Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Scott Hedglin called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Michael Pentecost David Skelton, Senior Planner Elissa Zavora Martin Knight, Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Bill Rea Christopher Livingston Brian Krueger Visitors Present Chris Yearick Ted Mitchell Dale Miller Jim Ullman Byron Pavao Jolene Rieck ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2006 Vice Chairperson Scott Hedglin called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 8, 2006. Mr. Howe stated that on page 6, first paragraph should say the “plaza” instead of the “courtyard” in the shade. Vice Chairperson Hedglin stated that on page 6 halfway down – the reference was for a willingness to accept a synthetic stone above pedestrian level instead of suggesting E.F.I.S. be used. Vice Chairperson Hedglin stated that the blank line on page 6 needed to be filled in by Planner Skelton. The minutes were continued until the next DRB meeting. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Susan Kozub. Ask Planner Kozub about by-laws. Work on scheduling a meeting. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Lerner Office Building/Homesite Condos SP/COA #Z-05299 (Knight) 907 & 915 North 17th Avenue * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of an office building and a condo structure with related site improvements. Chris Yearick joined the DRB. Planner Martin Knight presented the Staff Report noting that Staff had recommended awnings and horizontal banding to make the development more in keeping with the surrounding residential areas. He stated Staff recommended enhancing the east entryway using balconies or canopies and the introduction of a masonry or stone component at the base of the structure. He stated the Entryway Corridor guidelines discouraged the use of bright colors and suggested the colors be muted. Mr. Rea asked for Staff’s approach when advising the applicant to blend the residential and commercial components. Mr. Knight stated that there were residential components surrounding the commercial development and the project should remain in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Livingston asked the material and color depicted for a certain location. Mr. Yearick responded it would be cream or sandstone colored metal. Mr. Livingston asked the color of two other locations proposed as being metal. Mr. Yearick responded they would also be cream or sandstone colored. Ms. Zavora asked why landscaping was not be suggested to bring the mass of the structure to a more pedestrian scaling. Mr. Knight stated Staff had not thought of it. Mr. Krueger asked if the project was an isolated parcel of R-O zoning. Planner Skelton responded the zoning had initially been B-2, but the lots were very small so were rezoned to R-O to accommodate smaller professional offices. Mr. Rea asked Staff’s thought processes on Staff condition #5F requiring the applicant to blend the residential and commercial components. Planner Skelton explained the need for remaining in keeping with the surrounding zoning and neighborhoods and added that it would create a sense of placement. Mr. Yearick stated limestone had been proposed, but may not be used. Planner Skelton suggested canopies and awnings would allow a better presentation of the structure to the streetscape. Mr. Rea asked if Staff meant there needed to be an entrance onto 19th Avenue. Planner Skelton responded it was a suggestion to incorporate the features of the primary entrance into the secondary entrances. Mr. Krueger asked if the Design Objectives Plan had any guidelines for the primary entrance of a structure. Planner Skelton responded the D.O.P. referred more to breaking up the façades and the use of articulation. Mr. Yearick stated he agreed with Staff and DRB comments regarding emphasizing rib work, instituting color bands, and detailing. He stated he disagreed with the use of Wainscot due to the historical/contemporary style of the structure. He stated he did not know if he would institute awnings in the proposal, but he would if it was a condition of approval. Vice Chairperson Hedglin stated he would find it difficult to make a recommendation of approval as there were many unknowns in the development. Mr. Rea concurred that the application should be seen in the future. Mr. Yearick stated there had been no changes to the main portion of the structure and only colors had been modified. Mr. Pentecost stated the applicant should be presented with the DRB’s thoughts on the proposal. Mr. Rea asked if the landscaping depicted on the color rendering was also depicted in the plans. Mr. Yearick responded the color rendering depicted less landscaping as it was primarily for visualization of the structure itself. Mr. Livingston asked if there was only one trash enclosure proposed for the site. Planner Knight pointed out where another would be located per a condition from the DRC. Mr. Howe asked if the submittal was for Informal review. Planner Skelton responded it was not an Informal review and added that many of the issues were outlined in Staff condition #5. Mr. Pentecost asked if Mr. Yearick could elaborate on the obvious distance between the architectural language of the office buildings and the condominiums. Mr. Yearick responded he had attempted to bring the structure a more residential feeling facing 17th Avenue with more of a commercial feeling facing 19th Avenue. Mr. Pentecost stated the residences had brick façade with articulated parapets and after the corner there was a reversion to contemporary architecture. Mr. Yearick responded he had used an old mill type concept with a blend of contemporary architecture. Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant had attempted to preserve more than 12 of the 30 trees existing on the site. Mr. Yearick responded they had researched what they could salvage or relocate, but many of them would end up in the parking lot or there would be too little space for them. Ms. Zavora stated the spruce trees along 19th Avenue would remain mature and beautiful if they could be salvaged and suggested keeping the elm trees on 17th Avenue. Mr. Yearick responded it was possible the trees could not be located so near the utilities. Ms. Zavora stated it appeared that many of the trees to be removed would be replaced in the exact location of their removal and suggested maintaining them instead. Mr. Yearick responded he would speak with his landscape architect regarding salvaging and relocating the existing trees. Ms. Zavora asked how the grade changes on the site would be addressed. Mr. Yearick responded the site had been raised in the middle to accommodate drainage of the site and he would speak with his civil engineer. Planner Skelton suggested a retaining wall. Mr. Yearick concurred so as not to exceed the 1:4 grade. Vice Chairperson Hedglin asked if the applicant was comfortable finding some element to tie the residential and commercial components together. Mr. Yearick responded the he was comfortable and had been working on instituting those elements to blend the two types of structures together. Vice Chairperson Hedglin asked the comfort level of the applicant regarding Staff conditions of approval. Mr. Yearick responded he was 90% comfortable with Staff conditions. Vice Chairperson Hedglin asked which issues he was uncomfortable with. Mr. Yearick responded he did not understand the use of awnings to show human scale. Planner Skelton responded that the bare minimum corrections could be the use of awnings or a change of material instead of reworking the whole façade. Mr. Krueger stated the DRB had received two representations for the window fenestration and wanted to know which representation was the applicants preferred design. Mr. Yearick responded the graphics did not show as well on one of the representations but they were the same. Mr. Krueger asked, if limestone were a requirement of the project, would the project be built. Mr. Yearick responded the limestone would cause the applicant to have to reinforce the structure in those areas. Mr. Krueger asked how far along the applicant was with a signage plan. Mr. Yearrick responded a signage plan had been discussed but not submitted and noted the locations proposed for signage. Mr. Krueger asked if Staff condition #7, requiring a pediment wall or articulated parapets, would be amenable to the applicant. Mr. Yearick responded a deviation would need to be requested for articulated parapets. Mr. Krueger asked if the applicant would seek a deviation request. Mr. Yearick responded he would prefer not to request a deviation. Mr. Krueger asked if there was more detailing on the stairway on the north side of the structure. Mr. Yearick responded there would be a run of windows, reveal work, and a shadow line that were not shown on the rendering. Mr. Rea stated he disagreed with Staff condition #5F that the office and thought the residential and commercial components would be better off not sharing detailing, he agreed with Staff condition #8 that anything depicted as white should be limestone and its use encouraged, the west façade was critical and the entry on the west elevation should be emphasized for more human scale (lentils and the sills could be used instead of an awning), and he would strongly encourage keeping the trees along the west side of the building. Mr. Livingston stated he appreciated the fact that the proposed structure was all brick and masonry materials, but disagreed with Staff condition #7, he would like to see a more sympathetic stone to match the brick (less flashy and bright), he would like to see anther color of brick or something to articulate the first level instead of using awnings to bring detail to the ground. He stated the exposed metal should not be white to give the building less of a garish tone, the east canopy could use some work, the metal needed toned down from its cream color to a brick coursing, and he agreed that the anodized moldings should be a darker color for a more subdued tone. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments, that condition #5A should include “and explore the incorporation of awnings” to allow more flexibility in the detail treatment, he suggested the addition of condition #9 for the applicant to explore the conservation of more of the existing trees on the site. Mr. Pentecost stated he applauded the applicant for taking a bold step and proposing something different for 19th Avenue, he suggested the white brick was facetious but could be inserted to set off the two vernaculars of the site, he stated he agreed with Staff regarding the use of brushed aluminum, he thought exploration of colors for use on the window mullions would be beneficial, he stated the human scale was not necessarily appropriate as the majority of people seeing the structure would be driving at 45 miles per hour, the parapets would be inappropriate as the design of the building was contemporary, he agreed with saving more of the existing vegetation, he disagreed with presenting an entrance on the 19th Avenue side if it was not a true entrance as no one would ever use it, he would like to see real stone instituted on the structure, and suggested eliminating Staff conditions #5C and #5F. Ms. Zavora suggested adding a condition to require the applicant to maintain the existing mature vegetation along 19th Avenue, the possible salvage of the existing mature vegetation along 17th Avenue, and the possible salvage of other existing trees throughout the site. She suggested a requirement for more landscaping. Mr. Krueger stated his overall impression of the project was positive, he liked the town-home walkup, he supported previous DRB comments, he suggested using natural stone on the main office building to complement the residential housing but still remain distinctly separate, he suggested that the entrance from 19th Avenue needed an indicator for pedestrians to direct them to the entrance with a possible exit from the north side of the property, he liked the courtyard on the front of the building but did not like the proposed wall in that location, the staircase needed relief (the use of windows), and added that overall he was supportive of the project. Vice Chairperson Hedglin stated he was supportive of the project (finally an office building in Bozeman), the condition for added features to bring the scale down to a pedestrian level may have been unnecessary, the west elevation would be tricky, and he would rather see a large structure on the outskirts of town than a lot of small ones. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Lerner Office Building/Homesite Condos SP/COA #Z-05299 with Staff conditions, the removal of condition #7, the addition of condition #9 to require the applicant conserve or relocate as many of the existing trees on the site especially those along 19th Avenue and 17th Avenue and requiring the applicant to keep the four existing spruce trees currently on 19th Avenue along the south corner going east with the exception of the one on the corner, and the requirement that all of the trees along 17th Avenue with the exception of the spruce trees be conserved. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Lerner Office Building/Homesite Condos SP/COA #Z-05299 with Staff conditions, the removal of condition #7, the addition of condition #9 to require the applicant conserve or relocate as many of the existing trees on the site especially those along 19th Avenue and the requirement that all of the trees along 17th Avenue (with the exception of the spruce trees) be conserved, to strike the last sentence of Staff condition #5C, to strike all of Staff condition #5F, the amendment of Staff condition #8 to add that limestone be used instead of the white material, to amend Staff condition #5A to include the language “exploring the incorporation of awnings, window sills, and canopies”, the addition of condition #10 that more landscaping be instituted on the residential portion of the development, and the addition of condition #11 to consider the use of an aged metal. The amended motion carried 7-0. B. 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 and Jim Ullman joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Memo noting the City Commission had reviewed the Bozeman Gateway Development Manual with roughly 40 conditions. He stated there were exhibits provided that were not in keeping with the UDO and each had a disclaimer stating the exhibits were examples of a Lifestyle Center and not for construction. He stated the landscape plan, FSP, and comprehensive signage plan would need to be discussed as they were key things needing concretely instituted into the manual. He noted the point of concern with regard to Staff condition #10 was that there was already a condition of approval and that the idea was for public activity to be able to occur at the northeast corner of the development. Mr. Pentecost asked Planner Skelton to reiterate the conditions of approval from the City Commission as to whether or not a condition of approval was negotiable. Planner Skelton responded the conditions of approval were not negotiable. Mr. Pentecost asked