Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Bill Hanson Joanne M. Noel John Sherman, Associate Planner Jim Raznoff Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dan Glenn Jennifer Willems,Recording Secretary Melvin Howe Dawn Smith Dick Pohl Henry Sorenson VISITORS PRESENT David Kountz Robin Salvagio Blair Wonluri Tom Simpson Dan Copula Bob Bushing Don Stueck Todd Whipple David Wallin Lou Wallin ITEM 2. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Home Depot Informal-#I-0109—(Sherman) Valley Center Road * An Informal Review Application submitted for advice and comment regarding the proposed development of a 115,086 sf Home Depot Store in association with the development of a total of 227,486 sf of retail uses. Lowell Springer,Don Cape, Steve Wilson, Lori Bakersky, Robin Salvagio,Dave Couch, and Blair Wonluri joined the DRB. Planner Sherman reviewed the guidelines the plan will follow and the staff report. Chairperson Sorenson asked the applicants to review the plan. Mr. Springer located Catron Creek on the plan. He noted there was a lot of pedestrian space provided, suggesting it was the main feature the project had to offer. Planner Sherman stated there needed to be a re-alignment of Catron Creek and asked the DRB for concerns and comments about the relocation of the creek. Design Review Board Minutes-February 27,2001 1 Planner Sherman stated the parking exceeded code, and pointed out the parcels suggesting they could be developed into restaurants which would require more parking. He stated he would like to see the major facades broken up more. Mr. Springer explained how Catron Creek flowed through the plan. Planner Sherman stated the fen way would run behind Bob Wards and Target,noting the creek divided the plan in half. Mr. Glenn suggested it was difficult to judge a plan without context, especially when it is an extension of the Gallatin Center. He stated he needed to see the bigger picture of the site plan with what is currently there and what is in the surrounding area, so the DRB can see the site as a whole. Mr. Steve Wilson stated suggestions of what the mid size type boxes could be, noting other uses could be restaurants. Mr. Glenn suggested with this type of retail, the scale of the stores and the elements explode across the landscape, ending up will a mall which is not pedestrian friendly. He stated ideally he would like to see pedestrians able to walk from store to store. Mr. Glenn stated the driving force behind the design is that the public will have to drive from store to store. He noted that Bridger Peaks, which is strung together, is at least a Main Street relationship between pedestrians and buildings. Mr. Glenn stated he would like to see the buildings pulled together so pedestrians could move freely about them without getting in and out of their vehicles. Mr. Springer stated this site is split by a heavy traffic area. He asked how we would deal with the high traffic artery which exists within the site. Mr. Glenn stated he could see the road designed where the parking is provided,to create a walkway world with entries on two sides of the buildings. He would like to see a"Place", and asked how to create this place, suggesting it would be a challenge. He noted one way to handle the problem would be to take the parking and concentrate it as a structure, suggesting the structure will concentrate the flow of the pedestrians. Mr. Jim Raznoff stated the creek had been re-routed around the property, and asked if the creek existed the same way now as shown on the plan. Planner Sherman showed how the creek flowed now, on the plan. Mr. Raznoff asked how the developers would describe the building design and how many designs the company had. Mr. Couch stated they were open to suggestions. Mr. Raznoff asked what was concentrated behind the building. Planner Sherman stated the main focus was a lumber layout which is what is located in the surrounding areas. Mr. Raznoff stated he didn't know what other consumers would utilize a Home Depot space for anything other than the specific use. Mr. Raznoff suggested the parking is adequate for the specific use of the store. Mr. Couch showed where the covered pick-up area would be located and explained the idea of a pick-up and drop-off situation. Design Review Board Minutes-February 27,2001 2 Mr. Glenn stated it is important to look at the big picture,because of the future development of surrounding areas. He explained how the fagade would look from the highway. Mr. Couch stated they are willing to work with the DRB. Mr. Springer stated the back side of the building is screened with trees. Mr. Hanson asked if the road in the center of the site plan will continue. Mr. Springer stated right now, Rocky Road comes through the site but is disregarded. He stated a road named"Holbert Road",would come to a different location,possibly just to the south of the existing lake, almost to the school property, and then graduate and curve around the school property. He stated MDOT would like to see it planned this way, making this a City Street. Mr. Wilson stated in order to get the connection MDOT would like to see, the road needed to shift to the north for proper spacing. Mr. Hanson stated, considering the site,how did the developer see the pedestrian movement. Ms. Salvagio stated they would like to treat the creek as a pedestrian amenity. She stated they would need consideration from the City to put in a continuous path, suggesting the possibility of having the path continuing along with the creek which flows in the front of the Wingate Inn. Ms. Salvagio stated as far as getting to the other side of the site,pedestrians would have to cross at a designated pedestrian crossing area, and vehicular stopping point. She noted they had created sidewalk connections. Mr. Hanson suggested developing less formal nodes where people could stop and sit. He also suggested a play area. Mr. Hanson asked