Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,APRIL 10, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson,Henry Sorenson, called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m., and the secretary recorded the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Bill Hanson Dan Glenn Assistant Planner,Karin Caroline Jim Raznoff Senior Planner, Dave Skelton Melvin Howe Recording Secretary, Jennifer Willems Dawn Smith Joanne Mannell Noel Dick Pohl Henry Sorenson Visitors Present Brian Gallik Steve Kirchhoff Ben Lloyd ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW A. Community Food Coop MaSP/COA/DEV-#Z-01026-(Caroline) 908 West Main Street A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow an 9,950 S.F. addition including a 920 S. F. deck and related site improvements. Mr. Ben Lloyd and Ms. Kelly Wiseman joined the DRB. Planner Caroline presented the project and reviewed the staff report. Planner Caroline stated the project had gone through the final week of DRC earlier in the day and reviewed the comments made at the meeting. She stated DRC is recommending conditional approval to the City Commission. Planner Caroline stated an additional condition, being the requirement to add three street trees, to be planted on Main Street near Aspen Motors. She noted the question before the DRB was regarding a requirement to have just street trees in the boulevard area or in addition, a 5 foot landscaped boulevard, consisting of natural vegetation. Planner Caroline stated the condition of the existing lawn in the area has been damaged by snow storage. Planner Caroline reviewed the comments and concerns the DRB had during the Informal Review. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 1 Mr. Raznoff asked if the 5'boulevard was in the right-of-way on Main Street. Planner Caroline replied"yes", the boulevard is in the right-of-way and the applicant is required to have a permanent irrigation system as well as maintenance of the trees. Mr. Pohl asked if the pavement from the current sidewalk would extend to the curb, if trees would be implemented within tree grates, and if the whole area will be hard-scaped. Planner Caroline replied"yes", to all of the above. She stated there was no parking along the street in this area. Mr. Ben Lloyd presented the DRB with a model of the proposed project and reviewed the comments the DRB had at the Informal Review. He stated one issue was about the transparency of the north elevation. Mr. Lloyd stated they have added to the upper windows,noting there are three street trees depicted on the model and explained that the trees are located in the right of way. Planner Caroline stated the applicant would be in charge of care and maintenance of the trees in the right of way and there would be no problems as long as MDT approved the tree locations. Mr. Pohl asked if they were going to continue with the Honey Locust tree or another. Mr. Lloyd stated they had not determined the kind of tree and they would meet with the Beautification Board and Forestry Division to decide on what kind of tree will be adapted. Mr. Lloyd stated they have turned away from the idea of awnings. He stated the masonry material, which is a terra-cotta colored tile, except for the north elevation, will create a base on the addition. Mr. Lloyd stated the south side had no major changes from the original presentation,noting it is steel structure with a deck, to create a sense of entry. Mr. Lloyd stated they are incorporating a list of several community design projects and several displays the public will be involved with including a trail map. Mr. Pohl asked if the trail map was mounted vertically or done on the hard-scape. Mr. Wiseman stated the trail map would be mounted vertically,big enough to add too. Mr. Hanson asked about the modification of the roof to bring it down to the maximum height, and which element of the roof was higher. Mr. Lloyd stated the roof will come down to 38'to meet code requirements. Chairperson Sorenson stated in lieu of making the boulevard green, what was the applicant's suggestion. Mr. Lloyd stated they discussed having tree grates constructed on concrete with vertical protection as well as in-filled with brick pavers. Mr. Raznoff would support the project and suggested not using grass in the boulevard area because the highway department would abuse the grass with snow removal and storage. Ms. Noel stated she liked the project,concurring with Mr. Raznoff about not using grass. Ms. Smith stated she was in favor of the project and would like to see the use of hard-scape. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 2 Mr. Pohl liked the project and felt it was an excellent community project. He concurred that street-scape was the way to go. Mr. Howe stated " Ditto". Mr. Hanson stated he liked the project and his only concern was the distance of the front of the building to the curb, stating the environment was harsh. He stated he would like to see the area paved. Chairperson Sorenson asked if there would be clerestory windows on the second floor. Mr. Lloyd stated the clear, translucent glass served the break room. Chairperson Sorenson liked the project and stated the conditions had been met and the solution for the boulevard was the best way to go, protecting the trees. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Pohl seconded to approve the Major Site Plan to include conditions 1-6, listed by staff and the deviations. Planner Caroline stated the condition would show the recommendation from DRB for the applicant to install three street trees along the boulevard. She stated she will do a cover memo to the City Commission listing the condition from DRB,to replace the five foot boulevard area with tree grates or equivalent brick pavers, with possible vertical protection of the tree. Planner Caroline stated the vertical protection is not a requirement. MOTION: The Motion carried unanimously, 7-0. B. Oak Street Place PUD -#Z-01030 - (Skelton) Oak Street Conditional Use Permit Application to develop 4.6223 acres into a mixed use commercial office/retail PUD to be built in 2 phases, consisting of 5 buildings. Mr. Greg Allen and Mr. Jeff Danhower joined the DRB. Planner Dave Skelton presented the project and reviewed the staff report. He stated the applicant was asking for a variance for the off street parking requirement of 10%. He noted the meetings before the DRC would have to be re-noticed. Ms. Smith asked if the applicant wanted to reduce or increase the amount of parking. Planner Skelton stated the applicant would like to reduce the amount of parking. He stated the parking was 10% short, according to the zoning requirements, and the applicant was within the 20%realm to acquire a deviation. Planner Skelton stated Planning Staff would be in support of the deviation. Mr. Pohl stated he thought staff would have had negative comments in regards to the circulation of traffic flow. He suggested there were a couple of places which had no exits at all. Planner Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 3 Skelton responded by suggesting that when you disperse off street parking area on to the site, it makes the site very difficult. Mr. Allen reiterated the comments made by the DRB at the Informal Review and suggested the changes which had been made were in response to the comments made of DRB Board Members. Mr. Pohl suggested the current proposal was not better in terms of the circulation, making it unacceptable. Mr. Pohl suggested the plan presented problems with traffic circulation and asked if the street could be extended as a temporary connector street. Planner Skelton suggested opening up an egress and inserting an island. Mr. Allen suggested bridges were expensive. Mr. Pohl suggested all retention basins have a free flowing perimeter shape. Planner Skelton stated condition#1, in the staff report, stated the retention ponds be constructed in an organic form. Mr. Pohl asked if there was concern from staff regarding snow storage,particularly in the close area where the presented parking lot arrangement and streetscape were proposed to go. Planner Skelton stated the applicant had the option in the protective covenants to remove snow removal storage and have use the concept of"Good Faith", in handling snow storage. Mr. Pohl stated the building is only two story's, and would have a lot of shadowing, preventing the snow from melting. Mr. Howe stated he thought the plan was well done and well thought through. He commented the architectural features and noted he would support the project. Mr. Hanson asked if the 10%reduction was for the total project and asked how Phase I parking counted. Mr. Danhower stated Phase I had extra parking and the hope was when the property to the north was developed they could combine parking. He suggested Phase I would take care of itself, and Phase II would be a little short. Mr. Danhower stated the project was to create high density areas,but the situation is requiring a low density development. He stated they have focused on the stream corridor and suggested they will front the corridor with plazas. Mr. Danhower stated because of the way Oak Street was constructed,there is a grade drop in the land. He suggested the buildings are simple,yet interesting because there are five of them. He stated the buildings have a lot of interesting views from one building to another and there are different angles with each building,which created vitality and interest, giving the buildings a high quality design. Mr. Danhower stated they designed the buildings to look commercial, intentionally. Mr. Danhower stated there was variation in the roof plane and suggested they did not want residential architecture with big pitched roofs, but wanted to differentiate between the buildings. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 4 Mr. Danhower presented the DRB with drawings/pictures and showed how they created a window shape with a corpus,which captured outside space. He stated the corpuses were put in the plan to make the outside space feel more pedestrian friendly. He suggested they made the buildings more energy efficient by shaving the windows,which are 24'high. He stated there are sunshades over the roofs. Mr. Danhower stated the materials are very rich, noting the base of the buildings are cast stone, a hand chiseled limestone base, as well as the lentils above the windows being the same stone. He stated the windows are clad and will have a lot of depth with shadow lines. He suggested the screening of mechanical equipment was done by the incorporation of a flat roof, noting meters are the only item on the ground level, and will have meter screens, which will be built with the same brick as the building. Mr. Danhower pointed out where the meters would be located and stated there would be a large entry piece mirrored on the opposite side to break up the facade. He suggested berming along 1 lt"Avenue. Mr. Danhower stated that he agreed with the dead-end parking issue and that he was looking for direction from the DRB. He stated there was an obvious route through the development and they had decreased the parking impact with underground parking. Mr. Raznoff stated underground parking was contingent on the depths of the ground waters. Mr. Allen stated they felt there would be no problems and planned to build up this end of the site. Ms.Noel asked if they were going to expand the plaza areas. Mr. Allen stated they moved building E back from the street, which opened up space for the buildings. Mr. Danhower stated they had expanded the space between the plazas by about 5 feet per side. He stated there would be street grates and landscaping. Mr. Danhower stated there would be heavily planted green space to include two pedestrian paths to tie things together, including pedestrian bridges. He stated they will incorporate a sculpture, or public art piece. Ms. Noel asked about the tunnel, its location and function. Mr. Danhower stated that a major trail would be implemented along Oak Street. Planner Skelton stated the developer was offering a key link to the trail system to the south,which still needed to be worked out with MDOT, noting it was very unsafe at this point. Mr. Allen stated pedestrians are unable to see on coming traffic and felt the tunnel would be a safe addition. Planner Skelton stated the tunnel will be designed by the City and others. Mr. Allen showed on the Site Plan where the tunnel would be located,noting Aspen Meadows bridge would connect well with the tunnel into the park. He stated there would be more users of the tunnel rather than an overpass for pedestrians. Ms. Smith asked if at the last meeting there was talk about an easement coming out of Days Inn. Mr. Allen showed the access on the plan,noting they proposed taking it back to the property line and then curve back into Days Inn. He noted, Days Inn did not want access to their property. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 5 Mr. Pohl had concerns with vehicular movement through the site. He suggested the landscape plan was vague. He asked if the island was mulch. Mr. Danhower stated it would not be maintained grass,but mulch, noting the stream area would be all native grass and the setbacks along the streets were maintained grass. Mr. Allen stated there will be both maintained and native grass. Mr. Pohl stated he would like to know where the boundaries are between the two grasses. Mr. Danhower stated they had not shown that on the plan, and explained that the intention was to use the setbacks with maintained grass. Mr. Pohl stated he would like to see that on the plan. Mr. Allen asked if there could be maintained lawn in the stream corridor. Planner Skelton stated he would have that clarified. Planner Skelton stated Fish, Wildlife and Parks wanted a 5' native grass and stated there is a standard native mix. Mr. Pohl stated the plant,tree, and shrub species were very vague and would like more specifics, particularly street trees,noting many varieties. Mr. Allen stated there are certain trees allowed in the entryway corridors. Planner Skelton stated DRC's condition state the applicant needed to contact a certified nursery person. He stated within the interior of the development, specific species of trees need to be specified. Mr. Pohl still opposed the flow of traffic thru the site, and felt it created hazards. He would like to see sole pedestrian space. Mr. Allen stated there are raised side walks which should slow traffic as well as circles. Mr. Pohl asked why even bring traffic into the interior of the project. Planner Skelton asked if they moved the bridge to the north and created more of a plaza area, would that help traffic. Mr. Danhower stated they just do not have the vitality to separate cars from pedestrians. Mr. Allen suggested if you separate pedestrians from the vehicles the project just will not work, there would not be enough people. Mr. Danhower stated there is just not the density to make separation of pedestrians and vehicles work. Mr. Pohl stated he felt the applicant was forcing traffic thru a people space which would create problems. Mr. Hanson stated the ground water would not be a problem with underground parking and asked if there was a possibility to link the parking. Mr. Allen stated there was not enough space to