Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-10 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Rea 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 Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Scott Bechtle Tim McHarg, Planning Director Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Visitors Present Carson Taylor Rebecca Pape Kevin Kelleher Jim Ullman Keith Scott Shi Ki Liu Mike Clutter Darren Schroeder Jeff Parker Stan Griswold Susan Swimley ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 Opened and continued to next meeting of the DRB. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Kohl’s SP/COA FSP #Z-10192 (Krueger) th 945 South 29 Avenue * A Final Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a 55,363 square foot retail building with related site improvements. Jim Ullman, Susan Swimley, and Keith Scott joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the DRB had provided a formal recommendation for the project. He stated the Commission had preliminarily approved the application with modified conditions of approval. He stated the condition of approval requiring DRB review and approval of the Final Site Plan had been maintained. He stated he had provided the DRB with Staff comments on the proposed Final Site Plan and added that any item under the purview of the Board could be discussed. He reiterated conditions from preliminary site plan approval and noted some of the conditions of approval had been slightly modified. He stated an affidavit had been received from Kohl’s regarding sustainability features. He stated the 1 Design Review Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 incorporation of additional landscape features had been required and the application reflected the installation of those features; raised planters, wider planting beds, seating, and architectural features had been added. He stated the pedestrian pathway along the west side of the building had been removed. He stated Staff had anticipated the curb walk would be located in a certain area and the plaza area would be relocated. Mr. Ullman explained that the curb walk had been relocated to the west to provide opportunity to install another seating area along the west side of the north-south trail. Ms. Swimley added the feature had been relocated northwest instead of just directly west. Planner Krueger stated Staff felt the condition of approval had been met with the proposed relocation of the curb walk. Planner Krueger stated the mechanical equipment screening detail requirement was a standard condition of approval. He stated the security lighting condition of approval had been met and hours of operation had been included. He stated condition of approval #9 required subdivision exemptions to modify the underlying lots. He stated Staff had received a revised improvements agreement and a financial guarantee; he noted it was not irregular to be without finalized documents until the very end of the review process and copies of the drafts had been provided. He stated the phasing plan along with the construction management plan were required to provide a rendering of the open space improvements to be completed with the construction of the Kohl’s building; Staff was anticipating a revised exhibit depicting the completion of open space #6 and noted everything else was in conformance with the phasing of the open space improvements. He stated the construction management plan had been submitted and Staff had noted drainage improvements had not been depicted on the plan and it would need to be revised. He stated weed management had been addressed with a notation in the application and a barrier fencing detail had been included; he added Staff was supportive of the proposed fencing detail but would require a revised plan to depict where the fence would be installed. He stated the northernmost drive aisle had been removed per DRB recommendation. He stated there were fairly minor issues outstanding that would require revisions from the applicant and noted Staff was supportive of the proposal as submitted. Ms. Swimley stated condition #6 regarding the mechanical equipment screening and noted their concern was that the mechanical equipment could only be seen if the roof was level and was set back 40 feet on the roof. She stated she appreciated Planner Krueger’s hard work on the proposal to help maintain other deadlines. She stated she anticipated some of the landscaping would be completed under the improvements agreement requirements and they would clarify it however Staff wanted them to. She stated the condition of approval dictated where the fence had to be located which was why a fence detail instead of a rendering of the fence’s location had been submitted. She stated the applicant agreed to most conditions of approval and had considered those conditions of approval as met when they agreed to them. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated condition of approval #6 regarding screening came up a lot during project review; because of views from rooftops of buildings built in the future, there would be an opportunity for those tenants to see the mechanical units. He stated in an elevation view, if the units could be seen, the units should be screened to cover all bases. He stated he would like to see the development phasing and construction plan noted as part of the Final Site Plan Application. Mr. Bechtle stated the applicant might have trouble describing there might be a stock pile on the site during construction and suggested Staff just wanted documentation that the site would be cleaned up after the construction was completed. He stated the applicant should have an option available as a mechanism to ensure that if the mechanical equipment is visible it could be screened without delaying the occupancy. 2 Design Review Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked if the elevations included any windows on the south elevation. Planner Krueger responded there were not. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked if there were any windows proposed for the west or east elevations. Planner Krueger responded there were not. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked if Technology Boulevard West would still be considered a primary street through the development. Mr. Ullman responded it was a primary street when related to the overall PUD. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked for clarification of the tile material proposed. Mr. Ullman responded it was a black porcelain metal panel. Planner Krueger provided the material sample for the DRB to review. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated he was concerned with the proposal’s lack of windows though he understood the lack of windows on the south facade. He stated the east and west elevations included no windows but included fake windows; he was concerned that the elevations would be stark and dimly lit as well as without human scale and noted it was the biggest stumbling block with the proposal. He stated he didn’t know if spandrel glass wouldn’t be any better but he would like to see some sort of guarantee that the spandrel glass would be maintained to prevent it from becoming evident that the windows were fake. He stated he had other concerns such as the tilt up and paint panels due to the lack of texture and detail. He stated he worried about the overburden and topsoil being left of the site as there was no guarantee the building would be constructed in the near future and the elevation did not meet the Bozeman Gateway Design Guidelines or the City of Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. Mr. Bechtle stated he was concerned that the standard lick and stick stone would be used and suggested the mass and scale of the building could be softened if the stone were varied. He stated he wasn’t concerned with the black panels and he liked the fact that textures were being used to break up the scale and form. He stated he had never been a real fan of cultured stone under brick and suggested it would feel better if the brick went all the way to the ground and banding was included to break up the face of the building. He asked if the tilt up would be stained or painted. Mr. Ullman responded it would textured paint. Mr. Bechtle suggested detail on the panel could break up the façade as well. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea opened the item for public comment, seeing none forthcoming; the public comment period was closed. 2. Safeway SP/COA/DEV #Z-10239 (Krueger) 1735 West Main Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Deviation to allow the construction of a 59,870 sq. ft. Safeway Grocery store with a Deviation request to increase the allowable amount of parking by 20%. Matt Ekstrom, Jeff Parker, Stan Griswold, and Darren Schroeder joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for formal review of the proposal after reviewing two informal applications for the site. He stated the application was currently being reviewed by the DRC and noted the DRB would provide informal recommendations. He stated the DRB members not in attendance could provide written comment that would be forwarded to the Commission as public comment. He noted the location of the property and that the parcel was irregularly shaped. He stated the proposal was for two buildings; the Safeway building and a smaller retail structure. He stated four access points had been proposed for the site including a shared access with the property to the north of the site. He stated two deviations were being requested; to allow up to a 20% increase in parking and to allow a 2 foot encroachment into the setback along the south edge of the site. He stated Staff was supportive of the deviation requests with Staff conditions of approval. 3 Design Review Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 Planner Krueger stated a well developed pedestrian system had been provided on the site and some cross property pedestrian connections could be made in the future to the Hastings property as well as the residential development to the north and to the medical office to the north of the site. He stated the landscaping had been revised to exceed the minimum standards; the applicant had proposed an intensive and high level detailed landscape plan to meet that requirement and noted Staff was very supportive of the proposed plan. He stated plaza areas would be incorporated directly into the landscaping; he noted the thoughtfulness put into the detailing would provide great amenities for the site and they would be used. He stated the building elevations had been revised to provide a strong project from the perspective of the architectural design and materials palette. He stated the rear of the building had been opened up with corridor windows, spandrel glass, and signage on the east elevation. He stated Staff believed the applicant had made a strong effort to break up the mass of the facades and Staff believed the proposal met the guidelines for building composition. He stated the conditions of approval had been provided to the Board with regard to the northern parking area and loading/service entrance; Staff had suggested a formalized landscaped island in the snow removal location. He stated Staff had recommended that the 50 foot wide drive aisle next to the medical offices be reduced to minimize impervious surface. He stated there were a couple areas where new fencing had been proposed and Staff was concerned with the proposed black vinyl chain link fencing; the condition of approval indicated Staff would like to see the fencing terminate behind the front façade of the building or transition to a higher quality material such as tubular black steel. He stated a community focused theme could be instituted on the structure instead of something directly related to the grocery use as it would be considered signage. He stated Staff had discussed accepting the chain link as proposed if it was four feet in height to allow for separation of the properties at the southwest