HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-10 Design Review Board Minutes
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:37 p.m. in
the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street,
Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston David Skelton, Senior Planner
Bill Rea Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Mark Hufstetler
Elissa Zavora
Visitors Present
Russell Davis
Eugene Graf
Mike Delaney
Andrew Maltzen
Randy Twist
Tony Renslow
Chris Budeski
Jeff Good
Gene Graf
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 2010 (Continued from 4/28/10.)
Chairperson Livingston stated on page 7 in the first paragraph the language “why the depth
varied from a maximum of 40 feet” should be stricken and the language “if a structure with a
depth of 15 to 40 feet would be rentable” be inserted.
MOTION:
Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of April 14, 2010
The motion carried 5-0.
as amended.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2010
MOTION:
Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to approve the minutes of
The motion carried 5-0.
April 28, 2010 as presented.
ITEM 4. INFORMAL REIVEW
1. Spring Creek Village Resort INFORMAL #I-10009
(Krueger)
Northeast of the intersection of Resort Drive and Huffine Lane
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the development of
~32 acres in three phases as a Planned Unit Development to provide for
1
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
mixed use construction in conformance with the Urban Mixed Use (UMU)
District.
Michael Delaney and Tony Renslow joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger
presented the Staff Memo and thanked the applicant for the Informal submittal to allow time to
work through issues before getting too far into the process. He noted the location of the proposal
and added it was, in essence, the first Urban Mixed Use zoning designation in the City. He
stated with the designation came extensive design guidelines in the underlying zoning
designations. He stated within the design guidelines there were requirements for building height,
site layout, and minimum setbacks and added the Design Objectives for Entryway Corridor
requirements would also be applicable to the property. He stated he had included comments
from the DRC and noted his memo was focused on the Design Objectives Plan and the
requirements that were part of the design guidelines document. He stated Staff had not reviewed
a layout of lots, a phasing plan, or clarification/differentiation for streets and drive aisles. He
stated the narrative discussed private streets, but the standards in the UDO would still have to be
met. He stated the proposal was for a PUD and relaxations may be requested; he noted there
were a potential of relaxations that would be required if the applicant wanted to proceed with the
proposal as submitted. He stated he would focus on the Design Objectives Plan and potential
issues in conflict with the document.
Planner Krueger stated many of the issues had been discussed with regard to the proposed
Safeway site. He stated in some cases it was clear there would be restaurant and lodging uses
tied together, but many of the uses were undetermined. He stated there was a natural feature on
site (a ditch) and better highlighting of that area could be achieved. He stated it was difficult to
tell where the primary building entrances would be located and noted Staff recommended
focusing design energy on the front and rear proposed for each structure. He stated there were
significant pedestrian connections and Staff would be looking for some further clarification on
how bicycles would move through the site as well as the drive aisles and how they would
function. He stated typically buildings would be located on the corners as anchors to the site and
that configuration had not been proposed; he added pedestrian entrances were usually provided
from the street. He stated buildings located on the setback line had not been proposed as
recommended by both the zoning designation and Design Objectives Plan. He stated no
information had been provided regarding the unified character of the development of the site;
though some hint had been provided street tree layouts and unified landscaping around the
perimeter.
Planner Krueger stated he had echoed himself regarding integrating storm water facilities in the
plan as amenities. He noted a plaza space had been proposed for the interior of the site and
pedestrian connections had been included; he noted there were no outdoor spaces other than the
plaza and wider sidewalks. He noted many sites in the Entryway Corridor had more clustered
arrangements of structures and plaza areas. He noted the proposal was more typical of the
configuration of a light industrial development and suggested there may be ways to cluster those
buildings more and provide more main pedestrian paths and amenities. He stated he thought
there would be strong primary entrances to the site though they could be highlighted more with
landscaping. He stated the presence of large parking lots along Huffine Lane were discouraged
and encouraged to be more interior to the site. He stated the way the residential component tied
into the site did not seem fully integrated and could be integrated through more direct avenues.
2
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
He stated the perimeter of the site would need more clarification with regard to the requirements
of the Design Objectives Plan.
