Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 23, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and the secretary recorded the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Bill Hanson Melvin Howe Assistant Planner, Karin Caroline Jim Raznoff Senior Planner, Dave Skelton Dan Glenn Recording Secretary, Jennifer Willems Dawn Smith Joanne Mannell Noel Dick Pohl Henry Sorenson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12,2000 MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Pohl seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Jacob's Crossing Building MaSP/COA-#Z-00174 - (Caroline) 424 East Main Street Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a three-story, 37,368 square foot building with retail, office and residential space in the B-3 zoning district. Jamie Lenon, Dave Cecich, and Cliff Chisholm joined the DRB. Planner Caroline presented the project and reviewed the staff report. She noted in a B-3 district, cash in lieu of parking is allowed. She stated there are 66 parking spaces required and the applicant will pay cash in lieu for 30 of the spaces,noting the fee is 5,000.00 per space. Planner Caroline stated the project had been seen by the DRC twice and noted the DRB needed to address, appropriate building material, East Main Street facade, and landscape. She noted the thirteen landscape points needed, had been met and the applicant had proposed to install adequate bike racks. The DRC concurred, three bike stalls are adequate. Mr. Pohl asked why the DRC felt three bike stalls were adequate. Planner Caroline noted safety issues and pedestrian circulation issues. Desi�np Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 1 Planner Caroline stated the parking access would be shared with the Blackwood Building,noting a one way access is being discussed with the Director of Public Service. She stated the historic lighting will continue with this project, as in the previous projects along Main Street. Mr. Chisholm explained how the shared access would work, noting the primary access is from the alley. Planner Caroline stated there is an existing shared easement, noting DRC's concerns about the access. She stated the access will be a right turn in and a right turn out,possibly using a pork chop which is being reviewed by the DRC, Director of Public Service, and Montana Department of Transportation. Planner Caroline stated the alley will be treated as a one way alley,but noted she was unsure which way traffic will flow. Planner Caroline reviewed the storm water system, noting the Engineering Department is reviewing the plan also. Mr. Chisholm explained the need for a traffic study and how the property line on the west side of the building was part of the Blackwood property. He noted the shared easement has a legal declaration and they have not chosen to utilize it, stating it is just a pedestrian access. Mr. Chisholm stated the City has asked for a traffic impact study. He noted the possibility that the alley may have to be widened. He explained the decorative elements and elevations with a computer-panoramic view of the project. Mr. Chisholm stated the color choices are still being discussed with the owner, noting the materials will be brick with synthetic stucco on the third floor and painted steel elements in dark grey. He stated the building is flat faced in character with the old style of Main Street. Mr. Lenon stated the current plan showed only three suites, noting there could possibly be five or six store fronts, each with a bike rack. He stated B-3 zone is exempt from variances for any kind of parking. He stated the project was submitted with current zoning, noting if there is a decrease in the parking restrictions,the parking would be re-worked. Mr. Lenon explained why the third floor balconies were inset 6 feet. He stated the main floor lobby will have a set of fire doors, and will provide access to retail stores. Comments of Staff: Ms. Noel stated dryvit did not fit in with the historic facade and by making the arch grey, the building would have more continuity. She suggested breaking up the facade by adding a metal awning on the third floor and another corvel. Ms. Smith suggested the third floor was lacking in historic character, noting the metal awnings are awkward. Mr. Lenon stated casement windows, on the third floor,were one of the few windows which complied with egress windows as explained in the code. Design Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 2 Mr. Hanson stated the dryvit on the upper level needed to be addressed,noting his biggest concern was in the circulation of the site. He suggested taking another look at traffic circulation in the area where delivery vehicles are concentrated. Mr. Chisholm stated there was not a proposal for signage, noting there would be a sign for the building itself. He stated the intent was to allow the tenants to utilize the awnings and variety of color, which would have to conform to sign codes. Mr. Hanson suggested an agreement be drawn up between the owners and the tenants to keep them uniform. Chairperson Sorenson suggested the building is reflective of downtown which is modern. He noted the upper floor needed to be reduced in terms of scale. He suggested the awnings give the building something extra. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved,Mr. Glenn seconded, to approve the project with staff conditions. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0. B. Tange Oak Street Development Concept P.U.D.