Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-10 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:33 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 Doug Riley, Associate Planner Walter Banziger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost Mark Hufstetler Randy Wall Elissa Zavora Visitors Present Matt Ekstrom Jeff Parker Doug Livingston Stan Griswold Kevin Kelleher Turner Askew Rex Leipheimer Rebecca Pape Cyndy Andrus Sloan Bauer Chris Wasia Darren Schroeder ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 14, 2010 Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on page 5 after Mr. Hufstetler’s statements, the language “Vice” should be included. MOTION: Mr. Wallmoved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to approve the minutes of The motion carried 5-0. July 14, 2010 as amended. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Safeway II INFORMAL #I-10012 (Krueger) 1735 West Main Street * A revised Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a Safeway Grocery store and to permit a Deviation to increase the allowable amount of parking by 20%. 1 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010 Matt Ekstrom, Jeff Parker, Doug Livingston, Stan Griswold, and Darren Schroederjoined the DRB. Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Memo noting Planner Krueger was unable to attend the evening’s meeting. He stated the applicant had submitted for Informal review previously. Ms. Zavora joined the DRB. Planner Riley stated that, overall, Staff was pleased with the revisions as submitted, but Planner Krueger had identified a few items that should be discussed and addressed prior to the formal submittal of the Site Plan. He noted parking lot screening could be stronger, the relationship between the parking stalls and the drive aisles would need to be addressed, and the design of the southeastern corner of the proposed building. He stated the review process would include the involvement of the MDOT and a variance would be required for the level of service at the th intersection of 19 Avenue and West Main Street. He stated he would be available to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Parker stated they had taken into consideration the comments made during the first Informal Review and noted there had been a consistent response from each review body on what items needed addressed with the submittal. He directed the DRB to page 2.0 of the submittal materials which contained a brief synopsis of what had been proposed and why. He stated that since they were last in Bozeman they had commissioned a traffic engineer and provided the traffic study he had submitted to the City of Bozeman Engineering Department; the conclusion being the full turn driveway onto Main Street would be the only way the business would work and would be an important turning movement. He stated that based on the traffic study, they had brought a portion of the store proposed right at the setback line on Main Street; he directed the DRB to a comparison of the previous submittal compared to the current submittal. He stated the employee uses would be included in this section. Mr. Livingston added they had tried to include the benefits of natural light in the proposal. Mr. Parker stated the retail space had been oriented to Main Street in the original proposal, but had been relocated to a separate building on the site that would be located right at the setback line along North19th Avenue. He stated the pedestrian accesses had been addressed and an outdoor seating area had been included. He stated the pedestrian connection through the parking lot would have tree wells that would connect to a terraced area that would link with the sidewalk along Main Street. He stated that non-vehicle accesses had been included and there would be multiple bike parking spots adjacent to the store; exceeding the minimum requirement by 10. He stated the landscape architect had attended the meeting and could be consulted for questions; he added the proposal had exceeded the minimum required landscaping points. He stated DRB recommendations had included consideration of downtown Main Street Bozeman and those design ideas and materials had been incorporated into the proposal. Mr. Banziger asked if there had been or was currently consideration for another building along th North 19 Avenue. Mr. Parker responded there had been concerns regarding parking and visibility and they had decided that a smaller multi-tenant building would be a better economic decision; they did not want a small token space or space that was not leasable. Mr. Banziger stated he understood the issues with having a big building in that location, but suggested there could have been two smaller structures. Mr. Livingston stated the visibility factor was the most important and would be diminished along with the availability of the access to the site if two 2 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010 smaller structures were instituted. Ms. Zavora asked Mr. Griswold (landscape architect) what the proposed purple plantings were as depicted. Mr. Griswold stated the purple spots indicated a more ornamental arrangement for the pedestrian locations. Ms. Zavora asked for clarification of the earth work forms. Mr. Griswold responded the berming would help screen the parking and explained there would be quite a bit of buffering from Main Street. Ms. Zavora asked if the 16 points counted for the trees were all in the Aspen clusters. Mr. Griswold responded the mature trees were in the three Aspen clusters. Mr. Hufstetler stated the DRB had suggested interaction with the adjacent property owners and asked if the applicant had contacted adjacent site owners. Mr. Parker responded he had not yet contacted the owners of adjacent properties and had decided to go through the DRC and DRB Informal review again prior to initiating that contact; he added he did not know what would happen on adjacent properties, but they intended to connect to those sites if possible in the future. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant intended to work with adjacent landowners. Mr. Parker responded he did not know for sure what would happen with adjacent sites, but they would anticipate having minimal fencing that conformed to the UDO and they had no intention to install fencing along the north side of the site. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there was any public access along south side of the structure. Mr. Livingston stated the primary entrances were still located on the west elevation and a southern entrance had also been included. Mr. Hufstetler asked for clarification of the area identified as being a planter. Mr. Griswold responded the area was intended to emphasize and enhance that space and would include a seating area. Mr. Hufstetler asked for a description of the treatment of the south and east elevation. Mr. Livingston responded the brick and brick detailing was more in keeping with the downtown Bozeman architecture and a modulation of masonry elements had been included; a structural brick would support the building and clay faced brick would be included to accentuate the entrances. Mr. Parker added there would be an indoor/outdoor fireplace in one location. Mr. Livingston stated the south elevation treatment included a planter and the applicant understood the importance of day lighting; they considered the planter area as a plaza area. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there was a possibility of light entering on the south and east corner of the proposed structure. Mr. Parker responded the location would house the electrical equipment and the electrical panels would not be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Hufstetler suggested a material be instituted that was not transparent but would let in light. Chairperson Livingston asked how high the proposed corrugated metal would be placed. Mr. Livingston responded there would be a perceptible change of plane with the masonry and the metal would be 16 feet in height while the glass would be at a height of 12 feet. Chairperson Livingston asked if the face brick was thinner versus the structural brick. Mr. Livingston responded the face brick would not be thinner and would be similar to Starky’s Deli. Chairperson Livingston asked the dimensions of the structural brick. Mr. Livingston responded the structural brick was much larger and was similar to masonry brick. Chairperson Livingston asked if the corrugated metal would be wavy or jagged. Mr. Livingston responded they had not found the type of metal they wanted yet, but the Food Co-op had used similar material. Chairperson Livingston stated Bridger Steel might have a cast for the type of steel the applicant would like to use. He stated he was interested in the east elevation of the Safeway project as the building to the east would be facing the backside of the structure; he added the backside of 3 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010 parapets were not all that attractive and asked if the applicant thought anyone would see that side. Mr. Kelleher responded they would study the façade and the height of the structure to the east to address those comments; he added they were attempting to keep the roofing a light material that would be screened from view. Mr. Livingston added they intended to screen the rooftop equipment and stated site line studies would be included. Planner Riley responded Staff would be looking at the mechanical equipment as part of plan review and more might become necessary once the equipment had been installed. Chairperson Livingston responded the parapet could become the height of the mechanical unit itself, but the elevation of Main Street could cause a problem. Mr. Parker asked for feedback and direction with regard to the hierarchy of the drive ways and drive aisles. Planner Riley responded he apologized, but had not learned what Planner Krueger’s intention was with regard to the hierarchy and indicated there should be a differentiation between the primary and secondary drive aisles which could be accomplished with landscaping, lighting, or width moderation. Chairperson Livingston responded his take would be that the width of the aisles would need to be addressed; a more prominent drive aisle could be wider, specifically the drive aisle to the north of the parking. Mr. Banziger added the drive aisle on the south side of the site could also be a prominent drive aisle. Mr. Livingston responded they would investigate the width of the aisles; would there be relief on the landscaped width in one location to provide for a wider drive aisle. Ms. Zavora responded she did not think any landscaping should be removed as it was part of the buffer from adjacent property for the parking on the site. Ms. Zavora asked if the planter was to be used as a solar break for the building and what vegetation would be included. Mr. Griswold responded there would be low shrubs and some that were four or five feet tall, but no trees would be included. Chairperson Livingston asked how the sign allowance was calculated. Planner Riley responded the allowable square footage would be calculated for the blocked off lettering itself. Mr. Wall stated he was glad to see the applicants and added the City of Bozeman would like to see the site developed. He stated the proposal was better than the original proposal and the criteria from the UDO had been met more thoroughly. He stated the site was located in a very visual spot within the City and was also located within the Entryway Corridor. He stated he understood why the applicant was asking for a deviation for parking which was in direct conflict with the Design Objectives Plan and suggested the applicant meet those standards as much as possible. He stated there were areas in the proposal that were not in compliance with the DOP and he did not think the applicant had gone far enough to meet the minimum standards; site design and building placement, ingress/egress, parking lot location, the location of the building entry, building presence along the street frontages, conveying the hierarchy of internal drive th aisles (he suggested striping), and the accesses on both Main Street and North 19 Avenue. Mr. Ekstrom responded the accesses complied when they were built and there was no indication in the traffic study that the driveways were any worse or better