Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tempore Randy Carpenter called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Scott Hedglin David Skelton, Senior Planner Randy Carpenter Jami Morris, Associate Planner Brian Krueger Susan Kozub, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost Erin Groth, Planner Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Visitors Present Ted Mitchell Greg Stratton John Davidson Ashley Ogle Doug Minarik Steve Henderson Scott Dehlendorf ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2005 Chairperson Pro Tempore Randy Carpenter called for corrections or additions to the minutes of October 12, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2005 Chairperson Pro Tempore Randy Carpenter called for corrections or additions to the minutes of October 26, 2005. Mr. Krueger stated that on page 5, roughly half way down the page, Frank Lloyd Wright was spelled incorrectly. MOTION: Hedglin moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes with corrections. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris. Associate Planner Jami Morris stated that Stoneridge Square had been continued at City Commission due to design issues and the DRB would be reviewing the project at a later date. Mr. Hedglin asked if the City Commission minutes would be furnished for the DRB. Planner Morris responded there were no minutes available as the project was immediately continued. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05217 (Skelton) 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. (Third of a three week review.) Ted Mitchell, John Davidson, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton noted Mr. Stratton had responded to the conditions of approval and he had sent an e-mail version of the responses to the DRB. He stated there would need to be a formal recommendation from the DRB provided at the end of the meeting. Mr. Mitchell presented the DRB with color renderings regarding Planner Skelton’s e-mailed conditions. Mr. Stratton explained how each concern had been addressed. Mr. Mitchell stated the delivery area in the north part of the Lifestyle Center had been perspective drawn to depict the landscaped areas and sidewalks housing the delivery and trash enclosure areas. Planner Skelton added that Staff was satisfied with the proposed design. Mr. Mitchell presented the elevations of the grocery store structure on the corner of Fowler Avenue and Huffine Lane and stated the entrance had been incorporated into a deli/seating area with a fireplace within the establishment. He stated there would be a delivery window, but did not expect any vehicle stacking problems as there was a backup plan (beepers) in place to accommodate an excess of vehicles. He stated the design of the building (large windows) gave it an open affect and a tower had been instituted on the site. He stated the second entrance included a delivery door with true glass, spandrel glass with aluminum for a storefront appearance, and that the pharmacy would have a drive-up window including architectural design features. He added that he thought he was presenting what the DRB had in mind from the last meeting. He stated the rendering of the convenience center would still need a little tweaking, but the DRB would get a good idea of the design. He stated the rendering depicted the view from Fowler Avenue and the majority of the items had been addressed. Planner Skelton added that the illustrations helped tremendously and he thought the recommended conditions needed to be instituted into the Design Guidelines. Mr. Mitchell stated he had brought a rendering depicting the quality the applicant would be maintaining throughout the development. Mr. Krueger asked if the majority of the elevations shown would have true windows or if they would have false glass. Mr. Mitchell illustrated where real windows would be located and stated that on the west side of the building there would be false windows, but he would try to talk the tenant into the installation of real glass with a darker tint. He stated the treatment of the masonry recessed some of the window areas and the spandrel windows would be on the second floor and in the pharmacy area. He stated the true storefront may include larger glass doors, but he thought it would be a decorative wrought iron gate. Planner Skelton suggested the window treatment and wrought iron gate should be addressed in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Howe asked what type of material would be used on the facades. Mr. Mitchell responded it would be a masonry product (veneer) that looked like sandstone; adding that it weathered well and looked nice. He stated he wanted to use a lot of the cultured stone that looked like slate. Mr. Hedglin asked Mr. Skelton if the drive-thru near the corner of the structure near Huffine Lane would be problematic. Planner Skelton responded that it would be reviewed during Site Plan review more thoroughly, but at this time there did not appear to be any issues. Mr. Hedglin suggested integrating the drive-thru into the structure on the site. Mr. Mitchell stated that there would be no vehicle stacking on that site as it would present an inferior entrance. Mr. Pentecost stated that the DRB had asked for a lot from the applicant and they had made a valiant effort regarding the massing and blocking of the structures. He asked if the height issue had been resolved. Planner Skelton responded the recommendation for height relaxations was not favorable, but would be site specific and reviewed at the Site Plan review stage of the development. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Stratton added that in the responses to the conditions of approval, the applicant had agreed to adhere to the maximum height of the downtown area. Planner Skelton stated the points that had been disagreed on by Staff and the applicant should be discussed. Mr. Stratton stated the two natural drainages on the site would function only as natural drainage, and there was no way to design the site without running water through those drainages after it had been treated. Planner Skelton responded there would need to be a provision in place to prevent drainage problems with the fluctuation of the water level. Mr. Stratton stated the drainage report had a flood route analysis to provide accurate water levels in relation to the structures on the site. He stated there could be a maintenance agreement instituted on the site to accommodate the use of aquatic landscaping to prevent silt build up. Mr. Mitchell stated he did not ever want to see dirt at the entrance to the water elements and reminded the DRB that there was no agreement or rule stating that the natural water features would need to be preserved but the applicant would do what they had agreed to. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked the plan for detention. Mr. Stratton responded it was subsurface detention areas treated underground and released as a normal pond with a discharge structure and piping. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked if any of the surface pavement would be pervious. Mr. Stratton responded a storm drain would route the water to the underground detention area. Planner Skelton suggested discussing the design, approval, and enforcement for the aquatic features. Mr. Mitchell stated he agreed. Mr. Stratton stated the storm-water drainage swell was a natural stream drainage that may enhance the existing stream drainage or move it slightly and the building setbacks had been addressed by allowing 12 feet for pedestrians with no structures right up to the diagonal parking stalls. He stated the sewer main and storm-drain main would be located underneath the all-weather surface and suggested they could move the mains into the driveway or under the asphalt within the easement; he added that there would still be adequate space for landscaping. Planner Skelton stated Staff did not want the open space corridor reduced to allow for a relaxation from the setback requirement along Technology Boulevard and that Staff agreed with the setback relaxation request along portions of the street. Mr. Mitchell stated the bank had relocated their drive-up area to lessen the likelihood of vehicle stacking and the presentation of a drive-thru to the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Stratton stated the landscaping along Fowler Avenue would not be at risk as the sewer main would be located under a driveway. Mr. Howe stated the applicant had done a fine job responding to the DRB’s request for graphic representations and he was excited to see the end result. Mr. Hedglin agreed with Mr. Howe. Mr. Pentecost suggested the applicant be sure the Design Guidelines include all the items discussed to ensure the quality of the development. Planner Skelton stated Staff was not providing comments that should be taken personally, but recommended they not use translucent or transparent awnings. He added that the Design Objectives Plan suggested materials that were not necessarily in keeping with the development. He stated the use of stucco and E.F.I.S. would be within the threshold of the general guideline and the key would be to lessen the amount of synthetic materials used for the treatment of the facades. He stated there had been a disagreement regarding the use of muted colors. Mr. Hedglin stated the storefront recommendation #18, #11, and #20 were subjective and suggested the design team should have the freedom to use aluminum storefront, the translucent material, and synthetic materials. He suggested no use of synthetic materials (with exceptions for the quality of the material) within six feet of the ground. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05217 with Staff conditions. The motion died. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05217 with Staff conditions and the modification of conditions #11, #18, and #20 to allow the applicant discretion when choosing materials. The motion carried 5-0. B. Northside PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05253 (Kozub) 1237 North Rouse Avenue * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application with relaxations to allow the adaptive reuse of the existing structures, the development of a new structure, and related site improvements on property zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). Owners Barry Brown and Scott Dehlendorf with representatives Clint Litle, Doug Minarik, and Dax Simek joined the DRB. Mr. Pentecost stated he would abstain from voting on the project as it would present a conflict of interest. Associate Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report noting the proposed uses of the site. She stated the DRB reviewed the Concept PUD (Wiessman) last March and the major issues had been addressed. She explained the ten relaxations proposed for the PUD and the Performance Points. She stated