Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-10 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Wall 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 Bill Rea Doug Riley, Associate Planner Elissa Zavora Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Mark Hufstetler Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Wall Visitors Present Chris Budeski Scott Bechtle Mark Diebert Bayliss Ward Chad Rempfer Sloan Bauer Chris Wasia ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Hufstetlermoved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to approve the minutes of July 28, The motion carried 4-0. 2010 as presented. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Alpine Orthopedics SP/COA #Z-10175 (Krueger) Cottonwood Road * A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a 10,844 sq. ft. medical office building with related site improvements. Mark Diebert, Chris Budeski, and Scott Bechtle joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for a standalone site plan within the Entryway Corridor. He noted the Entryway Corridor in that location was at a wider width and had captured a small portion of the project site. He stated Staff had included language regarding the Design Objectives Plan and the presentation of the building to the street edge. He stated the DRB had been scheduled due to the undeveloped portion of the lot; the precedent set by the initial building will have an effect on the proceeding sites adjacent to the project site. He stated Staff had asked for a recommendation from the DRB regarding how the building addressed the street. He stated that even though the project was not located directly along the Entryway Corridor those standards would apply. He stated there were issues 1 Design Review Board Minutes – August 25, 2010 related to pedestrian circulation, amenities, etc. that would need to be addressed; those items could be conditioned, but had not been in the Staff Report. He stated that the Planning Director could make a determination for the proposal if the DRB was not able to do so. He stated the Commission or Planning Director would rely heavily on the comments made by the DRB. Mr. Hufstetler asked for clarification of the artificial lot scenario; what would happen when the other part of the lot submitted an application. Planner Krueger responded the artificial lot was permissive as some property owners did not have a development plan for the rest of the site. Mr. Hufstetler asked if conditions would be imposed on the remainder of the lot. Planner Krueger responded Staff did not typically invoked conditions on those portions of the site. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the development to the west of Cottonwood Road had been subject to the Design guidelines for Entryway Corridors. Planner Krueger responded the property to the west had been developed as a PUD and was held to those standards. Mr. Rea asked if the Entryway being referenced was for Huffine Lane or Cottonwood Road. Planner Krueger responded Staff had been referencing Cottonwood Road; the expectation was that if the street edge was important the applicant would continue addressing the street to the north. Mr. Rea asked if the build to line had been dictated by the Entryway Guidelines or had been predicated by the existing bank structure. Planner Krueger responded the line had been established by setback patterns as well as the setback requirement (25 feet) for the property. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked the reduced width of the Entryway Corridor east of the site. Planner Krueger responded it was 330 feet which was half of the Entryway Corridor in the project area. Mr. Wall asked if the applicant would be required to improve the street. Planner Krueger responded the complete roadway section would not be required to be completed; an SID could be put in place in the future. Ms. Zavora asked if the undeveloped portion of the lot would be required to develop the green space. Planner Krueger responded only the building front would be required to have green space and any disturbance of the vacant areas would be required to be repaired. Ms. Zavora asked the required setback for the lot. Planner Krueger responded the required setback would be 25 feet from Cottonwood Road. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was curious if after the project was completed and the vacant portion of the lot were to be developed, would the Design Objectives Guidelines be required. Planner Krueger responded the remainder would be considered in the Entryway Corridor and would have the standard requirements in the Design Objectives Plan. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall clarified that in the future, Cottonwood Road would become a major arterial due to the development of Valley West Subdivision. Mr. Bechtle stated the biggest concern the applicant had was that the site was within the Entryway Corridor; the Design Objectives Plan had been consulted with regard to the site location along Huffine Lane instead of Cottonwood Road. He directed the DRB to a rendering of the site showing the rough area of the site in relation to the Entryway Corridor Overlay District; they had thought the intent to be to present the building to Huffine Lane creating an entrance to the Corridor and allow views through buildings to the buildings behind. He stated the applicant had intended the building be oriented to Huffine Lane instead of orienting parking to the street. He stated the future building would be positioned in alliance with the submittal as proposed; Mr. Budeski added he would discuss the future bank building later in the meeting. Mr. Bechtle stated the design intent from the Design Objectives was to provide 2 Design Review Board Minutes – August 25, 2010 connectivity and access to the site that was not located along the Entryway Corridor; he directed the DRB to an aerial photo of one tier removed connectivity on existing sites. He presented photographs of existing sites in the same area that depicted similar access/connectivity design. He stated the JC Billion building had been located right at the setback line. Mr. Budeski clarified that between the existing First Security Bank and the site there would be another building constructed by First Security and the existing accesses would be eliminated with improvements to Cottonwood Road. He directed the DRB to a rendering of how circulation would work through all of the sites if there were a tiered layer of buildings as proposed. Mr. Bechtle stated the site was a special case as only a small portion of the site was within the Entryway Corridor; he added they were just trying to determine what it was the community wanted the Entryway Corridor to look like. Mr. Budeski stated he would like to go through each of the comments specifically. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall clarified that the big question was whether or not the Entryway Corridor standards were applicable to the parcel. Mr. Bechtle responded the interpretation of how the Design Objectives Plan was being administered and whether it was to be Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. Mr. Budeski stated some of the recommendations did not fit the site. Mr. Bechtle stated he concurred with Chairperson Pro Tem Wall that if the incorrect Entryway Corridor were being addressed, the proposal would need to be amended; if site design could be addressed the DRB could make a decision on the proposal. Mr. Budeski read the scope of the Design Objectives Plan and reiterated that clarification would need to be made as to whether or not the corridor would be addressed or Cottonwood Road. Mr. Bechtle stated the site contained only grasses and did not have much vegetation with regard to the green space recommendation made by Staff; the largest piece of existing green space would be maintained throughout the whole site. Mr. Budeski directed the DRB to a rendering depicting that the structure had been planned to face Huffine Lane. Mr. Budeski stated they felt they had adjoined the site to the adjacent bank site and had met that requirement from the Design Objectives Plan. Planner Krueger added there was connectivity via north south connections through the site. Planner Krueger responded Staff would require both vehicle and pedestrian connections that were both north-south/east-west connections. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall stated he did not want the meeting to degrade to a point/counterpoint discussion and urged the applicant to complete their presentation. Mr. Budeski stated there was nothing to connect to at this time, but the bank development in the future would include those pedestrian connections to the south; to the north would be a pedestrian walkway. He stated the Design Objectives was referring to an area or a development, but the proposal was not for multiple buildings so the applicant saw no need for a plaza area. Planner Krueger responded that Staff anticipated the development of adjacent sites and was attempting to ensure pedestrian amenities would be in place on the site. Mr. Budeski responded a bench could be included in the proposal. Mr. Bechtle added they thought they had the potential to take care of the pedestrian amenities in the long term. Mr. Budeski added that First Security Bank did not have a plaza area which would be more appropriate once the second building was constructed on the site. Mr. Bechtle stated he did not think the view of the Bridger Mountains from Huffine would be blocked by the proposed structure. Mr. Budeski added the building could not be stair stepped as it would be a medical building. Mr. Budeski stated they had attempted to even the grade of the site, the proposed detention basin would be a grassy area at the rear of the building, and they had maintained existing roadway paths. Mr. Bechtle added that having the view 3 Design Review Board Minutes – August 25, 2010 into the site from Huffine Lane would enhance the entry to the area and would provide a better view of the landscape. Mr. Budeski stated there would likely be another medical type business in the future and the common area could be addressed at that time. He stated they had intended to provide pedestrian connectivity to the rear of the structure. Mr. Budeski stated he did not think the site fell into the category of a major development and should not be held to the parking standards of a major site development with regard to the parking lot. Mr. Diebert stated they had gone through a lot to choose the location; using a grade-all to see the different view sheds. He added there had been a strong paint odor coming from the finishing shop at the Billion facilities and noted those odors had been strongest near Cottonwood Road. He stated the sophisticated imaging equipment within the building were sensitive to vibrations and the proposed location of the structure would better serve the establishment. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the construction of a second building on the First Security site had been proposed to Staff. Planner Krueger responded the Planning Department had not received a development application for that site. Mr. Hufstetler asked if Planner Krueger thought the Design Guidelines had been codified within the UDO. Planner Krueger responded the DOP was referred to in the UDO for larger scale projects; he added the Design Objectives Plan was the defacto design guidelines for the City of Bozeman. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the DOP clearly indicated a stair step in building setbacks. Planner Krueger responded it was not a specific guideline and was more focused on what was readily perceived from Huffine Lane or walking along the site. Mr. Hufsetler stated he thought the decision was clear cut even though the majority of the property was outside of the Entryway Corridor and he would feel the same way if the Corridor were six inches into the property. He stated he thought it was clear there needed to be more effort made to comply with the Design Objectives Plan guidelines. He stated he thought the site placement was clearly not in compliance with those guidelines and site amenities should be included as the development of the remainder of the site would occur on a date uncertain. He stated he did not see a need for a plaza or a Bridger view, but the list of noncompliant items was comprehensive. He stated a line of cars would be seen from both Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road if the parking was installed as proposed. He stated he concurred with Staff recommendations. Ms. Zavora stated she saw where the applicant was coming from, but she disagreed that the south elevation was a front to a building with a parking lot