HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2005
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Bill Hanson Chris Saunders, Associate Planner
Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Brian Krueger David Skelton, Senior Planner
Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Randy Carpenter
Visitors Present
Ted Mitchell
John Davison
John H. Larsen
Mark Mitchell
Greg Stratton
Bill Ogle
James Nickelson
Jamie Lenon
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.)
Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of November 10, 2004.
MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.)
Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 8, 2004.
MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2004
Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 22, 2004.
MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 5. Presentation by Chris Kukulski, City Manager – ½ hour.
Chris Kukulski, City Manager, introduced himself to the DRB and explained the City’s long-term goals.
ITEM 6. U.D.O. Edits Discussion
A. * Discussion of the U.D.O. text amendments pertinent to the DRB.
Continued to the meeting of January 26, 2005.
ITEM 7. The Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD #Z-04313 (Skelton)
A. Southwest of the intersection of West College Street and Huffine Lane
* A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a mixed-use commercial development on 72.2 acres with related site improvements.
Ted Mitchell, Mark Mitchell, John Davison, John Larsen, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the project noting that the DRB was informally reviewing
the project so the advisory board could have a dialog with the applicant before the project was formally reviewed by the DRB in two weeks. He stated the project started as an extension
of the Advanced Technology Park and had been modified with the sale of the property, identifying commercial development north of Huffine Lane, and development of the recently adopted
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He added that the applicants and he had invited City Commission members to attend the next meeting of the DRB.
Mr. Mark Mitchell noted the background of the Mitchell Group; who has been working on the Gateway project for the past year. He stated the applicants wanted to keep and enhance the
wetlands on the site and added they had offered to install Garfield Street from South 19th Avenue to Fowler Lane and Fowler Lane to Huffine Lane, at their expense. He stated there would
be a traffic signal installed at their expense as well. He stated the easements were negotiated in favor of the City of Bozeman, but the applicant would be responsible for curb and
gutter on one side of the road with a gravel shoulder on the other side. He stated there would be major redesigns of intersections to make the project’s accesses work. He stated they
had taken special care in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and they had enhanced the frontage on Huffine Lane using the placement of retention ponds. He stated there would
be a plaza with a pond in the center of the development. He stated the hotel component fit well with the lodging demand generators on the west side of town. He stated the applicant
had taken special care to design a project that would be an asset to Bozeman and had been working with the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Transportation from the project’s
inception.
Mr. Larsen stated he and the developers had an on-site charette regarding what would fit on the site and how it would be arranged. He stated some of the wetland areas posed difficulties
given the limited developable area. He stated he came to the conclusion that the Farmer’s Canal was bisecting the site and had decided to incorporate the canal into the development.
He presented a color rendering depicting the types of uses (hotel, club, community center, shopping center, etc.) and their arrangement on the proposed development, as well as potential
views from various proposed structures on the site. He noted the proposed enhancement of the natural streams and
the addition of ponds throughout the development. He stated they developed specific architectural character for areas of the development and presented a color rendering of the proposed
entrance from Huffine Lane, of the interior streetscape, and the central plaza. He stated there would be natural stone up to 10 feet. He stated there would be a fireplace, an ice rink
/ water feature, and audio equipment in the plaza for public gatherings. He added that the formal water features would be blended with the natural water features and there were significant
pedestrian connections proposed throughout the development; promoting pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Mr. Hanson asked how the number of parking stalls compared to the number of parking stalls required by the U.D.O. Mr. Larsen responded that the project would meet the requirements when
compact spaces were calculated in. Mr. Hanson asked if Staff had given the applicant options for parking calculations. Mr. Saunders responded that shared parking was allowed as long
as there was an obvious agreement. Mr. Larsen responded that the site, as a whole, had met the requirements. Mr. Hanson stated the DRB was supportive of parking reductions but the
problem with retail development was they pushed the envelope on the number of stalls. Mr. Larsen added that grocery stores were often adamant about the arrangement and number of parking
stalls. Mr. Hanson asked if the City would allow storm water retention into an active waterway. Mr. Stratton responded that the retention ponds were not connected to the active waterways
and they would use an old canal that has been dry. Mr. Hanson stated that the pollutants needed to be filtered from the retention ponds. Mr. Stratton responded they would be filtered
by City engineering standards. Mr. Hanson asked if the open space requirements had been met. Mr. Saunders responded that it was a point system with a variety of ways to meet those
points, and publicly accessible spaces would be worth more points. Mr. Hanson stated the project was in a stream corridor, and asked if there would be difficulties meeting open space
requirements because part of the open space was unusable as it was in a waterway. Mr. Stratton stated the calculation of open space was based on the net area multiplied by 0.25. Mr.
Hanson suggested Staff review the usable space next to the stream corridors. Mr. Hanson asked why there was no residential development proposed with so many pedestrian connections on
the site. Mr. Larsen replied there was no market for residential development in that location. Mr. Ted Mitchell stated the parking requirements would become an issue if there were
residential development due to the tremendous cost of ramping driveways to residences.
