Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-11 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:35 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 Randy Wall Tim McHarg, Planning Director Scott Bechtle David Skelton, Senior Planner Michael Pentecost Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Page Huyette Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Walter Banziger Carson Taylor, Commission Liaison Visitors Present Jami Morris Tony Renslow Mike Delaney Thomas Bitnar Laura Dornberger Steve Locati ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2011 INFORMAL MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Bechtle seconded, to approve the minutes of March 23, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant of the second project if the order of review could be reversed. Mr. Delaney responded that he did not mind. 2. Santa Fe Red's Sign COA/DEV #Z-11130 (Bristor) 211 East Main Street, Suite 101 * A Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation application to allow a projecting sign to exceed the allowable maximum square footage. Mr. Hufstetler and Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Steve Locati and Laura Dornberger joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report on behalf of Allyson Bristor noting the application was to allow a sign to exceed the maximum square footage. He stated Staff had found the request to be appropriate for the site. He stated Staff had noted the scale of the signage would not visually impact the streetscape in this location as the building’s mass was large. He stated one condition of approval had been identified regarding the neon lighting proposed which would be required to have a dimmer included. Mr. Locati stated the proposal had been represented very well by Staff and he had nothing to add, but would be available to answer questions. Mr. Hufstetler asked how far apart the two neon signs would be. Mr. Locati responded they would be roughly 40 feet apart. Mr. Hufstetler asked if both neon lights would be the same brightness. Mr. Locati responded he was not certain as one existing sign was being refurbished. Mr. Bechtle stated he was supportive of the proposal as submitted and he concurred with Staff’s recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Wall stated that, in the interest of full disclosure, he had spoken with the applicant and owner for the proposal and reviewed a past Deviation request that was similar. He stated he was supportive of the proposal as submitted with Staff conditions of approval. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was supportive of the proposal as submitted and agreed with Staff conditions of approval. He stated he was glad to see the proposal and his only concern was the proximity of the other sign. MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Bechtle seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Santa Fe Red's Sign COA/DEV #Z-11130 with Staff conditions of approval. The motion carried 5-0. 1. Spring Creek Village Resort Lot 4 Concept PUD #Z-11109 (Skelton) West of Resort Drive, North of Huffine Lane, south of Fallon Street * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the development of 20 B-P (Business Park District) lots with 2 park/recreation/open space lots in phases. Chairperson Pentecost waived the necessity for Ms. Huyette to observe the meeting and invited her to participate in the comment portion of the review. Jami Morris, Thomas Bitnar, Michael Delaney, and Tony Renslow joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the goal was to provide comment and advice to assist the applicant with their formal application submittal. He stated Staff had met with the applicant to discuss the Design Objective Plan criteria. He stated the site was currently zoned Business Park District and was located within the West Main Street Entryway Corridor. He stated the formal Planned Unit Development application would be reviewed by the DRB where the advisory body would also review the applicant’s Development Manual guidelines against the Design Objective Plan Guidelines for the proposal. He stated relaxations were commonly requested as part of a Planned Unit Development Application. He stated the requested relaxations to the Bozeman Municipal Code were pretty significant but it would be a matter of trade offs for higher quality design of the project. He stated the Design Objectives Plan would set the standards for high-quality of design in this location. However, by proposing a mixed use plan unit development (PUD) that includes relaxations to the regulatory standards, the bar is raised even higher for exceptional site and building design. He stated there was no requirement for the residential component but it was allowed; the previous Lot 4 review was for the UMU District that contained a residential component requirement. He stated the applicant has taken Staff’s recommendation of bringing the proposed buildings closer to the edge of the site along Huffine Lane and that the DRB Staff reported focused on three of the five review criteria from the Design Objectives Plan (i.e., neighborhood design, site design and West Main street entryway corridor). He stated the applicant had provided limited information about the site and building design, as result the focus was on the West Main Street Entryway Overlay District, neighborhood design and site design. He stated that with regard to establishing a hierarchy of design elements that the general focus should be based on the more intense the use and activity, then the greater the need for public spaces, plazas and areas for social activities and open space. Planner Skelton stated the applicant had provided a model and directed the DRB to a rendering of the proposal he had colored for easier identification of features. He noted the locations of the proposed open space corridor and neighborhood center. He stated the neighborhood center achieved the intent of providing the necessary focal point of a public open space and a