HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-03 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2003
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:39 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Joseph Thomas David Skelton, Senior Planner
Christopher Livingston Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Randy Carpenter James Goehrung, Superintendent of Facilities
Bill Hanson
Mel Howe
Visitors Present
Greg Vail
J.B. Bancroft
Alice Meister
Scott Carpenter
Dick Clotfelter
Bruce Davidson
Randy Twist
James Nickelson
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2003 (Continued from 10/28/03)
Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of October 14, 2003.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2003
Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of October 28, 2003.
MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Bozeman Public Library MaSP/COA #Z-03256 (Morris)
626 East Main Street
* A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 53,522+ square foot two-story library building and related site improvements.
Scott Carpenter, Alice Meister, J.B. Bancroft, and Mark Hedley joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report, noting since the property lies in two zoning
designations, Staff is required to use the more restrictive zoning for development purposes.
Randy Carpenter asked Planner Morris to address landscaping concerns. Planner Morris responded there were fewer points than required by the code. Mr. Hedley added the project would
gain 15 points with the addition of a certain area of landscaping. Randy Carpenter asked if native grasses were proposed. Planner Morris responded native grasses were included.
Mr. Hanson asked how the parking calculation was done. Planner Morris responded it was considered a joint parking lot with a shared access. Mr. Hanson asked for a tabulation of landscape
points. Planner Morris responded no tabulation was provided in the packet materials. Mr. Hanson asked if deviations were requested for the height of the proposed roof. Planner Morris
responded Municipal Code allows exemptions for governmental entities.
Mr. Livingston asked why the minutes of the first DRB meeting were not included in the packets. Planner Morris responded she was not aware another Informal review before the DRB had
been held regarding the proposed library structure itself.
Chairperson Smith asked if the Main Street access would be restricted. Mr. Goehrung responded it would be a restricted access (right in & right out). Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Hanson
to reiterate his comments from the Informal Review regarding the location of the handicapped spaces. The applicants responded that the handicapped spaces had been relocated.
Randy Carpenter and Chairperson Smith asked for clarification regarding the exact location of the sign.
Mr. Hedley stated the model was virtually the same as the site plan submittal. He added that the applicant had made cost cutting modifications only. He stated the exterior was the
same aside from the location of the handicapped spaces, modifications at the rear drive of the site to meet fire service requirements, and the book drop had been integrated into the
traffic circle. Mr. Hedley presented the proposed external materials, which would be very similar to those on the Dunbar Building, and brought forth examples. He added that half of
the glazing would be clear, double-paned glass and the other half would be 20% translucent glass. He noted the picture depicted a color that was brighter red than the true color of
the brick. Mr. Hedley stated the banners on the structure would have to be addressed. He noted the applicant had received
$300,000 for energy conservation systems and that no artificial lighting would be used. Mr. Hedley stated there would be a ground water cooling system with two small fans, restroom
exhaust fans, that would be screened, rooftop mounted equipment.
In response to Mr. Hanson’s question about a metal roof, Mr. Hedley responded the roof would be a natural galvolin color metal. Mr. Hanson stated he did not see a great deal of elaboration
on the plaza at the site. Mr. Hedley responded that the CTEP funding was based on meeting certain criteria that had not yet been met. Mr. Hanson stated he was disappointed not to see
anything specific planned for the plaza. Mr. Hedley responded the plaza would be a separate project once the CTEP funding was released. Mr. Goehrung added that part of the money was
for the continuation of the Galligator Trail, which would be for a paved trail rather than gravel, and they wanted to keep the trail project separated from the plaza and the landscaping.
Mr. Hanson stated the plaza was a critical part of the design of the site. He added the color of the brick was “federal looking” and there had been adverse reactions to that color.
Mr. Hanson asked whether the building should stand apart or blend in, and suggested that it stand apart.
Mr. Livingston asked to have the whole concept of the proposed plaza explained to him as he had not been present at previous meetings. Mr. Hedley responded the plaza had been proposed
as being set back some distance from Main Street to quell the noise from the street. He added the plaza could be used year round, i.e. an ice skating rink during winter months. He
stated the trail system through the plaza would eventually become the main entrance to Lindley Park. Mr. Livingston asked if icing would become a problem with the plaza on the north
side of the structure. Mr. Hedley stated they had foreseen no difficulties due to the sunlight. Mr. Livingston asked how many months of the year ice skating rinks were used. Mr. Goehrung
responded they are in use from Christmas until the first week in March. Mr. Livingston asked for other examples of a plaza fronting Main Street. Mr. Howe responded that the County
Courthouse had a plaza fronting on Main Street. Mr. Livingston asked why the applicant had lettered “Bozeman” the way they had (the “m” being capitalized). Mr. Hedley responded the
applicant needed the lettering to be playful as children were the primary patrons of the library.