-#Z-00175 - (Skelton) West Oak Street and future extension of North 11 th Avenue �k P.U.D. Concept Plan Review to construct a two-phased, mixed- use retail and professional office complex on 4.6+acres located in the Tange Minor Subdivision Rob Baylock, Greg Allen, and Jeff Danhower joined the DRB. Planner Skelton presented the project and reviewed background of the property, including future plans. He stated the property is located in the Oak Street Entryway Corridor and the North 19th Avenue Entryway Corridor. He referenced specific guidelines which must be followed in reference to both entryway corridors. PIanner Skelton stated the subdivision itself was not part of the PUD,noting lot 5 had its own PUD. He stated the project had no deviations or variances, and included a private street. Planner Skelton stated there are two phases to the project;phase one, consisting of a 2-story building, and phase two, consisting of possibly a 3-story building. He stated contingent uses would be proposed once the project was built, noting they do meet streetscape along Oak Street, and they have exceeded streetscape along the stream corridor. Planner Skelton stated there is a concept review stage, a preliminary review stage, and a final review stage. Mr. Danhower stated they are only in the preliminary review stage. He stated the project is located next to a heavy commercial area. Mr. Danhower suggested they tried to create a standard mix in use with an urban and non-urban feel. He noted the creek had to be treated as a rural creek. Mr. Danhower stated there is a common drive on the south east corner of the property,which is shared. He wanted to shield the back area and place the parking there. Design Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 3 He noted the landscape would include Dogwoods and Cottonwoods along the creek area. He presented image sketches of the Tange Development. Mr. Danhower stated they tried to keep the buildings together for pedestrian safety and to reduce congested parking. He explained how the buildings were oriented. He noted the buildings are uniform in design with some variations in the windows and entrances. Mr. Danhower suggested they are conceptually looking at masonry buildings,noting the buildings are fairly small, about a 500 square foot print. He suggested the project is a destination place,non-residential. He explained the view of Phase 1 and 2, looking to the north and south. He noted he wanted to give the buildings texture and depth by adding variation to the roof lines and highlighted corner pieces. He stated the color would be a tumble brick with a textured feeling, stone at the base areas,not a concrete block but a true concrete stone. Mr. Danhower explained there would be wood frame decks with painted metal. Mr. Danhower explained they are in a conceptual stage and know they have parking requirements and open space requirements which have to be met. Mr. Pohl asked about vehicular movement and if the shared drive was shared with the current owner. Mr. Baylock stated they have not utilized the shared drive and have a separate drive. Mr. Pohl stated he would like to see the buildings grouped to create pedestrian spaces. He suggested the plan is designed more for vehicles. Mr. Danhower stated once you remove vehicles, you have removed pedestrians as well, suggesting you need pedestrians and vehicles integrated. Mr. Pohl suggested he liked the open spaces, people spaces, keeping vehicles separate. Mr. Baylock stated there are only eleven parking spaces in the middle of the building area. Mr. Pohl stated the buildings have a guard type feeling. Mr.Raznoff stated his concern was with the parking and access areas. He noted as phase 2 is developed, there would be a central connection which would not align with the main entry into the first parking lot. He suggested there is a meandering feel to the entry. Ms. Noel stated she appreciated the maximizing of the creek. She suggested separating the parking with greenspace, and agreed the roof structure seemed odd. DRB members concurred; parking and entry accesses are problematic. Mr. Danhower reiterated his feelings that the parking and pedestrian spaces needed to be integrated. Ms. Smith suggested south of Oak Street is a residential area with a residential influence, and noted the proposed buildings seemed very industrial. She stated behind the proposed project there is a view corridor. She suggested pitched roofs would be more appropriate. Mr. Baylock stated most buildings on Oak Street have flat roofs. Ms. Smith stated the front view of the roofs do not look flat. Design Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 4 Mr. Glenn suggested the project was difficult to comment on. He stated the project is an urban and suburban project, suggesting parking lots are a suburban idea. Mr. Glenn stated he liked the idea of more than a one story structure, noting he would like to see housing in this proposal, and encouraged mixed uses. Mr. Glenn stated if you look at the plan from an urban idea, it seemed to be built in a block form as one building. Mr. Glenn stated he felt the project needed more density to create more streetscape and defined space. He stated he felt there were big gaps in between the buildings. Mr. Glenn suggested looking at the notion of a block system, using each building as a block and to somehow set it up so they are built edges to the street. He suggested a radical reduction in the parking. Mr. Glenn stated the plan showed vast seas of parking. He suggested creating court yard environments and more vehicle areas which face the street. He stated there was a lack of clarity between commercial and industrial roofs. Mr. Hanson stated the retail spaces are at a conceptual level and asked what they will consist of. Mr. Baylock stated some of the ideas: light retail, restaurant, and retail outlet with a limited service group. Mr. Hanson stated service activities are extremely important. Mr. Danhower stated a lot of retail is front door service,noting some of the services will have to occupy a space with a service area. Mr. Baylock suggested if a trail system is located next to the creek, it needed to be