Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:42 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Scott Hedglin David Skelton, Senior Planner Dawn Smith Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost Lee Hietala Visitors Present Ted Mitchell Greg Stratton John Davidson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2005 Continued until next meeting. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris. Chairperson Dawn Smith stated that two more appointments to the DRB would occur the next City Commission meeting. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05217 (Skelton/Murray) Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B-2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. (Second of a two week review.) Greg Stratton, John Davidson, and Ted Mitchell joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders would be standing in as ADR Staff (if necessary) and U.D.O. expert. He stated he apologized for the length of the Staff Report and suggested that more detail was necessary for the proposal as it will have a significant impact on the image of the West Main Street Entryway Corridor. He stated if the DRB was uncomfortable forwarding a recommendation of approval after this meeting, a third DRB meeting would be required and subsequent meetings before the City Commission could remain scheduled as planned. He stated there had been fifteen initial relaxations requested, which had been included in the Staff Report, and added that five more relaxations had been recently identified. He stated the open space calculations had discrepancies as it was difficult to figure out in this early stage of the proposal and distributed his calculations for open space within the project. He stated the request to encroach into the watercourse setback had been reviewed by the Wetlands Review Board and they had forwarded a favorable recommendation for a blanket encroachment based on the defined areas of the plat. He stated Staff had asked that, before any construction activity, the developer institute a silt screen to provide safety for the wetlands areas. He stated that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board confirmed the proposed trail system would be sufficient. He stated the street character along Huffine Lane would require a condition to install one tree for every 50 feet of boulevard frontage and Staff would need to see the landscaping details with the final submittal of the PUD. He stated Staff recommended drive-thru’s only on the interior of the site and not fronts or corner sides onto the entryway corridor and added that Staff also recommended additional detail on the proposed treatment of surfaces. He stated Staff recommended the elimination of parking spaces to accommodate a larger landscaped feature in the parking lots along the two watercourses that could institute seating and lighting which would provide more of an open space area within the corridor. He stated vehicular circulation on the site had been addressed, but Staff would require more landscaped features along Huffine Lane and Garfield Street. He stated the applicant had requested a reduction in the number of parking stalls and added that the applicant was down to the minimum requirement as proposed. Planner Skelton asked Assistant Director Saunders how the reduced parking request would be addressed. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Staff could approve the request for a reduction in parking and described the scenario’s that would involve City Commission approval of the parking reduction. Chairperson Smith asked if the DRB could review the parking as they had done on Lowe’s (100% parking requirements for the primary structure and 75% parking requirements for the remainder of the PUD). Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be a type of shared parking arrangement. Planner Skelton responded he was uncertain about the shared parking arrangements as they would be on a case-to-case basis depending on whether or not the parking is on individual subdivision lots or common areas shared by the tenants. Mr. Stratton stated that there would be 287 sites in one proposal and his concern was that there would not be enough parking for each site once the details of the structures were figured out. Planner Skelton stated there would need to be proper screening for the mechanical equipment and storm water facilities. He stated that based on the number of relaxations being requested by the applicant that all open space areas, individual site and the along the Entryway Corridor would be required to institute 2 inch caliper trees in the boulevard instead of 1 ½ inch caliper. He stated the architectural guidelines would need to demonstrate an architectural theme carried throughout the PUD include the areas for professional offices and the retail commercial buildings that are not part of the lifestyle center. He stated another key issue was the presence of public plazas off of the Entryway Corridor; aside from those located internally on the site. He stated the need to present storefronts and pubic plazas along the exterior streetscape as well as on corners without destroying the functions of the buildings themselves and Staff would need illustrations regarding the building mass and scale adding that the presentation of the rear of structures would need to be addressed further. He stated DRC recommended approval of all requested relaxations except for building height, 60% lot coverage limitation, and encroachment into required yards for parking. Mr. Hedglin asked the intent of conditions #18 and #20. Planner Skelton responded Staff would require dark anodized storefront framing instead of steel brushed stainless steel aluminum and cited Hastings Shopping Center as an example. Mr. Pentecost asked Planner Skelton if item C on page 12 was