Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-03 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Dawn Smith Dara MacDonald, Assistant Planner Joseph Thomas David Skelton, Senior Planner Bill Hanson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Carol Asleson Christopher Livingston Visitors Present Lowell Springer Jesse Sobrepena Don Cape, Jr. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2003 (Continued from 8/26/03.) Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of August 12, 2003. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2003 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of August 26, 2003. MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Old Chicago Center CUP/MaSP/COA #Z-03202 (MacDonald) 1945 Commerce Way * A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of one 11,212 sq. ft. retail building, one 11,934 sq. ft. retail building, and one 7,858 sq. ft. restaurant with related site improvements. Senior Planner David Skelton introduced Assistant Planner Dara MacDonald. Lowell Springer, Jesse Sobrepena, and Don Cape, Jr. joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Dara MacDonald presented the staff report, noting there were no deviations for the project, and the project required a Conditional Use Permit to serve alcohol in the restaurant. She noted there have been public comments received on the project. She stated Staff would like the DRB to consider the entryway corridor orientation of the front entrance to the building. She stated the site plan provided for adequate sidewalks within the proposal, but needed better overall pedestrian circulation. She stated Staff recommended concrete pavers, with one pedestrian walkway from the pathway along North 19th Avenue into the development. She pointed out the locations of the usable outdoor space on the site plan. She stated Staff reviewed the revised landscape plan and found it to be inadequate, then suggested additional vegetation and design improvements needed to meet the requirements. She added the applicant would need to submit a letter of approval from the Stoneridge Community Design Committee. She then reiterated the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Springer stated the applicant agreed with all Staff conditions. He stated the reason for the orientation of the entrance of the restaurant to North 19th Avenue was that it was a trademark of Old Chicago Restaurant. He stated people would have to walk a little farther than normal, with the exception of handicapped spaces. He added that the written comments from Mr. Saccoccia would be more pertinent in a residential area and not for this site in the entryway corridor. He stated that the written comment by Mr. Saccoccia, regarding building height and that there should be one less structure in the proposal, was not appropriate due to the proposed flat roofs, which shouldn’t obstruct the view of the mountains. He stated the applicant agreed with the pedestrian access comments made by Staff and the DRB and wanted to meet, or exceed, landscape requirements. Mr. Cape stated the orientation of the front entrance was appropriate due to the fact that it was not a commodity dining facility and was intended more as a communal dining experience with the entrance to the structure depicting a “common area” where groups of people would wait together. He stated that benches would be added at the front entrance. Mr. Hanson asked Mr. Springer to respond to Mr. Saccoccia’s comments. Mr. Springer responded the project had only an aesthetic impact on Mr. Saccoccia’s property and no effect on the view of the surrounding environment. He restated that Mr. Saccoccia’s comments were more suited to a residential location. Mr. Hanson asked if the mechanical equipment would be only 30 inches tall (i.e. the height of the parapet). Mr. Springer responded the smaller mechanical equipment in the proposal was, over all, easier to repair and maintain. He added that another option would be a lot of small inducers strategically located. Mr. Hanson stated many of the entryway corridor projects attempted to conceal the parking spaces and asked if the applicant had investigated any options with regard to screening or relocating the parking. Mr. Springer stated they had investigated other options, but the site itself and the proposed restaurant would benefit more from the proposed parking, which surrounds the structure. He added, the orientation of the building and the location of the parking was compensated for by the amount and location of the landscaping. Mr. Hanson asked if the shape of the structure could be reconfigured to accommodate relocating the front entrance for pedestrian circulation purposes. Mr. Springer stated the design of the structure was tried and true and they had not investigated other designs. Mr. Livingston asked if there was a particular reason for the signage on the east façade. Mr. Springer stated the sign would address a future street (Tschache Lane). Mr. Livingston asked if there was a loading dock depicted. Mr. Springer illustrated where it was located. Mr. Livingston asked if there was a purpose for the land between the structures. Mr. Springer stated possible use might be a food cart of some sort with soft landscaping and a seating area, and they were considering the possibility of entrances between the two buildings. Ms. Asleson asked if the proposal exceeded the parking requirements by roughly 10 spaces. Mr. Springer responded