Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:38 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Randy Carpenter Jami Morris, Associate Planner Dawn Smith David Skelton, Senior Planner Joseph Thomas Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Visitors Present Lowell Springer Don Cape, Jr. Rick Kerin ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2005 (Continued from last meeting.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of July 13, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of August 10, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Carpenter 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 asked what was decided with the landscaping at Magic Diamond II. Planner Morris responded there would be indirect screening, evergreen landscaping around the front of the structure, the sign base would have rock, the white part of the roof would be painted to match the rest, and the neon would be removed. Mr. Springer agreed. Chairperson Smith asked the progress on the Verizon Building at the Hastings Shopping Center. Mr. Springer responded the owner had a meeting on-site and had begun the required modifications. Mr. Carpenter requested an aerial photo be included in DRB packets. Planner Morris responded she would look into it. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Stoneridge Square PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05183 (Morris) Northwest of the intersection of N. 19th Ave. and W. Oak St. * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan requesting the unified development of + 185,000 square foot retail complex zoned B-1 (Neighborhood Business District) and B-2 (Community Business District) development. (First of a two week review.) Lowell Springer and Brian Huffaker joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report noting the Informal Review comments from the DRB with regard to screening, parking, plaza seating areas, drive aisles, streetscape appearance, facades, and building frontage. She stated the applicant had submitted conceptual design schematics and would later appear before the Board for Final PUD review. Chairperson Smith asked if the two week review period was because of items still needing to be addressed. Planner Morris responded she did not want the applicant to have to return to the DRB after needing to address major issues that could be taken care of during a two week DRB review. Mr. Carpenter asked for the background on the project. Planner Morris explained the Growth Policy Amendment process the applicant/owner had gone through to amend the Growth Policy Map of the site from “Residential” to “Regional Commercial”. She stated the proposed trail system would be significantly designed and added that the City Commission given their G.P.A. decision in the hopes that the “Regional Commercial” designation would set the bar higher, for requirement purposes, than the “Residential” designation. Mr. Springer noted which tenants would be occupying which proposed structures and proposed elevations. Mr. Hoffaker assisted in labeling the proposed structures with tenants. He stated the proposed signage would be modified and would not be projecting above the roofline. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Morris to re-iterate which of Staff’s 28 concerns were the biggest ones. Planner Morris responded the proposed use of Dryvit or Stucco was a major concern and added that Staff had suggested the use of bricks or rocks (other than painted rock). Mr. Springer responded there would be no painted rock used on the site. Planner Morris stated the streetscape was another large concern and added that Staff had suggested the use of sidewalks, second fronts, colonnades, and streetscape elements. Mr. Carpenter asked what size building #5 would be allowed for signage. Planner Morris responded the linear feet of the structure multiplied by 1.5 was the allowable amount of signage. Mr. Cape added that there would be a Comprehensive Signage Plan. Mr. Carpenter asked if the allowable size would be 8’ X 10’. Planner Morris indicated the allowable size would be reviewed by the Zone Code Enforcement Officer. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be more relaxation requests. Mr. Springer responded there would be a relaxation requested for signage. Planner Morris responded the applicant/owner needed to request the relaxation in writing, and in a timely manner, to accommodate noticing requirements. Mr. Huffaker responded there would need to be an additional relaxation requested to allow a larger than 10,000 square foot structure or the break-up of one of the structures along Oak Street. Planner Morris requested the second relaxation request in writing in a timely manner, as well. Chairperson Smith asked if the D.O.P. addressed the presentation of the utility and service areas facing Entryway Corridors and the 100 foot offset requirement. Planner Morris responded that the 100 foot offset requirement and the structures presentation to the Entryway Corridor were both addressed in the D.O.P. Mr. Huffaker added the sidewalk designs depicted were 20 or 25 feet from the storefronts. He asked if Bridger Peaks was a good example of streetscape and storefront design. Planner Morris responded the development should not look exactly the same as Bridger Peaks, but should follow the same general idea (i.e. outdoor seating, plantings, etc.). Chairperson Smith asked if the off-hours signage lighting had been addressed. Planner Morris responded that may be appropriate if they do ask for a signage relaxation. Mr. Springer presented a drawing depicting the frontage of the proposal, the pedestrian accesses and pathways throughout the site, and the parking areas. He stated the reduction in the use of Drivit and the use of more split-faced block was fine with the applicant/owner with the exception of the structures that would be brick. He stated the length of the facades would have relief created by split faced block and columns. He stated the applicant/owner had agreed with the City Commission for the