Chairperson Smith asked if there was room for future expansion. Mr. Hedley responded there could be expansion on the south side, but they could not expand into the floodplain. Chairperson
Smith asked if the plaza would be a true public gathering space that required a permit for use. Mr. Goehrung stated he would require assembly permits for plaza usage.
Chairperson Smith asked if the public liked the overall design of the project. Mr. Hedley responded the public strongly supported the design.
Mr. Hanson stated, overall, he applauded the design of the building with the plaza being a positive aspect of the site design. He stated he was disappointed with the landscaping and
plaza plans being so preliminary. He added he thought the plaza could be the entry to Sweet Pea Festival with a connection to Lindley Park, which would be capable of moving one thousand
people. He stated a strength of the proposal was the plaza as the connection to the park. Mr. Hanson suggested a grand entrance to the park and added the landscaping would need to
be creatively done. Mr. Hedley stated a suggestion had been made to develop a parking lot type
design to look like a street (Wilson Street - trees lining the edges). Mr. Hanson suggested there could be seating areas branching off the trail adjacent to the park, without causing
a security risk that would surely come about if all the entrances to the structure were publicly used. Mr. Hanson stated he thought the brick color should be a dark colored material
and should not blend in with anything else on Main Street. He stated, overall, it would be a positive addition to the community, but the plaza needed to be developed and the landscaping
seemed weak.
Mr. Livingston stated he thought the design was beautiful and the materials worked well. He stated his reaction to the plaza was that he did not understand the concept of how the plaza
would be used. He stated the plaza was not developed to a point that people could see the end result and that if the street was noisy, it would be noisy in the plaza. He suggested
the noise be softened with the architecture rather than a plaza. He added he thought the Dunbar Building and other structures have a frontage on Main Street which extends Main Street
to the east. Mr. Livingston stated he saw less opportunity for public gathering due to the noisy conditions. He added he did not think the lettering for “Bozeman” was correct (that
it was spelled incorrectly with capitals placed in the wrong spots). He stated the City has a responsibility to use city land to its best advantage by moving the structure forward and
placing affordable housing, offices, a plaza, etc. at the southern end of the site.
Mr. Thomas stated he concurred with Mr. Hanson that the color could be altered to present a look of playfulness as opposed to using the lettering of the sign to that end.
Mr. Carpenter stated he liked the building. He stated he was disappointed nothing had been done with new storm water treatments as it would be an opportunity for an educational function.
He stated the development of a grand formal entrance to Lindley Park would only be necessary for five days of the year and not a priority.
Mr. Howe stated he agreed with a “Main Street brick color” for the structure. He stated he liked the plaza where it was proposed. He stated he thought there should be a lot of trees
and the idea of a connection to the park was necessary to allow pedestrian traffic flow. He stated, over all, it was well designed.
Chairperson Smith stated she expected the library structure would have a more historical design. She stated she was beginning to embrace the proposed building. She stated she would
like to see more historical elements incorporated into the design of the building (i.e. doing some historical feature in the plaza) and asked if the DRB could review the site plan once
the CTEP funds had been released. Planner Morris responded that a condition could be placed that the plaza plan is to be reviewed by the DRB as a separate project at a later date.
Chairperson Smith stated the trees at the rear of the site being counted as landscaping was an easy way out as there would be very little public use at that location and suggested more
landscaping amongst the pedestrian areas. Chairperson Smith asked that including train tracks in the plaza be a suggestion for further thought.
MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Bozeman Public Library MaSP/COA #Z-03256 with Staff
conclusions and with the addition of five conditions #1 the formal plaza/trail plan be resubmitted to DRB for review, #2 exterior lighting for the site be resubmitted for DRB review,
#3 the exterior brick be a darker color to contrast from surrounding development, #4 seating areas be arranged in conjunction with the trail system on the east side, and #5 that EPA
319 funding be investigated for storm water retention/detention.
The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Livingston being in opposition.
B. LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals Building MaSP #Z-03262 (Morris)
1040 Research Drive
* A Major Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a two-story, 25,000+ square foot professional building with office, laboratory, and additional tenant space with related
site improvements.
James Nickelson and Bruce Davidson joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report, noting Staff determined the landscape plan should match the site plan with
regard to landscaping and the location of bike racks, etc. She added there should be more landscaping.
Mr. Davidson stated they were having difficulty meeting the landscaping requirements. He stated a fountain was proposed and the landscaping requirements would be met. He added the
original proposal and the expansion proposed the arrangement of five air intake handlers that would be screened with perforated metal paneling. He stated there would be five separate
fume hoods with exhaust hats that would propel any chemicals high into the air.