than other intersections. Mr. Livingston responded the biggest challenge on the site was the corner; building presence, access, etc., and their approach was to front buildings on both streets as well as the development of a plaza/pedestrian area. Planner Riley added the south/eastern elevation was where the concentration of Planner Krueger’s comments had been focused. Mr. Wall continued stating the minimization of the visual impact of cars on the site had not been accomplished and suggested the parking could be mitigated by the buildings. He stated he would like to see the sidewalk 4 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010 meander along Main Street and more natural features should be included. He stated the infill buildings should be adjacent to the sidewalk as had been indicated several times. He stated he did not care for the proposed rod supported eaves/canopies. He added he was disappointed that the applicant had not spoken to the neighboring properties. Mr. Parker responded the application was still in the Informal Review process though his intention was to approach the neighbors. Mr. Wall stated the character of the projects built in that location would define the architectural and social fabric of Bozeman; the project would contribute to that fabric that makes Bozeman such a livable place. He noted he would like to see the proposal stay more in keeping with the Design Objectives Plan. Mr. Hufstetler complimented the applicant on their revised proposal. He stated he liked the parking arrangement, the landscaping, and the plaza area. He stated he understood the difficulties with the entrance on Main Street and suggested one possibility would be to send traffic east on Main Street but what was proposed was infinitely better than what had been previously proposed. He stated he thought the corner visual focal point was really cool and would be a visual highlight to the property though it was still a partially wasted opportunity as a person could not actually enter the building in that location; it would be less inviting for pedestrians and would be less interesting to vehicles passing by. He stated the problem became more important when looking to the east of the site as it would be the most visually prominent section of the site; there should be more visual prominence in that location. He stated the corner could be seen from all three sides and was proposed as a little too blank for that location. He stated that, in his opinion, he liked the horizontal banding proposed, but he would break it up a little bit more; he suggested changing the articulation to diminish the starkness of the facade. Ms. Zavora stated she liked the presentation of the planter area as it would be very visual from the street. She stated she was not fond of the hedge row proposed to mask the side of the building; she suggested a green wall be instituted on the building to provide something unique and new. She suggested emphasizing the corner though she didn’t see it as much of a pedestrian area. She stated she liked the strong street presence with regard to the grade issue between the site and Main Street; she suggested the landscaping could be installed at a higher level as close to the street as possible. Mr. Griswold responded the area could be enhanced further, but the berms had been included to attempt to address Main Street. Ms. Zavora stated she knew the applicant had specked out 16 landscape points and suggested most of the points had been achieved by salvaging mature vegetation; she suggested the applicant not count those trees as much and include more trees, shrubs, and native plantings to make the site exceptional. She stated she was concerned with the Arctostaphylos and eyelicks as they were not suitable for this climate; she suggested the applicant drive around Bozeman to see what types of plants were thriving. She stated the garbage enclosure location would be alright if it was properly screened and added she did not know if there would be any safety concerns. She stated she did not think a four foot shrub would do anything solar for the site and suggested a tree in that location instead. Mr. Livingston responded they knew they would have to go above and beyond the requirements. Mr. Banziger stated he appreciated the efforts the applicant had made in coming back for a second Informal Review. He stated the attention given to the current proposal was superior to the original proposal. He stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and added he thought the applicant was missing an opportunity to include another building on the site; it would not detract from the primary structure and would add interest to the site through portals. He stated a 5 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010 greater sense of urbanism and better screening could be achieved through inclusion of buildings around the perimeter of the site; the parking lot would be the core center of the site. He suggested that areas such as Redding, Virginia had examples of projects where there were two fronts of buildings and the parking was shielded by the buildings; he cited other locations of similar design. He stated he agreed with Planner Krueger’s recommendations and suggested the applicant consult the Staff Memo; he agreed with Mr. Wall regarding urbanism. He stated he thought there was an opportunity to use the side door to the coffee shop and outdoor seating could be instituted in that location; he suggested a greater focus in that area. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated this was a major redesign compared to what had been reviewed with the previous Informal submittal. He stated he thought the applicant had done an excellent job making him believe that he would want to be there. He stated he also thought the corner was the weakness on the site and suggested a green wall was a good idea though the applicant would need to be careful with regard to the species due to the eastern exposure; however the applicant wanted to address the issue. He stated he liked how the applicant had addressed the massing of the structures and added he agreed with Mr. Hufstetler in that regard. He stated the space adjacencies were very similar at Roseauers and suggested the door going to the sitting area could be opened and closed throughout the business day. He stated he appreciated the way the tough parts of the site had been addressed. He stated he was not supportive of adding another building on the site as it would also increase the parking demand. He stated he was supportive of the green band of landscaping to soften the edge and stated he thought landscaping would be more powerful than another building. He stated he thought narrow drive aisles did a better job of slowing traffic down and was not supportive of either the removal of the landscaping or the widening of the drive aisles. He stated the applicants had done an excellent job and presented something they could be proud of. Chairperson Livingston stated he liked what the applicants had done; when he thought about the Safeway in Missoula, he just liked the changes the applicant had made. He stated he did not think the DRB gave the applicant enough credit for simply changing the prototype. He stated he liked the changes regarding the configuration of the buildings and added he could see the raised planter being removed in the future and seating being installed in that location instead; he didn’t know if seating would need to happen, but he liked the planter feature. He stated he thought the th intersection of 19 and Main would get worse and worse though the applicant had done a good job given the site constraints. He stated he liked the scale of the proposal and he did not have a real problem with the east wall; he liked the expanses of material rather than “tacking on” features in those locations. He stated the back of the parapets and mechanical units were a concern for him and added he would like to see as much vision glass as possible on the south elevation; the electrical room could be spandrel glass; it would be important to see that the lights were on. He stated he liked all the bike racks because he usually had to lock his bike to a gas riser or something. He stated he thought it would be essential to get free wifi on the corner so people could sit near the fire. Mr. Banziger reiterated the spirit of LEED sustainability features and suggested the applicant keep those sustainability ideas in mind. 6 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010 2. Billion Auto Plaza II INFORMAL #I-10011 (Riley) 150 & 200 Automotive Avenue * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a new auto dealership with retail and vehicle service facilities and related site improvements. Chris Wasia and Sloan Bauer joined the DRB. Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Memo noting the proposal was interesting as it was not located within an Entryway Corridor, but the large scale retail section of the ordinance was in affect due to the size of the proposed structures. He noted the project would be reviewed as a Master Site Plan and the applicant would submit the first phase Site Plan submittal with the Master Site Plan. He stated one of Staff’s concerns was the orientation of the proposed GM dealership and its location with regard to the setback line. He stated Staff was also concerned with the proposed fencing materials for the secure areas. He stated the review criteria required a site design with an adaptive use and those pedestrian connections proposed. He stated the parking lot screening was another issue; car dealerships were required to provide screening for customer parking, but the requirements were less for the merchandise. He stated Staff had not received much detail on proposed materials and suggested the DRB could discuss those issues. Mr. Bauer stated the intention of the design was to focus traffic to the interior of the site instead of focusing on the exterior of the site; it would be safer than a display along Cottonwood Road. He stated multiple fronts had been created; to Fallon, Automotive, and Cottonwood with high visibility due to the adjacency of Cottonwood Road. He stated they had also tried to satisfy some of the brand requirements for signage and structural design that had been imposed on them. He stated they would investigate other ways to secure the area as opposed to fencing; lighting, security system, etc. He stated they had added sidewalks around the perimeter of the site and had addressed the future use of the site through the abolishment of parking spaces that could be replaced with landscaping if the car dealerships were not part of the future phases. He stated all three dealerships would have an aluminum storefront, ACM panels, and corrugated metals in different profiles to break up the mass with canopies to break up the facades. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant could give him a sense of the planned chronology of the build out of the site. Planner Riley stated the applicant was constructing Automotive Avenue as part of the subdivision approval to provide the east to west connection. Mr. Bauer responded the pad for the GM building would take place next spring with the Chrysler building being next based on how well the first phases of construction do. Mr. Hufstetler asked what the undeveloped portion of the site to the north would be. Mr. Bauer responded it would be automotive related retail spaces and maybe a coffee shop, but the owner was uncertain. Mr. Wall asked if the public had complained about Ressler lighting. Planner Riley responded there were some concerns with regard to the lighting. Mr. Bauer responded the lighting would not be kept on full all night, but would go to a minimum security level after the employees had gone home. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the total car count on the site. Mr. Bauer responded he had 486 and added it was an inaccurate number as some landscaping would need to be included. 