a typo. Planner Skelton responded it was a typo. Mr. Howe asked Mr. Skelton if the proposed soft trails had attributes comparable to paved trails. Planner Skelton responded that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and Recreation and Parks Advisory Broad has slowly made a transition for trails from gravel to have a more impervious surface due to deterioration when the trails were not being unused and added that good connectivity and conservation to the natural environs of the watercourse would be attributes. Mr. Howe asked the regular method for maintenance of the amenities in large commercial developments. Planner Skelton responded that the city could assess the maintenance with property taxes, but there were too many instances in which it could not be enforced. As a result, it is necessary the covenants more teeth to maintenance and upkeep of open space, landscape features, street boulevards, trails, etc. Mr. Howe asked if safety features on the internal drain structures would be installed on the site. Mr. Stratton responded there would be safety features in place. Mr. Howe suggested the trash enclosures be located within the building envelope. Planner Skelton responded that B.F.I. would be responding to that request before the next meeting. Mr. Pentecost asked if Staff suggested the applicant provide elevations for the structures for DRB review. Planner Skelton responded there were areas where Staff would need a typical elevations that would generally, not specifically, outline the proposed architecture for each phase of the development in addition to the lifestyle center. Mr. Pentecost asked if the elevations would dictate the design of the buildings. Planner Skelton responded that it would in terms of architectural treatment, fenestration, surface, etc.; the burden would fall on the architect to maintain the overall architectural features of the development based on what was approved in the Development Manual. Chairperson Smith asked if Staff was requesting “typical elevations” in the preliminary stages and “detailed elevations” afterward. Planner Skelton responded they were asking for more defined details with Final PUD Plan Review as part of the Development Manual with specific elevations submitted as part of the site plan review application for each site. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Skelton if DRC supported the requested height relaxation. Planner Skelton responded that DRC did not support the proposed height. Chairperson Smith asked if anything was discussed regarding front plane modulation on the 100 foot long facades. Planner Skelton responded the offsets were addressed in the Design Objectives Plan, but they were very insignificant and did not suggest a substantial offset. Chairperson Smith stated she did not understand the height restrictions for the proposed retail structures and did not know if it would be proportional to the massing. Planner Skelton explained the height restrictions appeared to be specific more to the buildings around the perimeter that are not part of the lifestyle center. Chairperson Smith asked if there was a Staff recommendation for landscape performance points. Planner Skelton responded there they just make the points based on the open space calculations distributed by staff, but needed to have better detail with landscaping at a scale that discusses more that trees and trails for him to determine his recommendations for landscaping. Mr. Stratton stated that 40% of the lot needed to be covered by green-space and the applicant had requested the requirement be waived for the eastern third of the development. He stated the U.D.O. stated the terms of the preliminary plan required that it had to be completed within two years time and the applicant had requested longer due to the size of the development. He stated the proposed blocks were longer than 400 feet and the applicant had provided pedestrian corridors within the blocks to accommodate the length. He stated the Wetlands Review Board had reviewed and approved the open space corridors and determined the applicant had generally met the setback requirements with the exception of a few areas. He stated the drive access spacing along Fowler Avenue had been addressed with the Engineering Department as a hardship because the access was as far from Huffine Lane as they could possibly get it. He stated the requested lighting relaxation was generally for the corners of parking lots where the lighting was virtually unnecessary and the lighting fixtures would be approved by the City but a relaxation for lighting may still need to be addressed. He stated the sidewalk relaxation request for soft trails was to minimize the impact to the wetlands corridor. He stated the applicant wanted an easement to act as an alleyway to provide access to some structures and the “backing” on Technology Boulevard request was to provide for the proposed diagonal parking. He stated the building height relaxation was to allow a 146 foot tall building instead of the maximum 44 feet allowable. He stated the requested relaxation for the parking was to allow encroachment into the required yard setback in the B-2 zoning areas and added that the BP zoning section along Chronicle Lane. They would need a relaxation for the loading areas to encroach, as well. He stated one relaxation was being requested for the parking areas to meet the 10 foot building setback; that along Chronicle Lane the applicant would like the loading area setbacks to be the same as the building setbacks. Mr. Pentecost asked that, in the event there was an underlying zoning, what regulations would govern. Assistant Planner Saunders responded that, in an ideal world, one would comply with both. Planner Skelton responded that the regulatory standard would be the U.D.O. whether or not the land-use designation