graveled. Mr. Danhower suggested they need to resolve trail system issues. Mr. Hanson suggested the fabric and texture of the buildings offer a lot of possibilities. He did not feel the third floor phase was pedestrian friendly. He suggested bringing buildings down to the ground, and roof top elements needed to be done elegantly and proportionately. Mr. Hanson stated he felt a site lighting scheme would be an asset to the plan. Chairperson Sorenson stated he liked the work thus far on the plan, including the bridge and pedestrian amenities. He stated the outdoor courtyards are not clarified as well as they could be, noting he would like more definition on the interior street and organization around the street. Chairperson Sorenson stated he personally liked the project and the comments from the Board. Mr. Glenn asked if there was any consideration taken on the uses of the parking. Mr. Danhower stated they are still unsure of the market between commercial and retail. Planner Skelton stated he felt the parking should not be eliminated and introduced the idea of shared parking with the adjacent property. Mr. Baylock stated they would look into shared parking. Mr. Danhower stated the issue of parking was a struggle and depending upon the 2 or 3 story Design Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 5 building, perhaps there was more room for ideas. He noted he felt they could do something about the outdoor space and add more of it. Mr. Pohl asked if there was consideration for balconies on the upper levels. Mr. Danhower stated on the initial sketch, the three story buildings were far more conceptual. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Community Food Co-Op - #1-0102 - (Caroline) 908 West Main Street An Informal Review for advice and comment regarding the construction of a two-story, 9,560 square foot addition. Ben Lloyd, Micheline Halpin, and Kelly Wiseman joined the DRB. Planner Caroline presented the informal,noting the applicant was requesting three deviations, #1 - is to allow the zero lot line to continue, #2—move the front facade towards Main Street within two feet of the property line, and#3 -reduction in parking spaces. She stated the project had already come through once as a minor site plan. Planner Caroline stated there are currently 40 parking spaces and 2 handicapped spaces,noting there are approximatelyl2-14 spaces less than the amount required by code. Mr. Lloyd explained the background of the Co-Op. He stated the original concept had a long arching roof,but was turned away from Main Street. He reflected comments from members of the Co-Op,noting they wanted the lawn to remain. Mr. Lloyd noted what the second floor would be used for and stated there would be dining for the deli, and a coffee bar. He stated on the south side of the second level there is a deck for dining. Mr. Lloyd stated they want to use storm water run-off for irrigation. He presented pictures of the elevation,noting they are using recycled timbers, grain elevator tin, and are proposing to use metal agricultural type siding. Mr. Howe liked the idea of the model. He stated he would like to know why they were going to two feet and directly to the lot line. Mr. Lloyd stated they needed to go forward toward Main Street because of a sewer easement near the parking lot. Mr. Wiseman stated they would keep the additional building as the office and would continue to use the building. Ms. Halpin stated the landscaping in the green open space is in preliminary stages,noting the gravel around the detention pond would be taken out. She suggested using vines to fill in green space. She stated there would be dining areas in the greenspace. Mr. Lloyd stated they would encourage the use of bicycles and keep the circulation separate from that of the use of cars. Mr. Lloyd explained the second level was going to be used as the staff area, noting the addition is Design Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 6 for more grocery space. Mr. Wiseman explained how the upper level would be laid out according to the model. Mr. Wiseman suggested snow plows destroy green space within the boulevard area along Main Street. Ms. Smith asked about landscaping in the front facades. She suggested elevated planters, and flower boxes as in the rural look of downtown. Mr. Glenn stated he was curious about the massing. He suggested the mode was domestic and the elevation rural. Mr. Lloyd stated they are looking for a massing. He noted they would not steer into domestic massing. He suggested he was worried about extending Main Street to the west and did not want to give a domestic quality to the architecture. Mr. Lloyd stated he believed the project could work, noting the challenge would be in the detail. Mr. Hanson liked the open space on the corner, but did not like the building on the street. He would like to see the building set back from Main Street. He felt traffic could be a problem with pedestrian safety,noting the building is only twelve feet from the street. Chairperson Sorenson stated the DRB previously encouraged the developer to move the building to the street. He stated he liked the lawn in front of the building. Chairperson Sorenson stated it is important to create pedestrian relief and transparency in the windows. Mr. Lloyd stated there is a door in the niche and suggested maybe some windows on the upper level. Chairperson Sorenson stated the three roofs remind him of apartment buildings. He encouraged the developer to re-work the facade on the building with the three roofs. Chairperson Sorenson asked what Mr. Lloyd thought about galvanized metal along the bottom. He stated he felt the material of choice is very fragile. Mr. Lloyd stated there is masonry on the south side and between the front forms, and suggested a more durable material be used on the bottom of the building. Mr. Lloyd