HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Dawn Smith Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Joseph Thomas Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Bill Hanson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Scott Hedglin
Visitors Present
Dick Clotfelter
Don Cape, Jr.
Chris Pope
Dick Prugh
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of September 29, 2004.
Mr. Hedglin stated that on page five when he was referring to the continuity of the roof curve, he was referring to the scale house and not the office.
Chairperson Smith indicated a typo on page two.
MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Hedglin seconded, to approve the minutes with the requested corrections. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
A. Garage At City Center Informal #I-04029 (Bristor/Windemaker)
Mendenhall Street, Black Avenue, Tracy Avenue
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a parking garage/plaza/retail structure and related site improvements.
Dick Clotfelter and Dick Prugh joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting the parking garage would cover approximately a block and a half
with retail space on the first floor. She stated the Historic Preservation Planner – Allyson Bristor - had reviewed the project. She stated Staff was concerned with horizontal massing
and the applicant would have to use architectural detailing to break up the façades. She stated Staff was concerned with light and shading issues on the north side and the proposed
parking bridge blocking the pedestrian viewshed on North Black Avenue.
Mr. Clotfleter, representing the Arts At City Center Non-profit Organization, stated the proposed project would incorporate property located east of North Black Avenue. He stated he
had attended two meetings with the City Commission and there would be another meeting. He stated the initial phase would have 300+ parking stalls and the second phase would have 400+
parking stalls. He stated the City Commission had suggested the applicant go before the DRB before their last City Commission meeting.
Mr. Prugh stated the applicant would consider various options including an underground parking lot, an above ground lot, or some combination of both, and cost estimates for each option.
He stated that in the two public meetings on the proposal, the applicant had found surprising results from the public. He stated he felt the project needed to be started with a broad
base, becoming more specific as comments from review committees and the public were considered. He gave a Power Point presentation regarding the sizes of parking stalls, the types of
vehicles that would be using them, and how the garage would be arranged on the block. He stated the applicant wanted to design a garage with a floor-to-ceiling height that could accommodate
a Suburban with a ski rack on top. He stated there would be paving across the street and 20 feet into the block to allow street closure and use as a temporary plaza. He stated he wanted
the public to be involved in choosing the design and cost of the structure and there would be two more meetings with the neighborhood and the Historic Preservation Advisory Board.
Mr. Clotfelter described features on a model depicting the Arts At City Center proposal in its entirety. He described several businesses that would be relocating and stated the garage
was the first phase of the whole development.
Mr. Prugh stated the applicant was trying to receive input from different Boards, Committees, and the public before materials, design, and location were chosen.
Mr. Hanson asked what would trigger the final phase of the addition to the garage. Mr. Clotfelter responded that if the Performing Arts Center was funded, the second phase of the parking
structure (400+ stalls) would begin. Mr. Hanson asked the reason for the need of a second phase of parking stalls. Mr. Clotfelter responded that the initial phase of parking was the
bare minimum and the completion of the design was driven by the minimum need generated by a parking study based on all the uses for the structure. Mr. Prugh responded there was an existing
142 parking spaces and the parking garage would double that amount. Mr. Pope, Parking Commission Representative, stated there was a study done a year ago showing there was an 85% capacity
for downtown parking spaces. Mr. Hanson asked how the parking stalls were shared between public and private entities. Mr. Clotfelter responded there would be free two hour parking,
monthly parking, day and night time parking, and user parking. Mr. Hanson asked if a percentage of the stalls would be allocated to the convention center. Mr. Clotfelter responded
the Convention Center would be considered in the second phase of the parking development. Mr. Prugh responded the number of stalls calculated for the parking structure was done without
the Arts At City Center being taken into consideration. Mr. Hanson stated the numbers did not seem to add up as far as the demand for parking spaces from the public and the calculated
parking required for individual uses. Mr. Hanson asked who had done the parking calculation and if they had taken into account the hours of use. Mr. Pope responded the City’s Transportation
Study (done by Peccia and Associates) was the study used for the parking calculation and had nothing specific to do with the project as there was no requisite for the use of the parking
facility and each user would have to pay to park like everyone else. Mr. Hanson
stated that it would benefit the applicant to have a specialist in parking analysis review the proposed parking garage. Mr. Clotfelter responded the studies had already been done.
Mr. Hanson stated he supported the proposed parking garage and he was excited about deepening Main Street, but the pedestrian links would be very important and the bridge over Black
Avenue would create a tunnel that limited the number of people using the pedestrian links. Mr. Hanson stated the downtown was becoming more vibrant as the months progressed and future
development would cause a need for the whole block east of the proposed parking garage to be business space; there would be a need for more parking. He suggested the Performing Arts
Center could span the street on a pedestrian scale as opposed to a parking scale. Mr. Clotfelter responded there would be a security issue if a pedestrian bridge were placed on the
second floor.
Mr. Pope asked what Mr. Hanson’s concern was regarding the number of parking stalls. Mr. Hanson responded the parking commission’s number of 300 stalls was leaving out a formal study
done by parking professionals stating what percentage of stalls were used at any given time. Mr. Pope responded they had done a study to find the best location for a parking garage
and that location was on North Tracy Avenue. Mr. Hanson asked if the calculation for shared parking assumed some parking stalls were on-street. Mr. Pope responded that it did and
that he would be happy to show him the prescribed equation.
Chairperson Smith stated she shared Mr. Hanson’s concerns regarding the parking and the Master Plan caused the entire proposal to be at issue despite when each structure would be constructed.