link. Mr. Hanson stated the area already has to be built up and by increasing the number of stalls under the buildings, it would ease up the site. Mr. Danhower stated it is expensive. Mr. Hanson asked on building E, to go under the building, what would happen to the grade. Mr. Danhower stated there is a grade and a retaining wall. He suggested the building is farther out of the ground in this area. Mr. Sorenson stated the drawing presented is not show to the scale proposed. Mr. Danhower explained the second story windows have a 4"stone sill, and on three of the buildings the metal comes down to the head of the window, and the other buildings have a more solid corse brick. He noted the windows would have a heavy shadow. Design Review Board Minutes-ApriI 10,2001 6 Chairperson Sorenson asked if the applicant felt the roofs meet code. Mr. Danhower suggested they do and explained how the windows give the roof depth and screens the sun. He stated the metal material will be a custom colored ripped panel. He noted the brick color is traditional red and steel blue for painted metal details on the outside. Chairperson Sorenson suggested the applicant had done a lot to clean up traffic on the site. He stated they had made a clear point of where the road is located. Mr. Allen stated the traffic flow from the street will cause accidents, noting traffic flow is a definite concern and will have to be addressed. Comments of Staff. Mr. Raznoff stated he supported the design goals of the applicant and felt staff had addressed the concerns through the conditions but would add a recommendation to modify parking on the west side. Ms. Noel supported the architectural design,noting she liked the flat roofs. She stated her concern was with the center area on the plan. She felt the creek could be exploited for pedestrian amenities. She expressed concern with the road cutting through, and having all of the green space and plaza space. Ms. Noel suggested moving the bridge to help the parking and vehicular movement in the back. She is concerned with traffic circulation. Ms. Smith stated she had concerns with the application as presented, suggesting the flow of parking just did not work. She stated she felt the access should come from the main road instead of through it. She stated the snow storage in the parking lots was a concern and offered an alternate with the parking situation by reducing retail. Ms. Smith is concerned with how the project treats Oak Street as a side or back street, and felt Oak Street was a major transition between Main Street and 19th Avenue. She stated she is not comfortable recommending the application as presented, and would like to see the project again before sending a recommendation to City Commission. Mr. Pohl noted he was pleased with the architecture,but had concerns about building placement. He noted problems with vehicular flow and the parking arrangement. He stated the retention basin was higher than the parking lot,which was a concern. Mr. Pohl stated he felt there were two many things which still need to be addressed before he could approve the project as presented. Mr. Howe asked if storm water could be dumped into the creek. Planner Skelton stated it would have to be treated and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks would have to agree. Mr. Hanson asked for clarification on the project. Planner Skelton stated the project is a Site Plan in the Entryway Corridor which has to be reviewed against the entryway corridor. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 7 Mr. Hanson stated he felt Phase I has had more attention than Phase U. Mr. Allen stated Phase II will follow that of Phase I.I. Mr. Hanson asked if the project is to be reviewed as a whole, even though Phase I is the only phase being built now. He disagreed with some of the DRB members and applauded the effort to create life in the center of the project. Mr. Hanson stated he liked the way the traffic flowed. He stated the parking area was not any worse than any other parking area in Bozeman and agreed with the philosophy behind the curve in the parking area. Mr. Hanson stated he would support the reduction of 10 parking stalls and would promote looking into more underground parking. He stated he felt there may be an opportunity to reduce tension in the parking. Mr. Danhower stated there is not a big steep drop into the area. Mr. Hanson stated the metal parapets concerned him,but noted he trusts the applicant will produce a nice building. He doesn't like the metal at the sky line and felt the project could be the beginning of the complexes philosophy. Mr. Hanson would like to distress the parking and make the buildings and the people feel better. Chairperson Sorenson stated the site is difficult and agreed more with Mr. Hanson. He stated Oak Street is very busy and a major thorough way. Chairperson Sorenson agreed with vehicular and pedestrian traffic and felt it had been well taken care of. He suggested the street in the site could be problematic. He stated the applicant has handled the stream very well and liked the architecture. Chairperson Sorenson