in front of it. She stated she did not want to look from Hufffine through some buildings to other buildings and would instead like to see amenities and landscaping in those locations. She stated she thought the landscape plan was excellent and all the proposed species would be appropriate for the site and design of the building. She stated she agreed with Staff recommendations regarding building orientation. Mr. Rea stated he thought the Staff approach to the Entryway Corridor was correct and the property was within the that Corridor. He stated he liked the argument that the site was fronting Huffine, but it fell apart when a parking lot was proposed between the south entry and Huffine Lane. He stated he was less concerned than other DRB members but the things concerning him were the assumptions of how the adjacent properties would be developed. He stated the DOP was partly in place for consideration of future development. He stated he was not concerned as much with the view of the site from Huffine Lane, but was concerned with its presentation to Cottonwood Road. He stated the outdoor public spaces th would be important and cited the development of pedestrian/bike paths along 19 Avenue. He stated he was concerned with improvements to Cottonwood Road not being completed and encouraged the 4 Design Review Board Minutes – August 25, 2010 applicant to turn the edge of parking into a drive isle. He stated he liked the design of the building and the proposed landscaping. He stated he agreed with Staff regarding the placement of the structure. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall stated he agreed with previous DRB member comments. He stated a more urban feel along major roads, Cottonwood’s own design corridor designation, and more compliance with the DOP would be more in accordance. He stated he did not agree with the applicant’s interpretations. He stated he thought every project was major as small projects would add to the overall architectural fabric of the community. He stated he liked the proposed architecture and suggested the problem might be solved by moving the structure to the west. He stated there would be major development to the north of the site and pedestrian connectivity would play a major role in the quality of life in that location. He stated he agreed with the balance of the Board and agreed with Staff recommendations. Mr. Budeski requested additional time to consider a redesign of the project and requested the Board open and continue the application to a future meeting of the DRB. MOTION : Mr. Rea moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to open and continue the proposal to an open date. The motion carried 4-0. 2. Billion Auto Plaza II Master SP #Z-10180 & Nissan Dealership SP #Z-10181 (Riley) 150, 155, 200, & 205 Automotive Avenue * A Master Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a new auto dealership complex with retail and vehicle service facilities and related st improvements in conjunction with the 1 phase Nissan Dealership Preliminary Site Plan on property located north of the existing Billion Auto Plaza on the west side of Cottonwood Road. Bayliss Ward, Chad Rempfer, Sloan Bauer, and Chris Wasia joined the DRB. Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Report noting the proposal had been informally reviewed last month by the DRB. He gave the DRB an overview and noted the Master Site Plan will be reviewed by the City Commission and would carry a five year approval time. He stated the portion of the property being submitted was zoned B-2. He noted the proposal was outside of the Entryway Corridor, but two of the proposed structures fell under the large scale retail guidelines and thus DRB review. He stated part of the review was the set up of the site for future adaptive re-use and Staff felt that the proposal met those requirements. He stated the pedestrian sidewalks between the Nissan and GM dealership had been included since the informal to provide east-west pedestrian connections. He stated a recommended condition of approval had been to require construction of the future connection to the B-1 parcel with the development of the GM dealership; partly due to the lack of opportunities to provide other connections. He stated along the north boundary there would be a requirement for future connection of the trail system through the property. He stated one of the key things Staff recognized was that any new or change of uses would be submitted for review and approval by the City. He stated Staff had been concerned with the proposed security fencing and its exposure to Cottonwood Road and the applicant had eliminated the fencing. He stated additional landscaping had been proposed. He stated a future service area had been identified on the Nissan building and conditioned to be reviewed by Staff and the DRB if that area were expanded. He stated another of Staff’s previous concerns was the breaking up of the expanses of parking and display areas; the applicant has now provided landscaped islands in the necessary locations. He stated the screening and buffering of the service area and the treatment of that boundary was still a Staff concern; Staff has recommended additional landscaping, buffering, or screening, but would also accommodate the trail and would be 5 Design Review Board Minutes – August 25, 2010 reviewed when the GM dealership was submitted for review. He stating lighting had been addressed through the recommended conditions of approval and car dealership lighting was also specifically addressed in the UDO. They would be allowed the reduced lighting standard and the lighting plan would need to comply and a lighting engineer would need to provide final clarification prior to occupancy. He stated Staff had suggested a security lighting plan to identify which lights would be left on after hours. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the intention initially was that there was no service facility associated with Nissan, but would be facilitated with the construction of the GM dealership. Mr. Ward responded Nissan wanted the canopy as part of their identification and Mr. Hufstetler was correct that the GM dealership would house the service facility; he added it was not currently the intent of the owner to expand the Nissan building to include a service area. Ms. Zavora clarified that the overall Master Site Plan and first phase Site plan were being approved. Planner Riley responded Ms. Zavora was correct. Ms. Zavora clarified that the trail on the north side would not be required until the GM dealership was constructed. Planner Riley responded that when the final plat of the subdivision was completed the trail would be installed at that time or within a sunset date of two years. Ms. Zavora asked if there was a footprint for the landscaping plan for the future phases of development. Mr. Ward responded an overall landscape plan had been included. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked for clarification of whether or not there would be a future drive aisle on the north side of the future GM dealership. Mr. Sloan responded what was depicted in that location was one parallel parking stall. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked if there should be a requirement to include another drive connection west of Auto Plaza Drive to encourage future connectivity. Planner Riley responded the nature of the R-4 zoning district on the northwest side might disallow a drive connection so near the residential development. Mr. Wall asked where a Nissan would be serviced if the GM dealership wasn’t built yet. Mr. Ward responded structural engineering for both buildings had begun, but the Nissan th service would be a 19 & Main until the GM dealership was built. Mr. Ward thanked Planner Riley and Planner Skelton for their hard work on the proposal. He stated Mr. Billion’s take on the proposal was to incorporate as many sustainability features as possible including pervious materials, waste oil usage, etc., but many would be cost prohibitive. He stated the owner was glad to be proposing a lower light level and would handle most security through the use of cameras. He stated computer generated imaging for the landscaping had been done, but they thought it made sense to do some berming and landscaping though he thought the view on the north side of the GM building would be mitigated by future development. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall asked if the applicant had any problems with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Ward responded he had no issues with Staff conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Hufstetler stated he liked the overall design of the proposal though he still wished the existing Billion th building at 19 & Main had been proposed for relocation to the site. He stated he was initially concerned that there was no substantial outward face to the proposed structures, but thought the landscaping would mitigate the view. He stated there would be three buildings with a small primary façade and a lot of service areas and he thought the applicant had done well on the proposal. He stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions of approval. Ms. Zavora stated the landscape proposal was more detailed and better designed than the Informal 6 Design Review Board Minutes – August 25, 2010 proposal had been though she would have liked to see more depth for the Nissan site; there could be more landscaping on the Cottonwood Road side. She stated there was a nice diversity of trees proposed for the site and suggested it would be nice to see vegetation with more depth and scale with taller features next to the building; uniformity could be included with the shrubs with a more defined bed. She suggested a more defined planting bed to take advantageous of the available space. She suggested the applicant consider ensuring their vehicles were protected considering some of the proposed Aspen trees. Mr. Rea stated he had no comments and he would defer to the rest of the DRB members who had reviewed the informal to determine whether or not previous comments had been addressed. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall reiterated that Cottonwood Road would be a major corridor in the future. He stated he felt as though the applicant had addressed previous DRB and Staff comments. He stated he was concerned that the applicant was missing an opportunity to take fuller advantage of the Cottonwood frontage. He stated he would like to see additional landscaping treatment along Cottonwood Road as well as berming; he added it would help to define the site and provide focal points. He stated everything else proposed looked great. MOTION : Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Billion Auto Plaza II Master SP #Z-10180 & Nissan Dealership SP #Z-10181with Staff conditions of approval. Ms. Zavora asked if the motion could be amended to include additional landscaping along the Cottonwood Road side of the site. Chairperson Pro Tem Wall responded the motion could be amended. Mr. Hufstetler stated he withdrew the motion and would craft another. The motion was withdrawn . Chairperson Pro Tem Wall suggested the addition of condition #10 to include the language that the landscaping plan shall be revised to include additional landscaping along the east elevation of the Nissan dealership, the encroachment onto Cottonwood road, and the northeast corner of the proposed master site plan. AMENDED MOTION : Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Wall seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Billion Auto Plaza II Master SP #Z-10180 & Nissan Dealership SP #Z-10181 with Staff conditions of approval and the addition of condition #10 that the landscaping plan shall be revised to include additional landscaping along the east elevation of the Nissan dealership, the encroachment onto Cottonwood road, and the northeast corner of the proposed master site plan. Mr. Rea stated he thought the subjectivity of the landscaping portion of the motion would be good. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded to open and continue the item to the next meeting The motion carried 4-0. of the DRB. 7 Design Review Board Minutes – August 25, 2010 ITEM 5. (Taylor) CITY COMMISSION/DRB MEETING DEBRIEF (Continued from 7/14/10) MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to open and continue the item to the next meeting The motion carried 4-0. of the DRB. 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 comment forthcoming. ITEM 7.ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. ________________________________ Randy Wall, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board 8 Design Review Board Minutes – August 25, 2010