Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2004 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 Dawn Smith Jami Morris, Associate Planner Bill Hanson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Joseph Thomas Scott Hedglin Carol Asleson Christopher Livingston Brian Krueger Visitors Present Don Stueck Jerry Perkins Candace Mastel Kurt Ratz Bill Ogle Lowell Springer Scott Bechtle ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2004 (Continued from 7/13/04.) Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of June 22, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2004 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of July 13, 2004. MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Hilton Garden Inn SP/COA #Z-04170 (Morris) 2023 Commerce Way * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a three-story, 120-unit hotel and conference center with related site improvements. Don Stueck joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was part of the Stoneridge Subdivision PUD and was the last lot to be developed. She stated there had been a full restaurant and bar in the first proposal, but the applicant opted to use Old Chicago for catering instead. She stated it would be difficult for the applicant to meet the minimum parking lot landscaping requirements due to the required setbacks. She stated any landscaped area would need to be outside of the setbacks and the applicant would need to screen their parking from the streetscape. She noted the surrounding properties and reviewed Staff’s conditions. Mr. Hanson asked Planner Morris if parking issues would be dealt with at DRC and how many parking spaces the proposal was short. Planner Morris responded the DRC would address the concerns and the proposal was 26 spaces short of the required amount of parking. Mr. Stueck stated there was a controversy between the applicant and the adjacent property owner, but there would eventually be a shared parking agreement with the adjacent properties. Mr. Hanson asked if there was still a requirement for 40% open space. Planner Morris responded the changes with the UDO abolished the open space requirement in this zoning designation. Mr. Livingston asked if the idea was to take one entire location and make it shared parking. Planner Morris responded the majority of the parking was off-site parking with shared parking agreements between two of the adjacent properties. Mr. Stueck stated that Montana Furniture Gallery needed a maximum of 10 parking spaces at one time. Mr. Livingston asked what the possibility of removing the easement was. Planner Morris responded the applicant would have to go through the formal easement vacation process. Ms. Asleson asked for the setbacks of the structures from the lot lines and other features. Planner Morris explained the required setback distances and how the setbacks were measured. Mr. Stueck explained the dotted line depicted on the site plan was a utility easement that ran the length of Commerce Way. Ms. Asleson asked Planner Morris to indicate the drainage for the proposal. Mr. Stueck responded the plan in front of her was a grading plan and not a drainage plan, and explained where the drainage would be located. Chairperson Smith asked if the DRC had issues with the accesses. She noted the location of one of the accesses seemed too near the bank accesses. Mr. Stueck responded one of the accesses had been intentionally aligned with the bank entrance across the road. Chairperson Smith asked if on-street parking was allowed. Planner Morris responded it was as the street was a local street. Chairperson Smith asked what amount of shared parking was allowable. Planner Morris responded that it had not yet been determined. Mr. Stueck stated the Hilton design had already been approved by the city in a prior submittal for Huffine Lane. He stated there was a parking option in the works, but the outcome was unknown due to there being adjacent landowners involved, and whether there could be an agreement reached to vacate the shared easement between the properties. He stated Staff was working with the architect to resolve the matter. He stated there would be a hospitality bar with a restaurant that would serve minimal meals while catering would be brought in for conventions. He stated there were plans to do a larger convention center on a lot across the street some time in the future. Mr. Hanson asked if the applicant was comfortable with Staff’s conditions. Mr. Stueck responded he had not received them, Lowell Springer had, but he was comfortable with what he heard. Mr. Thomas stated he supported the project, though it would be better to have the patio extend to the exercise room. Mr. Stueck stated he agreed and the access to the patio was proposed at a different location for security purposes. Mr. Hanson stated he supported the project with Staff conditions, but he thought the site plan would look substantially different when the setbacks were met, the landscaping was depicted, and the parking requirements were met. He stated the Old Chicago parking lot did not seem to be able to spare any parking spaces for a shared parking agreement and recommended a parking study be done. He suggested using architectural detailing and fenestration to make the facades less blank and dull. Mr. Livingston stated he supported the project with Staff conditions, but the site plan looked as though it was out of scale and he thought the project looked too large for the lot size. He stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson’s comments regarding a parking study being done. He suggested putting plantings along the blank façade where the storage areas were to be located. Mr. Stueck responded some large trees or ivy could be planted along that façade. Mr. Livingston stated some of the facades (north and east) were too blank and the majority of the building looked like every other Hilton in the country. He suggested some sort of distinguishing features. Mr. Stueck responded the Hilton had very stringent requirements. Ms. Asleson stated she supported Staff conditions and previous DRB comments. She stated she would wrap the plantings around the south and east walls as there would eventually be development facing both of those facades. She suggested day-lighting the stairwell which would add fenestration to one blank façade. She suggested putting canopies over the entrances and seating areas in more than two locations. Mr. Stueck responded that some of the suggested seating locations were security risks. Ms. Asleson asked if it was possible to re-direct the pedestrian traffic with scored or colored pavement so that they did not have to walk through parking spaces to arrive at their destination. Mr. Stueck responded he could follow Staff’s suggestions and, with the use of scored pavement, direct them safely through vehicular traffic. Chairperson Smith stated she struggled with the site because the hotel was completely surrounded by parking and there was a lot of street frontage on the site with very little green space. She stated she had always been supportive of shared parking, but in this proposal the arrangement was not reducing the amount of asphalt in any way. She stated she agreed with Mr. Livingston that this Hilton seemed to be generic with no differentiating features. She stated she was disappointed that there was no color palette submitted for the proposal. She stated the location was good due to the number of things a person could do within walking distance. She suggested eliminating two entrances, increasing the green space, landscaping, possibly improving the parking, and providing better pedestrian pathways. Mr. Hanson asked if the applicant would ask for a variance or deviation to encroach into the easement. Mr. Stueck responded that Mr. Springer had spoken with City Engineering and they had found an arrangement satisfactory to all. Ms. Asleson suggested revisiting the size of some of the proposed plantings as the diameters depicted on the site plan were far less than the mature growth of the vegetation. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Hilton Garden Inn SP/COA #Z-04170 with Staff conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Livingston stated he disagreed that the proposal was not franchise structured architecturally. Planner Morris responded she had looked on-line and found that this proposal was not like the other Hilton’s. Chairperson Smith stated she was concerned with the shared parking arrangement. Planner Morris responded it was a requirement that Staff would address. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to more clearly elaborate Staff condition #4 to include language stating that in addition to fenestration, taller planting material should be used to correct the blank façade. Motion carried 5-0. B. Kenyon Noble Concept PUD #Z-04182 (Morris) Northwest of the intersection of Oak Street and North 11th Avenue * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of two, large-scale, retail buildings, a 53,700 sq. ft. building for building materials sales, and a 33,200 sq. ft. building for drive-thru pickup, with related site improvements. Candace Mastel and Kurt Ratz joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report noting the applicant had chosen to do open space, and, so far, there were no relaxations requested. She stated the project had to go through PUD review as it was located in the Oak Street Master Plan area. She stated the 50 foot greenway corridor would be included in the 30% open space calculation. She stated the large outdoor storage area would be required to be screened and the applicant would also provide adequate screening for the parking. Mr. Ratz presented color schemes and materials that would be used for the project. Ms. Asleson stated she liked the design of the building. She noted she was unsure that the proposal was appropriate due to the architectural style of the surrounding structures. She stated the style of the building fit on Jackrabbit Lane, but not on Oak Street. Mr. Ratz responded the structure would have a more commercial feeling, with a more machined look, as opposed to a warm and fuzzy look. Ms Asleson responded she did not think the proposed location was a log cabin area. She asked what would be placed on top of the six foot masonry wall to prevent people from accessing the materials within it. Mr. Ratz responded that if people wanted to get over the wall, they would, even if it were 10 feet tall. Ms. Asleson asked if it was possible to bring the open space to the front of the site and put the parking at the rear of the site. Mrs. Mastel responded the drive-thru service on the site was the basis for the vehicular circulation design. She stated the applicant was considering breaking up the parking areas with pedestrian pathways and landscaping which would be depicted on the Preliminary PUD plan. Mr. Livingston stated some of the parking could be distributed between the two main entrances to the site. He stated he saw the site as a hodgepodge of finding open space wherever they could. He stated the location of the 500 foot long, six foot tall masonry fence troubled him as it was on a streetscape. He added there was potential for screening of the parking spaces along the streetscape as well. Mr. Hanson stated he was concerned with the parking along Oak Street. He stated many of the developments in that area brought the buildings forward and moved the parking to the rear of the sites. He suggested relocating the parking so that the main façade would be facing either east or west. He stated the open space surrounding the masonry wall could be used more efficiently and suggested bringing the development out onto Oak Street as much as possible. He stated he agreed with Ms. Asleson’s comments regarding the architecture of the building as the structure would be 50 feet tall and a dominating feature. Chairperson Smith stated she did not have a problem with the architecture of the structure, though it would be dramatically different from the existing structures. She stated the proposal was not franchise-style architecture, which was a redeeming quality. She asked if the total number of parking spaces provided was 289 and if the calculation having come from future expansion was allowable. Planner Morris responded that parking could be calculated with future expansion as long as they did not exceed the allowable percentage. Chairperson Smith stated she concurred with previous DRB members’ comments with regard to screening the parking. She stated there were no breaks in the parking sections to direct pedestrians to the front entrances of the structure. Chairperson Smith asked what the DRB would recommend for depth of parking from Oak Street. Mr. Ratz responded the parking could be laid length-wise, but it would create a substantially long expanse of parking. Mr. Bechtle added that the grade issue along the side of the building prevented the applicant from placing the building edge on Oak Street. Mr. Bechtle stated there was also a natural drainage swale that would require maintenance on 11th Avenue. Mr. Hanson and Mr. Livingston suggested relocating the building further to the west of the site and creating open space on the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Hanson added the DRB would most likely support a huge reduction in the amount of required parking. Mr. Bechtle stated the warehouse in the back generated very little traffic. Mr. Stueck stated the business would still require parking along Oak Street even if there were relief of some of the parking on Oak Street. Chairperson Smith asked if all the parking was depicted on the site. Mrs. Mastel stated they had depicted the exact amount of parking and open space that was required with the possibility of expansion at a later date. Mr. Bechtle stated there would be difficulty moving the building forward due to the grading of the site. Mr. Hanson suggested including a transition in the landscaped area toaccomodate the building and slope. The DRB members concurred several times that there should be less parking fronting Oak Street. The Board recommended moving the accesses to accommodate the relocation of parking. 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. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board