stated even by asking for a variance,there are still parking issues. He suggested there is a sense of place in the urban zone for pedestrians and cars. He liked the concept behind the project and would like to see the access to the site addressed. Mr. Danhower stated they can not front Oak Street and suggested there would be problems. He stated they are not designing the back of the building different from the front. He suggested building C has a recess, in hopes there could be an entry from the back side, potentially becoming a false entry. Mr. Danhower stated the west end parking needed to be connected and the main drive is clear, with the back more for service. He would like to see planning on the north property before the road goes in. Mr. Allen stated when you take out the retail you are left with office space, which defeats the purpose of mixed use. Mr. Howe stated there are two uses why not three or four uses planned in. Mr. Allen stated residential zoning across the street is low income and the mix probably would not work well. Mr. Danhower stated there is a lack of space for more than two uses. Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to recommend approval to City Commission and to strike Condition#5 and#6. Mr. Hanson stated he felt the design achieved those items and would add a condition that the parking in the NW corner be revised to improve traffic circulation. Discussion: Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 8 Mr. Pohl asked about adding on the pedestrian underpass. Planner Skelton stated the applicant would like support to include the underpass but the tunnel would not be built until Oak Streets conditions are improved. He felt there needed to be support from a number of bodies. Mr. Pohl stated there needed to be a recommendation to include this in the minutes. Planner Skelton stated he would forward comments by the DRB. Ms. Noel asked if Condition#4 had been addressed and would consider striking it as well. Ms. Smith suggested eliminating Condition#5 would not be good, she suggested there could be view issues with the mechanical equipment located on the roof. Mr. Allen stated they are building up the site,noting the east side will be built up 6' to match the elevation to the west. Mr. Danhower stated they really had to raise the grade to get in and out of the site. Ms. Smith would like to see roof forms as mentioned in the conditions and would not like condition#5 removed. Mrs. Noel proposed an amendment to include removing conditions#4, #5 and#6. Mr. Howe seconded. Planner Skelton stated condition#4 would be affirmed as reported in the Staff Report. He stated he felt condition#3 should stay as a condition. All Board Members were in favor of the amendment except for Ms. Smith who opposed. Mr. Hanson's motion carried 5-2 as stated, with Mr. Pohl and Ms. Smith in opposition. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW Walmart Expansion Informal-#1-0116 - (Skelton) 1500 North 7"'Avenue An Informal Application for advice and comment on a 83,000 S.F. expansion of the existing Walmart Store and related site improvements. Mr. Steve Wilson,Mr. Ted Schwick, and Ms. Robin Salvagio,joined the DRB. Planner Skelton presented the DRB with a memo and sketches. He stated he put generic facade treatment and a previous plan together for the DRB and the applicant to review. He presented a schematic for development of the expansion. Planner Skelton wanted to give staffs concerns to the DRB and applicant. He reviewed the memo noting DRC had reviewed the Informal and The City Commission will have an Informal Review of the project. Planner Skelton stated there had been no public testimony to review. Comments of Staff: Mr. Hanson stated there was disparity in the site plan with the way the applicant had calculated how many parking stalls were needed. He also suggested there was disparity in the way the City of Bozeman calculated the figure, noting the magnitude of almost two. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 9 Mr. Wilson stated there were two organizations related to the needs of different types of developments, considered a"Bible". He stated the"Bible"suggested 4.5 to 5.5 stalls per square foot of retail floor. He felt there needed to be adequate parking for the customers so there are no conflicts with parking off site, parking on adjacent roadways, and unsafe parking. Mr. Wilson suggested the industry standards state somewhere between 4.5 - 6.0 and the trade area for Bozeman could support more parking stalls. Mr. Hanson asked if a parking study had been done based on the current uses of the current parking lot. Mr. Wilson stated, not that he was aware of. Mr. Hanson stated there is an issue with the use of 60 degree parking, and asked why this degree was used for parking. Mr. Wilson stated in a customer survey done by Walmart, customers found it much easier to pull into a stall of 60 degrees, suggesting it was much more friendly than a 90 degree turn. Mr. Wilson stated a 60 degree stall is much easier to access because of the turning radius. Planner Skelton stated a 30' wide drive