stated there will be an awning on the south side and possibly lighting. He suggested service happened on the south side of the building. B. Delaney"Off Broadway"Retail/Office and Residential Development- #I-01003 - (Caroline) North West Area of Broadway and Mendenhall An Informal Review for advice and comment regarding a retail office/residential development on 7 acres. Mike Delaney, Thomas Bitnar, and Ileana Indreland joined the DRB Planner Caroline presented the informal information and stated the applicant would like mixed Design Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 7 uses and a proposed three story building. She presented ideas of what the three story building could look like. She stated there are concerns about keeping the grid system going. Planner Caroline presented the plan and explained how the grid system worked on the plan. She stated it is a very sensible parcel. She stated the applicant needed to envision what the land use pattern would be. Planner Caroline noted the applicant proposed 47 condos. She stated the draft 2020 Master Plan called for the parcel to be residential,noting it is currently zoned M-1. Mr. Delaney suggested they have looked at certain patterns in the city. He stated they are creating office space with secondary retail use,to include some industrial uses. Mr. Delaney stated the top levels would be loft condominium units. Mr. Bitner reviewed the presented plan and suggested the property was a gateway to the city. Ms. Indreland explained how they arrived at the mixed use. Mr. Raznoff stated the connections to the city would increase the traffic. He asked if traffic studies will have to be done and he asked the applicant if they visualize street lights. Mr. Delaney stated he felt the traffic load was not significant enough to require a traffic study. He noted the busiest time of traffic on Broadway and some of the existing traffic problems. Mr. Raznoff stated an SID could be floated by the city. He stated the traffic will not demand a light but if a traffic study showed that a light is needed then the applicant would agree. Mr. Raznoff asked if the project would be visible from traffic coming in from the highway. Mr. Delaney stated there will be shapes of buildings, lights and shadows. He suggested at night the visibility would be minimal. Mrs. Noel stated she felt the idea was very conceptual but liked the idea of mixed uses. She asked how established the plan was. Mr. Delaney stated these are just conceptual drawings. Mrs. Noel stated there is no communication linking the buildings, where they respond to each other and how to get from one area to another. Ms. Indreland pointed out the park, a central park of greenspace. Mr. Bitnar stated both sides of the buildings would be open to the park. He stated the building faced south of the park. He explained the symmetry of the buildings. Mrs.Noel stated the idea was designed as an island with parking around it, from the perimeter with landscape inside. Mr. Delaney stated the project will look somewhat like Main Street. He suggested the shops would be in the light, have the perfect parking arrangement, and a well lit park with pedestrian amenities. Ms. Indreland stated the linear trail will follow along the base of the hill and will be landscaped. She stated they hoped to work with Gallatin Valley Land Trust and hoped the wetlands would become a park. Mr. Delaney stated it is shown as a 400`building, just as a visual, there could end up being several buildings. Mr. Delaney stated there will be Main Street shops, off Main Street. Mr. Bitnar explained the orientation of the layout. Ms. Smith asked whether a parcel would be treated as an extension or as an individual body. She Design Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 8 suggested it would be hard to be an extension because of the way the roads work. Her main concerns were getting into the project from Lamme Street and suggested it would not work well. Ms. Smith stated if the project is treated as its own section of the city, the parking would not work, it would be very heavy in parking. She asked, with so many vehicles,how would the vehicles circulate through the parking area. Ms. Smith suggested clustering the parking. She stated the park is not fully usable because of the stream. Mr. Glenn asked about the location of the front and the back of the buildings. He stated his feelings on how Lamme Street runs into the building. He stated he would like to see the buildings visible from many sides. Mr. Glenn stated he felt the project needed a significant amount of work, and suggested the park will be treated as a park. He stated given the scale, the primary amenity needed to be more dominant,the strength of the plan is the program. Mr. Glenn felt that when housing and retail are introduced, it becomes a challenge. He suggested getting rid of surface parking going beneath the buildings or open court yards. Mr. Glenn stated it is a very conceptual plan, with potential to keep on going. Mr. Bitnar explained the elevation, entrances, and the facade. He reminded DRB the project was in a preliminary stage. Ms. Indreland stated she knew the 2020 plan wanted to see residential use in this area. Mr. Delaney stated there will be residences above the retail, and some higher density from the ground level up. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Ms. Noel seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Henry S renson, Chairperson Sorenson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-January 23,2001 9 ATTENDANCE ROSTER January 23, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Development Review Committee meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. /VA 2 K tt,J p CIE-e -2 �J /-1,4 8. 9. i 10. J c', ^ f 11. ( _�\f c N� l� )\.J 12. � .J�S 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.