Mr. Delaney stated he had spent about five years with a gentleman named Dan Burden as their
consultant to establish what made a place “walkable”; he added it was reliant on the individual
person. He stated the whole focus had been to make a wonderful multi-view experience. He
stated if the Design Objectives were followed to a “T” without any changes there would be a
donut with a hole of parking in the center. He stated they had attempted to make a real
thoroughfare to provide ease and comfort for pedestrians. He stated the heart of the development
was the proposed multi-use square (plaza) area; ice skating in winter outdoor movies/concerts in
summer, and other events. He stated it would be the nuclei of a place that people could identify
with and would enhance the west end of town. He stated another interesting fact, according to
Dan Burden, was that the gross sales would be affected by local people but would only be 15%
of those sales; the other 85% of gross sales would come from people driving by. He stated the
activity quotient was modulated in a way by the vast majority of people coming to the site in a
car; the whole design was to provide safety, but would be a couple feet higher than where the
cars would be parked.
Mr. Delaney stated many different types of designs had been put forward and he only wanted the
features that have succeeded and are still working; they wanted to copy what has been proven to
work. He stated the site would be begun at one end and developed one block at a time. He
stated the difference would be that each block developed would be like that of downtown
Bozeman; 75 foot deep blocks. He stated each one of the lots could be sold to the user as
opposed to renting or leasing a space; the zoning designation would allow residential uses on the
upper floors with retail uses on the main levels. He stated every single building would be truly
unique with separate ownership; the project would be completed slowly and well with the final
block being completed as the plaza/square area. He stated all the components put together would
make a little village and serve the surrounding community of roughly 3,000 people. He stated
what would be built after the lots sold would be the streetscape and would be carefully
orchestrated; boulevards, lighting, bicycle parking, etc. He stated all the issues that had been
suggested would be addressed in great detail in the final application. He stated a comparatively
small parking lot had been proposed along Huffine Lane which was the difference between this
proposal and many of the existing developments. He stated all buildings were designed to
provide access from both the front and the rear of the structures and could be accessed by the
proposed alleys; the structures had been designed to have three sides of glass with skylights and
provide a lot of lighting. He stated he would investigate having some intimate plazas along the
perimeter of the site, but his intention was to force people to the interior of the site; he added the
parking lots would not be used 80% of the time as most people would park along the main
thoroughfare. He stated a bus system (possibly an internal trolley system) would be included for
busier times of year. He stated the ditch would be made to look like a creek and an eight hole,
golf putting course and driving range would also be included.
Mr. Delaney stated the corners and anchors would be addressed, but suggested Mr. Burden had
suggested no corners on Huffine Lane and the restaurant/bars would be located on the main
thoroughfare. He stated always putting the pedestrian first was the most important ingredient for
the site; the idea being based on true facts and other designs that work.
3
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
Ms. Zavora asked if the ten foot wide walkways between the buildings would get light with the
two and three story buildings proposed so close together; she was concerned with how much
light would get in. Mr. Delaney responded there would be light in those locations. Ms. Zavora
asked how many years until build out would occur and the plaza would be completed. Mr.
Delaney responded he thought it would have been completed already if they had begun five
years ago, but with the state of the economy there were currently enough tenants interested to
develop a whole block assuming the market stayed constant and remained cautious. Ms. Zavora
asked for clarification of a block and how many would be included. Mr. Delaney directed Ms.
Zavora to renderings of each block (the first containing the bank) and indicated the block
delineations. Mr. Renslow added there were a lot of investment properties on the market, but
there were few investment buyers; there were few who could actually purchase a commercial lot
and it was one of the reasons the proposal was so strong on the aspects of commercial
development. Mr. Delaney added that dispensation was received from the City regarding the
parking at the Aleworks as no one thought the place would be so busy; the symbiotic positivism
of success did breed success in that location with the shared parking arrangement between the
Aleworks and the 777 Building on Main Street. Ms. Zavora asked if the plaza/square would be
seen from Huffine Lane with the construction of the proposed buildings. Mr. Delaney responded
the square would be the most dominant feature, but would be seen only intermittently from
Huffine Lane. Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant had investigated the watercourse and trail
system implementation with the existing vegetation. Mr. Delaney responded they had
investigated those issues and most of the mature vegetation would be kept (Cottonwood Trees);
there would be the potential for a path next to the golf course to the north that would dovetail to
the square. Ms. Zavora asked if there would be only one bridge across the watercourse. Mr.