Mr. Livingston asked if there were other package units on the roof. Mr. Davidson responded there would only be five zones of mechanical equipment until the expansion, which would only
add one more zone of mechanical equipment.
Mr. Hanson asked if there were independent air handling units on the roof. Mr. Davidson responded there were, but other equipment was used to vary the pressure in each room.
Mr. Howe asked why people do not plant trees to naturally cool their buildings in summer and let radiant heat warm them in the winter after the leaves fall. Mr. Nickelson stated water
and sewer easements prevented the planting of trees in many locations.
In response to Mr. Carpenter’s question about Bluegrass Boulevard, Chairperson Smith responded it would be the type of grass used in the boulevard.
Chairperson Smith asked if the public came into the building or if it was mainly employees. Mr. Davidson responded that a few salesmen came into the building, but the lobby was not
created to accommodate very many people.
Mr. Livingston stated he thought the design of the structure was commendable and he liked its
expression.
Mr. Hanson stated he thought the project was positive, overall. He agreed with Staff conditions and stated his only problem was the location of the trash enclosure. Mr. Davidson asked
for suggestions as to where to place the enclosure but few were forthcoming due to the layout of the site. Mr. Nickelson asked if the DRB would be amenable to having the trash enclosures
in the setbacks. Planner Morris responded the rear setback could be used for that purpose, but only under certain circumstances.
Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to see a landscape plan that went further than just saying “native grass”.
Chairperson Smith stated she supported Staff conditions. She stated foot traffic to the front walk was not that easy, but acceptable as the site had very little pedestrian traffic.
MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals Building MaSP #Z-03262 with Staff conditions.
The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW
A. Gallatin Center Lot 12 Informal # I-03041 (Skelton)
NE of the intersection of Max Avenue and Cattail Street
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on 111,675 square feet of retail commercial development and related site improvements on Lot 12 of Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D.
Phase IV.
Randy Twist, Chris Budeski, and Jeff Goode joined the DRB. Assistant Planner MacDonald presented the Staff Report on behalf of Senior Planner David Skelton, noting the proposal contained
identical fenestration treatments, borders, and offsets compared to the existing buildings. She noted Staff recommended varying the patterns of the synthetic surfaces.
Mr. Goode stated he would like feedback on the sidewalk treatments and the front elevation. He stated he felt the materials were being repeated too often and variety would be more welcome.
He added he liked the variety of surfaces on Bob Ward’s and Target. He stated he approached the redesign by keeping the pallet materials the same and created entrances with more variety.
He stated each store had its own storefront prototype. He presented examples from a few of the stores who might be occupying spaces in the proposed structure. He added there would
be articulation between buildings using offsets.
Mr. Twist stated with a project of this size, and various tenants, the applicant was not certain which tenants would be occupying the structure at the completion of its development.
Mr. Goode stated he had used red, interval color concrete in earlier stages of development and the applicant would like to stay with that method. He stated there was a combination of
pedestrian-high, light poles, shade trees, bike racks, etc. He added he was in the process of
working with each of the tenants on individual features having to do with their stores.
Mr. Howe stated he appreciated the efforts to give the long buildings on the site the appearance of separation. He stated he knew why the applicant wanted to use the same color for
the whole project, but he suggested color changes would be more interesting.
Mr. Carpenter agreed that color variations and the reduction of trademark facades would be more acceptable.
Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with previous DRB comments and the color band should also be varied all the way along the structure. She suggested developing shared parking agreements
with the surrounding developments, thereby, removing some parking, and adding two secondary pedestrian walkways.
Mr. Thomas stated he concurred with all previous DRB comments.
Mr. Livingston stated the façade was 1700 feet long, bleak, and suggested the applicant plant as much landscaping as possible to help break up the façade. He suggested positioning accommodating
and attractive seating areas for the public. Mr. Budeski interjected there were not only horizontal breaks, but vertical breaks as well.
Mr. Hanson stated he was intrigued when he saw a pathway, but then realized it was blocked by benches. He stated the parking had exceeded the amount required by the code and could easily
be reduced. Mr. Twist responded that retailers always wanted a lot of parking, and there was a contractual agreement with the tenants to provide a certain amount of parking.
Mr. Carpenter asked what Chairperson Smith had seen as far as establishments “maxing out” on parking. She stated she had not observed that closely enough to comment with accuracy.
Mr. Livingston asked if the magic number of parking was based on the busiest shopping day of the year. Mr. Twist stated no one ever wanted to lose a customer because of a lack of parking
spaces.
ITEM 6. 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 7. DISCUSSION ITEM
December 23, 2003 meeting??
It was determined there would be no meeting held on December 23, 2003.
ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
_____________________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board