Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-12 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2012 The City of Bozeman Design Review Board met in regular meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, in the Conference Room, Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE — Acting Chair Scott Bechtle called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. Present: Absent: Members: Scott Bechtle, Acting Chair Michael Pentecost Walter Banziger (arrived at 5:43 p.m.) Bill Rea Cristina Coddington Randy Wall Mark Hufstetler (arrived at 5:40 p.m.) Page Huyette Commissioner Liaison: Sean Becker Staff: Tim McHarg, Planning Director Doug Riley, Associate Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Visitors: Don Cape, Jr. Kevin Cook Jesse Sobrepena Randy Harrington Mike Stewart Brett Potter MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2012 MEETING. It was moved by Scott Bechtle, seconded by Page Huyette, that the minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2012, be approved as submitted. The motion carried on a 3-0 vote. PROJECT REVIEW— North 19th Avenue/West Oak Street PUD/Master Site Plan ZCA#Z-12050 (Riley) City of Bozeman * A Zone Code Amendment to allow a Master Site Plan as an alternative to a Planned Unit Development for non-residential development within the North 19th Avenue/West Oak Street Entryway Corridor Overlay District. Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the staff report. He stated this zone code amendment, Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 1 requested by Kevin Cook and Don Cape, Jr., is to amend the unified development code (UDC) to allow a master site plan as an alternative to a planned unit development for non-residential development within the North 19th Avenue/West Oak Street corridor. He noted the UDC was recently amended to enhance master site plan provisions, which generally allows phased development for projects anticipated to take more than two years to reach build out, subject to certain criteria. A key element is administrative review and approval of an application for a site within the master plan; and staff is recommending that up to two dimensional deviations be reviewed and approved administratively to give flexibility in dealing with site constraints. He stressed that this application is not to amend any of the underlying standards for non-residential development, but to amend the review process. He noted that any deviations will be reviewed under the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness deviation, which includes the requirement for design excellence. Planner Riley stated that staff has prepared a draft ordinance for the amendment, which will be presented to the Commission for adoption if this amendment is approved. He noted that this item is being submitted to the DRB for comment prior to public hearings before the Zoning Commission and City Commission. Responding to questions from Page Huyette, Planner Riley stated this type of request is often received in conjunction with development of raw land. He noted a planned unit development triggers an additional level of review that the proposed master site plan would not. He stated that, since the code was recently restructured to allow for the master site plan process, no other project in this corridor has been subject to this process. He noted that one of the Commission's goals is to streamline the review process, particularly when a project meets standards; and one way to do that is through administrative review. Responding to Scott Bechtle, Planner Riley stated approval of a master site plan would be for a period of five years; and the applicant may seek an extension, which would be subject to review by the Development Review Committee and approval by the Planning Director. Further responding to questions from Scott Bechtle, the Planner stated that dimensional deviations could include structure setbacks, height, and the size of signage. He noted that under the proposed amendment, two dimensional deviations could be allowed with the overall master site plan; and deviations could also be requested for individual sites. He indicated that the dimensional deviations could be subject to administrative review. Don Cape, Jr., stated that Stoneridge PUD was approved in 2001 or 2002 as a planned unit development, and was one of his company's projects. He noted that over the course of the last ten years, a number of modifications have been needed to address changes in the market. He stated that those modifications are subject to the planned unit development process, which is extremely cumbersome. He noted the same circumstances exist for the 23-acre parcel that is subject of the next agenda item; and he would prefer the master site plan process, which could allow for greater flexibility and better response to the market. Kevin Cook stated he encountered the same issues with the Walton PUD, noting that going through the PUD process for modifications to allow for a change in use took three to five months. He then noted that under this amendment, the Commission reserves the right to retain the decision-making authority for any project it wishes. Mark Hufstetler indicated he is generally supportive of the proposed amendment. He does not want to see the more stringent planned unit development guidelines discarded but feels that Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 2 flexibility in certain situations is warranted. Cristina Coddington voiced her support for the proposed amendment, noting that going through all of the steps can become redundant. Scott Bechtle noted that the current process sometimes gets in the way of the code's intent and results in an unnecessary level of bureaucracy and the accompanying waste of time at a variety of levels. It was moved by Scott Bechtle, seconded by Page Huyette, that the Design Review Board recommend support of the zone code amendment. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Catron Crossing Master Site Plan #Z-12080 and Phase 1 SP/COA Comfort Suites #Z- 12081 (Riley) Valley Center Road * A Preliminary Master Site Plan Application to allow the development of 23.35 acres zoned B-2 (Community Business District) in four phases, the first phase being a 78 unit hotel with related site improvements. Associate Planner Doug Riley stated the applicant is proceeding with the master site plan application on the assumption that the zone code amendment will be approved. He noted that if the new procedure is not approved, this application will be rolled into the planned unit development process. Planner Riley gave a quick overview of the application, noting the subject 23-acre parcel is located along the south side of Valley Center Road, immediately across Valley Center Road from the Outback Restaurant and with Costco to the south. He stated the applicants have worked closely with the Planning and Engineering staffs in working out circulation on the parcel as well as the specifics for development. He noted the City's Transportation Plan identifies Hulbert Lane (which will be Catamount Street) as a future collector along the south boundary of this parcel. The applicant is proposing to construct that roadway to a functional standard in conjunction with the first phase. That phase is to be comprised of a Comfort Suites motel set against the south property line of this 23-acre parcel. The Planner stated the overall master site plan shows numerous potential site pads. He noted that the master plan allows for a more generalized plan; however, the applicant must provide a certain level of detail to demonstrate that the design objectives plan is being met. He indicated that Catron Creek has been realigned along Valley Center Road, and a shared use detached path is to be provided along the road frontage. He noted that greenspace is to be identified as well as the internal vehicle and pedestrian circulation and connections to the external circulation systems. Associate Planner Riley noted one of the key elements in the design objectives plan is minimizing the impact of large expanses of parking. While staff generally feels this plan generally breaks up parking areas, some additional screening requirements may be imposed. He stated the manual for this development should include what is envisioned for those parking lots as well as the greenspace. He then turned his attention to signage, noting the applicant is proposing a large pole type sign that serves the entire project, like the one for Stoneridge, and a smaller monument sign. He stated that, for Comfort Suites, wall-mounted signage is proposed along with possibly one directional sign. He noted that staff has recommended the applicant contact Streamline to Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 3 find out if a bus stop is planned within this development, and that documentation be provided to indicated whether such a stop is planned in the future. Planner Riley turned his attention to the development guidelines, noting that the draft guidelines are structured like the previous PUDs. Under the master site plan process, the applicant would rely on the underlying B-2 standards, which will remove some of the inflexibility. He noted that illustrations are needed for how mechanical equipment is to be screened, how dumpsters will be screened, and how streetscapes will be developed, including coordinated furnishings and lighting. Also, the plan must show how open space will be provided and show coordinated landscaping of those areas. He stressed that each phase should show its proportionate amount of open space. The Associate Planner noted one of the key elements is the Comfort Suites design. He stated Associate Planner Brian Krueger has completed his staff report on that project and has identified issues to be addressed. He has indicated the building is to have a double front design since the back of the building is to be located on a 7-foot setback from Catamount Street. The other main issue is the building height and whether a 20-percent dimensional deviation should be considered. Responding to Mark Hufstetler, Associate Planner Riley cautioned that the motels across Valley Center Road are located within a regional commercial land use designation while this subject property is located in a community commercial land use designation, which has lower height limitations. Further responding to questions from Mark Hufstetler, the Associate Planner stated that Catamount Street is to be constructed to a functional standard, which means half of it will be built from Valley Center Road to the property line. He confirmed that staff has looked at the different exposures to this site and, as a result, has recommended the double front design. Responding to Mark Hufstetler, Kevin Cook stated the motel will be the tall building at the back of the site, with lower profile buildings constructed between it and