Delaney responded one bridge was currently being proposed and there would be conflicts with a
path where the proposed golf course would be located; bridges would be included if necessary
and the stream might be relocated. Ms. Zavora asked where the stream would be relocated if
moved. Mr. Delaney responded the stream might be split, redirected, or nothing may be done
with the exception of splitting it to go through the golf course.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there would be an established set of design guidelines in the
covenants to help control the end result. Mr. Delaney responded there would be an established
set of design guidelines but it would not be as rigid as to detur imaginative design; he stated he
wanted some placeism and dynamism and the proposal had been designed using classicism –
running primarily north to south. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked why rather than build the
square first the commercial development was slated to be built first. Mr. Delaney responded the
cost for just the development of the square would be one million dollars, which could be done
cheaper, but they wanted it developed correctly; they were saving the best for last.
Mr. Hufstetler asked for clarification of what constituted the lodge use. Mr. Delaney responded
the initial lodge would likely be on the first site and be a high end bed and breakfast; the lodge
would be higher end and could be around $100 per night, but would be memorable. He stated a
separate restaurant/bar would be adjacent to the lodge as well as a bank with the possibility of a
small grocery store; everything would be intimate, secure, safe, and convenient. Mr. Hufstetler
stated he would guess that if 100 PUD’s were looked at, 97 or 98 would say there would need to
be one or two anchor stores to make the development prosper and asked Mr. Delaney why the
proposal did not contain the anchor element. Mr. Delaney responded when the project was
planned and approved, it became evident that a major anchor, given the current market, would be
impossible to obtain. He stated the lack of a major anchor retail tenant made it so the prosperity
4
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
of the development would hinge on the 5 or 10 restaurant/bar uses on the site. He stated a
special dispensation had been granted by the State 10 years ago giving the property resort status
to enable less expensive alcohol licenses. Mr. Hufstetler stated it was way too early to envision
architectural styles and asked if Mr. Delaney envisioned one or two primary facades with one
being obviously secondary. Mr. Delaney responded the front and rear would be equally
imposing; it would be important to see wonderful architectural on all four corners of each
building. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the residential condo development on the west side could be
relocated throughout the site, integrating the residential and commercial components. Mr.
Delaney responded there were residential components integrated, but it was difficult to have safe
and harmonious residential and commercial development while still providing safety for the
residential elements; he hoped to have many residential units on the upper floors.
Chairperson Livingston stated he was not really familiar with walkable communities and asked
for examples. Mr. Delaney responded the central square was based on classic east coast
developments and in Europe the square was surrounded on all sides by buildings with the
parking along the perimeter – they had investigated many different places. He added the
proposed square had been designed to be bathed in natural light 365 days per year and would be
protected from the harsh west winds; some squares/plazas failed due to weather constraints.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the proposal was very innovative and he thought the proposed
Cartesian north/south grid was brilliant. He stated he was concerned because the parking, plaza
elevation, etc. were very different in the sketch than what was being proposed. He stated he
would rather see a sketch that made him think of Bozeman. Mr. Delaney responded the sketch
had been created five years ago, but a better rendering and model would be submitted with the
formal application. Mr. Rea stated he was also concerned with the proposed small footprints of
the buildings something was not connecting. Mr. Delaney responded the formal submittal would
include a design of the lodge and they would also hopefully know the names of the majority of
the tenants for the first block. Mr. Rea stated he could imagine further discussion on some items;
the concern of four asses presented to Main Street (citing the Hastings site) which would equate
to 20 building asses on the site facing Huffine and the entry to the beautiful City. Mr. Delaney
responded the intention was to have the same building design on all the faces of each building
just as they had done with the Aleworks. Mr. Rea stated another of his concerns was the
development of the site in phases and encouraged Staff to make the phasing approval very
specific to prevent undeveloped, unkempt sites. He stated the scale seemed to be wrong on the
plans. Mr. Delaney responded Mr. Rea was correct that the scale was inaccurate. Mr. Rea
thanked Mr. Delaney for coming in for Informal review.