corner of the site. He stated Staff envisioned that someday the corner parcel would be redeveloped though they did not anticipate it would happen soon. He stated the security lighting condition of approval had been included but minimization of lighting would be encouraged. He stated the applicant had agreed to seek LEED certification as well as outlined electrical and water conservation efforts within the building; based on the quality of the building and landscaping, Staff could safely say the applicant was exceeding the minimum standards. Mr. Parker stated the truck turn radius had been obtained and would be submitted to Staff. He stated comments and recommendations had been incorporated in the formal submittal as best they could be and they were very proud of the proposal. Mr. Schroeder presented the truck turn radius rendering. Mr. Parker stated their intent was to use the easement, which would be provided for in an agreement, to allow deliveries. Mr. Schroeder stated a sufficient radius had been provided for truck turning. Mr. Parker added they thought the 50 foot would be a fair and safe width to allow for vehicular maneuverability. Mr. Schroeder stated they agreed with terminating the fence on the same plane as the front façade of the Hastings building; he added they would like to keep the fence proposed along the lot containing the casino. Mr. Parker stated the snow removal area had been requested to be a landscaped area, but they would prefer the area contain grass crete that would be flush to the parking lot. He stated a security plan had been identified. Mr. Bechtle stated he thought the applicant’s had done a really nice job with regard to the landscaping though he questioned why the fences were needed at all. Mr. Parker responded the fencing was meant to discourage patrons from cross use of the site and damaging of the landscaping; it would also detour vandalism. Mr. Bechtle stated it was too bad those areas couldn’t be taken care of with landscaping; not having the fence might improve the casino property. He asked why there was a four foot high rail proposed on the corner. Mr. Schroeder responded there was a grade change and the railing had been proposed to provide for security for the pedestrian. Mr. Bechtle stated the exterior plaza area to the south was a nice place and suggested making the connection should be encouraged to creatively take advantage 4 Design Review Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 of the inside/outside plaza area. He stated the sunken fenced in area would make people feel less comfortable. He stated he thought the grass crete would be a good idea for the snow removal area and suggested the site was big enough that the snow might need to be removed from the site entirely. He stated he liked what the applicant had done with the proposed elevations and stated the corner open element would encourage pedestrian activity. He stated it would be interesting to see how many issues would come up with a full access turn onto Main Street. Mr. Parker responded they had submitted a traffic study that was supportive of the full access to both the City Engineering Department as well as MDT. He stated he was looking forward to seeing the building. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked if one landscape island being removed would solve the problem of the turning radius. Mr. Schroeder responded they would investigate that option, but the truck would still need to straighten out in the same location; it wouldn’t make it any easier to get into the dock. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated he loved the idea of grass crete, but he could imagine the difficulties with regard to snow plowing; he thought the snow removal area was in the right place and suggested the applicant investigate other solutions. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated the University had done work on pervious pavement. Mr. Parker responded the susceptibility to failure due to the weather variations had ruled out many of those options; he suggested the grass crete could sit below the level of the pavement. Mr. Schroeder presented the DRB with a detail for the grass crete. Planner Krueger noted the Design Objectives Plan specifically indicated pervious materials be included in overflow parking areas. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated he would be supportive of black, vinyl dipped PVC but not around the corner on the property; there were a lot of opportunities to provide a higher aesthetic level fence quality though it would be more expensive. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked if there had been discussion with the residential development to the north to provide a pedestrian connection. Mr. Parker responded the development had respectfully declined the connection and they would construct the trail to the property line to be available in the future. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated he wished Elissa was here to appreciate the landscaping plan and thanked the applicant’s for going through the informal review process initially. Mr. Bechtle asked if the LEED certification would include day lighting. Mr. Schroeder responded they would not be seeking the day lighting, but had agreed to certification; he added day lighting had been included in the bakery area. Mr. Bechtle stated it seemed like more stores were using skylights. Shi Ki Liu stated the ambient lighting would wash out the colors of the merchandise. Mr. Bechtle stated he thought it would look nice. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea opened the item for public comment, seeing none forthcoming the public comment period was closed. ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Opened and continued 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 7:17 p.m. 5 Design Review Board Minutes – October 13, 2010 ________________________________ Bill Rea, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board 6 Design Review Board Minutes – October 13, 2010