there were extra spaces with the possibility of removing them for site improvements. Ms. Asleson asked if the applicant had given any thought to covering the open area between the masses of the structures. Mr. Springer responded they were considering options that included covering the open area. Chairperson Smith asked how many parking stalls were required and if the 165 spaces included the disabled spaces. Chairperson Smith stated, if there were 165 spaces, the applicant would be required to apply for an excessive parking deviation. Chairperson Smith asked what the city stance on shared parking would be. Planner MacDonald responded that the hours of the establishments were in question with regard to shared parking. Chairperson Smith stated there was no paved pathway shown along North 19th Avenue and asked how a pedestrian would get from the parking areas to the restaurant. Mr. Springer responded the path would go straight to the front entrance. Chairperson Smith asked if there was a large enough turning radius for delivery trucks. Mr. Springer responded the turning radius width was in keeping with the code requirements. Chairperson Smith asked how people would get from Bridger Peaks Town Center into the proposed development. Mr. Springer responded there would be a shared access in the future. Mr. Livingston stated the Design Objectives Plan stipulates the rear elevation of a building should not be presented to the front elevation of an adjoining property owner. Mr. Springer responded the view was, indeed, of the back of the building, but was horizontally broken up by an abundance of landscaping. Mr. Howe asked what happened to the stipulation that a façade of 100 or more feet had to have visual relief. Mr. Hanson responded Stoneridge PUD Guidelines would address the issue. Mr. Hanson stated he was struggling with certain elements in the proposal that seemed “negative and unresolved”. He agreed with Staff that the orientation of the entrance could be better situated, as could the location of the structures, and there was a substantial amount of negative space, with no detailing and nothing to break up the facades. He added that the sides of the structure were not considerate of the neighbors due to the negative space facing them. He stated the secondary entrances of the neighbors should be considered and noted the landscaping did not meet requirements. He stated he had an issue with the parking facing North 19th Avenue and the storm water detention ponds were not depicted. Mr. Springer responded there was a master drainage plan in place in the area and the applicant had depicted all the features of the drainage plan that were possible. Mr. Hanson stated there was a conflict between what was depicted on the site plan and what would need to happen to get the water off of the site. He added he felt the site offered more than this proposal depicted. Mr. Livingston stated the proposal was a typical pad site layout and added he could see the difficulty with the orientation of the buildings. He stated he was concerned with the open area between the structures, the lack of emergency egress, and the dumpster/loading dock area separated a portion of the parking lot and left a void where no one would have a reason to go. He added he thought it was great space for service entrances but little else. Mr. Howe stated he supported all DRB comments previously made. Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with all DRB comments. She stated that, traveling south on North 19th Avenue, the first entrance would be completely obstructed by trees. She added that in fifteen years the view of the Bridger Mountains would be obstructed by tall growth trees. She added the façade could be broken with the use of planters and the area between the structures could be used as open space if the ends remained open and some sort of canopy was installed. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with all DRB comments and added that, with the exception of this proposal, all the buildings in the Stoneridge PUD had a relationship with the PUD and to each other. She stated the parking against North 19th Avenue was not proposed in other areas and she would like to see other parking options explored (i.e. shared parking, screening). She stated that vehicles in certain parking stalls would be backing into oncoming traffic and seemed like a bad idea. She stated she would like to see more local influence in the restaurant building as it was not a franchised structure. Mr. Springer responded to, and addressed the comments made by the DRB. He stated he would prefer to bring the proposal back to the DRB with changes regarding the parking, landscaping, and drainage on the site as opposed to leaving the DRB with a negative recommendation. He asked if the proposal could be seen by the DRB again in two weeks. The DRB gave him permission to resubmit the site plan for review by the DRB. The DRB made suggestions pertaining to the orientation and location of the structures. Ms Asleson asked why there was not a sign on the south façade. Mr. Springer stated projects had to be frugal with signage due to Municipal Code requirements. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to continue the proposal for two weeks, per the applicant’s suggestion. ITEM 4. 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 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. _____________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board