Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-14 Design Review Board MinutesMINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost 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 took the attendance. Members Present Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Bill Rea Lori Gardner Lessa Racow Mel Howe Walt Banzinger Members Absent Mark Hufstetler Scott Bechtle Staff Present Pat Jacobs, Associate Planner Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager Visitors Present Christian Soltendiek, CS Sign Corp. Jeff Parker, Safeway Doug Livingston, Safeway Dan Goalwin, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Stan Griswold, The Land Group ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEBMER 20, 2013 Motion: Mr. Rea moved, Mel Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of 11/20/13 as presented. Board approved minutes. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Safeway Fuel CUP/COA #Z-13272 (Krueger/Johnson) 1801 West Main Street * A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the demolition of the existing casino, a lot line adjustment, construction of six fuel islands including 12 fuel dispensers with canopy and a kiosk on one lot in addition to the construction of a new retail building sharing a common wall and parking with the kiosk. Development Review Manager, Krueger: Can we take a quick attendance for the record? Development Review Manager, Krueger: I will do a quick introduction and turn it over to Administrative Design Review Staff, Pat Jacobs, who reviewed the project against the Design Objectives Plan. Mr. Krueger reviewed history of said location and the plans for the proposal to incorporate the corner building into the Safeway development. So the proposal at hand is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application, for auto fuel sales in the B-2 Community Business Zone. A CUP is required for auto fuel sales in this zone. The proposal is to demolish the existing casino use, it will not be relocating or incorporated into this project; it will simply be demolished and proposed to be replaced with a fueling use associated with the Safeway grocery building, a kiosk that will be used for convenience type retail use related to the fueling and a tenant space similar to what was proposed with the existing building along 19th for a future user. In B-2 it could be a restaurant, retail, personal and convenience services (salon) or something else, but we don’t have a tenant for the space proposed. We are here this evening to ask the Design Review Board (DRB), for a recommendation to the City Commission on this project. A CUP requires approval from the City Commission, and in that case the DRB is tasked with making a recommendation on the design aspects of the project. The current proposal has incorporated many of the aspects of the design that was discussed during an informal project meeting in June of last summer. There are some aspects that are proposed in the Staff report that will be conditions or points of discussion tonight. There a couple things that we may touch on that have come up since the Design Review Board report was issued; we discussed those this morning during the Design Review Committee (DRC) and those relate to the signage and overall sign area and the restrictions associated. Specifically the sign proposed on the corner of 19th Avenue and Main Street. In the application they are proposing to reconfigure lot lines through this process to get a zero lot line through the building to separate the retail portion of the building which is directly on corner of Main Street and 19th Avenue, and the associated parking to be on its own lot. This is similar to what was achieved on the existing outbuilding which has a salon and frozen yogurt shop, and that would be potentially possible if the lot lines were adjusted. If that parcel was sold we may end up with a Safeway sign on an adjacent parcel. There are some nuances there, but code typically does not allow off premises signage, if the retail lot were sold we would have an off premise sign. With that, the findings are in the report and we are generally recommending approval, there are some code previsions that are related to lighting and we have received some updated information from applicant that they will show you. Our goal early in the review process is to have Safeway incorporate as many changes as possible into the application itself before we get to the Commission so we are at a place we can take proposed conditions out entirely, and/or resolve things prior to the Commission public hearing. I will now turn it over to Pat Jacobs, and she will walk you through some of the recommendations in the staff report. Associate Planner Jacobs: I first want to touch on some of the positive aspects of the design because through your input early on and the response by the applicant on some of those concerns, and the ideas that were presented at that time have been taken to heed and really the design has progressed substantially. One of the key design features I wanted to follow was the objectives plan, and my discussion with you tonight starting with the neighborhood, I think what’s quite positive with the project is the access and the orientation to the overall addressing of the community is be commended. Good outdoor public spaces, have been presented, and a nice feature of the facility. The building itself, have done a nice job with the