Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-12 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 11, 2012 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Rea 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 Walter Banziger Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Cristina Coddington Randy Wall Carson Taylor, Commission Liaison Visitors Present Jim Ullman Matt Faure Keith Scott Joe Cobb Lauren Maschmedt ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14,2011 MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to approve the minutes of December 14, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 5-0 with Ms. Coddington abstaining. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Bozeman Gateway/ City Brew& Qdoba Informal#I-11027 (Krueger) 855 South 29th Avenue * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a two tenant building with a shared patio, two possible drive thru locations, and an estimated 100 square foot encroachment into the open space area. Mr. Wall stated he needed to leave the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Matt Faure and Jim Ullman joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff memo noting the location was a site within the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and was just north of the Kohl's project that was constructed last year. He stated the PUD referred to the site as a satellite building and the pad site had always been planned next to the PUD open space. He stated the open space would be completed in May of 2012. He stated the original platted lot for Page 1 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—January 11,2012 the pad building depicted a common parking area. He stated the proposal itself would modify the layouts of the lots and the structure was proposed to be a larger than had originally been planned. He stated the PUD allowed for flexibility and had been planned with a lot of small lots that could be aggregated to accommodate the footprint of the building. He stated the first layer of review was the Certificate of Appropriateness review and the design guidelines from the Design Objectives Plan. He stated the second level of review would be the site plan standards. He stated the review was for the footprint of the proposed building with the common parking area being constructed at the same time. He stated fully developed building elevations were not included during Informal Review but were instead conceptual in design and not as detailed as the formal application would be. He stated the comments from the Design Objectives Plan related to the placement of the building and its relation to the streetscape. He stated in this particular circumstance the drive-thru would prevent placing the parking on the interior of the lot and a pedestrian connection across that area. He stated there were pretty well defined requirements in the design manual and depicted the anticipated character of the subdivision. He stated they had attempted to create an architectural element to shield the drive-thru element. Mr. Wall asked for clarification of the location of the circular element. Planner Krueger noted that location on the plan and added it was in the same location as the proposed encroachment into the open space area. He stated Staff had suggested relocation of the drive-thru to the interior of the site. He stated the second drive-thru proposed would not be in conformance with the underlying zoning as it would not accommodate the required six stacking spaces for vehicles. Planner Krueger stated the access to the drive-thru proposed parallel to the street frontage would cause an issue with regard to the turning radius and Staff had suggested a more rectilinear access to the site. He stated the drive isle would be a well used facility from both Harmon Stream Boulevard and South 29th Avenue. He stated the exit from the drive-thru from the building was a little too tight and would provide a challenge at the front of the site; Staff suggested providing more of an easy flow from the site. Mr. Faure stated they were looking to get advice and comment on the proposed. Mr. Ullman stated that the pad for a restaurant had always been set up for a drive-thru; he added pedestrians passing through a drive-thru would still occur if the drive-thru was relocated to be near the parking area and he thought there would be less pedestrian issues if they crossed from 29th Avenue. He stated the parking had been provided in the interior of the site which met the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan. He stated he felt there was a possibility to do other things and make the site work. Mr. Banziger asked what other things had been considered that might make the site work. Mr. Ullman responded the landscaping was not indicative of what the Bozeman Gateway design guidelines required and would be more specific at the time of formal review. He stated he thought there was a possibility to relocate the access to the site further from S. 29th Avenue to alleviate possible congestion in that location; he added the turn radius would work, but there was some concern with possible changes being made. He stated with creative landscaping and other screening techniques the drive-thru would have less of a visual impact. He stated an architectural feature had been provided to shield the view from the Entryway Corridor as well. Page 2 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—January 11,2012 Mr. Banziger asked if Mr. Faure had any thoughts on how to improve the proposal. Mr. Faure responded he felt there were some technical aspects that could be investigated to provide less of a visual impact by the drive-thru while still defining the corner