Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Mel Howe Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Scott Hedglin Jami Morris, Associate Planner Brian Krueger Ben Ehreth, Assistant Planner Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Visitors Present Jack Mandel Molly Skorpik Shelly Engler Wayne Miller Jeff Pearce Jamie Lenon Lyle Cusson Dick Prugh Dan Sampson James Nickelson Catherine Koenen Susan Swimley Bryant _____ ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2005 (Continued from 2/9/05.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 26, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Chairperson Smith seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 9, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Chairperson Smith seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS (Continued from 2/09/05.) ITEM 5. U.D.O. Edits Discussion A. * Discussion of the U.D.O. text amendments pertinent to the DRB. Continued, if necessary. Will be removed from next agenda. ITEM 6. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liason to the DRB – Jami Morris. Associate Planner Jami Morris joined the DRB. She noted comments from the previous DRB meeting with regard to Staff Liason responsibilities. She stated the DRB could consider time keeping devices to limit owner/applicant presentations and more efficiently conduct each meeting. ITEM 7. PROJECT REVIEW A. The Garage At City Center SP/COA/DEV #Z-05006 (Windemaker) 26 East Mendenhall Street * A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow 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. Dick Clotfelter, Dick Prugh, and Jamie Lenon joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker and Historic Preservation Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting three of the six requested deviations were applicable to review by the DRB. Planner Windemaker stated the majority of the proposed structure was less than 70 feet tall, excluding the elevator/stairwell shaft at Black and the alley. She stated Staff had reviewed the historical character of the proposed designs and had suggested a cornice and parapet be included, but thought there needed to be variation to break up the roofline. She stated the Final Site Plan should depict recessed ground floor entrances and vertical architectural elements to define each retail space. She stated the Final Site Plan should not depict large expanses of one style or color of brick and suggested a less stark contrast such as; mixing brick work or additional coloring. She stated the second floor span of windows should more closely reflect detailing that was in keeping with the historical nature of second floor windows in downtown Bozeman. She stated the Final Site Plan should depict horizontal architectural elements to break-up the façades of the structure. Planner Bristor added that Staff did not want to see exact replicas of any of the existing surrounding structures, but architectural elements that would add to the historic character of the proposal. Planner Windemaker stated Staff wanted to see a mixture of ground materials in the plaza area. She stated the Final Site Plan should depict 1.5 feet of un-glazed areas below the windows. She stated the amount of exposed metal framing in the construction of the elevator should be limited. She stated that all windows should have clear, non-reflective glazing (she cited photos as examples). She stated Staff asked to have depicted architectural elements of an arch detail and screening to break up the long expanses on the facades. She stated that the public meetings determined patrons would prefer to see a garage that was well lit and Staff concurred. Planner Bristor stressed that the DRB should work through or add to the existing conditions as they deemed necessary. Mr. Hedglin asked if the site triangle encroachment had been brought before the DRB in the past. Planner Windemaker responded it had been previously overlooked. Mr. Howe asked what would happen if the flow of the couplets was to be reversed at some point in the future. Planner Windemaker responded that the intersection of Black Avenue and Mendenhall Street will be signalized, and if the vision triangle became an issue, the alley could be made a one-way to alleviate the problem. Mr. Hedglin asked if there was room for vegetation along the areas of deviation from the required setbacks. Planner Windemaker responded that there is no intention for landscaping in the setback, there would be some concern with the placement of street trees and landscaping would be reviewed at a later date. Mr. Clotfelter stated they had gone through a public process to find an architect for the proposal. He stated the public had been involved in the project, the building was being built for the City and several of the items in the conditions from Staff added to the cost of the project when there was a budget that could not be exceeded. Mr. Prugh stated he would respond to each of Staff’s conditions; he stated there was a five foot parapet on all the retail spaces and asked how that could be improved. Planner Windemaker responded they could remove brick every so often to create variety. Mr. Prugh stated the entrances on Mendenhall Street were recessed and the doors on the Tracy Avenue (plaza) side were not. He stated the spaces would be broken up differently than depicted and added that the storefronts would need to be designed to accommodate the tenants. He stated the applicant agreed that the plaza should have scored or pigmented pavement and he would need to check with the City to see what was allowable. He stated he agreed there should be a space between the windows and the street to separate the glazing and non-reflective transparent glazing would be used. He stated the applicant intended to maintain the existing historic downtown lighting with fixtures on the storefronts, leaving