Staff was supportive of a mix of on-site open space and cash-in-lieu of open-space except for one location that Staff disagreed was usable open space. She stated there would be a possible dedication of park land near Ida Street and Front Street as part of another project and that Staff would recommend this cash-in-lieu be used for that park or elsewhere if the dedication was not completed. She stated most of the proposed trees were two inch in caliper and a condition was in place to ensure the caliper of the trees was not reduced. She stated the development guidelines required clarification on the orientation of the primary entrances and roof materials. She stated the comprehensive sign plan should depict the specific allowable amount of signage for each tenant. Mr. Minarik stated the project was an infill project that re-used existing building that had expired their past uses. He stated the visibility of the site was within three Entryway Corridors and this was the applicant’s driving force behind the overall concept and design. He stated the applicant had paid a lot of attention to the landscaping and added that they had exceeded the minimum requirements. He stated the site would be pedestrian friendly with seating areas taking on the industrial language of the site elements. He stated the granary would be kept as the focal point and dominant vertical marker on the site. He stated the spaces between buildings would be developed into a hard-scape/soft-scape environment and the traffic moving south along Rouse Avenue would be addressed by the historical brick building that would be renovated. Mr. Howe asked if there would be a sidewalk along Rouse Avenue. Mr. Litle responded they had requested a subdivision variance to not install sidewalk and curbing until after Rouse Avenue had been improved. Mr. Hedglin asked if the building height and was to access the granary. Mr. Minarik responded that it was. Mr. Hedglin asked how many spaces were along Montana Avenue. Mr. Litle responded there were several on-street spaces along North Montana Avenue. Mr. Hedglin asked for the parking calculations. Mr. Minarik responded that the peak demands for different uses did not always happen at the same time and 180 spaces should be sufficient. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked if the applicant had any issues with the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Minarik responded that they had no issues with Staff conditions. Mr. Hedglin asked the direction of the Montana Department of Transportation (M.D.T.) and the widening of Rouse Avenue. Mr. Litle responded the plan was in its early stages, but the section that he had seen consisted of five lanes of traffic. Mr. Hedglin asked if Mr. Litle anticipated difficulties with the widening of Rouse Avenue and this site. Mr. Litle responded he could foresee no difficulties due to the site design. Mr. Hedglin asked if the sidewalk would provide an opportunity to carry pedestrians through the site from Rouse Avenue. Mr. Minarik responded it would create opportunities to route pedestrians through the site. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked what M.D.T. was moving toward as far as landscaping, lighting, and pedestrian facilities along Rouse Avenue. Mr. Litle responded the state tended to create generic street-scapes, but he thought there was opportunity through public involvement to create a less generic streetscape and add more character. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked how pedestrians and bicyclists would be getting to the site in the future. Mr. Minarik responded there would be on-site bicycle facilities and there was potential for trail systems along Oak Street toward Wal-Mart. Mr. Pentecost asked if there would be directional signs to efficiently move people through the site. Mr. Minarik responded there would be signage, but not much directional signage as both accesses allowed for full turning movements into the site. Mr. Krueger stated he was supportive of the project, the great use of the site, and the re-use of the existing structures. He stated the site plan had enough original entrances to the site and the accesses were appropriate. Mr. Howe concurred with Mr. Krueger. Mr. Hedglin suggested slight mechanical equipment exposure would not necessarily harm the applications of the site. Planner Kozub responded the requirement for mechanical equipment screening was a code provision. Mr. Pentecost asked if the transformer location had been determined and if it would be screened. Mr. Minarik noted the locations of the mechanical equipment and screening. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter stated he supported Staff condition 5B to screen all mechanical equipment. Mr. Pentecost stated he still had a slight issue with the sea of parking proposed on the site yet he applauded their effort to break it up with landscaping. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter stated he supported the proposal and the requested relaxations. Ashley Ogle stated her family owned land near the development and are concerned with the site vision triangle issues existing on the site. She stated her family was generally in support of development. She stated the existing trees within the site triangle would be a problem and there would be no median instituted that would direct people to only make a left turn. She stated the parking relaxation request would not allow for overflow of parking and the public safety within a manufacturing district would be a concern with the number of large delivery vehicles. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter suggested the applicant alleviate some of the overflow of parking with shared parking arrangements. Planner Kozub responded the parking could be re-assessed as the phases of the development were submitted. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked how the applicant would feel about phasing the development to review the parking in stages. Mr. Minarik responded the applicant was agreeable to the phasing of the development. Mr. Brown stated that there was not enough existing parking at Lone Mountain Gymnastics compared to the current safety issues on Wallace Avenue. Mr. Pentecost asked the timing of the signalization proposed for Rouse Avenue. Mr. Litle responded the projection was for four years and some of the traffic issues would be alleviated at that time. Planner Kozub responded that the DRC would include a condition of approval related to the installation of a traffic light. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked how the parking would be reviewed at a later date. Planner Kozub responded the easiest way to review the parking would be to tack a condition onto the last structure proposed at the DRC and Staff level. Mr. Litle added that he would institute a pork-chop median to properly direct traffic. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Hedglin seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Northside PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05253 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-0 with Mr. Pentecost abstaining. C. Cardinal Distributing SP/COA #Z-05232 (Groth) 1750 Evergreen Drive * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 42,857 square foot addition to a 41,000 square foot existing warehouse structure and related site improvements. Matt Faure joined the DRB. Planner Erin Groth presented the Staff Report noting the application was pretty straight forward and there was a lengthy history of additions to the site. She stated the square footage of the requested addition moved the proposal into the DRB review criteria. She noted Staff conditions and recommendations. She stated the north wall elevation depicted the fluted C.M.U.’s and the massing of those facades would need to be broken up. She stated existing and proposed awnings would need to remain consistent. Mr. Faure stated the spur was relatively unused and would most likely remain that way. Planner Groth added that the Interstate was banked at that location and there was not much of a view of the site. Mr. Krueger asked if the guideline Ch 3B1 only addresses franchise architecture in the Design Objectives Plan. Planner Groth responded she believed it to be the main point. Mr. Faure stated the constraints of the site and the size of the building footprint made the use of gables difficult. Mr. Howe asked where the detention ponds would be located. Mr. Faure noted those locations on the site plan and the natural swale on the site. Mr. Krueger asked what the applicant thought of Staff conditions. Mr. Faure responded they were already planning to do the ribbing and mimic all of the existing materials. He added the banding, stone, and fluted C.M.U. block would be instituted on the north and south additions. Mr. Krueger stated he would like to see more variation in the design as it would be seen from the Interstate and the roof line would be what it was. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with Mr. Krueger and reminded the applicant that there could not be an expanse of façade more than 100 hundred feet long without articulation. Mr. Hedglin stated he concurred with the previous DRB comments and that there was not much of the site visible from the Interstate. Mr. Faure responded the applicant was not trying to create a shopping center, it was a distributorship. Mr. Pentecost stated the applicant was faced with a difficult challenge for the facades considering the mass of the structure; however, its location in the Entryway Corridor would present an opportunity for greater quality in design. He suggested architecturally enhancing the structure is possible without incurring large costs; i.e. corrugated metal and cinder blocks. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and he supported the project with Staff conditions. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Cardinal Distributing SP/COA #Z-05232 with Staff conditions. Mr. Hedglin stated item 2C regarding awnings over the doors would not add interest to the building. He suggested modifying the condition to allow fenestration, articulation, awnings, gables, or some other architectural feature that would be consistent with color pallet instead of instituting awning. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Hedglin seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Cardinal Distributing SP/COA #Z-05232 with Staff conditions and the modification of conditions 2C and 2D to allow the applicant the use of fenestration, articulation, awnings, gables, or some other architectural feature that will be consistent with the color pallet instead of the institution of awnings. 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.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. ________________________________ Randy Carpenter, Chairperson Pro Tempore City of Bozeman Design Review Board