She stated she was not comfortable reviewing a 400 stall parking garage with 300 stalls being used at the City’s discretion because it was possible that in a year and a half there would
need to be a 600 stall parking garage. She stated there was a lot of difference in the massing of 400 and 600 stall parking garages and she would like to see the proposal as a whole.
Mr. Clotfelter responded it was good input and could be done. Chairperson Smith asked what was the purpose of a plaza. Mr. Clotfleter responded that he was answering the public’s
desire for a plaza. Chairperson Smith stated this would be the first public plaza that she would not support because she would rather see the appropriate setbacks observed and a smaller
scaled structure. She stated she supported the ground level retail space and thought some of the trees could be saved. She stated she did not support the two block parking garage and
she would definitely like to review the proposed 600 stall parking garage. She asked if the applicant could pick up a few more spaces by using compact stalls. Mr. Prugh responded there
were compact stalls already calculated.
Mr. Hedglin stated he concurred with previous DRB comments regarding the linking of Main Street to Mendenhall Street and the challenge of fitting the retail function on the same block
as the parking garage. He stated he did not support the bridge over North Black Avenue and would rather see a taller structure than a sprawling one. He doubted the functionality of
the retail space with regard to deliveries and added that with Main Street retail on the street, the pedestrian pathways should remain at street level; the streets needed to be enlivened.
Mr. Thomas asked if a level of parking below grade would interfere with the proposed retail space. Mr. Prugh responded that it would not be underneath the retail space and would not
interfere with it. He explained where the structure would come up on the perimeter of the façade and that it would not cause the parking structure to be taller. Mr. Thomas stated he
concurred with Chairperson Smith’s comments.
Mr. Hanson asked if there would be architectural sketches done and brought back to the DRB for Master Plan review. Mr. Clotfelter responded the Master Plan did not require architectural
sketches as it was mainly for massing and positioning. Mr. Hanson suggested they be brought before the DRB anyway.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Stoneridge Square Concept PUD #Z-04264 (Morris)
Northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Oak Street
* A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a 171,246 square feet of commercial space consisting of two multi-tenant buildings and five individual
pad sites.
Lowell Springer and Don Cape, Jr. joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report noting possible tenants (Dairy Queen, Best Buy, I-Hop, Rib Crib, Linens &
Things, etc.). She stated Staff wanted to see an outdoor seating area resembling a plaza, a coordinating lighting fixture plan, coordinating developments within the site, and the utility
functions on the loading berths on the rear of the structures.
Mr. Springer stated the façade differences for structures on the site were designed in accordance with the different zoning districts surrounding the site. The applicant was trying
to make a transition in keeping with each neighboring zoning district from one end of the site to the other. He stated he had been able to modify the appearances of some of the proposed
structures to eliminate franchise design as much as possible. Planner Morris added that the proposed elevations were an improvement over the typical franchise design for I.H.O.P. Chairperson
Smith stated the same group did not get their way with franchise-style structures at Gallatin Center and the franchise-style would not be supported at this site. Mr. Cape stated they
notified the applicants regarding the franchise appearance of their structures not being supported in Bozeman, but the applicants had trademarks that they were not prepared to omit.
Chairperson Smith stated the franchise character of a structure left it labeled as a certain tenant even after a new tenant moved into the building. She stated the proposed trademark
elements made the project look like “anywhere USA” and she hated to see something so standard. She stated she strongly recommended a reduction in parking. She stated pad 5 (the bank)
should be moved to the corner to get the parking away from the front of the site and suggested rotating pads 3 and 4 so that the drive-thrus were relocated to the inside of the development
instead of facing the Entryway Corridors. She stated she saw a need for a landscaped barrier.
Mr. Springer stated there was 11% interior landscaped and pedestrian areas; more than required.
He stated the building was pulled forward so there was a minimum alley that allowed pedestrians to feel comfortable using that path. He stated the entrance from North19th Avenue lined
up so that the left-in and left-out access would work. He stated the character of each building corresponded to the character of the nearest related zoning district.
Mr. Hedglin stated he was concerned with the site plan itself and asked Planner Morris where the neighborhood commercial zoning was located. Mr. Springer responded that the building
sizes had been addressed in the PUD to allow 8,000 square foot footprints instead of 5,000 square feet. Mr. Hedglin indicated this plan provided two routes to Home Depot and he was
concerned that they would be used as short cuts. He suggested modifying the site design to prevent shortcuts and to provide screening for the larger buildings. He stated that with
a project of this scale, there
should be a larger greenway; possibly for use as a neighborhood center for community activities or pedestrian node. Mr. Springer responded outdoor seating areas could be done.
Mr. Hanson stated he concurred with all of Chairperson Smith’s comments and the material pallet should be somewhat uniform throughout the development. He stated the pedestrian space
in front of the building seemed constrained and suggested a plaza between Cost Plus and Best Buy. He suggested expanding the pathway corridor. He suggested the road in front of the
Rib Crib created a safety issue for pedestrians as it was narrow and there wasn’t room for a sidewalk. He stated he supported a reduction in parking.
Mr. Thomas suggested relocating Best Buy to the 18,000 square foot building and pad three could move to where Cost Plus was proposed so there would be more than adequate pedestrian connections.
Mr. Hedglin asked if an entry to the site could be provided from the existing pedestrian pathways. Mr. Springer responded that it would be a nice access from the parks to the shopping
once it was developed, but functionally pedestrians could not be brought in at the rear of the structures. Mr. Thomas asked if there could be an atrium connecting two of the structures.
Mr. Springer responded that he would rather have an outdoor, landscaped, pedestrian-friendly space that was not enclosed.
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 5:50 p.m.
________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board