Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE The meeting was called to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. He proposed that typically new members sit on the board for two meetings prior to participating in the discussion and vote. He proposed that since Mr. Howe has served before, he be allowed to vote on items on this agenda. Mr. Hanson moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that Mr. Howe be allowed to participate in today’s and the next meeting’s actions. The motion carried unanimously. Members Present Staff Present Henry Sorenson Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner Bill Hanson Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dawn Smith Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Carol Asleson Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Ken Wahunkoff Jamie Lenon Becki Klempel Dan Strinden Denise Lauerman Craig Slocum Kraig Erickson Tim Smith Lowell Springer ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 25, JULY 9 AND 23, 2002 Chairperson Henry Sorenson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of June 25. Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve all the minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Frazier/Terrace Building Final Site Plan – (Caroline) Between East Main Street and Babcock Street on South Church Avenue * Final Review of plans for a three (3)-story structure, consisting of 23 ground-level parking spaces with six (6) tthree-bedroom condominium units above. The proposal has been approved by City Commission. However, a condition requires DRB’s approval on the elevations of the Final Site Plan. Jamie Lenon joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the Staff Memo. Mr. Lenon noted the owner had originally intended to put in a surface parking lot, however, since then, he has determined the parking requirements can be met with covered parking on the first floor of the structure. Mr. Hanson asked if the sloped roofs are metal. Mr. Lenon noted they are metal and are located over the stairway accesses, and will provide a safe gutter downspout system. Ms. Smith asked if the traffic flow through the parking garage would be one-way. She also asked if the occupants could get from the parking lot to their units from inside the structure. Mr. Lenon noted traffic flow would be two-way and the occupants would have access internally to the upper units from the parking structure. Mr. Howe and the Chairperson had no comments. Mr. Hanson commended the applicant on the project. Ms. Smith commended the use of simulated doorways onto the sidewalk for added detailing. Chairperson Sorenson noted the structure would be a great addition to the downtown area. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the Frasier Terrace Building FSP. The motion carried unanimously. B. High Gate House MaSP/COA #Z-02157 (Caroline) 2219 West Oak Street * A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an 89-unit retirement complex facility and related site improvements. Lowell Springer, Dan Strinden of Buron architects, and Ken Wahunkoff of Highgate House joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the Staff Report. She noted the differences in the two submitted site plans were that the access is the same on the east, right-in/right-out, and the other access is in alignment with Woodland Drive to the south. She reviewed items identified by Staff for DRB considerations. Mr. Springer, architect for applicant, explained the changes in the site plan to accommodate the spacing of accesses with the status change of Oak Street from a collector to an arterial. He explained the quality of life expected in the proposed community. He noted the location is near wetlands and Rose Park. Ms. Smith asked for the sq. ft. of the footprint of the structures and a comparison of this structure with others in Stoneridge. Mr. Strinden noted it is 41,000 sq. ft. Mr. Springer gave a comparison. Ms. Smith asked if the continuous roadway looping through the subject property is necessary. Mr. Springer noted it is required by emergency services. Mr. Howe had no questions. Mr. Hanson asked if the parking area beside the kitchen allows for any delivery trucks to have access, and how usable the ten parking spots are if blocked by delivery vehicles. He noted the entryway to the east into the cottage area doesn’t have sidewalk access. He noted there is a lack of outdoor seating space within the development. Mr. Springer noted there is a very short time for outdoor exercise in this climate. He stated the clients will most likely walk briskly around the development. Mr. Strinden noted the cottage unit is for Alzheimer’s patients who are generally not allowed outside without accompaniment. He noted the east side parking lot (10 spaces) is mostly for kitchen employees. Mr. Strinden described the well-developed courtyard area in similar facilities between the two long wings, and the uses within the wings and other areas of the building. Chairperson Sorenson asked how the applicant feels about the proposed conditions. Mr. Springer noted the conditions are acceptable and will improve the project. Mr. Strinden stated he doesn’t favor the addition of more “busy” roof forms. He concurred with placing shed roofs over the doorways. Chairperson Sorenson asked how they felt about the continuation of the brickwork/wainscoting up the façade at the entrances. Mr. Springer concurred with emphasizing the verticals, however, he stated he doesn’t want to over do