HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2005
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Randy Carpenter Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Dawn Smith Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Brian Krueger
Visitors Present
Ron Fiscus
Nathan Harmon
Brian Huffaker
Wesley Bettis
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2005
Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of August 24, 2005.
MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Chairperson Smith seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris.
Chairperson Smith asked the conclusion of the windows issue at Magic Diamond. Planner Morris and Mr. Springer responded there would be visual screening and plantings. Chairperson Smith
stated she thought one of the trees was too distant to provide proper window screening.
ITEM 4. CONSENT ITEM
A. Evangelical Free Church Addition SP/COA/VAR #Z-05193 (Saunders)
1701 South 19th Avenue
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Variance to allow the construction of a 29,304+ square foot addition to the existing church for educational and
auditorium facilities, and related site improvements.
The DRB agreed this proposal should be considered as a Consent Item. Nathan Harmon joined the DRB. Associate Planner Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting there were minor
alterations to the proposal, but none were severe and Staff was in support of the project as proposed. Chairperson Smith asked how much of a reduction in the watercourse setback was
being requested. Planner Saunders responded the request was for 25 a foot setback from an
applicable standard of 35 feet.
MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Evangelical Free Church Addition SP/COA/VAR #Z-05193 with Staff
conditions. The motion carried 4-0.
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. (Second of a two week review.)
Lowell Springer, Brian Huffaker, and Don Cape, Jr. joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff report noting the applicant was requesting a 20% deviation for the
proposed signage. She stated Mr. Springer had said the site plan would be revised at a later date when the City Commission needed to see it. Planner Morris stated that mimicking the
street layout would deal with the issue of the project not addressing blocks and uniform street design. She stated ADR Staff would support the front facades of the shops alternating
facing the streets. She stated the bank was arguable as a franchise structure and Staff would like to see a slightly different design proposed for the structure that coordinated with
the overall PUD. She stated the Sportsman’s Warehouse, Best Buy, Petco, Linens & Things, Cost Plus, and the IHOP elevations would be reviewed at this meeting and the rest of the structures
would be approved during site plan review. She reiterated Staff conditions for the DRB members not present at the last meeting. She suggested using variety in color to identify the
modulation of features on the structures and Staff suggested lighting elements to provide evening detail to the buildings and break up the facades. She stated there were approximately
34 extra parking stalls and the Design Objectives Plan gave the applicant the option of doing structured parking or removing the stalls. She stated that the Design Objectives Plan code
provisions had been added to the Staff Report along with the regular conditions of approval.
Mr. Krueger asked if the franchise architecture section of the D.O.P. was a code provision or a suggestion. Planner Morris responded the D.O.P. was urging against franchise architecture,
but the ADR Staff made the non-franchise design a condition of approval.
Referring to condition of approval #8, Mr. Carpenter asked how a typical streetscape would look if the proposed was not typical. Mr. Springer and Planner Morris responded that the structures
locations (facing the streets), curb and gutter, street trees, lighting, and boulevards in uniform design would make a more typical streetscape.
Mr. Huffaker asked if the lower level pedestrian lights forming a boulevard would not allow for lighting within the parking lot. Planner Morris responded she would prefer there were
no parking lot lights at all. Mr. Springer added that the applicant would propose low intensity lights for the parking lot. Planner Morris responded she would need to see a lighting
detail depicting shorter lights. Mr. Springer responded there would be soft, even lighting proposed that would be unobtrusive. Chairperson Smith asked what time the parking lot lights
would have to be turned off at night. Planner Morris responded that from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. the lights would have to
be off unless the store was open during those hours.
Mr. Krueger asked if the 10.4 acres addressed in the Staff report were actually on the site. Planner Morris responded the 10.4 acres were on the site and Mr. Springer added that the
area would become a great trail location and would be donated to the City. Chairperson Smith asked if the DRB would review the residential portion of the development. Planner Morris
responded that, typically, the DRB did not review residential site plans, but added that if the residential met the threshold, or the DRB requested review of each site plan, DRB review
would be arranged.
