would become more involved during individual Site Plan review and suggested more detail to see how those areas would actually function. He stated the development manual was not a substitute for a Final Site Plan or Final PUD Plan. He stated the proposed residential component was not part of the development manual and would need to be addressed. Mr. Hedglin stated there were a lot more illustrations in the development manual, but he did not see trash enclosure or screening illustrations and asked if the development manual would need to include those things. Mr. Ullman stated the illustrations were in there and directed the DRB to the correct page. Mr. Krueger stated he was unclear on how this development manual and the Design Objectives Plan would work together, or not. Planner Skelton responded the development manual would be the hierarchy of the Design Objectives Plan with both documents working in conjunction and giving more specific detail for the property as a whole. Mr. Krueger stated that on page 94 there were two edits that called out the Design Objectives Plan requirements and he was uncertain whether or not the development manual would be specific enough. Planner Skelton responded there would have to be a formal application submitted to modify any of the development manual guidelines. Mr. Krueger suggested clarifying the wording to include illustration of 25% vertical change in grade. Planner Skelton responded the wording could be modified to complete the sentence instead of referring to the Design Objectives Plan. Mr. Hedglin asked if Mr. Krueger’s concern was that the development guidelines would negate the Design Objectives Plan. Mr. Krueger responded that his concern was primarily that the Design Objectives Plan was subject to change. Chairperson Smith asked if the responses given to the DRB were Planner Skelton’s responses. Planner Skelton responded they were not his responses and he had done an individual review on how the conditions of approval had been met. He stated the demands for the development manuals had been increased. Mr. Ullman stated that on page 2 of Planner Skelton’s Staff Report the discussion about the 3:1 slope and 4:1 slope would be a concern as there were instances when an elevation would cross several contour lines and a 3:1 slope would work better. He stated a 4:1 slope would be fine around watercourses and the applicant would add language to the development guidelines to reflect those slope figures. Mr. Ullman stated there was a super-elevation along Fowler Avenue’s slope which pushed the elevation to such a degree that a 4:1 slope would be very difficult and added that the 25% slope could be maintained in the open spaces. Mr. Mitchell added that 95% of the site would have a 4:1 slope. Mr. Ullman stated the drive-through facilities had not been planned along Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street. Planner Skelton responded he was thinking of drive-up windows (pharmacy) when he wrote the condition. Mr. Ullman stated it should not apply as Garfield Street had been designated a local street. Mr. Mitchell added that the U.D.O. contained no information prohibiting a drive-through along Garfield Street. Planner Skelton responded that Garfield Street appeared to be more of a defunct collector street due to its proximity to the college and some of the arterial streets. Chairperson Smith asked if drive-throughs for restaurants needed to be located at an intersection. Planner Skelton responded it would depend on the design of the site. Mr. Mitchell stated he would prefer not to have more restrictions placed on the project if the requirements of the U.D.O. had been met. Planner Skelton responded the spirit of the condition was to prevent franchise architecture of the drive-throughs. Mr. Ullman added that the design of the drive-through would be reviewed at individual Site Plan review. Planner Skelton stated that any applicant could request modification to the development guidelines to include a drive-through. Mr. Mitchell stated the mention of sidewalks in the Staff Report was primarily for those along the perimeter and they would be wider than normal sidewalks. Planner Skelton pointed out a section of sidewalk incorrectly depicted on the site plan. Mr. Ullman responded the correction would be made, the sidewalk would be as required, and the section had mistakenly been missed. Mr. Mitchell stated the complete removal of snow from the site would be difficult and could be dealt with by providing on-site storage areas. Planner Skelton responded the snow removal could be dealt with on a tenant to tenant basis. Mr. Ullman stated the site lighting requirements along trail corridors on the interior of the development had been met. Planner Skelton stated that the off-street parking would not require lighting and added it might not be an issue. Mr. Mitchell responded there would be lights peppered throughout the open space corridor and there would be parking lot