if the condition was included or not. Planner Skelton responded the condition stated “preferably at the northwest corner of the building” and the issue became would “preferably” be a firm enough use of the word in the formal condition. Mr. Livingston asked the intent of pedestrian friendly entrances, plazas, etc. and asked for an example of one located in an intersection. Planner Skelton responded it would be a gathering area and he could think of no example that was located in an intersection. Vice Chairperson Hedglin stated that his interpretation of the condition was to do something at that specific corner with recommendations of methods and the existing language would suffice. Mr. Krueger stated condition #10 was a lengthy condition and a response had been provided by Carter Burgess in three sections. Mr. Howe stated the word “preferably” referenced the corner and the word “must” referenced the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Livingston stated that the responses only addressed building design standards and did not specifically address anything on for specific corner. Mr. Mitchell responded that the development manual did incorporate the institution of seating areas, plazas, and/or outdoor patios. Mr. Pentecost asked if they were legally bound to put in the conditions of approval verbatim. Planner Skelton responded he thought they were legally bound if the conditions of approval were contradicted by the development manual. Mr. Mitchell stated that for the record he would appreciate Staff being promptly responsive to the applicants/representatives correspondence and phone calls. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, that the project will be reviewed by the DRB as a future Consent Agenda Item upon resolution of four conditions of approval between ADR Staff and the applicant and that the DRB will receive an applicant/Staff approved version of the Bozeman Gateway Design Guidelines in regular meeting packets. The motion carried 7-0. C. Bozeman Gateway Supermarket Informal #I-06003 (Skelton) Southeast of the intersection of Fowler Avenue and Huffine Lane * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a grocery store within the Bozeman Gateway PUD. Ted Mitchell, Jim Ullman, Jolene Rieck, and Byron Pavao joined the DRB. Mr. Pavao stated his intention was to give the DRB an introduction to the project and determine if the proposal was what the DRB was looking for in a project in the Entryway Corridor. He stated they had tried to emphasize the northeast corner of the development by instituting a seating area and outdoor patio areas. He stated their concern was the back corner of the structure and there was not a flow to that location that would accommodate an entrance. Mr. Rea asked if a fire exit was depicted. Mr. Pavao responded it was a fire exit or man door. He stated the glass being proposed would need to be spandrel glass above pedestrian height with regular glass at pedestrian height to allow diffusion of light. He stated the 3-D representation depicted stair step aspects to the building to break up the facades and there would be some scored lines and patterning on the E.F.I.S. He stated there would be Wainscoting and muted toned colors to provide for a pedestrian scale. He stated the institution of awnings would be in areas where they would be used. Mr. Howe asked if the awnings would be stiff fabric. Mr. Pavao responded the awnings would be metal and the loading areas would be screened by a wall with enclosed areas for storage of cartons and the compactor area. Mr. Livingston suggested carrying the enclosure over the in-filled portion of the wall. Mr. Howe asked what Huckleberries was. Mr. Pavao responded it was a natural and organic foods store. Mr. Livingston asked how security was maintained with the entrances separated. Mr. Pavao responded there would be security cameras with various security stations and alarmed doors. Mr. Livingston asked which part of the market the drive-through would service. Mr. Pavao responded it would service both Huckleberries and the grocery store. Mr. Livingston asked if it was really a Rosar’s grocery store with a Huckleberries as well. Mr. Pavao responded that it was. Mr. Livingston asked how close to the floor plan the actual working, existing structures were. Mr. Pavao stated the proposed floor plan was unique and there was no set floor plan for this particular grocery store. Mr. Livingston asked if Mr. Pavao had an example of a drive-through grocery store. Mr. Pavao responded this was the first drive-through proposed for the chain and added that there would be a fireplace installed in the seating area. Vice Chairperson Hedglin stated the concept of a vehicular drive-through in a pedestrian development may not be the right thing to do and asked Mr. Mitchell to explain. Mr. Mitchell responded he thought the necessity was there for the convenience of a grocery store. Vice Chairperson Hedglin stated cars would be blocking the entrance at the drive-through and upon leaving would have to go head-on into greater traffic flow within