Mr. Springer stated the applicant had addressed the amenities by proposing 40% open space. He stated the materials had been changed significantly; the stone material would be unified
throughout the development (i.e. Drivit, E.F.I.S., and split-faced block in earth tone colors). He stated there were pedestrian areas created at some of the corners of the Petco building
that would incorporate cover, subtle lighting, pigmented pavement, and the appearance of an entrance. He stated the original elevations proposed for IHOP would be in keeping with the
rest of the development and added there would be awning treatments. Chairperson Smith asked if the blue triangle on the IHOP structure would require a deviation. Planner Morris responded
it would not require a deviation as the D.O.P. addressed the use of franchise design and recommended against it. Mr. Springer responded the business was a franchise and should be given
a little of their trademark design. Mr. Huffaker stated that with a small building, many features would look similar to Franchise structures and added that the columns would be changed
to match the rest of the development. He stated that the word “franchise” was a relative term and cited that even the glazing could be considered a franchise feature. Mr. Springer
stated there were some features commonly arranged (location of sign and awning) with franchise structures to keep the corporate image. Mr. Cape stated there were franchise structures
in existence in Bozeman and cited the colors on the Famous Dave’s building. Planner Morris responded that the DRB could approve the structures individually and request review of the
disapproved structures at a later date.
Mr. Springer stated that if the applicant was required to do a wider sidewalk or a dual sidewalk along Tschache Lane there would be areas for additional landscaping. Mr. Huffaker responded
the tenants expected a certain number of parking stalls and any reduction of parking to replace with landscaping would not be feasible.
Chairperson Smith stated an overage in parking would require a relaxation request. Mr. Springer asked if an overage in parking would be supported by the DRB. Chairperson Smith responded
that a shared parking arrangement could be reached and she would support that. Mr. Springer responded there was already a shared parking arrangement in a portion of the development.
Planner Morris responded there could be structured parking, but Staff suggested a reduction of the parking by 34 stalls. Mr. Huffaker noted which parking stalls would be lost if the
relaxation was not granted for an overage in parking. Planner Morris added that she was less compelled to park in those locations as they were at the rear of the structures. Mr. Huffaker
stated they would definitely be requesting the relaxation for allowing an overage of parking stalls.
Mr. Hedglin asked if the development (West Winds) that requested on-street parking adjacent to a park was an ordinance recommending parking stalls per acre of park or some such manner.
Planner Morris responded the code did not specifically call out on-street parking for an acre
amount, but did provide for street frontage to provide on-street parking.
Planner Morris asked if the Petco structure addressed the condition stating no more than 25% E.F.I.S. was allowable on the façade. Mr. Springer responded it did address the condition
and the depiction was incorrect.
Mr. Springer stated he would like the footprint maximum in the B-1 zoning removed from the Development Guidelines. He added he thought the DRB’s comments had been addressed from the
previous meeting and the proposal had been significantly altered.
Mr. Huffaker stated the applicant would be agreeable to the sign-dimming and minimum security lighting with signage lighting turning off after hours. He stated he wanted to bring to
the DRB’s attention that the Best Buy sign was comprised of individual letters and not a cabinet design. He stated the proposed “wedge” on the Best Buy sign was substantially less “wedged”
than the typical Franchise design of the architectural feature and added that any similarity was in the entrance to the structure. Planner Morris suggested an alternative material for
the “wedge” such as the use of tile. Mr. Huffaker voiced his concern with the safety of patrons entering the business and the tile not adhering to the surface of the building.
Mr. Hedglin stated the lengths of wall over 100 feet long on the Petco structure did not meet the requirement from the Design Objectives Plan that there be a jog to break up the mass
of the structure. Mr. Springer responded he felt the requirement was met, with 3 feet from column to column and the distance between could be increased slightly.
Mr. Huffaker stated the applicant was happy to be where they were today; meeting the requests of the City and various review boards. He stated they had met the letter of the law discouraging
Franchise architecture.
Chairperson Smith asked if the pedestrian areas on retail buildings #4 and #5 would have planters. Mr. Springer responded they would have planters and soft, incandescent lighting.
Chairperson Smith stated there was no sidewalk connection from the IHOP building to the trail. Mr. Springer responded the connection would be included. Chairperson Smith asked if IHOP
had requested their particular location as the assisted living facility and the IHOP would benefit from being closer together. Mr. Springer responded the IHOP had chosen the proposed
location, but the assisted living facility would be within range and a transit system would run from the assisted living facility. Chairperson Smith suggested an internal, three-dimensional
“wedge” as opposed to the external obtrusive “wedge” design being proposed. Mr. Huffaker responded that Best Buy was sometimes willing to work with cities on the design of their “wedge”,
but they had, in the past, walked away from a site because they were not allowed to use their “wedge”-shaped design.
Mr. Carpenter asked what an organic shaped storm-water detention area meant to the applicant. Mr. Springer responded they would need to make the shape more artistic and less geometric.
Mr. Krueger asked if the applicant had thought about the tenants of the development with the design of the proposal. Mr. Springer responded they had tried.
Mr. Krueger asked if the neighboring structures had been proposed with the Design Guidelines
in mind. Mr. Springer noted which buildings had been designed using the Design Guidelines.