only the alley lighting as a concern. He stated the varying parapet heights on the Mendenhall Street elevation drawings depicted details for the parking garage and the applicant was more concerned with detailing on the retail spaces. He stated the applicant did not feel that the architectural character of Main Street should be mimicked, only historically appropriate. He stated it was difficult to determine in which time in history a person would relate the historic character of a proposed structure so Derek Strahn (ex-Historic Preservation Planner) would be assisting in the architectural features. He stated the large expanses of brick on the parking garage were needed as they were a good example of the industrial age and would be used to separate the garage structure from surrounding structures. He stated the second floor would be used as City office space, it was part of the parking garage itself, and was appropriate with the alternating brick patterns proposed. He stated the facades facing the Powder Horn were traditionally designed to differentiate floor levels and added that peaked roofs and the like would cause a larger variation from the historical character of downtown. He stated he thought it was inappropriate to place retail spaces where windows had been proposed for storage purposes. Mr. Clotfelter added that many retailers had requested the proposed style of window for displaying their wares. Mr. Prugh stated the applicant felt it more appropriate to cover the landing of the stair with an opaque element and added that he could bring examples of that material. He cited an example of a garage in Missoula’s Historic District that has openings on the garage facades that leave cars visible and added that the garage required a certain amount of airflow. He stated there would be screens over the openings to the basement area and the applicant was “on the fence” as it seemed unnecessary to screen the openings in the garage in the first two phases of construction. He stated the metal awnings and canopies were discussed for the Mendenhall Street side, but on the Tracy Avenue side, the metal canopies and awnings made practical sense due to sun exposure. He stated the color samples and materials would be submitted and added there had been a lot of thought put into the design and placement of the structures. He stated the applicant did not want to make the retail building and the parking garage one structure. He added there was a finite amount of money, dictated by the City Commission, that could be used to beautify the structures, and some things would have to be left out of the equation. Chairperson Smith asked if the retail spaces were owned by the City. Mr. Clotfelter responded the Tax Increment District was set up in years past so that the City would not own retail spaces and would remain separate entities. Mr. Hedglin stated that, relatively inexpensively, corber detailing could be done. He stated doorway entrances should be respectful to the modular nature and consistent rhythm, the horizontal architectural elements had functional differences from the Powder Horn and the parking structure needed to relate to the vehicles within it, cobbles instead of large concrete pavers could be used, and he was in support of the banding at the stair landings as it was consistent with the rest of the building. Mr. Krueger stated he agreed with Mr. Hedglin’s comments, he was concerned with the screening of the vehicles within the garage, and he did not agree with Staff regarding the large expanse of brick. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments, he was not concerned with the screening of the vehicles within the parking garage, and he thought the depiction of the garage that was proposed would be a nice addition to downtown Bozeman. Ms. Smith stated Mr. Prugh had contradicted himself by saying “a parking garage was just a parking garage” and she thought he had short-changed the City of Bozeman with that statement. She stated she thought the proposed garage was utilitarian and could incorporate the historical nature of downtown while installing modern features. She stated she agreed with Staff comments regarding the large expanse of brick on the facades and she supported Staff conditions but was uncomfortable forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for any project with 15 recommended Staff conditions. She stated she was hesitant to make a decision due to the fact that the parking commission had made no comments regarding their vision of a downtown parking garage. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for The Garage At City Center SP/COA/DEV #Z-05006 to the City Commission with Staff conditions; excluding Staff conditions #2, #6, #7, #9, #11, #12, and the modification of condition #1 to include the words “varying in height”. The motion to recommend approval failed on a 2-2 vote with Mr. Howe and Mr. Krueger voting for, Chairperson Smith and Mr. Hedglin voting against. MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to make no formal recommendation due to the complexity of the design issues and the number of outstanding conditions, the DRB would prefer to see more Staff conditions met before any recommendation of approval or disapproval be made by the Board. The motion carried 3-0 with Mr. Howe abstaining. B. Lowe’s Concept PUD #Z-05011 (Morris) Northeast of the intersection of Tschache Lane and North 19th Avenue * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a large-scale retail store on 38.13 acres and related site improvements. Susan Swimley, Molly Skorpik, Jack Mandel, Wayne Miller, Shelly Engler, and Phil Saccoccia joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report noting the ordinance for a maximum of a 75,000 square foot retail structure had been added to the City of Bozeman Zoning Regulations and the proposal exceeded the maximum square