lights. Ms. Zavora asked if the lights would be on both sides of the open space corridor. Mr. Mitchell responded there would be. Mr. Ullman stated the height of the lighting fixtures was allowed to be 25 feet according to the U.D.O. and asked if Bridger Peaks had taller lights. Planner Skelton stated the Gallatin Valley Mall and WalMart were the only ones with taller lights. Ms. Zavora asked why they would need taller light poles. Mr. Mitchell responded the illumination area would increase with the height and fewer poles could be used to cover the same area. Planner Skelton asked which lights would be used in the parking lot. Mr. Mitchell responded he would prefer to follow the letter of the U.D.O. and would use the shorter light poles and required fixtures. Mr. Mitchell asked how tall the pylon sign could be. Planner Skelton responded it could be five feet tall. Mr. Mitchell stated the condition regarding pylon and monument signage had been addressed as the applicant would require a common signage plan. Mr. Ullman stated he saw no difference between what they were proposing and some of Bozeman’s existing signage. Planner Skelton responded the sign in question appeared to be a monument sign. Mr. Rea asked if a certain sign would be counted as one sign or two. Planner Skelton responded the sign in question would be considered two separate signs and added that only one pylon sign would be permitted along each street frontage. Mr. Mitchell stated the tenants and the Board would like whatever sign design he came up with and suggested he would bring a sketch to illustrate the design. Mr. Howe suggested a person depicted on the sign sketch to demonstrate scaling. Mr. Mitchell stated he wanted three signs along Huffine Lane and three signs along Garfield Street. Planner Skelton responded monument signs could be used in those locations. Mr. Mitchell stated there would be smaller monument signs that would be directional. Mr. Rea asked for clarification of the sizes of the signs. Mr. Ullman stated the landscaper had discussed the landscape plan with Planner Skelton. Planner Skelton responded the landscaper would provide typical details of a smaller scale and added that typical details of the landscaping at the front of the development would need to be provided as well. Mr. Ullman stated the building height of up to 65 feet could be higher if there was a residential component to the development. Planner Skelton responded the conditions included nothing taller than 65 feet at this point and the development guidelines could be modified at such a time as a residential component entered the proposal. Mr. Mitchell asked the definition of a façade with relation to no more than 25% of the façade being a synthetic material. Mr. Pentecost responded the façade was each outside wall of the structure as a whole. Planner Skelton stated the cultured stone detail seemed to meet the requirement. Mr. Mitchell stated the Hilton Garden Inn had been granted close to 65% synthetic material and he wanted his proposal treated in the same manner. Planner Skelton responded the granted relaxations provided a need for the applicant to make allowances for a better looking development. He added that the 25% figure referred to the fronts of buildings and suggested articulation could be integrated. Planner Skelton stated neon lighting was becoming an issue in the city of Bozeman causing contention regarding whether or not it is being used properly as an architectural feature. He stated he had discussed with Staff the possibility of neon lighting and its use had been recommended against. Mr. Mitchell stated he would prefer to stay in conformance with the U.D.O. as opposed to seeking a relaxation from the code and suggested a tenant could individually request neon lighting at Site Plan review. Chairperson Smith asked if the requested signage and light heights would require the applicant to request a relaxation from the U.D.O. Planner Skelton responded they would. Mr. Mitchell responded there were no formal requests for relaxations at this time. Mr. Pentecost asked Mr. Mitchell to address the drive-through issues with regard to why he would want to have drive-throughs located where Staff would not be supportive of them. Mr. Mitchell responded he was not proposing drive-throughs along Fowler Avenue and College Street, but had only intended the project not be unnecessarily conditioned. Mr. Pentecost asked if it would place an undue burden on the designer of the drive-through to find a method by which it could be placed along the rear of the structure. Mr. Mitchell responded that some of the locations could pose difficulties to the designer of the drive-through. Mr. Pentecost stated that less than 25% of the façade could be E.F.I.S. and suggested cultured stone could be used. Mr. Mitchell responded he thought of synthetic material as E.F.I.S. and a stone-type project would become too bulky near the top of the structure. Mr. Pentecost asked for clarification