7 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010 Chairperson Livingston asked the overall materials proposed for the service area. Mr. Bauer responded it would be an insulated metal panel. Mr. Wall asked if the material would be a SIP. Mr. Bauer responded it would not be a SIP, but would be a similar material. Chairperson Livingston asked if the roundabout was currently being proposed. Mr. Bauer responded the roundabout had been removed from the proposal and would instead contain a focal element which would include the state flag; he added they were investigating the inclusion of a bus stop as well. He added there would be a picnic area in the wetland corridor. Chairperson Livingston asked if there would be a trail located within the wetland corridor. Planner Riley responded there would be a trail system and the natural setting would be maintained. Chairperson Livingston clarified that the wetland corridor would remain untouched. Planner Riley responded the integrity of the watercourse would be protected which was in keeping with the Design Objectives Plan. Chairperson Livingston asked what was across Cottonwood Road. Planner Riley responded the HRDC project was across Cottonwood Road from the site; part of Staff’s concern with regard to the lighting. Chairperson Livingston asked if the balloons were part of signage. Mr. Bauer responded balloons were considered temporary signage. Chairperson Livingston asked where the bus stop would be located. Planner Riley responded they were discussing placing the bus stop in closer proximity to the residential components of the site. Ms. Zavora stated the landscaping at this point was just colored circles on a piece of paper, but the proposal was heading in the right direction. Mr. Hufstetler stated it would absolutely break his heart when the dealership moved out of the th building on North 19 Avenue. He stated he felt good about the central area and he thought it would be an interesting space; the weak spot in the design would be the Nissan component to the site and a building people would be looking past as it was so far separated from the rest. He stated he thought it would be important to have an architectural presence facing Cottonwood Road. He stated it was a difficult situation having a site where two buildings would need to have two or three primary facades. He stated he thought the Chrysler dealership would be the primary visual component of the overall streetscape. Mr. Wall stated that what he really liked was that there had been forethought put into the location and zoning; he liked the location and the retail commercial feel. He stated he liked the concept of the plaza design with auto dealerships; it is supposed to be a sea of cars and emulate modernism. He stated his experience had been that auto dealerships were maintained very well and suggested the tenants of Valley West Subdivision would patron a coffee shop in that location as Roseauers was the nearest place aside from WeeBee’s. He stated he concurred with Mr. Hufstetler that a major corner seemed orphaned and suggested landscaping and signage could be cool in that location. Mr. Banziger stated he appreciated the applicant bringing an Informal Application for review to work with Staff and the DRB. He stated he concurred with Mr. Hufstetler and Mr. Wall that the Nissan dealership would be the weak link on the site; he suggested strengthening the corner and the approach. He stated he thought the applicant had done well with the orientation of the structures as they did not present the rears of structures to the streets. He suggested investigating paving materials that would allow the runoff to percolate back into the ground and suggested other sustainability features be included on the site as well. 8 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010 Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he appreciated the scale of the building in that location primarily due to the three story residential element across Cottonwood Road which created a green space gateway on both sides and the similarity of materials. He stated the proposal was headed in a good direction and added that he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated he struggled a little with phase 3 of the proposal and suggested heavier landscaping to buffer the HRDC housing from the site. He stated he agreed with the lighting being turned down in the evenings. He stated there should be heavy landscaping on the site and would be a considerate buffer to the residential development across the street. He suggested that on the second or third level of the residential housing, they would see the roofs of the site and suggested including green roofs wherever possible. Chairperson Livingston stated he was struck with the idea that the property would be a massive heat sink due to the amount of pavement proposed. He suggested creating pervious surfaces where possible. Mr. Bauer responded those materials were being investigated; a recycled tire mulch was currently being considered for some of the display areas, but service areas would likely need to be asphalt. Mr. Banziger suggested a recycled rubber and plastic paver material had recently been presented to him and he would find out the name of the item for the applicant. Mr. Wall suggested the grass pavers were pretty sexy with the grass growing in between; it appeared the cars were parked on grass, but they weren’t. Chairperson Livingston suggested the display areas could be impervious material if people were careful in the way they plowed those locations. He suggested there could be bio-swales for runoff around the perimeter of the site. He stated he thought it was smart to create Automotive Avenue and including the display areas interior to the site. He stated it would be interesting to see the renderings for the proposal with all of their cars depicted to provide context. He suggested the applicant focus on energy use reduction and suggested other remediation ideas would be good. He stated they had discussed using the parking areas as a way of putting water circulation under the parking lots to provide for heating and cooling (underground horizontal ground source heat pump). ITEM 4. (Taylor) CITY COMMISSION/DRB MEETING DEBRIEF (Continued from 7/14/10) MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to open and continue the The motion carried 6-0. item to the next meeting of the DRB. 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 comment forthcoming. ITEM 6.ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 9 Design Review Board Minutes – July 28, 2010