Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-12 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 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 Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Lori Garden Page Huyette Visitors Present Craig Larsen ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012 MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Vice Chairperson Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of June 13, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 3-0 with Ms. Garden abstaining. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. My Place Hotel SP/COA/DEV #Z-12169 (Krueger) 5889 East Valley Center Road * A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations Application to allow the construction of a 3-story, 62 unit hotel with associated parking and related site improvements. Craig Larsen joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was requesting two deviations and would be reviewed by the City Commission on September 10, 2012. He stated Staff recommended approval of the project as proposed. He noted the deviations were primarily related to the shape of the lot; the original platting was interesting as there had been a lot line adjustment in the past. He noted the City had originally approved another project for the adjacent site and that project had never been constructed. Ms. Huyette joined the DRB. Planner Krueger noted the covered entrance was proposed to encroach into the required front yard setback along Valley Center Road. He noted the other deviation was for a minor encroachment with a curb line which was also being supported by Staff. He stated that with the irregular configuration of the site, the applicant had done an Informal review that provided a site design that met the guidelines. He noted there may be efficiencies in connecting adjacent properties, but Staff would leave that to the property owners to work out in the future. Mr. Larsen added the Outback Steakhouse had a plan to connect the two sites. Planner Krueger stated most of the conditions of approval were addressing one or more of the details of the site that did not meet the guidelines such as amenities at the entrance to the building. He suggested an outdoor focal point added to the site would increase pedestrian activity. He noted that the amenities, whether it was approached as more naturalized and rustic or something a little more formal, would be addressed at Final Site Plan submittal. He stated the detail with the landscaping had not been submitted and noted which conditions were specific to landscaping improvements. He suggested the proposed trash enclosure should be more permanent than the vinyl enclosure that had been proposed. He stated the applicant had submitted a revised landscaping plan that seemed to meet the required points but one thing that stood out to Staff was that there were very few plantings within the parking lot; he suggested plantings within the parking lot would help mitigate the heat and comply with the guidelines. He stated that due to the length of the parking lot, a turnaround would need to be provided to meet the Fire Department requirements. Planner Krueger noted that at the north end of the lot there was stormwater facility meant to serve lots further to the south and their access design to the pond was a straight cobble course running down the back side of the parking lot; Staff had recommended naturalization of the course and noted there was an opportunity to meander the course and include boulders and shrubs. He noted that after the course was established it would be attractive and help treat the stormwater. Mr. Larsen asked if it would be feasible to pipe the swale. Planner Krueger responded it was allowable, but it would need to be integrated; there would be no requirement to place it on the surface. Planner Krueger stated there had been quite a few situations where a shared access drive was utilized along the street and the drives split off some point beyond the right of way; Staff recommended a condition for a more rectilinear alignment with an actual intersection. He stated it was a fairly plain building, but it met the design guidelines with regard to proposed materials and added there were some in the area with similar character. He stated Staff was supportive of the project as proposed with Staff conditions. Mr. Larsen stated Planner Krueger had covered the project pretty well. He stated the landscaping would be more detailed and better integrated into the design. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the towers and pilasters were tapered. Mr. Larsen responded Vice Chairperson Rea was correct. Vice Chairperson Rea asked whether or not mechanical equipment would be placed on the roof. Mr. Larsen responded there would not be any mechanical equipment placed on the roof. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the swale in one location had been piped. Mr. Larsen responded it had been piped. Vice Chairperson Rea responded that the piped locations might be a good place to meander the course. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if there was only one place on the building that included a fenestration band. Mr. Larsen responded there was only one place proposed to have a band on the building. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the hotel chain was a new one. Mr. Larsen responded it was a brand new chain. Ms. Huyette stated she assumed the pedestrian and bike connection path would eventually be extended and asked if in addition to the requirement to include the path there were size or material requirements for the path. Planner Krueger responded that each project typically tried to match the character and design of the path that was being connected to; other than general slope requirements, there were no other specifications. He added there was a more specific requirement along 19th Avenue, but the less structured areas were not so specific unless there was specialized landscaping or site conditions. Mr. Larsen asked if Staff wanted truncated domes at the intersections. Planner Krueger suggested Mr. Larsen consult with Brian Heaston in the Engineering Department on the issue. Mr. Hufstetler asked Planner Krueger at what point Staff started to require additional access points to a parking lot. Planner Krueger responded it was typically done when there was something already in place or an entitlement. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was concerned that there were two long drive isles that dead ended. Planner Krueger responded MDOT only issued a certain number of access points; he added that he suspected a roadway would be included at some point in the future to the south. Mr. Larsen added that it would benefit both properties to provide the connection in the future. Mr. Hufstetler asked if a less rectangular parking lot had been discussed to break up the long driveway. Mr. Larsen responded they had gone through multiple scenarios, but in the end none of them would work geometrically while still including the sufficient amount of parking. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there would be signs on the east and west elevations. Mr. Larsen responded there would be signs on all of the elevations and a monument sign. Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification of the method by which a person would be able to get to the front entrance. Mr. Larsen responded they would have to walk the distance as there was no drive thru area unless they double parked. Chairperson Pentecost asked if there was any way to provide a pathway of travel from this site to the Outback Steakhouse. Mr. Larsen responded there was no way to do it as the developer did not own the property in between and was working with the City to include the pathway and subdivision stormwater pond; they were attempting to install those features that had never been put in place. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he was concerned with the parking and those people that might have a trailer. Mr. Larsen responded they would love a better parking situation, but they just couldn’t figure out how to accomplish it. Vice Chairperson Rea suggested there could be a variation in the width of the drive aisle. He encouraged the applicant to interpret the color guidelines liberally as the proposed was a little brown. He stated he liked the proposed stone base and the tapered towers and pilasters. He noted the Marriott did a good job of mixing up their color and materials pallet. He stated he agreed with Staff recommendations especially #1, #5, #6, #9, and #10. Ms. Huyette stated she would like to see more detail as there was not a whole lot to go on with the current submittal. She stated she was concerned the landscaping would not be ramped up in the future. She stated the monument area planting plan did not seem to relate to anything; it seemed to have just landed in the proposed location. She stated the relationships may be resolved with the modifications to the entry and pathway. She stated it seemed as though there would not be a lot of budget for the landscaping and noted a lot of money did not need to be put into it to make it a good plan. She noted she was not seeing any cohesion in the tree placement and species. She stated she was happy to hear that the applicant had a landscape architect and her primary concerns were those of Staff. She stated she was in favor of the drainage being more integrated into the landscaping design instead of putting it underground and could be an enhancing element. Vice Chairperson Rea added that he had noticed that lighting plan E-1 for the fixtures mounted to the building included no horizontal cutoff that did not meet night sky requirements. Planner Krueger responded that he had already informed the applicant of the unallowable lighting. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was impressed with the way the applicant had shoe horned the project onto the site while still presented a nice elevation to the street. He stated he did not feel the same way about the parking lot and added that visibility would be a disaster on the site. He noted the parking would be the side of the site that people would see the most from I-90. He stated it really troubled him as there was already development along Valley Center that was problematic when viewed from I-90. He suggested reconfiguring the parking would make a huge difference in the overall appearance and functionality of the site. He stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Rea with regard to the proposed elevations and noted he liked the details included on the entrances. He suggested a little more visual detailing in the upper areas but it would depend on the pedestrian plaza on the street side. He suggested the plaza design should integrate more strongly with the building. He stated he agreed with Chairperson Pentecost that a drive thru feature would be nice though he understood the site constraints. Mr. Larsen noted there were a few areas with wiggle room. Chairperson Pentecost stated that designing a three story hotel is a difficult task and at the end of the day you were attempting to make it look as though boxes had been stacked end to end and then one on top of the other. He stated the hip roofs with shed roofs on each made the north and south elevations energetic. He stated he commended them for doing things that gave interest to the north and south ends of the structure. He asked if there was any LEED direction or movement with the hotel. Mr. Larsen responded they do consider those features, but none had been proposed with this application. Chairperson Pentecost stated that rooms on one side of the building would be extremely hot during the year and no shading or sun protection had been included; he suggested awnings on a west face really needed to be thought through and he thought it should be investigated to make the building more efficient. He stated he agreed with previous DRB comments with regard to the proposed parking arrangement as there would be no way to turn around. Mr. Larsen responded people would be able to turn around, but it would likely be a two or three point turn. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he understood the constraints but the challenge should be addressed head on in the early stages. He stated he liked the proposed materials palette and the composure had gone a long way. He stated he agreed with Mr. Hufstetler with regard to the nice design of the entrances. Ms. Huyette suggested the landscape architect might be able to provide suggestions on how to soften and make the parking lot more welcoming without redoing the whole thing. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Rea moved, Ms. Huyette seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for My Place Hotel SP/COA/DEV #Z-12169 with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report. The motion carried 4-0 with Ms. Garden abstaining. 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 6:37 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board