if Valley Center Road would become a City road. Planner Sherman stated it would,noting other possible City requirements could add additional costs to this project. Mr. Wilson stated the building developments were pre-determined. Mr. Glenn stated there was a set formula for this project. Mr. Springer stated the main water line was complete, noting the City needed to coordinate a new line beyond that point. Mr. Hanson asked if Home Depot will be built first. He asked if the retail site shown on the building was an actual building, and if pad A on the site was meant to be a restaurant. He noted the Wingate Inn was closer to the south, and suggested relocating pad A closer to the Wingate as to create pedestrian circulation. Mr. Howe stated he was concerned with the parking lots. He stated they look like a sea of asphalt, noting he would like to see the parking lot more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Howe asked if the water way will be maintained to keep it a nice amenity. Planner Sherman stated it would be an open space requirement. Mr. Howe stated the sides and the rear of the building are stark, suggesting he would like to see the facades broken up and required in the PUD. Mr. Pohl stated his concern was sprawl on Valley Center Road, suggesting it would be hit heavily. He stated he felt sprawl would get worse as future developments were implemented. Design Review Board Minutes-February 27,2001 3 Mr. Pohl noted concerns about vehicular movement throughout the site and suggested further study was needed. Mr. Pohl would like to see the walk way along the stream be more playful. Ms. Salvagio stated they were following guidelines,keeping the water 35' away. Mr. Pohl stated the fagade was standard and this was a different fagade presented. Mr. Couch stated there was a standard building fagade on the plan. Mr. Pohl asked if MDOT had standards on which they were applying to the development of this area. Planner Sherman stated one of the conditions was approval by MDOT. Mr. Wilson stated they have spent a lot of time with MDOT to make sure that everything is as MDOT wanted it. Planner Sherman stated MDOT will be a major part of the approval process and will be giving recommendations. Mr. Pohl stated the stream is the center point of the plan, he asked if there were any ways to move the buildings to access the stream more easily. Ms. Smith stated the design lacked pedestrian movement and encouraged the shop and drive attitude. She suggested the feeling is going in one door and leaving from another,never knowing where she was going. She asked where the pedestrian path would take her. Mr. Springer explained the location and destinations of the pedestrian path. He stated it connected water and open space from Durston Street up to the site. Ms. Smith noted the stream area showed no snow storage and would be a problem. She suggested bringing the buildings closer together. Ms. Smith stated she would like to be able to walk from building to building. She asked about shifting the design of the building with the natural split in the building. Mr. Couch stated the feel is that you are separated but you actually are not, everything is under one roof. Ms. Smith stated she would like to see a draft PUD at a work session level to put things into perspective. Ms. Smith asked if Valley Center Road would be widened. Planner Sherman stated the road would be widened to a three lane road, eventually turning into a five lane road. Ms. Smith asked if the road was widened,what would happen to the greenspace and the stream. Ms. Salvagio stated the plan reflected the widening of the road, and the stream was still far enough away. Chairperson Sorenson stated the concept seemed to be the desire to have the parking lot in front of the building for easy access to and from vehicles. He suggested the rear of the building was designated as a service area with the components gradually getting smaller. Chairperson Sorenson stated the three ingredients for a development were;vehicle access, service access, and pedestrian access, suggesting the association of place comes from pedestrian's point of view. He stated the real difficulty was that the main focus was to have the pedestrian access only in the front. Chairperson Sorenson noted two things driving the design; dedicating only one side for pedestrians, and the other to service. He suggested having a location where you could go from one place to another, noting every piece was a stand alone element. He suggested putting buildings together with appropriate accesses would make the project more desirable. Chairperson Sorenson stated the road becomes a pedestrian street noting he would like to see more court yard type areas. He stated the extended parking lot was very uncomfortable. Design Review Board Minutes-February 27,2001 4 He suggested the ideal way was to get the parking as close to the building as possible, making it easier to go from place to place. Chairperson Sorenson suggested arranging buildings in a couple of different locations, stating it would be to the developer's advantage. Mr. Wilson stated they had received good information to take with them and think about. He stated there had to be a way to blend idealism with practicality. Mr. Wilson stated they would continue to figure out how to make the site more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Raznoff stated there was an opportunity depending on the road, to present pods to pursue with MDOT, approaching the school district and how the streets would approach the school. B. Bozeman Ford Informal-#I-0108—(Skelton) North 19t1'Avenue and Deadman's Gulch ]k An Informal Review Application submitted for advice and comment for the construction of a 53,500sf auto dealership with a quick lube facility attached. Don Stueck, Robert Bushing,Dave Wallin, and LouAnn Wallin joined the DRB. Planner Skelton presented the Informal and reviewed the staff