Valley Center Road. He anticipates that single-story buildings will be located along the street frontage, and will probably house restaurants or similar uses. Jesse Sobrepena, JDS Architects, noted that a four-story building will get more visibility with its location at the rear of this 23-acre parcel. He then stated the building height limitation is an issue they have recently encountered. Responding to Page Huyette, Planner Riley stated each site must follow the guidelines set in this master site plan, but this process provides greater flexibility than the PUD process. He then acknowledged that this motel will set the standard for future development and connections to other parcels within the development. Kevin Cook stated they initially tried to locate the motel in the center of the parcel, but that created difficulty in designing the rest of the project. He noted that locating it along the south property line provides greater flexibility in developing the remainder of the parcel and providing the desired connectivity. Walt Banziger asked what type of sustainability efforts will be pursued in this development. Kevin Cook responded that they plan to meet standards and will use high efficiency furnaces and the best electrical options available. He noted that they installed solar panels on the Comfort Inn Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 4 and, while they have worked well, he has not seen a return on them. Jesse Sobrepena stated a variety of passive measures will be used, including low E glass, super insulation in the walls and a light colored roofing material. Responding to Scott Bechtle, Don Cape stated the main entrance off Valley Center Road will become the main entrance to the motel once the site is more developed. Responding to additional questions from Scott Bechtle, Planner Riley stated two points of ingress/ egress are required, and a temporary secondary access will be allowed for the motel. He then noted staff is requesting that illustrations be provided as part of the development guidelines to set the stage and intent for future development on this parcel. Jesse Sobrepena distributed renderings of the proposed motel and asked for Board comments on building height. He noted that, with a 20-percent deviation, the proposed flat roof could be at 45 feet 8 inches, and this plan provides for a height of 45 feet 6 inches with parapets that fall within the additional 4-foot allowance and two towers to be primarily used for signage that extend beyond that 4-foot allowance. He noted staff has voiced concern that the proposed design is generic and has suggested a more rustic design as well as asked for an additional entrance on the south side of the building, relief of the large block of EIFS, and a more modulated wall height on the south side. Page Huyette recognized the challenges faced by the applicant with constructing the motel so it faces the main entrance to the development while being located at the south edge of the parcel. Mark Hufstetler stated his biggest concerns are open space, the kinds of landscaping around the building and the overall building site. He characterized this as the most compact lot size possible with the most concentrated use. To evaluate the architecture of the building and its orientation on the site, he needs to know where the open space will be. He noted that a little more architectural respect on the south is needed, and suggested moving the building to the north would allow for a landscape feature along the south side of the building that could be used by motel guests. He voiced his preference for a structure that is less rectangular but recognized that could pose additional challenges. He concluded by suggesting a slightly increased height of the porte cochere at the main entrance. Scott Bechtle expressed agreement with many of Mr. Hufstetler's comments. He encouraged a buffer to the south and design elements that provide a greater connection to Montana rather than Anywhere USA, possibly in the southwest area of the site near the pool area. He voiced support for the proposed height. He suggested that it would be fairly easy to break up the south facade without changing the character of the design, noting it is important to consider the pedestrian experience, and also proposed additional detail at the porte cochere. He concluded by encouraging more detail in landscaping and providing opportunities for exterior gathering places. Cristina Coddington indicated she agrees with the previous comments. She noted that she likes the building design in these renderings better than the previous submittal and suggested that industrial lighting fixtures might create a more intimate setting. She does not have a problem with the proposed height of the structure, particularly since lower structures are to be constructed between the motel and Valley Center Road. She then encouraged that more emphasis be placed on sustainability as the plan is developed. Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 5 Walt Banziger encouraged the applicants to take staff's comments to heart and look for ways to improve the building and its placement, noting he concurs with the previous Board member comments. He recognized that sustainability is not required; however, he noted that it provides a connection to the community. He encouraged the applicants to look at maintenance costs as well as building costs. He stressed the importance of designing a building that is unique to Bozeman, noting that the current rendering does not do that. He indicated no problem with the proposed building height but stressed that the south elevations needs to be broken. He concluded by encouraging nice landscaping around the building, good pedestrian and bicycle connections and more connectivity to the community. Jesse Sobrepena noted they have been talking about the possibility of including a courtyard in the motel site. Don Cape noted that a second entrance is typically not desired in a motel, largely due to security issues. He stated, however, they will look at design options for the south elevation that will address the comments. Associate Planner Riley stated staff will look at this project and the final application in light of the comments that have been received. INFORMAL REVIEW— Price Rite/Planet Bronze Building INF #1-12009 (Riley) 606 North 7t" Avenue *An Informal Application for DRB review of building placement on the property in relation to the intersection of North 7t" Avenue and Peach Street. Planning Director Tim McHarg gave a brief overview of this proposed project. He noted that he is seeking this Board's input on one specific issue, and that is the location of the building on the site. He stated the subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of North 7th Avenue and West Peach Street and is the site of the former American Federal bank. The design standards for the North 7th Avenue corridor encourage pushing structures toward the street frontages; however, in this instance the applicant wishes to construct a new building on the site of the existing structure. He noted that staff prepared its report based on those standards and subsequently met with the applicant and learned the reasons for the requested building location. Mike Stewart noted that Randy Harrington owns Price Rite while Dennis Harrington owns Planet Bronze. They have been located on North 7th Avenue for the past fifteen years but will soon be required to relocate. He noted the original intent was to remodel the existing building and add a second story; however, further analysis of the property has revealed it would be better to tear the old building down and construct a new building. The applicant wishes to construct the new building on the existing location to utilize the existing basement and drive through facilities as well as the traffic circulation on site. The existing access off North 7th Avenue is critical to the proposed use of this site. Moving the building closer to the corner would make this a single access parcel without the needed traffic circulation and result in the need to fill the basement hole and accompanying compaction issues. Parking on the north and east side of the building would result in a conflict with the drive through facility. Mike Stewart stated that, rather than moving the building toward the corner, he is proposing a future turn pocket on Peach Street be planned and that a plaza used by both pedestrians and vehicles be developed in the corner that would visually pull the eye to the building. He turned his Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 6 attention to the building, noting it is to be a two-story structure that houses Price Rite Drug and the durable medical facility on the main floor and art gallery on the second floor; and setting it back from the street allows for a nice pedestrian facility along both North 7t" Avenue and West Peach Street. He stressed that the southern exposure is critical to the art gallery, and the building has been designed to provide for the appropriate exposure on that side. He then noted that he has addressed comments made at the Development Review Committee meeting, including provision of a 15-foot-wide fire lane and providing the minimum number of parking spaces required. Brett Potter stated that providing parking on the north side of the building would result in difficulties and hazards for patrons, particularly since many of them are elderly or disabled. Randy Harrington stated he began the durable medical equipment business after he found he was fixing wheelchairs on his lunch hour and that he enjoyed that work in addition to his pharmacy. His equipment business has exploded as he has added new products and begun Medicare billing; and the current site is inconvenient because he either has to send patients outside and around the building or take them through the back of the store. The lease for his current location is about to expire and, given the inefficiencies of that location, he now knows what type of facility he wants to develop. He stressed that much of his clientele is elderly or disabled and that it is important to provide a safe and easy access to his businesses. He recognized that the basement of the existing building is not functional but would provide a good storage area. He then noted that providing a drive through facility for the pharmacy is important; and he is interested in constructing a facility that will enable him to fill a niche in the business community. Responding to Mark Hufstetler, Planning Director McHarg stated the corridor guidelines for North 7t" Avenue do not turn the corner onto side streets, but emphasize a strong pedestrian environment on North 7t" Avenue. He then noted that the character on North 7t" Avenue south of Peach Street is more urban, with the character changing as it crosses West Peach Street and then again as it crosses West Oak