creation of areas of open space and there would be a few acres donated to the City for a Public Park to meet the parkland requirements. Mr. Thomas asked if the parking along the stream corridor would be for customers. Mr. Springer responded the parking would be used by employees, but could be used for customers. Mr. Carpenter asked if the development would have pedestrian connections to the surrounding residential areas and if the City Park would have signage depicting it as such. Mr. Springer responded the development would support the residential areas and have signage directing the public to the park. Mr. Huffaker added that the applicant/owner was fine with providing whatever was necessary to make the pedestrian walkways more user-friendly, but the City Commission had suggested only one sidewalk through the middle of the development. Planner Morris responded Staff would suggest the implementation of two sidewalks, but the City Commission would make the final decision. Mr. Huffaker addressed the concern that the proposal had no transit stops depicted. Planner Morris responded to condition #19 regarding a transit stop within the development. Mr. Howe pointed out that Galavan was operating on a call-in basis with destinations for shopping and the development would become a stopping point. Mr. Huffaker responded that a transit stop would bring up major liability issues. Mr. Howe suggested instituting a place conducive to the Galavan stops similar to those locations downtown. Mr. Huffaker asked about the signage conditions. Planner Morris responded the Code Enforcement Officer would be the determining factor with the submittal of the Comprehensive Signage Plan. Chairperson Smith asked if any of the building pads would have drive-thru’s. Mr. Springer responded there would be a drive-thru for a coffee establishment and the bank and Mr. Huffaker added that the drive-thru would be low impact. Chairperson Smith asked if the pedestrian pathways were completely depicted. Mr. Huffaker responded there may need to be a trail along Tschache Lane and he thought it would be redundant to have both a sidewalk and a trail. Mr. Springer stated he would rather see a larger, meandering trail with more green-space. Planner Morris responded it would have to be the City Commission that decided on the trail/sidewalk issues on the site since the Transportation plan calls for a multi-use path along Tschache Lane. Mr. Howe suggested widening an existing sidewalk to provide the trail that Staff requested. Planner Morris responded she was unsure the Engineering Department would allow that type of trail. Chairperson Smith asked if connections were proposed from the North 19th Avenue trail to the structures. Mr. Springer responded there would be a pedestrian connection at one location. Chairperson Smith requested that next meeting the discussion be a little more detailed. Mr. Carpenter requested more articulation for interior pedestrian circulation and landscaping at the next meeting. He stated the proposal was much different from and, in his opinion, much better than their original proposal. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with Mr. Carpenter regarding pedestrian circulation and landscaping and asked which stage of review the project was in. Planner Morris responded the project was a Preliminary Plan PUD. Mr. Howe added that the current proposal was an improvement over the original proposal and requested he see a lighting plan. Mr. Thomas stated he loved the two structures’ placement in the center of the parking lot and thought it would be a new form of retail development. He suggested instituting a trail on each side of the thoroughfare and felt it would be more advanced than any development on North 19th Avenue. He stated he thought the project was moving in a new direction and was great. He suggested another pedestrian node, plaza, or seating area. He suggested going all the way with an interior street and developing it completely as such. Chairperson Smith stated she would like to see a shared parking arrangement in the development and suggested the removal of the excess parking at the roundabout and other locations (less than the 100% required parking). She suggested using the reverse landscaping or a solid sidewalk with boxed landscaping instituted every so many feet. She stated a few places needed pedestrian connections, especially the independent and assisted living facility. She suggested not using uniform columns on the structures. She stated a requested relaxation for a 20% increase in signage would only be merited by a signage proposal that was very creative. She stated she would like to see the franchise structures’ elevations and a description of what would distinguish the proposed structures from the franchise structures. Planner Morris responded she would seek a definition of the word “franchise” before the next meeting. Chairperson Smith stated she would like to see how retail buildings #4, #5, and #6 would be presented to the North 19th Avenue Entryway Corridor. Mr. Huffaker asked the clarification between the standard canopy with the signage and the “blue wedge”. Planner Morris responded the “blue wedge” was considered a parapet and added that Staff and the DRB would likely be unable to support the completely franchise design of the Best Buy proposal. Mr. Huffaker responded that Planner Morris should just say the franchise design was not supportable at this time. Planner Morris stated the franchise design of the Best Buy structure was not supportable. She further explained the review process and the alternative to the regular method of the PUD review process. Mr. Springer suggested the applicant/owner could take a negative recommendation from the DRB and present the same idea to the City Commission for approval. Chairperson Smith asked which buildings within the PUD would be approved at the next meeting. Planner Morris noted which structures would be under scrutiny. 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 5:18 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board