between metal with a patina being allowable and corrugated metal being disallowed in the development manual. Mr. Mitchell responded that he did not want to see corrugated siding. Mr. Pentecost suggested clarification of the development guidelines to specify the locations of use for the corrugated siding and the patina metal. Mr. Pentecost asked Mr. Mitchell to discuss the residential component of the development. Mr. Mitchell stated the cinema would be relocated and there was a possibility of incorporating a single-level parking structure with storefronts. He stated there would be two residential towers and a common lobby area and added that the residential might spill over into the second level of the main shopping area if there was a market for it. Mr. Rea asked what Mr. Mitchell considered his primary entrance. Mr. Mitchell responded there would be a couple primary entrances, but the main one would be along Huffine Lane near the open space corridor. Mr. Rea asked Mr. Mitchell which side of a structure would be considered the “front” of the building. Mr. Mitchell illustrated the fronts of the structures on the color rendering. Mr. Rea asked if there was a typo in the development manual on page 99 that stated “ten gauge” corrugated metal. Mr. Mitchell responded he would look into it. Mr. Howe asked if the walkways would be on a 25% slope. Planner Skelton responded the silt fences would prevent a lot of the grading. Mr. Mitchell responded there would be a 4:1 (25%) slope for the walkways. Mr. Howe asked why it was an issue to place a transit stop at the end of the roadway. Planner Skelton responded the intensity of the intersection was difficult to gauge so he had left the condition open to accommodate the traffic flow and signalization; he added there may need to be a pullout or something in proximity of the boulevard. Mr. Howe stated the snow storage areas were generally delineated on submittals and wondered what the applicant would do to resolve that issue; he suggested the applicant bring a plan depicting the locations of snow storage areas. Mr. Howe asked the difference between a pylon sign and a monument sign. Planner Skelton explained. Mr. Howe asked where the residential structures would be located. Mr. Mitchell illustrated those locations on the color rendering and reiterated that the location of the residential component had not been firmly decided at this time. Mr. Howe stated that virtually every material on structures nowadays was a synthetic material and suggested being specific that the use of Stucco or E.F.I.S. would be acceptable. He stated the proposed residential towers would be placing the plaza area in perpetual shade. Mr. Krueger asked if retaining walls and terracing could resolve some of the grading issues on the site. Mr. Ullman responded those options had been considered, but would not work in most areas due to the upkeep of the landscaped areas. Planner Skelton stated he was concerned with the grade slope more than anything and the 25% slope would put the tenants into a position to entertain retaining walls or terraces if they could achieve them. Ms. Zavora asked what the signage would represent. Mr. Mitchell responded the signs would primarily depict the development and secondarily depict the major tenants within the development. Chairperson Smith asked where on his site he would consider the end of the Entryway Overlay District. Mr. Mitchell responded roughly 150 to 200 feet from the curb of Huffine Lane. Planner Skelton responded the entire project was in the Entryway. Mr. Howe stated the requirement was in the U.D.O. Chairperson Smith stated it was a trick question. Planner Skelton stated they would need four things: a common signage plan; the Stucco, E.F.I.S., Drivit, and no specific _______________________ Mr. Hedglin stated he agreed with the use of retaining walls or terraces, he agreed with the 4:1 slope, he was mixed on the snow removal situation due to heavy equipment movement for removal, he thought the pedestrian lighting should maintain an acceptable foot candle level with parking lot lighting bleeding off, he agreed with the comprehensive signage plan, and he stated a synthetic stone above the pedestrian level would be acceptable with a natural or high quality synthetic stone at pedestrian level. Mr. Rea stated he agreed regarding the comprehensive signage plan, he would be supportive of the rendering on page 51 depicting duel architectural features but would not be comfortable having nine of those signs scattered along Huffine Lane and College Street, he thought the building materials issue could be as simple as on page 99 striking the phrase “everything after 25%” as the fronts and rears of structures were hard to define at times and suggested the wording “Stucco or E.F.I.S.” instead, he would be supportive of the corrugated metal and supportive of changing the wording so as not to exclude siding materials like wood and copper that would fade with age and sunlight, he