Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-11 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26,2011 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:32 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 Page Huyette Tim McHarg, Planning Director Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson David Skelton, Senior Planner Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Scott Bechtle Carson Taylor, Commission Liaison Visitors Present Jami Morris Tony Renslow Shelley Englar Michael Delaney ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 13,2011 MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Vice Chairperson Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of July 13, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Spring Creek Village Lot 4 Design Guidelines INFORMAL #I-11022 (Skelton) West of Resort Drive, north of Huffine Lane, south of Fallon Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the preliminary design guidelines manual for Spring Creek Village Lot 4 Planned Unit Development. Page 1 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2011 Senior Planner David Skelton presented the project noting that the meeting was for a second Informal review of the proposal and the draft design guidelines. He stated he had e-mailed the Board members minutes from previous reviews of the proposal. He stated the development manual would implement the architectural and landscape guidelines. He stated Planner Riley, himself, and Planning Director McHarg had met with Ms. Morris and Mr. Bitnar regarding the architectural design for the site. He stated the Informal submittal was essentially wrapping up the Concept Planned Unit Development Application. He stated the architectural disciplines were what was to be discussed and the relaxations that were being requested were not at issue with this application. He stated he expected to see a formal application after the end of the year. Mike Delaney, Jami Morris, Shelley Engler, and Tony Renslow joined the DRB. Mr. Delaney stated that roughly half the site would be used as a medical campus. He stated there would also be restaurants established on the southern end of the site and a lodge would also be included. He stated he would have to leave a little bit after six this evening and apologized for having to do so. He directed the DRB to templates of the design elements that he wanted to see incorporated into the project. He stated the western boundary of Bozeman would have a nice, soft memory once the development was completed. Ms. Morris stated 10 foot wide shared access pathways had been included on all three sides and would be constructed of asphalt. She stated the building pads on the north end had been relocated to be closer and bring more of the focus to the primary streets. She stated the lots depicted in the development manual had been depicted to include the parking lots which would be common parking areas. She stated Spring Creek Village Drive had been made more pedestrian friendly with a wider sidewalk, street trees, and lighting. She stated emphasis had been included for the development entrances and included a seat wall, monument signage, and a pergola. She stated the service areas had been addressed and would contain the mechanical equipment as well as benches and landscaping; those locations would have a plaza feel to them. She noted the locations of the loading areas for the medical campus. She stated 2.65 acres were public amenities and would include sculpture gardens. She stated the buildings had been depicted at proposed heights of one, two, or three stories and noted which buildings were which. She stated the materials palette had been included in the development manual as well as the streetscape and open space amenities; reflection garden, pathways, water features, etc. She asked the DRB to comment on six major points and provide their feedback. Mr. Delaney added that the shared access, north south pathways would also have a bicycle lane and would be sufficient for a loading and unloading zone. Ms. Huyette stated it appeared there would be site amenities within five feet of the sidewalks and asked the intent on making the sidewalks so wide. Mr. Delaney responded a pedestrian friendly sidewalk needed to be side enough to allow room for pedestrians but not so wide that that it no longer felt safe; it would have to be narrow enough to feel safe while providing navigation room. He added the consultant had indicated 15 feet as the ideal width. Ms. Huyette asked how the proposed water feature would appear and function. Ms. Engler responded she was uncertain how it would work. Mr. Delaney responded there would be an approximate four to five foot fall so Page 2 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2011 the stream would have small interruptions of waterfalls within it as well as little pools; the front would come out of a planted area like a regular stream and would terminate in a pool with a pumping station to return the water to the starting point. He stated the water feature would be turned off in the winter, but would always be a location that would provide serenity. Ms. Engler added she thought there was enough fall to create movement and sound that would mask some of the surrounding noise. Ms. Huyette asked what type of interest would be provided in the winter if the stream feature was a dry bed. Ms. Engler responded it was her intent to keep it simple around the feature and to include textures that would remain through the winter. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the skating rink had been included. Mr. Delaney responded the ice skating rink was part of a separate parcel to the east of the site. Vice Chairperson Rea asked the grade change from Huffine Lane to Fallon Street. Mr. Delaney responded the grade change was approximately 10 feet. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the linear strip along Huffine Lane would be used toward the open space requirements for the site. Planner Skelton responded the linear strip would be used as part of the open space requirements but the difficulty would be with the utilities in that location and the method of landscaping. Mr. Hufstetler asked if any of the perimeter streets would be developed or altered as part of the project. Mr. Delaney responded there would be only one change which would be a four way stop on Resort Drive so there was no pedestrian interruption; he added all the other streets were more than sufficient to handle development of the site. Mr. Hufstetler asked if roundabouts had been suggested. Mr. Delaney responded a roundabout was possible, but did not seem necessary. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the infrastructure for the whole property would be installed with the first phase. Mr. Delaney responded they would be required to maintain two accesses to the site but the rest of the infrastructure would follow the pattern of development. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant was comfortable proposing the narrow streets with regard to vehicles backing into the other lane of traffic. Mr. Delaney responded the design had been intended to minimize the car aspect and focus more on the pedestrian to give them a sense of superiority and safety as well as accommodate easier snow removal. Mr. Hufstetler asked the hours of operation for the medical campus. Mr. Delaney responded the hours of operation might change if the campus became a second hospital, but the site was designed to parking could be shared. Mr. Hufstetler asked if Mr. Delaney saw the proposed buildings as symmetrical. Mr. Delaney responded the intent was to make both sides of the building match with the hope that the person who buys the structure will use the materials palette and maintain the spirit of the pattern. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the double facade would be enforced. Mr. Delaney responded the double and triple facades would be enforced. Mr. Hufstetler asked what the applicant foresaw for the northeast and northwest structures at the entrances. Mr. Delaney responded he would prefer to see taller buildings in those locations. Mr. Hufstetler confirmed that the hotel would be the primary vision for someone traveling down Huffine Lane. Mr. Delaney confirmed that Mr. Hufstetler was correct. Chairperson Pentecost asked if any residential development was foreseen. Mr. Delaney responded they did not envision residential for this site as there would be residential Page 3 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2011 development to the north and east. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the building heights would be mandated or if it would be open for discussion. Mr. Delaney responded the development plan depicted minimum heights but higher would be fine; the height problem was the limited amount of parking on the site which would cause people to build within their means. Chairperson Pentecost asked what the cross depicted on the plan indicated. Mr. Delaney responded it would be a rooftop architectural feature. Mr. Bechtle stated he was encouraged to see that the applicant had addressed some of the massing and design of the development. He stated he was glad to see the elevations all the way around in Mr. Bitnar's rendering and he thought the guidelines were a good start. He suggested the height should also have a maximum allowable as the character of the development could change. He suggested the design guidelines specify that a portion of each building be brick with the other materials and architectural design specified more clearly in the document. He stated the biggest thing for him the last meeting was to clearly set design criteria in the development guidelines. He stated he was still uncertain about the overall site layout but thought the relocation of the buildings closer to the center of the site created more of an internal street layout. He stated he liked how the single loaded drive to the north and south had been included and asked if a bicycle path would be included. Ms. Morris responded the bicycle traffic would merge with regular traffic along the main street through the site from east to west; bike lanes would run north to south along the shared use pathway. Mr. Bechtle stated it was good to see some of the massing addressed and asked if the intent was for the whole development to have the same vocabulary. Ms. Morris responded the material palette was just being identified but individual buildings would be different; the medical campus area would have a different materials palette and design than the retail/hotel elements and would interact with each other and the site as a whole. Mr. Bechtle suggested signage be considered on the conceptual elevations to provide a common area for sign locations. Ms. Huyette stated that she thought some of the changes made to the proposal were moving along nicely. She stated she was not sure why the parking had been modified to follow the curve of the open space area as the increase in size of the open space was not achieving anything; she suggested looking at the relationship of the shape of the open spaces and parking areas. She suggested adding more depth to the water feature area would make it more successful. She stated she did not know if it had been intentional to create areas that didn't relate to other areas and suggested those locations should be investigated. She stated she liked the idea of including arbors on the entryways. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated he appreciated that the Cartesian grid system had been maintained. He stated he appreciated the effort being made regarding architectural features though he worried about enforcement of those guidelines. He stated his biggest concern was the reflection area and that he anticipated the area would not be usable 90 percent of the year; the surrounding buildings would cause a canyon that he did not believe should be considered as open space but instead a service area. He stated the open space was broken up so much it didn't feel like there was open space; he suggested he would rather see a larger, denser development with larger open space areas. He stated it appeared the Page 4 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2011 development had been designed around the parking making the site seem awkward. He suggested the development might benefit from decked parking; there was a lot of crossing of the parking areas in a less than safe manner. He stated he did not functionally understand the density and some of the open spaces. Mr. Hufstetler stated he appreciated getting the CD along with the hard copy of the submittal. He apologized that some of his comments would sound repetitive though some of his comments would mirror what Vice Chairperson Rea had stated. He stated he did not necessarily like to see symmetrical development but some of it was a response to the Cartesian grid system; it did not feel like a comfortable design to him due to the traffic flow on the site. He stated a parking space near the center of the property would cause a pedestrian to run a gauntlet through vehicles to get there. He agreed with Vice Chairperson Rea that the open space area at the center of the medical campus would be in the dark and felt like a space that would not be used; it would be nice to have a concentration of open space. He stated there were some very beautiful conceptual elevations and would be very appealing buildings. He stated there was more homogenization than he would have liked to see, but some of it would go away when construction began; he got a strong sense of institutional architecture and it would be interesting to see more diversity. He stated that he got less of a visual sense of the development being a commercial neighborhood and more of an office park; if the intent was to create an urban zone, there would need to be more density. He stated he would like to see more of a design focus toward Huffine Lane to distinguish the property from the others along Huffine Lane; he thought the pergolas might be in the right place to provide that focus. Vice Chairperson Rea encouraged the applicant to make a rigorous effort to maintain the site during each phase of the development; as a community member and a tenant, it would be appreciated that the overburden is spread throughout the phases. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the buildings would come back through the DRB for review. Planner Skelton responded the Preliminary Plan would be reviewed by the DRB but many of the buildings would not meet the threshold required for DRB review. Chairperson Pentecost asked if any conservation language would be included in the development guidelines. Ms. Morris responded that Mr. Bitnar has LEED certification and there had been discussions, but nothing had been pursued. Chairperson Pentecost stated the heat island affect with regard to the parking lots might provide an opportunity to drop piping for ground source heat pots prior to construction; the energy consumption could be reduced immensely. He stated he thought the design guidelines were a really good first step and important items were being defined. He stated each building had very similar character and language, but an architect hired to design and build a building might be guided heavy handedly to build exactly what is depicted; you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't specify that there would be latitude in the design. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was not excited with the relocation of the buildings as it created asymmetry that created a traffic route to the back of a building. Ms. Huyette suggested the sun study might answer some design questions for the creek area. Page 5 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2011 Ms. Morris responded the idea of a reflection garden had been done, but it could be better illustrated on how it would work. 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 6:52 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board Page 6 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2011