the treatment. He noted he would be willing to work with staff to create more vertical relief, but he noted he doesn’t want to just add materials. Chairperson Sorenson asked for the materials and color palate. Mr. Springer noted, due to the scale and surrounding environment, it should be done with earth tones. Mr. Hanson asked for clarification of pedestrian flow within the structure from the main entrance reception area to the Alzheimer’s unit. Mr. Springer indicated the pathway on the site plan. Chairperson Sorenson asked if this application is a preliminary site plan and what the Board is to approve. Planner Caroline noted, generally, the Board recommends conditional approval or denial of a project. She noted the next step following approval is for a final site plan to be prepared with a narrative, which explains how each of the conditions have been met. Staff usually reviews the final site plan for conformance; however, once in a while the DRB requests that the final site plan be returned to them for approval. Ms. Smith commented that there appears to be an excessive amount of asphalt on-site within the roadway area. Mr. Strinden noted the fire department requires access to all sides of the building. Mr. Howe noted that emergency vehicles travel on asphalt walkways as well as streets. Ms. Smith noted she agrees with previous comments that the east and west elevations need relief, if not wainscoting, then a brick window garden, or evergreen trees. She concurred with Mr. Hanson’s comment about the addition of a sidewalk or walkway along the street around the back of the structure and the outdoor amenities in the large courtyard. She asked that the FSP come back before the DRB for approval. Mr. Howe commented that he concurred with Planner Caroline and Ms. Smith. He noted the Board and planners have to be careful in telling the architect and developer what the building should look like. He noted that detention ponds tend to be attractive nuisances; therefore, he’d like to see them as diminished as possible. Mr. Hanson commented that his intent has been to get a project approved. However, he continued, on this site, the project is so non-defined, that he can’t in good conscience send the project forward. He stated it needs developed spaces, a streetscape. He concurred with staff’s comments. He noted the mechanical equipment is required to be screened. Mr. Strinden noted there is one chiller for the structure, which would be screened. Mr. Hanson stated he wasn’t comfortable with the project as it was presented. He stated it needs to define itself with the adjoining lots. He noted the parking for the kitchen conflicts with the delivery truck entrance. Chairperson Sorenson noted staff presented many useful comments. He stated the applicant’s submittal should show the value and color of materials. He noted there is a scaling issue with the entrance and exit of the structure. He suggested the roof features over the entryways be substantial not just shed roofs. He noted he doesn’t mind the long plane of the roofline. He asked for a clearer sense of horizontal and vertical elements. He noted there are no indications of sidewalks indicating what happens when one exits a doorway. He asked that the pond look like a pond and be landscaped thusly. He asked that the reception area have a clearly defined pathway to the cottage units. He stated the basic exterior character of the building is fine. He stated he would like to see the project come back again, including the features within the courtyard. Mr. Springer noted he mostly agrees with the comments; however, he needs to check with his clients. Discussion followed on bringing the project back another time. The applicant and architect concurred. Planner Caroline noted there is one more opportunity to review the project on August 27th and maintain the City Commission schedule. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to continue the project until August 27th. The motion carried unanimously. C. Advanced Performance Bldg MaSP #Z-02155 (Morris) 1532 Ellis Street * A Major Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a 17,143 sq. ft. two story medical office building & related site improvements. Bayliss Ward and Becki Klempel joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the staff report. He noted condition #1 pertains to the windows on the second floor. Mr. Ward presented the project, noting each building has two entrances on each level. He noted on the north side would have three tenants on the first floor, and on the south side will be the Advance Performance Rehabilitation Center. He noted the building interior would not be static. He stated they plan to emphasize the entrances on the north elevation, and add metal shed roofs over the entrances. Mr. Hanson clarified that the discussion pertains only to Lot 2, not the whole site. He asked for the location of the mechanical equipment. Mr. Ward indicated the location on the site plan and explained the roof forms, which are planned to screen the mechanical equipment. Mr. Hanson noted he liked the building, the use of forms, and the siding. He stated he supported the proposal. Mr. Howe concurred with the Board that the building is handsome. He asked why condition #1 was imposed. Planner Skelton noted staff had recommended it to emphasize the windows on the second floor. Mr. Howe stated all windows should be emphasized. Mr. Ward noted they are using dark bronze trim to contrast with the EFIS. He stated that would provide relief. Mr. Howe asked why window casings weren’t included around the windows. Mr. Ward noted stucco-building windows usually don’t have casings around them. Ms. Smith noted the building’s appearance would be adequate with out the sills. Chairperson Sorenson asked for the color palette. Mr. Ward noted they are looking at different samples. He noted they plan to bring the corrugated roofing inside the building to use as protection on the walls from beds, equipment, etc. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of application #Z-02155 with staff conditions with the following deletion and one additional condition – delete condition #1 and add condition #3 to include standard mechanical screening wording. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW Albertson’s Expansion Informal #I-02026 (Skelton) 200 South 23rd Avenue * An Informal Application for advice and comment on a 12, 000+ sq. ft. expansion into the existing Sears Retail Store. Craig Slocum, Kraig Erickson, and Denise Lauerman joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the staff memo. He clarified that Osco Drug is not moving into the building however the pharmacy will be Osco. He noted staff was concerned about existing rooftop mechanical equipment screening or lack thereof. Mr. Slocum clarified the location of the entries and the definition of those entries. He discussed the proposed materials, noting they have tried to reuse the structure with the addition of architectural elements. He stated they plan to breakup the long horizontal mass with different elements. Chairperson Sorenson asked if the leased space indicated on the site plan is the location of the bakery. Mr. Slocum concurred. Chairperson Sorenson asked if they have looked at the Bridger Peaks development as it was a good example of parking lot development. He noted the Board would like to encourage a true green area that leads to the front of the building with a collecting area in front of the building. He noted the fenestration and detailing on the Albertsons’ store in Belgrade is better than what is proposed with this application. Ms. Smith stated that being an anchor store in the shopping center, their facade should be emphasized. Mr. Hanson asked for staff’s position on the parking lot, which appears to be inadequate. Planner Skelton noted the space marked in red was to indicate the parking area to be improved with the current proposal. He discussed the location of parking stalls in relation to other businesses in the shopping center. Mr. Hanson commented he has noticed an increase in pedestrian traffic between stores at Bridger Peaks, whereas, at University Square, people drive from Albertsons to Staples. He noted the sunny, west side of the Albertsons is a pleasant area, which should be developed as an asset. Chairperson Sorenson noted a master plan for the site would include pedestrian amenities in combination with each business, to be done as each updates its look. He noted there should be dialogue between the restaurant, brokerage, and Albertsons. He encouraged the applicant to push the aesthetics beyond the building. He stated the addition of the awnings over the windows near the existing checkout was a good idea. He suggested the addition of clerestory windows over the produce section. He suggested a re-consideration of the roof forms at each end of the structure. Mr. Hanson noted the front façade doesn’t tie together. He suggested running a continuation of the materials across the whole structure, breaking up the length with awnings and pillars. Chairperson Sorenson noted gabled roof forms are not required by the City or DRB. He noted the Board wants to see good design. He stated pedestrian and vehicular traffic should be addressed. Ms. Smith commented that the north section showing the Osco sign was confusing. She wasn’t sure where the entrance was located. She suggested that Planner Skelton stipulate the most the City can get in onsite improvements. Planner Skelton noted he would like to see the social area in front of the store enhanced. The Chair commented on the pedestrian walkway in front of the store, and noted there should be pedestrian access from South 23rd Avenue to the store. Ms. Smith asked how much they expect their patronage to expand. Mr. Erickson noted Mr. Slocum and Ms. Lauerman are only representing Albertson’s, and don’t have those figures. Ms. Smith noted the parking lot is currently unsafe. She noted there are no raised medians to direct traffic and vehicles go every-which-way. She stated she considers it too high a risk to shop there. She suggested including defined vehicular lanes, pedestrian ways, and cart corrals. She encouraged them to bring the signage into compliance with the entryway guidelines. Chairperson Sorenson noted there is tremendous potential for this shopping center as Bozeman continues to grow. He noted the Board’s goal is to beautify Bozeman within the parameters set by the Zone Code. Mr.Erickson noted his company has owned the property for about two years and they intend to improve the site and are willing to help the tenant as much as possible. He stated they are not able to do a complete remodel of the structures. Chairperson Sorenson suggested the owners’ representatives develop a master plan for the development of the site. He stated the Board would be interested in the whole plan. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. __________________________________ Henry Sorenson, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board