appreciated the aesthetics of the lighting proposed but was supportive of dark sky compliance, and added that there was not a higher standard being held to the project but he hoped there would be a higher standard achieved. Mr. Pentecost stated he commended the applicant on the arrangement of the proposal, he supported the common signage plan but thought one sign would be sufficient to direct people to the development, he was torn on the Stucco/E.F.I.S. issue as it was used all over the world and he would not suggest using Drivit, the transit stop was in its planning stage and he thought that seven generations from now there could be a lot of public transportation and was supportive of planning the transit stops for the future, he agreed with Mr. Rea regarding the use of corrugated metal as it was a real material (steel) and cheap, he agreed with allowing the use of wood, and he stated the requested relaxations for the development of the PUD demanded offsets in the form of a higher level design requirement. Mr. Krueger stated he had asked which components of the PUD were offsetting the requested relaxations, or benefits above and beyond, but he had never lost sight of the many requested relaxations and flexibility due to the community, he was generally supportive of Planner Skelton’s comments in the Staff Report, he would encourage retaining walls and terraces, he was not supportive of drive-throughs fronting on Garfield Street or Fowler Avenue, he liked the location of the transit stop but thought it may need to be enlarged, he supported a signage plan and encouraged one high quality sign on Huffine Lane instead of nine smaller signs, he was supportive of monument signs as they could be made to be extremely helpful, he encouraged the applicant to do a tiered materials list with specific definition and direction, and he was not supportive of neon lighting and preferred to see it restricted to the requirements of the UDO. Ms. Zavora stated she would be alright with the proposed 3:1 slope if the rest of the areas that would need it would be properly defined; though she thought landscaping might alleviate some of those issues as well, she would not support drive-throughs on Garfield Street or Fowler Avenue, she would like to see pullouts arranged for transit stops especially if there was to be a residential component to the site, she supported the common signage plan and having one main entrance sign and agreed with Mr. Rea’s sign comments, she was supportive of the proposed residential aspect of the development, and stated the “suggestions” and “considerations” for areas of landscaping should be “requirements” instead. Chairperson Smith stated she supported all of Staff recommendations with an amendment to section E1 that a light does not need to be installed on the pedestrian path, she was not supportive of anything above the allowable amount of signage, she would not be supportive of the proposed neon lighting, she thought that #31 in the development guidelines regarding a sidewalk crossing a parking lot entryway should include a scored pattern continued throughout the development, she would like to see internally illuminated signs included with the parking lot lighting to be turned off within one hour of closing, she thought that the project as a whole was in the Entryway Corridor Overlay and it was not presumptive to request features above and beyond the requirements, and she would support Staff’s wording regarding drive-throughs facing an Entryway Corridor. Planner Skelton added that it would not limit tenants from proposing a drive-through on another street. Mr. Krueger suggested removing the Design Objectives Plan language from the development guidelines. Mr. Rea stated he was glad the applicant was bringing the project to the Board and was appreciative of the applicant’s attitude, approach, and candor with the proposal. Mr. Mitchell stated the offsets for the requested relaxations had been met and he appreciated the Board’s patience and input and agreed with everything commented on by the DRB and Staff with the exception of two items; the request for the drive-through locations along Garfield Street and that there would need to be more than one sign. Planner Skelton and the DRB responded that there could be more than one sign as long as there was only one pylon sign along each street frontage. Mr. Pentecost suggested centering the language regarding the drive-through locations on being based on design merit and not disallowed altogether. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ullman concurred with Mr. Pentecost. The DRB agreed to add language to the design guidelines to include that it would be allowable for drive-throughs to be proposed along Garfield Street and Fowler Avenue with their approval by the DRB being based on design merit at individual Site Plan review. 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 8:27 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board