Mr. Hedglin asked Mr. Springer to explain the view of the fake windows from the outside; would they be illuminated from the inside, would there be a dark panel behind. Mr. Springer
responded there would be a dark panel behind the glazing with no illumination. Mr. Hedglin stated the Petco and the Best Buy could have the glazing as a display window. Mr. Huffaker
responded the security issues would necessitate a panel behind the windows and a display area would disrupt the operation of the store. Mr. Hedglin stated the idea of a pedestrian corner
against a brick building was slightly threatening. Mr. Springer disagreed, saying that soft lighting and a seating area would be very inviting with a brick building behind.
Mr. Carpenter asked how the transit system would be addressed. Mr. Springer showed Mr. Carpenter where a potential transit stop would be located.
Mr. Carpenter stated it would be nice to have a definition of Franchise Architecture or elements and added he did not mind the thoughtful incorporation of Franchise architectural elements
in a coherent theme and he thought the applicant had done that. He stated the parking scheme was different than that to the north and was more broken up, but he would not support an
overage in parking. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to see a splash of color added to the proposal which would make him more amenable to the “wedge” on the Best Buy and the “hat”
on IHOP
Mr. Hedglin stated he agreed with Mr. Carpenter regarding the Franchise architecture, but he did not want to see an E.F.I.S. “wedge” and suggested reducing the size or using alternate
materials. He stated the integration of materials and colors between the “wedge” and the rest of the structures had him concerned and he did not like the false windows proposed for
the IHOP. He added that he had no problem granting the requested relaxation for an overage of parking.
Mr. Krueger stated he was aware of buildings in Bozeman being conscientiously designed with articulation and added that many of them were office buildings that were rarely seen. He
stated the applicant proposed a lot of “boxes”, stick-on elements, and flat roofing to cover the basic flaw in the designs of the structures. He stated the people he represented and
smaller businesses competing on the same playing field as these larger developments did not want to see structures like this. He stated he did not support the requested relaxation for
signage, he would love to see businesses get away from the lowest common denominator, and he suggested using the Design Guidelines (i.e. wood, natural stone, other masonry materials)
in the design. He stated that often times these opinions are not voiced properly and that providing no logical grid of interior pedestrian connections was a bad design. He stated the
overall development did not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. Mr. Springer stated Mr. Krueger was taking the development out of context and comparing it to a residential or
small scale development with an entirely different purpose.
Chairperson Smith asked about the use of “reverse sidewalks”. Planner Morris responded there would be no landscaping along the pedestrian walks. Chairperson Smith stated the requested
amount of parking would require a deviation that she would not support and suggested a shared parking arrangement. She stated the IHOP she knew when she was young was an a-frame structure
and suggested other roof projection elements to balance the institution of the “hat” feature. She suggested unique materials be used for the Best Buy “wedge” with a less vivid, muted
color than would normally be used and she would support any effort to minimize the size
of the “wedge”. She stated she needed to be clear that the requested relaxation for a 20% increase in signage was for every building sign and added that she would support the relaxation
if the wording included duration of lighting. She stated she supported the sidewalks along both sides of the main thoroughfare and she thought the location of the open space was great
as Rose Park would flow into it. She stated she supported Staff conditions with the addition of a sidewalk connection to the IHOP. Planner Morris responded that all buildings adjacent
to the street needed pedestrian connections to the trails. Chairperson Smith suggested outdoor seating for the IHOP.
Mr. Carpenter stated the proposal had improved from the last DRB review and he thought the integration of pedestrian elements way ahead of what was typically seen in proposals. He stated
one reason he did not support the extra parking was due to public demand.
MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Stoneridge Square PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05183 with Staff conditions
and code provisions, the support of the requested signage deviation, non-support of the request for extra parking (over the minimum), and condition #12 that sidewalk connections be provided
between the buildings and the trail system adjacent to the external streets. The motion died.
MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Stoneridge Square PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05183 with Staff conditions
and code provisions; the support of the requested signage deviation; non-support of the request for extra parking (over the minimum); condition #12 that sidewalk connections be provided
between the buildings and the trail system adjacent to the external streets; the modification of Staff condition #1, regarding franchise architectural features, to include the language
“with a less vivid, muted color than would normally be used and any effort to minimize or off-set the size of the “wedge” feature”; and the addition of condition #13, requiring the signage
lighting be turned off within one hour of closing. The motion ended on a tie vote of 2-2 with Mr. Hedglin and Mr. Krueger voting in opposition.
Mr. Hedglin made it known that he opposed the motion because he felt that 34 stalls above the minimum was acceptable.
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.}
Ron Fiscus with Landscape Partners introduced himself to the DRB.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board