Ms. Zavora stated she knew the review was preliminary, but she would be looking for a lot more
landscaping near the entrances. She asked if the square wasn’t built in the first phase, where
would people in the lodges would go if they needed to meet someone. Mr. Delaney responded
the plaza would be the cement tying the development together and there would not be many
people using the plaza during the first phases of development. Ms. Zavora stated she had seen
people using the benches at the Roseauer’s site and suggested the inclusion of those amenities at
the intersection of Huffine Lane; she suggested nice entrances to each unit be included. She
stated the traffic study indicated the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue were fine
as existing; she disagreed and thought the intersection should be improved with a left turn lane
signal. Mr. Delaney concurred that safety was of the utmost importance and the intersection
5
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
should be improved (left turning lane). Ms. Zavora stated she would like to see the creek open to
all members of the public as much as possible.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he applauded what the applicant had submitted and he thought
it would be a great development with strong fundamental design elements. He stated his only
concern he really had was the three or four entries into the site and asked which would be the
primary entrance. Mr. Delaney responded the primary entrance would be near the medical
campus section of the PUD. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated there was really no sense of
arrival proposed for the primary entrance to really make a statement; he suggested some form of
invitation to the public be included in that location. Mr. Delaney concurred that landscaping or
even fencing could be instituted in that location to provide a visual cue to direct people to the
area.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he was very supportive of the concept of the proposal as it was innovative
with a lot of potential for Bozeman; he added the applicant had his work cut out for him. He
stated he had spent some time in Amsterdam when it was cold and more unpleasant than
Bozeman’s climate; thousands of people visited the plaza in those conditions and the current
proposal could be like that. He stated if you traveled where there was a strong tradition of a
public square the appeal was the use of organic features. He suggested visual cues at the
periphery of the destination to draw people to the site; it was unfortunate Huffine Lane had not
been incorporated into the development to indicate something special inside the enclave and to
give something special to the entryway of Bozeman. He stated something tying the town square
to the entryway of Bozeman would make the proposal more integrated. He stated it would be
nice to see more residential uses integrated with the commercial aspects of the development and
challenged the applicant to come up with something more imposing to present to Huffine Lane.
He stated he understood the reasons for the rectilinear appearance and suggested a more organic
appearance be instituted on the site to provide a sense of its place; he suggested more asymmetry
in the design and added he would add trapezoids in some places. He stated it would be
challenging to get people across the proposed streets and suggested more pedestrian friendly
areas be included along those streets.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding the layout of
the site and added the idea of the development along Huffine Lane might take some time to get
used to. He stated he was glad the applicant had attended the meeting; the submittal materials
did not add up to what the applicant was currently discussing. He stated the there was no sense
of hierarchy shown on the rendering and the plan was nothing without the applicant’s
explanation; he found the plan boring compared to the way the proposal had been described. He
stated he found the overall layout to be very disappointing and he thought there could have been
some items included in the plan to help provide a better description. He stated they could debate
whether the design would work, but the plan showed no life.
Mr. Delaney stated a full rendition of a model would be submitted at the time of formal
submittal; he added any space beyond a 75 foot depth would not be viable for a tenant. He stated
he agreed with Chairperson Livingston that the submitted plan was damn boring and noted he
understood his concerns.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Gallatin Center, Lot 12 – Best Buy SP #Z-10083
(Skelton)
6
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
Northwest of the intersection of Cattail Street & Max Avenue
* A Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a ~53,000 sq. ft.
multi-tenant retail building in the Gallatin Center Subdivision with related
site improvements.
Randy Twist, Jeff Good, and Chris Budeski joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton
presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for a new site plan application on Lot 12 of
Gallatin Center Subdivision. He stated the DRB had recently approved the same project for Lot
11 in the Gallatin Center Subdivision and the applicant had found the benefits of Lot 12 to be the
th
location of the site along the 19 Avenue Entryway Corridor. He stated the final decision would
be made by the Planning Director and no Deviations were being requested with the proposal. He
stated there was a slightly different site character and design disciplines than with Lot 11 to the
east of the subject site. He stated the project would bring closure to the development of Gallatin
Center’s Max Avenue for a multi-tenant structure that is over 1400 feet long. He stated he had
spoken to the applicant regarding the presence of the proposed structure to both Cattail Street
and Max Avenue (east and south sides); a lot of emphasis, street level interest, and articulation
would need to be addressed on those facades. He stated Staff had recommended conditions of
approval that would achieve the intent of the Design Objectives Plan.