Street. Responding to Mark Hufstetler, Brett Potter stated it is their intent to retain as many of the trees and landscaping on the site as possible. Responding to additional questions from Mark Hufstetler, Planning Director McHarg stated the turn lane is in the transportation plan but is not currently funded, so it will be at least five years before that project would be done. He noted that an easement for the turn lane will be required in conjunction with approval of a project for this site so that it can be constructed when funded. Responding to Scott Bechtle, the Planning Director confirmed that any relocation of the access to North 7t" Avenue would be subject to Montana Department of Transportation approval while relocation of the access to West Peach Street would be subject to approval by the City's Engineering Department. Mark Hufstetler indicated he is comfortable with using the current building location, although he is sad to see the existing building torn down. He noted that a review of the aerial photos reveals most of the building setbacks in this immediate area are similar to this one, and he feels that moving it forward on the site would disrupt the rhythm already in place. He encouraged preservation of as much of the landscaping as possible. He expressed concern that creating a plaza at the corner without heavy landscaping will probably not be successful, and suggested it may be preferable to move the plaza to the east edge of the site. He concluded by stating it is Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 7 important for the streetscape to relate to the building behind it. Mike Stewart recognized that a pedestrian connection is essential, and suggested that some public art could help to attract pedestrian traffic to the site. Page Huyette noted that this intersection is where the feel and scale of the streetscape changes. She does not feel the plaza works well because it is just added to the site. She suggested that if the applicants wish to pursue this option, they work on it more diligently and become excited about the concept. She noted that working with the existing landscaping is great, but cautioned that there may come a point in developing the site where that is just not possible. She then suggested that the applicant look at alternative materials for the sidewalk since the size of the lot limits the potential for design alternatives. Responding to Mike Stewart, Planning Director McHarg stated no landscaping in the sight triangle needs to be removed since it is currently existing. Brett Potter stated he will take another look at the parking requirements for this site. He noted that he had originally calculated 32 parking spaces, but it appears there may be some flexibility in the number of spaces provided. Scott Bechtle noted that, while there is a strong emphasis from the corner, it does not seem that the building receives it. He voiced his preference for having the building moved closer to the corner and emphasizing the entrance. He recognized that drive throughs create a challenge, but he feels those issues can be addressed. He acknowledged that the current location of the building is not bad, but moving it could result in a more significant building in the entryway to Main Street. Cristina Coddington stated that, after listening to the presentation, she supports retaining the building in its current location and retaining the landscaping. She noted that the current configuration of the site would provide the function that the clientele require. She then encouraged the applicant to continue the streetscape that is provided by Big O Tires, which is adjacent to this site. Walt Banziger voiced his support for more urbanism and moving the building toward the corner. He noted it appears the applicant does not like the proposal that has been submitted, and stressed that one "should never show something they don't like and can't live with." He cautioned that combining vehicles and pedestrians on campus has not worked well and stated he does not believe it should be attempted on this site. Mike Stewart noted that buildings moved toward the edge of the property are typically storefronts; and that is not the case in this instance. He stated, however, that he is willing to try to make relocation of the building work if necessary. Walt Banziger stated he would like to see the plaza pulled back from the road, noting that it would be difficult to attract people to a plaza located adjacent to four lanes of traffic moving at 35 miles per hour. Brett Potter noted that the applicant has not yet purchased the subject site and is trying to determine if it would be financially feasible to do so. He observed that, when standing on the sidewalk, the building is really not far away, and asked if there is anything they could do to draw the appearance of the building closer without moving it. Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 8 Randy Harrington concluded by noting that he must determine whether he can undertake a functional and financially viable project on this site based on the input they have received. PUBLIC COMMENT— No comment was received under this agenda item. ADJOURNMENT — 8:25 P.M. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, it was moved by Mark Hufstetler, seconded by Walt Banzinger, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Scott Bechtle, Acting Chair Design Review Board City of Bozeman Design Review Board Meeting—May 23, 2012 9