report. He stated the site was already a subdivision and the lots were already in place. He stated there was a 50' set back because of the 19`h Avenue Entryway Corridor. Mr. Stueck stated CTA had completed the CAT Rental site. He presented the plan and reviewed the location of the building in reference to the Interstate and Simmental Way. He stated the back does face the interstate. Mr. Stueck reviewed the building materials and explained what could be seen from the highway. He presented pictures of existing concrete panels. He stated there are different tones of color in the building. Mr. Stueck stated the landscape drawings met and exceeded what was needed for the code,noting there were no deviations or variances required. He showed how the site would be oriented and explained other areas of the plan in reference to site lights. Mr. Stueck stated they are not required to have landscape islands. He showed on the plan how the main building,the paint and body shop, and the parking areas were oriented. He stated they had met the requirements for the 19`h Avenue Entryway Corridor and for Simmental Way. Mr. Stueck stated they had matched colors according to the surrounding buildings and area. He stated there are natural valley matched colors according to the surrounding buildings and area. He stated there is a natural valley so storm water would flow with the natural valley into a storm retention area. Mr. Bushing stated there would be glass across the store front. Ms. Smith asked about the quick lube, suggesting turning the shop to the north facing 19`h Avenue. Mr. Stueck stated that would coordinate with traffic flow,noting the parking lot originally faced to the north. He stated there would be a berm along the 50' setback. Design Review Board Minutes-February 27,2001 5 Ms. Smith suggested lessening the lighting. Mr. Bushing reviewed the lighting requirements. He stated they were thinking about sensors depending on the hours of the business, noting the whole site would go down to security level lighting at a certain time after closing hours. Mr. Pohl asked about signage. Mr. Stueck stated there would be one on-site pylon sign and some wall signage on the back side,with directional signs on the building. Mr. Bushing stated,based on the amount of wall signage,they are up to code. Mr. Stueck stated there was a pitched roof over the showroom, suggesting this was a building which basically had no back. He stated the building had different massing. Mr. Pohl asked if the secure area was visually screened. Mr. Stueck stated there would be a chain link fence with slats in it. Mr. Stueck stated the storm water detention area will have grass, and be whatever the volume required. He stated there is a 10' utility easement next to Simmental Way. Mr. Stueck stated every row will have trees. Mr. Bushing stated snow removal would be pushed onto the grass area. Mr. Stueck stated less than 50%of site can be utilized for display. Mr. Hanson stated along Simmental Way,he suggested creating pockets of landscape with groupings of trees. Mr. Struck stated they run into Simmental Way covenants. Mr. Bushing stated Simmental Way had stated they wanted to see boulevard trees in the center,noting there was possibility to add trees at the entryway. Mr. Hanson stated the display area was difficult to work,noting he liked the project. Mr. Stueck stated Mr. Wallin had traveled to see what fit best inside and outside of the building. Mr. Raznoff stated the site plan showed an entryway on North 19th Avenue. Mr. Stueck stated MDOT suggested they may only have right turn in and right turn out. Mr. Skelton stated there was limited access. Mr. Raznoff stated the project was good. Mr. Glenn stated they layout was good. Mr. Bushing stated there were no wheel stops or islands in the display area. Mr. Wallin stated the existing site was too small, there were no places for employees or service vehicles to park. Mr. Bushing stated the site was laid out the most workable way for the display and Iandscape. Mr. Glenn stated the buildings needed some landscape buffer against the buildings themselves. Mr. Bushing stated the view from the display, and the maneuvering distance, was the reason for the large piece of asphalt on the plan. Mr. Glenn stated he would like to see commercial retail enterprises to tell the City what they needed for parking. Mr. Stueck stated parking is in compliance with code. Planner Skelton stated there was a possibility to receive a deviation for parking. Design Review Board Minutes-February 27,2001 6 Chairperson Sorenson stated the site had a tremendous amount of asphalt. He suggested making a boulevard, losing 18 parking stalls, and creating a broad area to have the ability to rock and landscape a display ar3ea. He suggested making a pond for a combination of landscaping and water drainage. Mr. Bushing stated he would like to find a way to replace cars where he needed to make the landscape wider, but the over all effect was no different for the owner. Mr. Glenn stated he would like to see amenities to service the employees and customers. Mr. Stueck stated the overhangs on the back are to dress the back side of the building up. He stated there was no entrance in the back of the building. Mr. Bushing stated there would be directional signing on the buildings. He stated there were two rows on the door which were glass. Mr. Stuck stated there were only two lanes for drive-thru in the service area. ITEM 3. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved,Mr. Raznoff seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Ae--� Henry S renson, Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-February 27,2001 7 ATTENDANCE ROSTER FEBRUARY 27, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS /I 1 4 / 2. 0 v JCCD 3. 4� 7. 3 5 Ic C !-J - 8. � �il/�l p J �� 7 S �Cd�2 Gl'�ZO y 9. 10. Lo� 1/�l y1 1 ► 't Lk 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.