Planner Skelton stated the project would be completed in two phases and includes an open space
corridor along the west side of the property which is included in the open space requirements for
the planned unit development. He stated the biggest issue would be the native grasses which
were currently 70% established; there would need to be some type of irrigation and reseeding
and it would be required with the approval of the project. He stated Staff recommended the
plaza include two or three focal points along its east façade as well as along the south side of the
site; he suggested continuation of the layout of the planters and the street edge of the pedestrian
plaza. He stated he had recommended 75 foot spacing for the boulevard trees along the public
edge. He suggested the articulation and exaggeration of the main entrances should be more
emphasized. He stated he was excited to see the spandrel glazing and suggested it was an ideal
location for a corner entrance; in lieu of a corner entrance the spandrel glazing would be included
along the south elevation. He stated Staff was not concerned with the materials, but was
concerned with the pedestrian scale and street level interest; he saw no problem with lowering
the awnings and trellises to help with the pedestrian scale and street level interest. He
encouraged a 20% change in elevation on the higher module elements; more articulation of the
lower parapet wall. He stated another concern was the undeveloped sections of the site which
Staff had recommended are planted with seed mix so that the site appeared finished; the plaza
and first row of landscape isles were also recommended to be completed with the first phase of
development. He stated Staff recommended fencing along the area of future tenants to address
the pedestrian pathway. He directed the DRB to the punch list of landscape improvements and
noted he had been meeting with people regarding the telephone pads, private utilities, and
infrastructure and their proximity to the existing trail; something more than a hedge for screening
would need to be installed if Northwestern Energy would not allow the relocation of the
telephone pads, and may require installation of a masonry wall to screen the service area of the
building.
Mr. Budeski stated the proposal was straight forward from the civil engineering point of view
and nothing would change from what the DRB had seen in the past.
7
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
Mr. Good stated there had been more discussion about the Best Buy building although the
current proposal did not show the new configuration of the site. Mr. Budeski directed the DRB
to the new specifications for landscaping and sidewalk configuration. Mr. Good stated he agreed
the hierarchy could be better though the 32 foot height limitation would cause difficulty when
screening was required. Mr. Twist added there was a tenant on the site that would not allow
another structure to be taller in height than their structure.
Mr. Good stated the clear story, spandrel glass proposed for the south elevation would be natural
light windows with high rack shelving that would need to be located below the windows; there
was some flexibility so the windows could be relocated. Mr. Maltzen he stated that outside of
the fact that any corporation wanted to stand out, they wanted to fit into the community and were
amenable to Staff conditions of approval.
Mr. Rea asked if the phase 2 parking would contain three aisles. Planner Skelton responded
there would be three aisles. Mr. Budeski directed the DRB to the location of the parking in
question on the site plan. Mr. Rea stated the elevation depicted a heavy shadow line but the plan
did not depict the same; was it just an errant shadow. Mr. Good responded there would be a four
foot projection of masonry and would not be as much projection as it appeared to be.
Ms. Zavora asked if the City had a list of a canopy tree versus a non-canopy tree. Planner
Skelton responded the City did have a list from the Forestry department. Ms. Zavora stated she
was unclear as some of the proposed trees appeared to be both canopy and non-canopy. She
asked where the south yard was located as some of the required landscape points had been called
out in that location. Planner Skelton responded that, technically, there was a front and corner
side yard and the applicant was referring to the landscaping points in the corner side yard. Ms.
Zavora asked where the boulders would be located. Mr. Budeski responded the boulder
locations were indicated on sheet L2. Ms. Zavora clarified the boulders were part of the trail
system. Planner Skelton responded the boulders were part of the trail system and were already
installed. Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant had ideas of what interim irrigation system would be
installed. Mr. Gene Graf stated a varied sprinkler system such as one would have in their yard
would be utilized.
Mr. Hufstetler asked if there would be light visible through the glass on the primary façade (east
elevation) at night. Mr. Maltzen responded they did not want the store to appear closed at all; a
white frosted glass or lighting solutions would be installed. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the display
cases would be lighted. Mr. Maltzen responded they would remain lit at night. Mr. Hufstetler
asked if you could drive from the Best Buy lot to the Petsmart lot without going out onto Max
Avenue. Planner Skelton responded you would be able to get to the Petsmart tenant through the
Best Buy site. Mr. Hufstetler asked if lighting would be installed in that area. Mr. Budeski
responded there would be lighting for the pedestrian areas in that location.
Chairperson Livingston opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the
public comment portion of the item was closed.