provided for the development and added that it would be become a subjective issue unless the zoning and/or land use designation were modified to mirror one another . Mr. Pentecost asked if the BP areas would be zoned B-2 if the proposal went through a zoning change. Planner Skelton responded that Staff would support the rezoning of the property from BP to B-2 based on the present adopted growth policy for the community. Mr. Stratton responded their concern was that the City Commission would not be in support of the zone change. Mr. Pentecost asked if the applicant’s request for a time extension (10 years) was due to the possibility that sites in the PUD would not be purchased or if it was the overall length of time that it would take to completely build out the development. Mr. Stratton responded that the applicant was concerned that the architectural design guidelines would need to be redone after a two year period. Mr. Pentecost asked if a section of sidewalk would be allowed to encroach into a setback. Mr. Stratton responded that a portion of it would. Mr. Pentecost asked which street some of the structures would be addressed on. Mr. Stratton added there were special conditions addressing corner side yards with only one front yard. Mr. Mitchell stated the urgent thing right now would be the design guidelines and how to handle garbage collection, screening, and presentation of the backs of structures. He stated Carter-Burgesse had addressed areas of concern (i.e. the grocery store, the lifestyle center). He cited the Southgate Mall in Missoula which had instituted roofed, screening walls around the entirety of the mall to screen unsightly loading and garbage collection areas. He stated this method would be used to avoid presenting the backs of buildings to the Entryway Corridor and vegetation would be maintained. He gave a description of what would occur with the use of landscaping and a 12 or 14 foot retaining wall and a berm for the screening of the loading area of the grocery store to prevent anyone from seeing more than the very top of a delivery truck. Mr. Stratton added the loading dock had been relocated to the farthest south end of the lot as possible. Mr. Mitchell stated the trash enclosures would require the garbage people to physically roll out the dumpsters to make their pickup and the applicant would heat the sidewalks at those locations to prevent any accidents. He stated there would not be straight parapets for any length on the facades as the Southgate Mall has done. Mr. Stratton stated the overall package that would be approved at DRB today would allow the DRB to disapprove of an individual site plan at a later date if it wasn’t in keeping with the approved design guidelines for the development. Chairperson Smith stated it would not be fair to the applicant during individual site plan reviews if the full presentation of the DRB, with regard to the details of the PUD design, was not represented. Mr. Stratton suggested that building elevations for 9 or 10 buildings was not a problem, but the whole development would be difficult. Chairperson Smith responded a typical set of elevations would be sensible at this early stage of the proposal. Mr. Hedglin stated the screening of the trash and loading areas would become an issue later and he was not comfortable approving the project with 40 conditions of approval outlined in the proposal. Mr. Pentecost agreed with Mr. Hedglin. Mr. Howe stated he supported the project. Chairperson Smith stated she did not see specific examples in the design guidelines addressing treatment of facades and screening. She suggested good examples from the Stoneridge PUD. Mr. Hedglin added the Kenyon Noble. Mr. Pentecost stated he was struggling with the fronts of structures being located in a certain direction and the rear of the structures only being screened; citing Frank Lloyd Wright’s comments regarding growing vines to cover bad designs (no backs of buildings). Chairperson Smith stated that the approval of the requested relaxations for the PUD would require a development above and beyond the U.D.O. requirements. Mr. Davidson stated they knew the supermarket would want the corner site due to its location being near the Entryway Corridor and he thought the nicest concept would not be a parking lot presented to the Entryway, but a nicely designed rear façade on the supermarket. He added there would need to be a large amount of parking for the market and the bank. Chairperson Smith responded that the City Commission’s opinion would be that the market’s corner should be “alive” (i.e. pedestrian friendly with an entrance or false entrance). Mr. Davidson asked if better architectural features would allow for the proposed orientation of the grocery store. Chairperson Smith and Mr. Pentecost responded that they thought the orientation of the structure was fine, but the City Commission might not see it as such. Chairperson Smith stated the crux of the issue was not to be the screening of the structures, but the treatment of the facades of the structures to allow for less screening. Mr. Howe stated the loading areas and trash bins could be located inside the building envelope. Mr. Hedglin stated his concern was with the height of the structures and the view from Technology Boulevard. He added the sun would never hit the street in the winter months. Chairperson Smith suggested continuing the project until the next meeting of the DRB with this project being first on the agenda. The DRB and the applicant concurred. ITEM 5. 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.} A gentleman from the audience made the overall conclusion that the size of parking lots needed considered, due to the urban effect, with proliferation so that trees can survive within the parking areas. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board