social gathering area and Staff felt the neighborhood center and open space corridor along Huffine Lane could be included in the calculations for meeting the open space PUD requirements. He noted the locations of the proposed service areas and a pedestrian access off of Huffine Lane into the core of the development. He stated Staff had suggested a greater emphasis be placed on all of the principal entrances into the development, both pedestrian and vehicular and suggested a bike/pedestrian path should be included from Huffine Lane. He stated the main street of the development (east-west) needed a stronger emphasis with regard to its streetscape, plazas, seating areas, buildings transparency at the street level; that it not only needs to look and feel like a street, but also act as a main street by emphasizing the importance of a pedestrian friendly walkable community. He stated the importance of major streets being differentiated from the secondary streets and suggested the hierarchy of the streetscape would be best served if attention was given more to both pedestrian and bicycle connectivity as bicycle connectivity was as important as pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and should not be ignored. He distributed an exhibit of the bicycle pathways as part of the streetscape long North Higgins Avenue in Missoula and noted how it added a lot of vitality and dynamics to the downtown main street of Missoula. Planner Skelton stated perpendicular parking had been proposed with the project; Staff’s concern was that a sustainable, walkable community should not have parking stalls that dominate the streetscape or compete with the connectivity of the site. He stated Staff had typically found that perpendicular parking was least safe while parallel parking was most safe. If not parallel parking, angled parking should be considered at a minimum along the main street and secondary street network. He stated he thought the project could achieve the necessary amenities sought with the Design Objectives Plan and Planned Unit Development criteria, but it would not be until the formal application submittal that the information would be provided. He expressed the need for extension details and explanation on how the comments of staff and the DRB would be achieved. He stated it may require some redesign of the project; as a result, the recommendations of staff and DRB will need to be seriously considered by the applicant before submitting a formal application. He stated vertical urban density should be an integral part of the consideration of the project and that the entryway corridor has already established two-story structures in the area, both along the corridor and in proximity to the development. He commented that one-story satellite buildings along the corridor were not the desired impression for this entryway; the applicant had discussed two to three story structures. He stated Staff felt there needed to be more attention paid to the service and loading areas as well as the pedestrian and bikeway connectivity. He stated he thought all of Staff’s recommendations could be achieved on the site with the necessary revisions to the site and noted it was a Planned Unit Development with a higher level of design standards necessary to consider the relaxations to the regulatory standards sought by the applicant. He stated that to assist the applicant, open space did not have to be just green space; plazas, landscape and landscape furniture, surface materials, main street design, embracing the entryway corridor, emphasis on entrance or connectivity points could be considered as amenities that would help to meet the open space requirements. Planner Skelton made reference to his closing comments in the DRB staff report stating that the recommendations of staff and the DRB should set the minimum standards for this development based on the scale and magnitude of the development, as well as the relaxations being requested with this application. Mr. Delaney introduced his team. He stated he had been working on the project for a number of years and had likely gone through 100 iterations that were market driven. He directed the DRB to the model they had prepared to give the Board some idea of the massing of the project. He stated they had attempted to create a campus environment with the current proposal. He stated that a portion of the site would be filled with medical offices and would maintain the campus layout. He stated there would be a lodge, restaurants, and everyone would have a shared parking lot. He stated the attempt to create a campus was to put pedestrians ahead of vehicles and bicycles; he noted the experience would need to compel people to stay on the site. He stated that as the project evolved and grew, it would be a very beautiful environment irrespective of the buildings uses. He stated the formal submittal would contain detailed drawings that would depict the beautiful entries that would be included at the accesses to the site. He stated the idea was to trap people on the site through the use of a moving area of less than 10 miles per hour within the development. He stated the Bicycle Advisory Board had suggested bicycle access to and around the property but they had not seemed concerned with bike lanes within the development along the main east to west street; he noted it seemed unsafe to provide the bike lane through the development and he would provide expert letters to help prove that the proposed private drive was more safe. He stated there would be other features that would encourage slower movement through the development. He stated that if advice came from other people that angled or parallel parking would work better, the current arrangement could be revised. He stated the development would begin in the center with the creation of the park/plaza area. He stated he agreed with Staff that buildings on the corners could be oriented to face main accesses. He stated the interconnectivity would create an environment that would be easily walkable and a “village like” environment. He stated Norton Ranch would have residences to the west of the site to help provide interconnectivity. He stated the center of the development would be the tallest, most beautiful buildings with those that were smaller would be located toward the edges of the site. He stated emphasis of the access points would be investigated and taken to heart and other amenities would be included as suggested by Staff. Mr. Bitnar added that it was important for them to follow the comment and advice of Staff as well as the advisory bodies. He stated everything would include pedestrian connections and noted the view of the site from Huffine Lane would be very important. He stated it was an amazing responsibility and he was delighted to be a part of the development. He asked the DRB to be positive on the project and a part of the design team. Mr. Hufstetler asked Mr. Delaney for clarification of whether the proposal had been designed to turn its back on everything around it. Mr. Delaney responded the best way to make it appear that the development opened its arms to the neighborhood was to create a strip development; he added in development you have to be something to somebody, failing that you are nothing to nobody. He stated they were attempting to create a central heart to the development to provide the feeling of safety for patrons of the development. He stated the development had been designed around the heart of the community to create an oasis; he added all buildings would have two sides and be beautiful on both sides. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there were possibilities to create visual interest along those corridors to draw people to the site and create more visual interest. Mr. Delaney responded a beautifully designed hotel would draw people to the site; the externalization of the beauty of the development was their goal. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the vehicular and pedestrian traffic might be a hindrance when people were backing out of parking spaces. Mr. Delaney responded the goal was to maintain the east, west, north, and south lines of vision so that people could identify where they were. He stated the parking oriented in any other way would be confusing to pedestrians; they would be improving the north-south corridors to make them more street like and a bike lane could be incorporated in that location. Mr. Hufstetler stated that if he were leaving the site on a bicycle, he would be inclined to cut across a parking lot and violate the rigidity of the design; he saw the entry as perhaps aesthetically pleasing but a hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. He suggested less symmetry could be used to mediate the danger at the access. Mr. Delaney responded the landscape median would be designed to prevent people from cutting across the site and his insurance company had suggested a fence along Huffine Lane in an effort to prevent people from going off site in that location where conditions were not adequately safe for pedestrians or bicyclists. Mr. Hufstetler asked if any evaluation of how the outdoor spaces would be impacted by the winter season; some areas might be in shade or shadow much of the time. Mr. Delaney responded they had investigated the shading on the site but it would not affect the plaza area; he noted it would affect some of the parked cars, but everything had been designed for the maximum sunlight as of December 21st. Mr. Hufstetler asked if one location would be a social area or part of the medical campus. Mr. Delaney responded it had been first and foremost created for the medical campus aspect of the site so that good or bad news could be given in a peaceful environment; he added there would be no barriers and all the spaces would be open to people. Mr. Bechtle asked Mr. Delaney if the park area between office buildings had solar studies completed and if it would be a comfortable space. Mr. Delaney responded that location had been studied and a big difference would be made using transparency in the construction of the buildings; their goal was to eventually interconnect the structures. Mr. Bechtle clarified where the medical office uses would be located on the site. Mr. Delaney noted that location. Mr. Bechtle asked if Staff felt the proposed uses were going too far away from the uses allowed in the B-P zoning district. Planner Skelton responded Staff was not too concerned with proposed uses with exception to food processing, personal and convenience services, and convenience uses and would later define them as conditional uses if they are to be permitted in the PUD. Mr. Bechtle clarified that Staff had discussed allowing the uses not generally allowable in the B-P zoning district as Conditional Uses. Planner Skelton responded that Mr. Bechtle was correct. Mr. Bechtle asked how Staff felt about the proposed one story structures along Huffine Lane. Planner Skelton responded Staff had discussed the importance of the street level interest, store fronts and entrances off of Huffine Lane and how the project should embrace the entryway corridor, not turn its back on the corridor, and emphasized the importance of this project being a gateway into the community; he stated it would be a case by case basis, but Staff was not really excited about one story satellite buildings and would like to see more height and vertical density along Huffine Lane. Mr. Bechtle asked the applicant to discuss the reasoning for some of the proposed heights. Mr. Bitnar responded that it was not about a one or two story structure but was a question of height. He stated there must be a sense of orientation with clear directions of travel to understand your location. He stated that sometimes the height lies and it was very tricky to include the complexity of hierarchy on the site as well as solar implications. Planner Skelton added the need for a couple of other integral elements other than just height such as addressing double frontage lots, building transparency at the street