facing the Entryway Corridor. He stated the technical aspects of Staff comments could be adjusted so a better job was done on the placement of the drive-thru. He stated the architectural form proposed would create visual interest in the building as well as the drive-thru; he added they were attempting to screen a substantial area and noted where the feature began and ended based on the proposed footprint. Mr. Ullman added that for visual effect, they had truly tried to address the Entryway Corridor with screening and architectural features. Mr. Wall noted the open space landscaping proposed with the Design Manual and stated the graphics shown were compliant with the Design Objectives Plan and asked if there would be any of those features proposed with the construction of the building. Mr. Ullman responded those landscaping features would be completed prior to construction of the proposed building and were currently under financial guarantee to be completed. Mr. Hufstetler asked for clarification of the parking calculations for the common parking areas and whether or not those calculations were constantly evolving. Planner Krueger responded the calculations were constantly evolving based on the proposed uses; Staff did not want to pre-empt and restrict future uses. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the landscaping plan would happen independently of the adjacent pad sites. Planner Krueger responded the open spaces were planned outside of how they would directly related to the building pad sites; as phases were developed exact plantings and locations were identified but landscaping could be added to compliment individual developments. Mr. Hufstetler asked if pedestrian connections and the trail system would be integrated into the landscaping plan. Planner Krueger responded those connections would be integrated. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there were other guidelines regarding acceleration or deceleration on the site. Planner Krueger responded standard circulation patterns were taken into consideration but did not specifically call out acceleration or deceleration on the site. Mr. Hufstetler asked how the screening architectural feature would look. Mr. Faure responded it would look the same from the inside as it did from the outside; he stated it would be an internally lit cylinder that would let in a tremendous amount of light with a block and a screen but not a physical wall. Mr. Hufstetler noted there would be a little shape that would be essentially unused. Mr. Faure responded they would try to institute a landscaping or artistic feature in that location but they had not gotten that far into the investigation and it could end up that concrete would be the best option. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea noted that there was a pie shaped piece of property on the north edge of the site between the site and the street and asked who was responsible for maintenance of that location. Planner Krueger responded it was MDOT right of way but the Gateway Subdivision had proposed to landscape and maintain the area. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated there seemed to be a 10 or 12 foot grade change and asked if the site would be depressed down. Mr. Ullman responded the pad site would need to be brought up in elevation to allow for retention of potential flood issues and to give the site more visibility from the road. Chairperson Pro Tem Page 3 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—January 11,2012 Rea asked if the aerial photo had been provided to show the Entryway Corridor. Planner Krueger responded Chairperson Pro Tem Rea was correct as well as to depict adjacent sites. Mr. Banziger thanked the applicant's for bringing the proposal forward for Informal Review. He stated the site was tough for placement of two drive-thru's and he gave them credit for attempting to figure out how to accomplish it. He stated he thought it was an interesting architectural feature and he liked the design he was seeing in the sketches. He stated he shared Staff's concerns with regard to pedestrian connectivity and he thought there was a lost opportunity to connect with the bike path adjacent to the site. He stated he thought they had done a nice job on focusing the view to the proposed cylindrical architectural feature; he thought it would make people want to go through the drive-thru instead of going into the building. He suggested pulling the cylinder feature back to prevent having an unused area. He stated he liked the concept he was seeing and suggested incorporating some of Planning Staff's comments into the design. Mr. Wall thanked the applicants for coming in for Informal Review and working so closely with the City to define the initial impact of people coming into Bozeman for the first time. He stated he had always liked the lifestyle center concept and the "wow factor"proposed. He stated he had concerns with the emphasis on vehicles and reduction of pedestrian connectivity; the proposal put a huge emphasis on cars. He suggested following the guidelines as set forth in the Design Objectives Plan and outlined in Planner Krueger's Staff memo. He stated their own Design Manual, as well as the Design Objective Plan design guidelines, directed them to place the parking and drive-thru to the interior of the site. He noted the location of a trail along the site and stated the proposed configuration placed all the parking and drive-thru's like a barrier; there was an opportunity to take advantage of the landscaping. He stated he disagreed with Mr. Banziger regarding the proposed architectural feature; it seemed it would make cars the star of the site and it would be a place that debris, garbage, and ice would accumulate. He stated the proposal seemed inconsistent with both the Design Objectives Plan and the Bozeman Gateway Design Manual. He stated if the applicant wanted to have an easier time with approval of their proposal they would have to flip the structure around and remove the emphasis on vehicles. He added he would have a tough time supporting the proposal while so much emphasis was being placed on cars. He stated the DRB had been instructed by the City Commission to base their decisions on the guiding documentation for the City and he did not see consistency with those documents in this proposal. He suggested more emphasis on the architectural and less emphasis on vehicles. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was glad the applicant had decided to go through Informal Review. He stated he was excited to see the design as it was cool and would really stand out; it would be a good focal point for the intersection. He stated he liked the technique they had devised to handle traffic exiting from the lot; he suggested investigating the perception of the proposed cylinder from both the inside and outside. He stated he shared many of Staff's concerns with regard to traffic and pedestrian circulation on the site; if there was a ninth car stacked there would be congestion that might end up out on the street. He suggested the flow on the site could also be less constrictive and noted the drive-thru's were working at almost cross influences on each Page 4 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—January 11,2012 other; he suggested figuring out a way to unify the drive-thru's such as both operating in the same direction so there were not convergent and confusing paths. He stated he agreed that it would be preferable not to have the drive-thru located against the street though the architectural feature would help lessen the impact. He suggested visually establishing an element in the landscape that would direct people across the site without them getting hit by a vehicle and to help minimize the vehicular traffic on the site. He stated he thought it would be a really cool looking building. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated the Board had made good comments. He stated he really liked the proposed architecture as it was fresh and seemed appropriate to the Bozeman Gateway. He stated two drive-thru's seemed like too much for the site and suggested that Mr. Hufstetler had hinted at going right through the building. He stated he thought it would be easier to attempt to drive from Kohl's to the site than it would be to walk there in the current configuration; he suggested making the site more connected to what was there. He stated he agreed with Mr. Wall that there was an opportunity to connect to the path that connects to the college. He stated the site was difficult and it would require some pretty unique approaches to make everything fit. He stated he had started to do a shade study on the proposed plaza and noted it would be more usable on the south side of the site. He stated he supported the unique approach to the drive-thru, but it seemed to disconnect the site. He stated he was concerned about the exhaust issues within the cylinder as well. He stated he was worried about some of the proposed elevations though he knew there were only conceptual at this point. He stated he was supportive of Staff comments and reiterated bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Ullman stated they agreed with the pedestrian connectivity though it had not been depicted as they were still working out some of those issues; the trail was predominant and they wanted to use it as well which was the intent from the beginning. He apologized that those connections were not included in the Informal and those, as well as Staff comments, were being investigated and would be incorporated on the site. Mr. Wall added that there were a lot of MSU students that lived in Valley West Subdivision and would be going right by the front of the site. Mr. Ullman stated they would work on architectural and landscaping features that would emphasize vehicles less. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea suggested the opportunities of co-mingling the traffic with pedestrian and bicycle traffic; a way to make the view of vehicles in the drive-thru attractive. Mr. Wall stated his overall impression of the development was that it would celebrate how great Bozeman is, but he did not want to see an incremental degradation of the wonderful plan the Bozeman Gateway had put together. Mr. Ullman responded that in order to get the plan to work, baby steps had to be taken to draw people to the project and sustain businesses in the development. Mr. Wall suggested the creation of a sense of place was a common thread throughout the design guidelines; no matter how big or small a project it was helping to create the tapestry of Bozeman which the Design Review Board was tasked with protecting. Mr. Ullman stated the development manual was available, but was intended to be a guideline and was not written in stone; a good project that made sense in a location where it was needed would Page 5 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—January 11,2012 be a bonus for everyone. He added it had to work for both the City and the developer. Chairperson Pro Tern Rea stated they were excited about the project as it would reflect on not just the corner, but the whole development. 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.} No items were forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Bill Rea, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board Page 6 of 6 Design Review Board Minutes—January 11,2012