Mr. Carpenter suggested residential structures with below-grade parking. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the water level was too high to incorporate below-grade parking. Mr. Carpenter asked
if they had met the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Stratton responded they had not calculated those requirements yet. Mr. Carpenter asked where the retention ponds, outlets,
and filtration areas would be located. Mr. Stratton responded that the water would be released from the detention ponds into the discharge pipes or canals and then to the outlets; which
had not been formally located in the proposal yet. Mr. Carpenter suggested being cautious in the design of the retention ponds so that the project would remain attractive. Mr. Carpenter
asked if the pedestrian and bike trails were more for internal. Mr. Larsen responded that the connection to the east (the college) and the residential development across Huffine Lane
would likely be using the pedestrian and bike trails. Mr. Carpenter asked how the pedestrians would be moved safely across Huffine Lane. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that there would
be a signal installed on Huffine Lane as it was no longer a highway and inside corporate city limits. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be screening along Huffine Lane. Mr. Larsen
and Mr. Ted Mitchell indicated where screening was proposed. Mr. Carpenter stated that not many of the views would
have terminal vistas from the boulevards and the plaza. Mr. Carpenter asked how the phases of development would be completed and how the circulation would be maintained. Mr. Ted Mitchell
responded that Garfield Street and the intersection of South 19th Avenue and Fowler Lane would be constructed in the first phase, the second phase would be the development of the east
side of the project.
Mr. Hedglin asked the projected fill-out for the retail space; was there enough of an attraction to the site to occupy the retail spaces. Mr. Stratton responded there would be 216 retail
spaces. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the development would be filled-out within 7 or 8 years.
Mr. Krueger stated that, with a PUD, an applicant could design their project with more flexibility and asked what the applicant was proposing that would be above and beyond the zoning
requirements for a PUD. Mr. Larsen responded that the project would be more upscale; i.e. many of the wall coverings would be upgraded, outdoor fireplaces, a plaza, etc. Mr. Larsen
responded that the applicant had not looked upon the project as an upgrade to the normal PUD. Mr. Stratton responded that the PUD development was a method by which to request variances,
for example; the width of the streets, diagonal parking, longer blocks, and other irregularities. Mr. Stratton added that none of the requested variances were too far from code requirements.
Mr. Krueger asked Mr. Ted Mitchell to explain why they would retain the curviness of the street through the development. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the curved street served the
purpose of slowing traffic and it added a unique quality to the site. Mr. Krueger asked if the diagonal parking would be on a two lane street. Mr. Larsen responded that it would be
a two lane, two way street with diagonal parking. Mr. Krueger asked which of the page of design images in the submittal materials and the proposed design images on the renderings were
being proposed. Mr. Larsen responded that they would like to see varied architectural designs with multiple architects working on the project and there would be overall design standards
for the development.
Chairperson Smith asked what level of retail “BP” zoning allowed. Mr. Saunders responded there was mainly “B-2” zoning in the proposal, and Mr. Ted Mitchell illustrated where there
was a small area of “BP”. Planner Saunders explained the differences between “BP” and “B-2” zoning with regard to allowable retail space. Chairperson Smith asked if a drive-thru was
allowable in the “B-2” zoning. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that drive-thru’s were allowable and indicated their locations on the color rendering. Chairperson Smith asked if the City
would be reviewing the final submittal of the project. Planner Saunders responded that individual final site plans would be reviewed. Chairperson Smith asked what made this a “lifestyle”
development when pedestrian pathways were dominant. Mr. Larsen responded it was an open-air shopping center; not like a mall with parking along the outside of the structures, and there
were many entertainment opportunities located within the “lifestyle” development.
Mr. Hanson stated he appreciated that the project was presented with good graphics and site plan analysis. He stated the project had interesting character with expansion prospects and
suggested reducing the number of parking stalls and adding green spaces that people could mingle in. He stated the location of the grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor
was problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store or adding extensive screening. He stated he felt that, comparatively, the proposal had a wonderful character and he applauded
the applicant’s efforts. He suggested the drive-thru be closely examined and cited the Taco Bell drive-thru as a bad example.
Mr. Carpenter stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson’s comments regarding the presentation of the project to the DRB. He stated he was excited about the concept of “lifestyle centers” and
appreciated the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the site design. He suggested they know the percentage of impervious surfaces and what efforts could be made to keep the number of
impervious surfaces down. He stated he was surprised to hear that the applicants did not think residential development would work, despite the parking issues. He stated he thought
the reduced opportunities for vistas could improve with a less curved street. He stated it would be a conflict for the applicant’s to make the project pedestrian and bike friendly
while maintaining the proposed drive-thru’s.
Mr. Hedglin stated he would be curious to see the project in ten to twenty years. He stated developments were moving away from the enclosed shopping atmosphere. He stated he would
like to see the use of natural materials throughout the development.
Mr. Krueger stated he appreciated the irony of rebuilding another main street in a town with a great main street. He stated he liked the preservation of the watercourse and wetlands
to enhance the area. He suggested keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman within the development.
Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She stated she would be the person riding her bike to the development and she would like to know where the connections
between the sidewalks and the bike trails would be. Mr. Larsen responded there would be a bike lane throughout the development and along Huffine Lane. Chairperson Smith suggested the
placement of nodes and a place where cars cannot go so that bicyclers could go there. She stated she would like to see a connection to Babcock Street. She stated she would like to
see as many large trees as possible preserved on the site. She stated she was concerned with the parking lot between Huffine Lane and Gateway Boulevard, and the parking lot on Garfield
Street, which was proposed abutting the street. She stated she was concerned with the Chronicle Lane access because people turn left into the bank drive-thru and congestion is common.
Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the access was a right-in, right-out only. Mr. Stratton responded the traffic study showed there would be 3,000 cars per day eliminated from that intersection
with the extension of Garfield Street and Fowler Lane.
Mr. Carpenter added that he did not think a Main Street sort of thoroughfare was exclusive of vehicular travel.
ITEM 8. INFORMAL REVIEW
A. The Garage At City Center Informal #I-04037 (Windemaker)
26 East Mendenhall Street
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a parking garage consisting of three phases; Phase 1 - 2-level parking garage with 354 parking stalls and 11,000
+/- square feet of retail space on street level; Phase 2 - the addition of a 3rd level of parking containing 104 parking stalls; and Phase 3 - the addition of two additional levels of
parking containing 142 parking stalls.
Historic Preservation Planner Allyson Bristor, Dick Clotfelter, and Jamie Lenon joined the DRB.
Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the new aspects of the project noting half of the structure has been set back 7 feet on Mendenhall Street and there would not be a sky-bridge
crossing Black Ave. She stated the height of the structure was 53 feet through the second phase, but at the third phase (at the corner of Black Avenue and the alley) the structure’s
elevator shaft would be 74 feet tall.
Chairperson Smith asked if the project was considered a part of the master plan or if it had been removed from it. Planner Windemaker stated it was still part of the master plan but
part of the development would go through the review process on its own. Planner Bristor stated the layout of the parking garages had improved dramatically, but she was eager to see
the architectural elements of the design.
Mr. Clotfelter stated one level of parking would be developed below grade.
Mr. Lenon stated his charge as a designer was to create a parking garage, in three phases, with a 600 parking stall capacity. He stated the end result was a five level garage with parking
on the top floor.
Mr. Clotfelter stated the City Manager expressed that he would rather see one parking garage instead of two. He stated the depth of the property from Mendenhall Street to the alley
was an asset in masking the garage from the street. He stated interest in the convention center was heating up; it was conceivable that the Convention Center would be built before the
Performing Arts Center and he added that it could cause the applicant to swap the development of phases. He stated the applicant was pushing to get to the City Commission on February
14, 2005 for final approval.
Mr. Hanson stated the layout and the proposal design were understandable. He stated the only thing missing was detail on the materials that would be used. He asked Mr. Lenon if there
was some way the applicant was going to integrate the project into the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Lenon responded that the types of materials used would depend on the amount of
money that could be spent. He stated that concrete would be used in many places, but final materials would be known at a later date. He indicated a proposal for brick and glass on
the retail and stair/elevator shafts, and other brick detailing. Mr. Hanson asked if it was feasible to occupy the building while another phase of construction was in progress. Mr.
Clotfelter responded occupation was feasible, the developer would have to block off a street for access. Mr. Hanson asked if the public space on Tracy Avenue would be hardscape. Mr.
Lenon responded that it would be hardscape, but the City had the final say as they would be maintaining it.
Mr. Krueger stated he was concerned that the alley would seem dangerous due to the large expanse of concrete wall. He suggested providing small retail space in the alley to break up
the concrete wall and provide a safer place for pedestrians. Mr. Clotfelter responded there were safety and security issues that prevented any entrances or exits in the alley and added
that the dimensions of the project on the site prevented them from moving the structures to allow for retail spaces within the alley. Mr. Krueger commented that many of the buildings
in the alley have historical facades.
Mr. Hedglin stated he appreciated the elimination of the sky-bridge over Black Avenue, the alignment of the access on Black Avenue, and the articulation of the masses, but he thought
the
materials to be used were important. He stated his biggest concern was security in the basement of the parking garage and asked Mr. Clotfelter how someone would escape a predator when
they were 12 feet underground. Mr. Clotfelter responded there would be a security guard, good lighting, security cameras, and security doors and added that there would be an option
of an underground tunnel under Tracy Avenue instead of a sky-bridge. Mr. Hedglin stated he saw the sky-bridge being quite a distance above the ground and suggested eliminating the sky-bridge
altogether and bringing the pedestrians down to floor level.
Mr. Clotfelter stated the garage would be nearly invisible from Main Street. Planner Bristor responded she had concerns regarding the height of the elevator shaft on the corner of Black
Avenue and the alley, and added that it would be very visible as it was located close to the street.
ITEM 9. 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.}
ITEM 10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board