orientation of location on 19th and Main Street. The windows face the street and nice a visual interest for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The orientation of the entrances, address both the pedestrian and internal site accesses nicely. The building itself, the use of materials, creating height and plan differentiation breaks up the overall building mass. They also utilized different in materials that relate to the Safeway but the other outbuilding to the north. The design accomplishes many of the things we try to strive for. Now I would like to review some of the items we would like to see some additional work. They fall into three categories, 1) the bicycle and pedestrian connections, 2) the boulevard how the street is addressed, and 3) the building, the plaza and the signage. There is a fourth element, mechanical that we can touch on lightly. Let’s start with the Bicycle and Pedestrian connections; in particular, one of the things we wanted to encourage and is recommended in the plan is the connection not only for the pedestrian internal in the site but from building to building, and parking lot to building. Currently, they don’t have good connections which were cited in the analysis. They since have come back to us and have presented an internal connection, to the East of the building (showed a view of plan). We had a discussion with the applicant this morning encouraging them to also look as an alternative at a location represented by Mr. Krueger’s drawing. We have done some investigation into it and have determined that if they could enhance the size of those landscape islands, they could introduce a pedestrian sidewalk, as well as maintaining a landscape feature. It would allow them to reduce or eliminate the internal island, in that location and wouldn’t have to reduce parking with the exception of possibly on space. Those were the two things that are under discussion right now. The position we have regarding the location to the West, is that it provides a nice buffer between the two facilities, and creates a nice internal harbor for pedestrians and bicycle traffic if need be but, particularly pedestrians, creating a safe pathway. We are working with the applicant and would like to hear your feedback on those two concepts and addressing that avenue. Do you have anything to add Brian? Mr. Krueger: I think the thought process behind requiring an internal connection was both to connect the site together and look at where the most probable overflow or convenience parking is going to be for each of the retail use if the spaces are full. By adding the walkway the spaces around start to function as more quick access parking for this use and if there is a safe pedestrian way that someone can access here they could very easily jump onto the sidewalk and get to these building entrances, the kiosk and the retail space. Creating a secondary break that would separate uses but also provide that convenience safe avenue for the people who may be parked in various areas around site. Proposing something internal accomplishes this for the site. Mrs. Jacobs: Moving to the boulevard, that was mentioned in the staff analysis, referred back to the condition #1 in particular. One of the things staff was looking at ways they provided a nice boulevard in front of the new space. We were looking at the connection to the boulevard space that to the North of the project, there is a gap that occurs at the retail center as shown. One of the things we have seen like across the street at the CVS site, and one of the things we are trying to accomplish is a boulevard in that space, as a condition of this approval. It falls within the public right of way, begins to reinforce that pedestrian connection, separation from vehicular traffic. That is the purpose of that condition. One of the questions that came up is the retention area that is east of the pedestrian way. What we are talking about is introducing the sidewalk area in that location. Mr. Parker: Are we trading the grass and the concrete, is that an incorrect assessment? Mr. Krueger: No I think the expectation would be to provide a five foot path, and we don’t like to plant trees, right next to the sidewalk. There are some options; there is enough space there to angle the boulevard. Mr. Parker I’m pulling back my earlier concerns from when we were talking about it in DRC this morning. I don’t have a problem with this. Mr. Parker: My only concern is let’s make sure the pedestrian path is closer to the road way at the access because optimum visibility is needed. Mr. Krueger: This is a traffic provision when planning you do like to have that pedestrian connection as close to street as possible but this condition is really reflective of what the other entrances look like. The sidewalk is set back a little bit, but it’s not right on the street. Mr. Parker: This truck here is a perfect example, where does it stop and the guy trying to get into traffic who is now blocking the pedestrian. We generally bring the boulevard back to the driveway and then forward. Mr. Krueger: I think I will leave this to our engineering department; in essence, Jeff the sidewalk would be here (points to location). Mr. Parker: We are not inclined to argue about that further and support the condition. Mrs. Jacobs: We can work with the client as to what that design will end up being. The third thing that I mentioned Building, Plaza and Signs, they all kind of go