feet for a retail facility so the applicant was required to do a Planned Unit Development Application. She stated Staff recommendations included; more landscaping and a reduction in the large expanse of asphalt in the parking lot, the addition of open space areas containing some sort of public plaza and seating area, larger offsets for the column awning features, the addition of storefront windows, earthen berms along Baxter Lane, the buildings behind Lowe’s should be oriented to face the stream ditch and trail, and a parking stall cap for the entire development. She stated the parking study done last summer showed this type of use should not generate as much parking as our minimums currently require. Mr. Krueger asked the number of parking stalls depicted on the newest plans. Ms. Swimley responded there were 467 stalls depicted. Ms. Skorpik indicated where the proposed parking would be located. Mr. Krueger asked if all areas depicted on the site plan were one PUD. Planner Morris responded that it was all part of one PUD to be developed in multiple phases. Mr. Miller presented a perspective point of view of the measures taken by the applicant to relieve the facades. He stated the building worked as three different entities for three separate functions; the lumber area, the home improvement area, and the outdoor garden area. He presented a materials and color board that would set the tone for the whole development. He stated the most prominent public view to the project had more landscaping than the original plans. He listed many features that would be used to break the long façade and make the structure look articulated. He stated it was difficult to introduce new form without sacrificing function but they had introduced shapes and forms to the facades to provide modulation for the structure and get away from the franchise look. Ms. Swimley stated the reflective area had not been eliminated, but the parking had been moved and a more substantial pedestrian entity had been included. She stated that a pedestrian amenity would be preferable to a gazebo as far as maintenance was concerned. Mr. Mandel stated the addition of parking along the sides and the rear of the structure was superfluous for Lowe’s and a detractor as it would cause a security problem. Ms. Swimley stated it was an approved PUD coming back with enhancements. She stated the outdoor garden center was 31,200 sq. ft. and had a substantially different look from the rest of the proposal. She stated the berming along Baxter Lane would be instituted, the applicant would not commit to where future structures in the PUD would be located because they don’t know what uses will be constructed, and parking would not be finite due to the fact that the tenants were unknown. Ms. Skorpik stated the rationale for building placement was to orient the landscaped islands toward the front of the structure causing the parking field on the North19th Avenue side of Lowe’s to be sheltered. Mr. Krueger asked for Lowe’s position on the implementation of storefront windows. Mr. Mandel responded there was wall racking inside the front of the store that would make real store front windows impossible. Mr. Miller responded the non-secure (window) storefronts made it too easy for someone to break the glass and steal from the business. Mr. Krueger asked if Lowe’s had begun to develop in more urban areas. Mr. Miller responded they had not due to the site difficulties in those locations. Chairperson Smith asked if the PUD was already approved. Planner Morris responded the City Commission had previously separated the project into two levels; they had approved the PUD but tabled the Lowe’s development, the review became a new review in its conceptual stages. Chairperson Smith asked Ms. Swimley what she would be prepared to commit to after earlier stating several things the applicant would not commit to. Ms. Swimley responded the number of parking stalls and the design of the other phases would not be committed to due to the tenants being unknown. Chairperson Smith stated the DRB needed to make their decision based on the area as a whole. Ms. Skorpik stated the depiction of the layout of the other lots was a courtesy and only the 40 acres where Lowe’s would be located should be reviewed by the DRB. Planner Morris disagreed, stating there would be a conceptual master plan required with developmental guidelines. Mr. Saccoccia responded he would commit to a higher standard for the design of the PUD which would most likely be a mix of offices and would come back to the DRB for site plan review in the future. He stated the tenants could be a hotel or some other offices. Chairperson Smith stated this was the time to set the tone for the development and it would not be fair to allow a 180 degree change at a later date. She asked why the store was no longer proposed backing up to Baxter Lane. Ms. Skorpik stated previous reviews suggested the newly proposed orientation. She stated the new proposal would be tied into the existing Bridger Peaks Town Center alignment. Mr. Saccoccia stated their intention was to have significantly higher standards than most PUD developments. Mr. Krueger asked if the rest of the parcel would be exceeding the requirements of the U.D.O. Ms. Engler responded the applicant had beefed-up the separation with buffers, extensive planting, and screening. She stated the amounts of shrubs, decorative plantings, and trees had been increased; they exceeded their landscaping points by 20%. She stated there would be more of a streetscape across the front of the structure and trellis work to accommodate hanging planters. Mr. Krueger asked if the material quality of the building was significantly higher. Mr. Mandel responded the material quality was roughly 20% higher. Ms. Skorpik stated the parking requirements were roughly 20% over the required. Mr. Krueger stated his initial reaction