level, fenestration treatment, and public spaces with a high level of quality in building design. Mr. Bechtle asked if there would be a height requirement. Planner Skelton responded there would be height limitations based on the zoning designation but he would prefer not to rely upon the zoning regulations as this is a planned unit development requesting relaxations to the ordinance. Mr. Bechtle asked for clarification of the fence proposed along Huffine Lane. Mr. Delaney responded it had to be a visual barrier that would be transparent and had been included purely for safety considerations. Mr. Bechtle asked where Mr. Delaney was considering the outdoor dining areas. Mr. Delaney responded those establishments along Huffine Lane would have the opportunity to have outdoor seating areas but those locations had not yet been determined. Mr. Wall asked Planner Skelton for clarification of the Class I and II Entryway Corridor Overlay Districts. Planner Skelton responded the differences were basically dimensional, Class I being 50 feet and Class II being 25 feet with the idea being that the buildings would be placed closer to the street edge as you traveled toward the downtown area. Mr. Wall asked if there had been discussion of the extension of the main street feature to Cottonwood Road. Planner Skelton responded that Staff could only require the applicant to provide extension of streets to the edge of their site; however, the potential to extend the street would still be available with the adjoining landowner. Mr. Wall suggested Cottonwood Street could be one of the main entrances to the site. Mr. Delaney responded they had considered the Cottonwood Road access, but the two adjacent properties had a shared access and were not amenable to sharing that connection. Mr. Wall suggested he would like to see the connection made and that the applicant go the extra mile to see that it happened. He asked if there were any projects along Huffine Lane that had a fence. Planner Skelton responded there were none at this time, but as lands annex to the west this may be a point of discussion. Mr. Wall stated fences made a statement of inclusiveness that he was not supportive of though he liked the idea of a boulevard that was defined by the structures. Mr. Banziger asked for clarification that the applicant had not spent a lot of time of building and signage design. Planner Skelton responded a general laundry list had been provided the applicant as part of Development Manual guidelines to be included with the formal application and it had included building and sign design; he added Staff had requested and received additional information about the site, but very little about building design. Mr. Banziger asked the applicant what sustainability features had been investigated for the site. Mr. Bitnar responded that the sustainability and LEED construction would be followed, but the problem was that it would be business oriented. Even if Platinum LEED certification were attempted, it would be subject to the current market conditions; sustainability would be followed as closely as possible. Mr. Delaney added they had investigated thermal groundwater which was not fiscally feasible, but day lighting, more green spaces, windows that would open, etc. would be incorporated and they were investigating fuel cell technology in the hopes that the first building could incorporate it into the design. Mr. Banziger asked if there was a possibility of utilizing water running off the buildings. Mr. Delaney responded it was a possibility, but the high ground water in the location might prevent their use. Mr. Bitnar added a sustainable site was very important and pedestrian/bicycle connectivity would be foremost. Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification if the big scheme of the development would be a medical campus. Mr. Delaney responded the primary uses would be a medical campus with ancillary uses to serve the medical campus with support services located on the south side of the site. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant foresaw the site closing down and becoming much quieter at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Delaney responded the building fronting Huffine would remain open and they anticipate that overflow parking from the restaurant, bar, or plaza would use the medical campus parking lots with those establishments being used 7 days a week. Chairperson Pentecost asked how the parking was calculated for the site. Planner Skelton responded types of uses would determine the parking requirements with the potential for reductions based on shared use parking and Staff would evaluate the site against a mix of commercial and office retail uses. Chairperson Pentecost asked what the energy would be that pulled people to the development after 5:00 p.m. instead of stopping at the previous site (Spring Creek Village Subdivision Lot 5). Mr. Delaney responded that the intention was to tie the sites together so that they would rely upon each other; they were trying to change the UMU zone on Lot 5 so that some people could build a one story structure instead of being required to construct a two-story building. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was happy that Planner Skelton had provided the information on bicycle ways constructed along North Higgins Ave. in Missoula; he had been part of a charrette to determine possible treatments for the main street through town. He stated large scale planned developments had been suggested to draw people to downtown Missoula; those proposals never came to pass and the streetscape had become vibrating and inviting due to organic evolution over a period of time. He suggested it was easier to evolve the existing than to create something from scratch. He stated he was concerned with developments that had rigid plans; his most prominent concern was the sense of isolation created by the development though he understood the motivation. He stated the proposed visual barriers did not seem inviting and the parking situation seemed potentially unsafe. He stated he thought the core area in the center had the potential to be an extraordinary space and suggested it would help if there was an organic extension to the rest of the community. He stated Huffine Lane was arguably one of Bozeman’s most important corridors and it had become less and less appealing visually. He suggested continuity with properties to the east and the south would be critical and he thought the rigidity of the plan would be less inviting. He stated he shared the concerns that Staff had indicated in the Staff Report with regard to the double frontage lots and utility areas that would be highly visible. He stated he liked the notion of combining the two broad usage groups on the site and he thought it had the possibility of working well. He suggested providing more prominent visual landmarks to give the property a stronger sense of place along the perimeters. Mr. Bechtle stated he did not share the same viewpoint with regard to the development turning its back on the rest of Bozeman. He stated the project to the east seemed like a wall around the development. He stated he believed that the spaces between the buildings should be designed for pedestrians and bikers; he added the Design Guidelines would help define the building designs. He stated it made sense that the medical campus did not necessarily have access to the plaza as having the medical offices looking into the gardens would suffice. He stated it made sense to place the parking on the south side of the site. He stated the services would be provided between the buildings while allowing natural light to penetrate deeper into the building. He suggested a visual edge of two story structures should be continued down Huffine Lane to remain in keeping with the character of the overlay district. He stated he was not supportive of the proposed fence and reiterated that clear and concise Design Guidelines would be critical for the site. Mr. Wall acknowledged the applicant’s on all the work they had put forth and he thought the proposal was a good start. He stated his expectation was that there would be some changes to the proposal when it was formally submitted. He stated the importance of the Entryway Corridor had been emphasized repeatedly. He stated the PUD was a lot more work but a lot more flexible but there were fifteen aspects to the site design that did not meet the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan. He stated that perpendicular parking did not emulate a main street design or feel and suggested de-emphasizing the parking while including more emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian circulation and amenities. He stated he did not think it would be possible to have four fronts to the buildings as service areas were functionally necessary; it would have a big affect on the site plan. He stated he was not supportive of the fence along Huffine Lane. He stated the applicant had made a good start and he hoped that Staff and DRC comments would be incorporated in the formal application submittal. Mr. Banziger stated he appreciated the applicant bringing the project to the DRB. He stated the comments were not meant in a negative light and suggested members were just trying to give advice. He stated he had heard a lot of good campus concepts, but had not seen many of the features instituted in the proposal. He stated the building design and campus design needed to be integrated; the inner hub seemed very well designed, but the ring of parking separated the hub from the remainder of the site. He suggested inspired landscaping, primary and secondary buildings, view portals in and out of the campus, and circulation. He stated the borders and edges should complement the properties next to it while still maintaining an identity; the site should not seem isolated. He stated he was not supportive of the proposed fence and suggested using landscaping features to transition the spaces. He suggested the Design Guidelines should indicate the importance of the buildings and suggested he was not supportive of four fronts to a building as services were necessary. He encouraged the applicant to investigate the parking isolating the core of the development and integration of all forms of transportation on the site. He stated the Design Guidelines would be critical for the site and suggested core principles be included as well. He stated he thought the applicants had a great start. Ms. Huyette stated that most of her comments had been addressed by previous DRB members. She stated the strict symmetry of the layout showed that it will continue through which led to symmetry on the site, however, if the street was not carried through that edge should be redesigned. She suggested there were opportunities to visually connect and draw in the community and give more of a perception of open space; the current layout did not encourage views in. She stated public transit should be considered as well so it would be easier for them to navigate the site while going to their facilities. She stated she was supportive of a safety barrier along Huffine Lane and added a fence could be architecturally designed to complement the parcel. Chairperson Pentecost reinforced Mr. Wall’s comment that perpendicular parking is inappropriate for the site and does not feel like a main street. He suggested Board comments might change once the more detailed formal submittal was under review. He stated he agreed with Mr. Bechtle that the areas between buildings would be critical and might dictate the design of the buildings to some extent and suggested the development of those areas between buildings should be addressed in the Design Guidelines document. He stated the project was competing with Main Street and suggested that there would need to be a feature to draw people to the site. He stated he thought the applicant was headed down a strong path. ITEM 4. 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 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board