together and what we are trying to accomplish on this corner. In the discussion with the applicant this morning about potential sign solutions, as discussed a section cut through plaza. Plaza is a wonderful design idea, great for the community, nice visual enhancement for retail center. One of the things we are not clear is how will that be detailed, how will it function. One of the things we spoke about today was the integral bench opposed to separate benches. It would coordinate what’s going on in the plaza, pull the site back into the building and back and forth. We would like your feedback on the approach to the bench wall and the twenty four foot expanse of wall space. This is the only back of business are that we are addressing in this building configuration. One of the things we talked about was how we can integrate things that address the pedestrian in the designs objective plan, amenities such as bicycle rack, one of the conditional items would be a second bicycle rack on the East side. They have shown a location next to the entrance of the Kiosk. Part of the discussion is if the second bike rack could be a design element. This has not been finalized as of yet. Incorporated with that, looking at that wall, pedestrian, bicycles I go back to the plaza, and one of the things that’s called out in the staff analysis is obviously they are proposing a well designed plaza. We mentioned the design elements that would have visual interest in winter as well as other seasons. But as mentioned in your documents is the location of the monument sign for the fuel pricing. One of the discussions that we had today and that has now opened up more as we look at the requirements of the sign, based on ownership of the lot and maybe Brian can expand on some of the sign questions. The locations of that sign the pricing at that significant intersection your input on that is important. We started to have discussions, of other possible locations, what may better serve the applicant and their use. There is ongoing discussion and would like your feedback regarding that location, other opportunities that may exist and any feedback regarding signs. We have a sign shown facing East elevation and one West and 19th in foreground. Mr. Krueger: One of the difficult discussions about signs is the legal precedent as far as conditioning the location of a sign. That is something that we can work with the applicant collaboratively with but nothing that we would propose a specific condition and probably the City’s legal department would be directly involved on the dais if the Commission goes in that direction or if this board looks to provide a condition in that regard. It is something we have to look very carefully at, as a City and I think we would rather address it as a group rather than something where the City is directing things. That being said, comments on this would be appreciated just to give some general direction and we noted it as a point of discussion in the staff report. Mrs. Jacobs: What is encouraging from this morning is looking at some better solutions for the applicant and how it might address their needs. Whether or not there are some other opportunities on other parts of the site for the pricing that might address the entrances. I don’t have anything further on the building, plaza and signs. On the mechanical, what is discussed in particular are the vent stacks for the fueling station. Mr. Parker: This is something we discussed in the DRC meeting in December and that the location of the vent stacks next the trash enclosures would not be a good location there along main. And where the staff is suggesting the boulevard’s location is where we were thinking the vents could go. So that will be a point of discussion. For the record we do believe that our proposed internal connection works pretty well. I do understand where staff is coming from on their suggestion, but you have to fit enough stuff in the right locations and have to be proximate to each other, we can’t move the vent stacks too far away and have to go somewhere. Mr. Goalwin: The reason this path was chosen, and I like Brian’s logic of people, who are parked in the proximity, but looking at the retail shop, and those entrances on Main Street, on 19th and additionally on the North. So we felt that with the extension of the sidewalk along that line there was as beneficial as any other. The parking that is proposed for the retail covers the retail and then the overflow and would probably park further south anyhow, so that is why where making that the connection. So kind of the same logic we were thinking not to mention, there is less disruption of what is going on at the Safeway if we program this route (shown). In our mind if they are equal the advantage to us is the less disruption to the overall location. Mr. Parker: The other thought for us was where those handicap stalls are located the sidewalk only goes to the end of the handicap stalls. And then from where the black car (shown) is out to the west that’s all landscape so it would be a conversion of the existing landscaping to hardscape to go that route as opposed to the other way which is providing the direct pedestrian connection back to the retail building and to kiosk for those head in stalls to Main. There was some concern Dan, about how this all functions with ADA, the slopes and as long as we stay to the west of that drive isle, once you get into that area the grades are