Mr. Rea asked for clarification of whether or not a drive aisle would be in place in the first phase
of development. Mr. Budeski responded it would be fully constructed. Chairperson Livingston
responded he could not imagine that a retailer would allow a non-functioning parking lot.
8
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
Mr. Rea stated he thought the original sign proposal for the original Lot 11 site had been more
integrated into the proposed structure while the current application depicted the signage as being
more disconnected; he would prefer to see the corporate blue span the building instead of just on
the sign. Planner Skelton explained the blue was a part of the back drop of the signage and
would be counted toward the overall signage which would exceed the allowable amount. Mr.
Rea stated that for the record, despite the City ordinance requirements, the proposal was an
example of a location that would be more aesthetically pleasing if the applicant were allowed to
expand the corporate color background and graphically fill the façade. Planner Skelton
responded a different hue of blue might not be considered part of the corporate architecture but
the applicant would want to maintain the corporate color as opposed to modifying it. Mr. Rea
stated he would look on the color more as an architectural band continued across the façade;
killing both birds – the franchise issue and taking care of the architectural aesthetics. Planner
Skelton noted it might be possible to consider it a horizontal band (expression) in lieu of a back
drop. Chairperson Livingston stated the ticket was the signage and the blue would be
fenestration banding. Mr. Maltzen responded it was really a building accent color used to
differentiate them from other tenants; even from the side the building would be identifiable. Mr.
Rea stated he would like to see the background color as more architectural; he hoped his
comments did not open the applicant up to the wedge feature. He stated he would be fine with
the line of site approach to the screening of the mechanical equipment but did not want to set a
precedent; he suggested a greater change in parapet height.
Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with Staff conditions of approval. She stated she did not know if
clarification of the definition of “properly irrigated” should be included in condition of approval
#10. Mr. Budeski responded “properly irrigated” was so that grass grows. Planner Skelton
responded Staff would defer to the Parks Department on the proper method and the applicant
was amenable to working with Staff. Mr. Budeski added they were also working with Cashman
nursery. Mr. Gene Graf indicated it would be underground irrigation.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he was in full agreement with Mr. Rea regarding the proposed signage; he
suggested an architectural background would make the sign seem more incorporated into the
building and would meet the sign code in spirit if not in letter. He stated the part of the sign on
the east elevation seemed awkward. He stated he like the overall design though he thought it
would be good to articulate the corner and primary entry more strongly. He stated the angling on
the trellis would be a good idea; it was something that would be of interest visually to people
going by in automobiles primarily and would have a different impact on pedestrians. He stated
he was supportive of the windows being real windows even if they ended up located above the
trellis line. Mr. Good clarified the windows would be below the trellis line but would require
keeping the trellis at the elevation as depicted. Mr. Hufstetler responded Mr. Good’s solution
would work for him.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Rea and Mr. Hufstetler’s comments as
well as Staff conditions of approval. He stated articulation of the façade would be beneficial and
added the screening of the mechanical equipment could also be achieved architecturally.
Chairperson Livingston clarified that the original proposal for Best Buy had been located next to
Bed, Bath and Beyond. Mr. Budeski confirmed Chairperson Livingston was correct. He stated
he liked the idea of the vision glass and any combination of vision, frosted, etc. would allow
daylight into the store would be good especially from an energy perspective. He stated he
9
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010
thought that reversing the supports of the awnings would allow them to be lower and closer to
the windows. He stated he thought that lowering the parapets while still ensuring the site lines
on the mechanical units would be fine. He stated he didn’t know if the shade boulevard tree
spacing was a good recommendation at 75 feet as it might fall at a bad point on the façade; such
as in front of an entry. He stated trees and plantings instead of awnings would provide a nice
place for people to walk and sit; he suggested more trees and benches since somebody might
actually walk and the City wants the walking experience to be a good one. He stated that overall
he was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions.
MOTION:
Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Gallatin Center, Lot 12 – Best Buy SP
The motion carried 5-0.
#Z-10083 with Staff conditions of approval.
ITEM 6. CITY COMMISSION/DRB MEETING DEBRIEF
(Taylor)
The item was opened and continued to the next meeting of the DRB due to Mr. Taylor’s
unavoidable absence.
ITEM 7.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 comment forthcoming.
ITEM 8.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
10
Design Review Board Minutes – June 23, 2010