was the immensity of the parking lot; he agreed with Staff and suggested some type of creativity. He suggested that a combined landscaped area in the center would be more useful than a reflecting area along the south edge of the development. He stated he appreciated the design of the façade but could see only one gable and suggested more gables on the elevations. He stated he was supportive of Staff comments and was concerned with making recommendations on a Concept Plan that did not really exist. He stated he liked the additional pedestrian connections shown on the new plan and thought it would be great to see an L-shaped big box store or some other articulation. Mr. Hedglin stated he agreed with Mr. Krueger except he thought the reflecting area would work well on the south edge of the development. He suggested continuing the reflecting area along the east to the creek and added that he liked the additional landscaping. He stated he thought they had done a satisfactory job. Mr. Howe stated he supported Staff comments, the proposed amenities indicated the correct thought processes, and the new plan was an improvement to the initial two plans. Chairperson Smith supports Staff comments with the exception of condition #9 as the parking located surrounding the building would make the structure an island in the parking. She stated the front façade could incorporate a glass vestibule. She stated the square footage of the proposed structure was a huge deviation request, and she thought it was within the rights of the DRB to ask that the square structure be broken up or the footprint oriented in some manner as to break up the facades. She stated the front façade depicted different themes, but depth of the offsets on the front of the building were lost from the rear and side perspectives of the structure. She suggested using more architectural detailing or fenestration on the sides and rear. She stated the gazebo was not necessarily the best item and suggested benches or some paved plaza feature. She suggested safe and efficient pedestrian pathways from the surrounding developments. She stated she did not agree with lining the buildings along the back of the Lowe’s building and suggested variation with buildings aligned in a u-shape. She stated the proposed round-about entrance to the office parking lot was a great feature, but the layout of the parking lot, at this point, provided only a large area of asphalt. She stated she strongly supported a reduction in parking stalls. C. Lucky Lil’s/Bridger Peaks CUP/COA #Z-05012 (Ehreth) 1510 North 19th Avenue * A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the remodel and reuse of the existing Denny's building as a gaming parlor/buffet. John Cusson, Dan Sampson, and Catherine Koenen joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Ben Ehreth presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was being seen by the DRB because of its location within the Entryway Corridor. He noted the replacement of the highly reflective existing facades with Drivit material, the removal of the neon lighting, and the removal of the backlit signage. He stated Staff suggested a coniferous vertical element to break up one façade of the structure. Mr. Krueger asked if the existing color on the Denny’s structure was coordinated with the rest of Bridger Peaks Town Center. Planner Ehreth responded the existing colors had been coordinated with the Bridger Peaks development. Mr. Cusson stated the banding proposed for the structure was in keeping with Lucky Lil’s colors. He stated the lights would be lit with LED’s and not fluorescent lighting. He asked that the existing color be allowed to be continued around the building for continuity purposes. Mr. Hedglin asked if the reflective material would be removed. Mr. Sampson responded the corners would be removed but the framing would remain. Mr. Krueger asked if the existing windows would remain. Mr. Sampson responded the windows would remain. Mr. Hedglin asked if the window shades would be down. Mr. Cusson responded the shades would be pulled as appropriate for shielding from the sun. Chairperson Smith asked if live poker would be allowed. Mr. Sampson responded one poker table was allowable, but not proposed at this time. Chairperson Smith asked if the outdoor seating would remain. Mr. Sampson responded the outdoor seating would remain and be used by patrons of the buffet. Mr. Hedglin stated he supported Staff comments but was concerned with the need to continue the lit banding around the structure, he suggested terminating the lighting at a reasonable location; his concern being the appearance of the structure at night. Mr. Krueger stated he agreed with Staff comments but was concerned with the structure’s compatibility with the existing Bridger Peaks development. Chairperson Smith stated she appreciated the fact they were re-using an existing building as opposed to constructing a new one. She stated she was concerned with the compatibility of the use of the structure in the B-2 zoning. She stated she disagreed with condition #1 and would not support any lighting around the existing structure; it was a distraction. She stated she thought real windows were preferable to the usual dark windows that removed the human element from casinos and gaming rooms. Mr. Howe stated he agreed that bare neon was a nuisance, but, for identifying structures and signs, it was sought after. He suggested the applicant subdue the light as much as possible. MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Lucky Lil’s/Bridger Peaks CUP/COA #Z-05012 with Staff conditions and the following change to Condition #1 – the proposed backlit lighting and existing neon lighting shall be eliminated. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 8. 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 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board