not functional. Mr. Goalwin: We have evaluated our path for ADA and it works. The other connection you are proposing we would have to vet that out see if we could make that exit work. I don’t know if we could get that grade at 19th down to that level. Mr. Parker: my other concern, is human nature, if we strengthen that link where you, Brian, are proposing where that landscaping is, right at the top before you make that 90 degree turn peoples inclination is to shortcut pass that fueling stations, and that to me is more dangerous than getting them over to the sidewalk. I think strengthening away from cars and even though it’s a long shortcut, it’s really busy at a fuel center. People are going ever which way, its two-way traffic plus the circulation there for grocery shoppers I would really want to get them away from there as soon as possible. Mr. Griswold: Another concern is taking that handicap parking area farther to the West, that strip of landscape there and it is pretty narrow to keep trees in there so we would lose all those trees. Mr. Parker: Stan was the landscape architect for Safeway and we brought him along on this project for continuity for the fuel station. It may be as simple as where do we want the vent stacks. If the vent stacks stay more internal to the site, but the vent stacks have to stay within a certain distance of the tanks. So we can’t just move them anywhere. Continued discussion on location of vent stacks. We have listed 2 different locations where they could go. Mrs. Jacobs: I don’t have anything further as far as the conditions or analysis but would be happy to answer any other questions. Mr. Parker: We did bring the same sample materials board that DRB approved. We are not proposing anything different, and tried to use the same architectural treatments for the store and the same lighting fixtures. Mr. Howe: The renderings really down play the corner monument sign. It looks like it will be more prominent than what shows, and would like to get more information on the sign and how big it is. Mr. Parker: On the new architectural plans we have an elevation drawing of the sign. Mr. Howe: Where there other considerations to other locations? And where they discussed in any other meetings? Mr. Parker: Yes and asked Brian to bring up Google Earth. The concern that Safeway has the sensitivity the consumer has for gasoline prices. The better the information the customer has the better chance we have to get them as our customer. The layout that we have illustrated is to use the existing Safeway drive accesses. He spoke on why they choose location of site. The south bound on 19th and east bound on Main that the signage on the canopy doesn’t reach out two those travelers and reason why the price sign was positioned on the corner. Mr. Howe: Rather than the corner was consideration given to integration of sign in landscape at entrance points? Mr. Parker: Because of the sign regulations if we purchase the two parcels it only allows us for one sign. We only get one freestanding sign per lot. Mr. Krueger: It would require a variance to achieve other option of two smaller signs at entrances. Mr. Howe: What was the staff’s position on a variance? Mr. Krueger: Trying to make a hardship argument, with a self imposed condition of how you’re placing the use, type of use I think it would be difficult to support that. Our code doesn’t address that. The code is conservative and specific and to limit other situations that might not be as clear. Mr. Goalwin: If the powers at be, including those of us think that the two smaller signs would be a much nicer esthetically, isn’t there someone we can appeal to allow us to do it? Mr. Krueger: You can put those comments to the City Commission. The applicant always has that ability, the use can be approved and you could apply for a variance and make a hardship argument based on your analysis. Mr. Howe: Is there any way to incorporate it into this process or does it have to be a separate process? Mr. Krueger: It would have to be separate, because we would have to notice it as a separate action. Mr. Goalwin: How easy is it to get a text amendment? Mr. Krueger: That might be a possibility. Unfortunately we just incorporated a new sign code a month ago that doesn’t address this specific issue. Mr. Howe: So with a text amendment that states it can be proven that aesthetically, two smaller signs work better than one big one then that can be granted. What kind of process is that? Shorter or longer? Mr. Krueger: I think that the sign code language is more difficult and trying to write criteria for when that might be appropriate would be the difficult part. I’m not saying that it can’t be done/ Mr. Howe: How long is the variance process take? Mr. Krueger: About 4-6 weeks before a Commission hearing. Mrs. Jacobs: One thing that is encouraging is the pricing visibility. There are various options available. More conversation was going on but recorder cut out in 43 minutes. The Board continued discussion on the merits of the project. Motion: Mr. Banzinger moved, Mel Howe seconded, to recommend approval of application Z13272 to the City Commission with the findings and recommended conditions in the staff report as presented. Board approved unanimously. ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT (15 – 20 minutes) No public comment was forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board_______________________________________________