the parking lot itself. He added that the drive-through on the south corner of the building was feasible. Ms. Rieck stated that the proposed plant materials were native, the tree species proposed in the parking lot and in the boulevard were approved by the City Forestry Department, the parking lots would have hedge rows of shrubs that would be been broken up due to the parking lot indents, there would be bermed edges and ornamental grasses for screening, there would be low evergreens, and there would be open space areas with a gravel access to the paved trail. Ms. Zavora asked if there was lawn proposed in all of the landscaped medians except in the parking lot. Ms. Rieck responded there was. Ms. Zavora asked for examples in town that had lawn in the medians. Planner Skelton responded there was lawn in the medians at the Bridger Peaks Town Center. Ms. Zavora suggested scoria or the use of larger rocks in the medians as she was concerned with maintaining lawns or people driving and walking over them. Mr. Krueger stated he saw no pedestrian connections into and through the parking lot to the open spaces within the site. Mr. Mitchell responded that pedestrian connections had been overlooked and would be a good thing to institute on the site. Mr. Krueger suggested locations. Mr. Rea stated the community and the DRB looked at those pedestrian connections as a method by which to make a car feel out of place in a pedestrian oriented location. He suggested a higher quality material be used for the trail to allow for both walking and bike riding. He suggested the use of raised, scored or pigmented pavement to guide the pedestrian. He asked Planner Skelton what the provision for color was in the Design Guidelines. Planner Skelton explained. Mr. Rea stated he would like to see more color as the Entryway was becoming too earth tone. He stated he liked the metal louvers on the loading dock, but the design was fractured along the back. Mr. Pavao stated he agreed that the fractures could be cleaned up to make the two sides look uniform. Mr. Rea stated it was a significant elevation coming down Huffine Lane and suggested the façade may be too broken up. He stated he thought the drive-through would last 20 minutes and he would like to see it become a walk up window or a seating area. Mr. Livingston stated his main concern was with the location of the drive-through window for the deli and he saw that as a great landscaped seating area with a walk up window. He stated he would prefer to see a wrap-around seating area along north and west side. He suggested the architectural features (towers) on the tops of the structure were unnecessary and the materials used on the front be continued around the rear of the structure. He stated the asymmetrical symmetry of the building would stand alone after the removal of the tower features and the project as a whole could be toned down. Mr. Pentecost stated he was there to review what was being shown and not whether or not the building works. He stated that if the drive-through did not work it might end up being a pedestrian plaza. He stated he applauded the applicant for his efforts and suggested the possibility of not toning down the development as the DRB may review it later and decide that it was too blank. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea regarding the use of color to break up the massing, he liked the idea of grass in the medians, and he supported the pedestrian pathways and plaza. Ms. Zavora asked if the landscaping depicted abutting the building would be all around the building. Ms. Rieck responded there would be concrete in some locationa but there would be landscaping wherever possible. Ms. Zavora asked if there were benches planned in the front of the structure along the south side. Mr. Pavao responded there could be raised planters and seating there. She stated she preferred to see a walk-up window suggesting the drive-through automatically cue cars into parking stalls so that pedestrians did not have to pass running cars. Mr. Krueger stated the applicant should focus on pedestrian connections throughout the site, specifically through the center. He stated the façade of the store looked fairly good, but he did not know how successful the drive-through would be and would prefer to see a walk up window. He thought the west façade could be simplified, but suggested not pulling back on the design too much. He stated that, overall, he liked the design of the project. Vice Chairperson Hedglin stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and that the introduction of the plaza area to Huffine Lane would become a usable space for the patrons of the deli. He suggested reducing some of the twenty stalls along the north façade of the structure. He stated that he agreed that the rear of the structure had too many materials at once and the design could be simplified with regard for the screening of the loading area and mechanical equipment. 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 9:45 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board