Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-12 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 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 Randy Wall Doug Riley, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Mark Hufstetler Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Cristina Coddington Visito rs Present Jesse Sobrepena Kevin Cook Jim Ullman Ted Mitchell Keith Scott ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2012 INFORMAL MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Ms. Coddington seconded, to open and continue the minutes to the next meeting of the DRB. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Catron Crossing Master SP #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 presented the Staff Report noting the DRB had gotten the applicant’s original submittal at the last meeting of the Board. He stated the applicant had gone to work and addressed both Staff’s and the Board’s recommendations; the Board had been provided those amendments. He stated Staff was recommending approval and had provided additional comments with regard to the new submittal in red in the Staff Report. He directed the DRB’s attention to three of the major changes to the plan; building height requirements had been met, design elements had been modified on the south side of the proposed building, and the deficiency in performance criteria for the Entryway Corridor had been addressed for all phases. He added Staff was comfortable that the amendments were in keeping with the Design Objectives Plan and was supportive of the proposal as presented. Mr. Sobrepena noted the material changes and indicate one of the primary changes was the inclusion of brick on the south façade, the inclusion of sun shades on the pool, a patio with a fire pit on the south side, enhanced landscaping with a metal trellis for shading, enhanced landscaping along the south portion of the property, the porte-cochere would tie into the metal detailing on the north, and awnings had been included on the north façade. He stated the colors had been fine tuned and detailing had been added to the EIFS on the top of the building; more detailing and brick had been added to the bottom of the building as well. He stated they had intended to create an inviting secondary entry and he thought they had accomplished that. Planner Riley added that ADR Staff had indicated that accenting the entrance should be included. Mr. Sobrepena responded it was difficult to break up the fenestration on a hotel and creation of another cover over the secondary entry to the south caused too much to go on in that location; he added he felt they had presented enough to make the south side inviting and attractive. Mr. Wall asked what the proposed awnings would be made out of. Mr. Cook responded they were thinking the awnings would be metal to tie them into the proposed columns and south façade. He added all the steel could be powder coated so it would be easy to maintain and would match the rest of the structure. Mr. Wall stated the Homewood Suites had awning all the way up and really broke up the blankness of the façade; he asked if the applicant had considered inclusion of the awnings up the side of the building that faced the freeway. Mr. Cook responded their other thought was to make the awnings with a grating system so there would be no snow load requirements or water retention. Mr. Sobrepena directed the DRB to a rendering of the awnings intermittently shown on a revised drawing and added he thought that one over every window would be too busy. Mr. Wall suggested anything to break up the façade. Mr. Hufstetler joined the DRB. Mr. Wall asked if Galavan Streamline had reviewed the proposal. Mr. Cook responded he had spoken with them and they did not currently have a plan for service in their location. Mr. Wall suggested there was an existing stop in Cattail Subdivision. Mr. Cook noted that if needed by Streamline, their intention was to include a stop on Valley Center Road with the water feature and landscaping leading out to the bus stop; he added they were considering this with the development of phase 2 on the site. Mr. Wall asked about the construction of the trail and when it would be installed. Mr. Cook responded the trail would be installed beginning in phase 1 of the development and would be a shared use path with all weather materials. He stated there would be circulation along the front and rear of the site with the intention of using the feature to accumulate a portion of the required points. Mr. Wall asked if there would be a vacant lot next to the site. Mr. Cook responded there was a vacant lot and it was not currently annexed into the City. Planner Riley responded the owners of the vacant lot had contacted him and were considering annexation and future development of the site. Mr. Cook added that the high pressure gas main on the vacant lot was currently being relocated out of the center of the lot but they would still have a 40 foot easement on the south portion of their lot. Mr. Wall asked how far Catamount Street would be extended. Planner Riley responded it would eventually be connected to North 27th Avenue. Mr. Wall stated his concern was for connectivity to the south. Planner Riley responded the best Staff could do currently would be requiring the crossing of Valley Center Road to the existing shared use path. Ms. Coddington asked if all the utilities would be on the south façade and if screening would be provided. Mr. Cook responded some sort of screening would be applied. Mr. Sobrepena responded the screening would likely be a six foot wall using materials to match the rest of the structure. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the percentage of EIFS had been calculated. Planner Riley responded he did not know of the requirement. Mr. Wall stated he wanted to acknowledge the applicant on their efforts to meet the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan. He asked if there were any deviations or relaxations requested for the proposal. Mr. Cook responded they were not asking for any exceptions at this time. Mr. Wall thanked the applicant for adhering to the Design Objectives Plan and the Unified Development Code. He stated he was supportive of the proposal as submitted. Ms. Coddington stated she appreciated that the applicant had responded well to the comments made by the DRB and Staff and added she liked the proposal as presented. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was pleased to see the improvements to the structure and added he was still concerned with the building interfacing with the surrounding development. He suggested making the south elevation a little more monumental looking for the secondary entrance. He stated he was surprised to see how big a difference the modifications to the elevations had made. He stated he would have liked to see a little more landscaping on the parcel itself but he understood the site constraints. Mr. Cook responded he was uncertain what they would be, but there would be additional landscaping features on the site, especially for the required parking lot screening. Chairperson Pentecost stated he liked the composition and architecture as they were strong. He stated he thought they’d done a good job and he was supportive of the proposal. INFORMAL MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Ms. Coddington seconded, to forward an informal recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Catron Crossing Master SP #Z-12080 and Phase 1 SP/COA Comfort Suites #Z-12081 with Staff findings and conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. The informal motion carried 4-0. 2. City Brew/Qdoba SP/COA #Z-12101 (Krueger) 855 South 29th Avenue * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a two tenant commercial building with a shared patio, a drive thru, and an estimated 100 square foot encroachment into the open space area. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the project was not unfamiliar and the DRB had seen the Informal proposal in January of 2012. He noted there was a revised site plan submitted and the one being proposed had the primary drive through entrance on the west side of the building. He stated the circulation wrapped around the building and only one drive through had been proposed instead of two as with the Informal proposal. He stated the drive through location had been a point of contention and after investigation, the intent of the condition and limit on drive throughs was for pad sites directly adjacent to Huffine Lane; the Planning Director had provided clarification that the drive through as proposed would be allowable. He stated the applicant had addressed those comments that were pertinent to the Informal review of the proposal. He stated crosswalks, a rotunda feature, steel trellis on the east elevation and entrance had all been added. He noted one pick up window had been eliminated as they could not provide the minimum six vehicle stacking area. He stated there were two recommended conditions of approval; increasing the amount and quality of detail of the landscaping at the entrance of the trail with enhanced landscaping in the common areas to highlight the primary entrance to the site and enhanced landscaping along 27th Avenue to continue that installed for Kohl’s. He stated Staff had received the building elevations and it was not proposed as franchise architecture and had the same materials and color palette as the rest of the Gateway Development. Mr. Ullman stated there would be a second floor mezzanine associated with the drive through and would be made of glass so people could look out. He stated there was no EIFS proposed for the project it would all be stucco. Mr. Wall stated he liked that the mezzanine had been included and he thought it would be an outstanding addition to the structure. He stated he thought the whole north side was really simplistic as depicted on the landscape plan and he suggested shrubbery that could get high enough to screen vehicles. He stated he had given up hope that the drive through would be relocated but he would like to see more detailed landscaping along the entire northern frontage of the site. Mr. Hufstetler asked for clarification of the traffic flow, access, and which areas would be completed as part of the project. Mr. Ullman responded the north access was not planned to be competed with this project and people would have to take the perimeter road to get to the west side of the site. Mr. Hufstetler asked if this would be short term. Mr. Ullman responded it would be short term. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the sharp turn at the entrance was a concern. Planner Krueger responded they had no requirements for the turn radius in that location and he did believe it would be problematic; he was not comfortable denying the project as there were other ways to get into the site but smaller cars would be able to navigate the turn. Mr. Wall suggested snub-nosing the turn. Mr. Ullman stated the edge of the curb would be a dropped curb to attempt to mitigate the difficulty in maneuvering around the corner in one location and they had included a bail out lane with a height restriction post in another location; he added they may add a “Do Not Enter” sign. Mr. Hufstetler asked for clarification of the visual face of the drive through to the automobiles going through the drive through; would it be lit or have visual details that the person in the car experiences. Mr. Ullman responded it would be brightly enough illuminated from the outside and would not be like a concrete tunnel. Mr. Scott added that all of the proposed building materials would be included inside the drive through as well. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there would be some method of traffic calming to prevent people from traveling at an unreasonable speed once they came out of the drive through. Mr. Ullman responded there was scored concrete as well as curves that would need to be maneuvered through that would slow vehicles down. Mr. Scott added there would also be a straight line of site with the utilization of glass for the drive through. Mr. Hufstetler asked what sort of outdoor details would be included in the outdoor seating area. Mr. Ullman responded there would be benches and trash receptacles with outdoor lighting so it could be used at night. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there had been any concerns that the patio was facing north with regard to the elements and snow removal. Mr. Ullman responded the area’s proximity to the building would provide shelter and the lighting surrounding the area would make it inviting. Mr. Hufstetler stated that overall the proposal was a building that would be imposing in this spot which he thought would be a good thing. He stated it was a nice contemporary building that he liked in a lot of ways. He stated his primary concern was the fact that the building was completely encircled by vehicles and a traffic lane. He stated he liked the scored concrete to keep traffic slowed down and suggested making the interface between the landscaping and the traffic a little better. He stated he was a little concerned about the location of the plaza area as it was not as visible and comfortable as it would be on the opposite corner of the building. Ms. Coddington stated the traffic circling the building was not as much of a concern as Taco Bell had a similar design and it seemed to be working. She stated she liked the mezzanine addition and would be very attractive. She stated her one concern was that the proposed shrubbery should be more dense and taller to screen the vehicles. Mr. Wall stated the vehicles would get the southern light in the morning. He stated he thought the current proposal was a great improvement over the Informal proposal. He emphasized and encouraged the applicant to work more on the landscaping along the northern boundary. He stated he wasn’t worried as much about the landscaping along the southern boundary. Mr. Ullman responded the open space corridor landscaping would definitely add to the proposed. Mr. Scott added that their designs tended to be minimal but ultimately there would be more additions to the landscaping once they’d seen what would fit; their landscaping always went above and beyond what was approved. Mr. Wall suggested the applicant keep mitigation of the vehicular impact in mind with regard to future landscaping. Chairperson Pentecost stated he appreciated the architecture was being proposed at it did a good job of articulating the size of the building and breaking up the mass. He stated he thought the proposal was better than Rosauers as it was more in keeping with the intent of the PUD. He stated he concurred that they had done above and beyond what had been required with regard to the landscaping. He stated he thought it would continue the vision the applicant had first intended with the creation of the PUD. He stated he had watched the north seating area on Rosauers and when it was nice people used it and when it wasn’t nice, they did not use the area; he added that was appropriate as people would not use those areas when it was cold. INFORMAL MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Ms. Coddington seconded, to forward an informal recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for City Brew/Qdoba SP/COA #Z-12101 with Staff findings and contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Wall stated he would like to amend the motion to modify a condition of approval. AMENDED INFORMAL MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to forward an informal recommendation of approval for City Brew/Qdoba SP/COA #Z-12101 with Staff findings and contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report and the amendment of condition of approval #2 to include the language after the comma “with the specific purpose of mitigating the visual impact of the vehicles within the drive through lane and parking lot”. The informal motion carried 4-0. 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. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board