Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 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 Joseph Thomas Jami Morris, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Andrew Epple, Planning Director Brian Krueger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Scott Hedglin Visitors Present Robert Pertzborn Wayne Miller Keith Belden Jack Mandel Phillip Sacoccia, Jr. Susan Swimley Shelly Engler ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of June 8, 2005. Mr. Krueger noted there were no motions on these minutes. MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of June 22, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris. Chairperson Smith inquired about the status of the Hastings Shopping Center project with regard to the rear facade. Planning Director Epple responded that the Hastings project had been assigned to Senior Planner David Skelton, but there would be awnings placed on the rear façade. Chairperson Smith stated the lighting on the rear façade seemed too bright. Planning Director Epple responded that there were several issues, including landscaping, that would need to be resolved and added that the parking lot had been the main focus of the proposal leaving the rear of the out building to be paid less attention. Chairperson Smith stated that her concern was with the cast off storage that would likely be occupying the area to the rear of the structure. Planning Director Epple stated the awnings and landscaping would assist the appearance of the development. Chairperson Smith asked why the structure did not have Main Street Frontage. Planner Morris responded that Main Street Frontage had been suggested by the Planning Department, but the developer had not submitted the proposal including that suggestion. She added that the grading requirements not being met could allow Staff to require structural articulation. Mr. Krueger suggested a tie into the sloped hillside. He asked if Magic Diamond II was changing their windows. Planner Morris responded that the applicant had been on notice for several months that occupancy would not be allowable until such a time as the originally approved, green tinted glass was installed. Chairperson Smith asked if Staff was aware of the height of Magic Diamond being far greater than the Berries & Beans store adjacent. Planner Morris responded that site grading was posing difficulties between new sites and older sites. Chairperson Smith asked if Magic Diamond could advertise live gaming. Planning Director Epple responded the only element that could be precluded was the categorization of “Casino”. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Lowe’s PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05128 (Morris) East of North19th Avenue, south of Baxter Lane, north of Tschache Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan requesting the construction of a large format retail store. Robert Pertzborn, Wayne Miller, Keith Belden, Jack Mandel, Phillip Sacoccia, Jr., Susan Swimley, and Shelly Engler joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report noting the application was for a modification to a previously approved Planned Unit Development. She noted the requested relaxation and outlined Staff conditions of approval, adding that the applicant would need to break-up the mass of the development into modules. She handed out a color rendering that cited a good example of modules. She stated the pedestrian corridors would need to provide for sidewalks on the outskirts of the development with interior landscaping. Chairperson Smith asked if, during Concept Plan review, all features on the site were to be reviewed. Planner Morris responded all features were being reviewed and Mr. Pertzborn had drawn preliminary plans. Planner Morris welcomed comments on the whole PUD. Mr. Hedglin asked if there was a location of public access to the adjacent property owner. Mr. Saccoccia responded the road was a private drive with unrestricted public access per an arrangement with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Hedglin asked if the access would go through Old Chicago’s parking lot. Mr. Saccoccia responded that the access was originally approved under a private shared access easement with Cape-France. Mr. Krueger cited Staff condition of approval #1 and asked if Staff had worked with the applicant regarding the massing of the structures. Planner Morris responded that Staff had suggested all along that something be done to break up the mass of the building. Chairperson Smith asked why Staff had not recommended a parking reduction for the whole PUD. Planner Morris responded the end result met the minimum parking requirements (467 spaces for Lowe’s) and a DRC condition was instituted for any parking over the required amount to encourage shared parking to the north and south of the development or a parking structure be built. She added that the DRC required the trail be constructed on the east and west property lines during phase one of the PUD. Chairperson Smith asked if the project would be reviewed again later. Planner Morris responded that future phases would be reviewed again when a Site Plan was submitted. Mr. Thomas asked if the sidewalk along the west side of the development could be a typical sidewalk as there would be fewer pedestrians using that location. Planner Morris responded it was the applicant’s decision to place a multi-use trail instead of a standard sidewalk and no Staff conditions had been placed on that aspect of the development. Mr. Miller presented color renderings indicating the changes in structure design and orientation throughout the application process. He stated the applicant had taken particular regard of DRC, DRB, Staff, and City Commission comments. He stated the design was definitely not franchise architecture and they had introduced a “townscape” across the front façade of the building. He stated it was important that the DRB know the design had been adapted to be in keeping with the surrounding area and his opinion was that this particular Lowe’s design was the best he had worked on. He stated the latest plan was more succinct in addressing the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan and the front façade had been separated into elements to provide for the break-up of the long facades. He stated tower elements and canopies had been added to the design to provide for modular design and added that he thought the break-up of mass requirements had been met. Planning Director Andrew Epple stated the applicant and Staff had only one design issue that still needed finalized before the proposal went to City Commission; the breaking-up of the mass of the structure. Planner Morris directed the DRB to keep in mind the requested relaxation from the ordinance with regard to the PUD. Mr. Krueger stated the sliver of property outside the boundaries of the lot was shown on the Concept Plan as part of a trail system and asked if Lowe’s would still be developing a trail at that location. Mr. Belden responded the sliver of land was a right-of-way owned by the City that Lowe’s would build the access on. Mr. Krueger stated the applicant’s narrative explained how the project would be exceeding PUD standards and asked for other ways the standards would be exceeded. Ms. Swimley responded the applicant had made an affordable housing contribution, had included landscaping enhancements, had instituted trail connectivity, and had added unique architectural features to the structure. Mr. Pertzborn added that the trail connections were definitely above and beyond the PUD requirements. Chairperson Smith noted that all PUD applicants were asked what features of their proposal exceeded the requirements enough to merit the granting of requested relaxations. Mr. Thomas asked where the reflection area was located. Mr. Pertzborn responded the reflection area had been renamed “Lowe’s Green” and was located on the south side of the building. Mr. Thomas asked if Lowe’s employees could use the reflection area. Mr. Pertzborn responded that the public and employees alike could use the area. Chairperson Smith asked if the gable (entrance vestibule) could be counted as a module offset. Planner Morris responded the offsets would be provided by the actual structure of the building. Chairperson Smith asked if the building wall itself would need to be offset. Planner Morris responded that the vertical offset had been accomplished and the building wall would need to provide horizontal offset. Mr. Miller added that the gables, towers, and canopies offset the façade and he felt it met the Design Objectives Plan requirements. Mr. Perztborn added that large mass being perceived from the ground was the deciding factor and the building would modulate with the surrounding structures. Chairperson Smith asked if the removal of one corner of the proposed structure would provide offsets where there were still questions. Mr. Miller responded the removal would jeopardize the functionality and operational integrity of the facility. Chairperson Smith asked if the masonry and entrances on the structures had been made to appear integrated or if the receded areas would be perceived differently. Mr. Miller responded the same materials would be used throughout the structures to tie the articulated façade elements and keep the development unified. Mr. Krueger stated there were no projections depicted on the north and east sides. Mr. Miller explained that the plans the DRB was looking at were not the latest version and did not show all articulations and projections. Planning Director Epple responded the façade elevations being proposed were depicted on the color renderings brought to the meeting by the applicant/represent ative. Mr. Hedglin stated he was having a hard time with the proposal, though he appreciated the articulation on the front façade, the façade elements were not a true juxtaposition of massing on the structure (still a “big box”). He stated the modules made the proposal difficult to support. Mr. Miller responded that the actual façade created the feel and the environment, but was not functional to the operation of the building. He stated the façade elements all had a function even if it would be as pedestrian cover. Mr. Thomas stated he would like to see the gabled roof structures proposed as wider and more integrated into the structure. He stated the function of Lowe’s could not be changed to accommodate undulations and to push the project through to the City Commission. Mr. Pertzborn responded that the applied non-functional features could draw more attention than was desirable. Mr. Thomas responded that he realized there was no purpose to those features, but they could be more integrated into the structure. Mr. Krueger stated he liked the front façade and the vestibules and he appreciated the landscaping and the green area. He stated his critical comments would be regarding the north and east facades of the structure. He stated he thought it odd that the current site plan depicted a tremendous area only addressing the minimum ordinance requirements. He stated he would like to see more modulation and suggested several ways to achieve a less stark appearance. Mr. Miller responded that the preliminary site plan that Mr. Perztborn had created showed the rear of the structure as primarily bound by alleys and added that the applicant did not want to draw attention to the rear façade. Mr. Krueger stated the interior trail connections proposed were not depicted on Lot 3 of the development and suggested that there would be a need for an east/west pedestrian connection on the north boundary of the lot. Mr. Belden responded that the proposed trail connection on Tschache Lane and Baxter Lane had been placed under an Engineering Department condition that it was to be a standard sidewalk. Mr. Krueger stated he liked the proposed materials, but suggested staying away from a manufactured stone product. Mr. Miller responded he was not a proponent of manufactured stone. Chairperson Smith stated she appreciated and applauded the applicant’s effort and dedication to the proposal. She stated she agreed with Mr. Thomas that the north and east elevations needed to have deeper recesses to create greater offsets. She suggested the gables be larger and anchored to the corners of the structure and varying the offset distances. Mr. Miller responded that the turning radiuses needed to be maintained, but varying offset distances would be considered. Chairperson Smith suggested including pedestrian cross connections across the landscaped islands. She stated she liked the crosswalk design at the south entrance and suggested enlarging the opposite entrance’s crosswalk for balance. She stated she liked the new orientation, but she wished there was a greater level of detail on the site plan. MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Lowe’s PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05128 with Staff conditions and the amendment of condition #1 to add language to include that modulation could be achieved by deepening the gable elements or the reconfiguration of gable projections and placement on the north and east sides of the structures and the amendment of condition #4 to include a cross connection in the parking lot through the landscaped island. The motion died. MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Lowe’s PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05128 with Staff conditions and the amendment of condition #1 - to add language to include that modulation could be achieved as stated by Staff or by deepening the gable elements on all facades or the reconfiguration of gable projections and placement on the north and east facades of the structures, and the amendment of condition #4 - to include a cross connection in the parking lot through the landscaped island. The motion carried 3-1 with Mr. Krueger voting against. 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 5:24 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board