isle was far more standard for larger vehicles with 90 degree parking. Mr. Hanson stated the DRB had a tendency to require less parking than what the City required. He stated the applicant and DRB would"butt heads on the issue" and suggested a parking study before moving forward with the project. Mr. Hanson stated the parking lot at WalMart is never full except around Christmas. Mr. Hanson asked the applicant, in their opinion, what had they done to dispel the big box images, and what had they done to improve the building as it pertained to the Entryway Corridors. Mr. Wilson suggested former architects and himself had worked to achieve the design of the building according to what the DRB members wanted, stating"you,the DRB, designed the building according to what you thought it should be". Mr. Hanson asked how the specific issues on the rear and left side elevations improved. Mr. Schwick stated,previously he had heard the desire to break up the elevations so it did not look like one continuous linear plane, and the north side which is existing,will remain the same with additions. He stated they have tried to break up the facade with elements of pilasters, changes in colors, and on the North side there will be refrigeration equipment which will be screened will masonry walls. Mr. Schwick suggested if you look at the large perspective,the colonnade picks up detail, changes material and color. He stated he can provide more of an entry to the three major entries, suggesting normally WalMart does not have a third entry. He stated the entry on Oak Street became important to the City and the applicant has agreed to put a main entry on Oak Street. Mr. Schwick stated there is a metal roof at the entries and suggested incorporating colonnades rather than just a flat wall. He stated the building will have internal roof drains. Mr. Schwick stated on each end of the rear elevation there are two truck dock entrances which gives the building dimension and there is a WalMart sign on the rear of the building. He stated they can develop plaza entries for pickups. Mr. Hanson asked what the perspective on the comment about increasing the depth of concrete at the entries was. Ms. Salvagio stated the front facade of the buildings will have planter boxes, greenery, and tree grates, suggesting these items would be effective in breaking up the facade. Mr. Schwick stated landscaping on the WalMart building is not normal for the store. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 10 Mr. Hanson suggested there was a conscience decision to block the entry drive off of North 7th Avenue, which is currently a street right-of-way, and asked why they did not just carry the corridor through. Mr. Wilson suggested there is a three turn volume, with the emphasis now on Oak Street where there is a signal light, making it a much better situation. He suggested the speeds are down and access is better. Mr. Schwick stated Oak Street has replaced Baxter Lane and gives access to the buildings behind. He suggested 30' drive isles are unsafe and have turning and backing conflicts. Mr. Schwick stated the intent of the 3 way drive isle was to slow traffic. Ms. Salvagio added, in creating the pedestrian connection,knowing there would be a sidewalk coming down North 7`h and knowing there will be pedestrians coming in, they felt the straight thorough fare would cause concerns with pedestrian connections. She stated they have opted for the direct pedestrian connection rather than the direct vehicular connection. Mr. Hanson stated this section of the road could stack up and bottle neck. He stated the Oak Street side does not look like it is fully developed. Ms. Salvagio stated there is a shuttle drop and a pedestrian connection from the street. She suggested there needed to be a way for future shuttle pickup and drop off. Mr. Howe had no comments. Chairperson Sorenson stated one important thing he noted was that the site is not shown like an island in space. He suggested a photograph would show pedestrian trails, amenities throughout the area, how they would be connected, and how they are taking advantage of the elements on the site. Chairperson Sorenson stated it would be nice to see what is happening in the surrounding areas. He stated the suggestions Planner Skelton had made relative to intentions for architecture and street scape are worth paying attention to. He concurred with Mr. Hanson that the DRB is looking for ways to reduce parking if necessary. Chairperson Sorenson stated true intentions need to be on the site plan. He stated the street scape along North 7ch Avenue needed to be addressed. He suggested where people meet the street,there should be some integration to the sidewalks and also funnel the sidewalks into an entryway. Chairperson Sorenson stated people who chose to come by bike or foot should be accommodated. He stated the suggestions about articulating the fenestration and getting more of a buffer zone are good suggestion. He suggested awnings along the pedestrian street scape to separate the traffic from the pedestrian zone. He suggested visual interest needed to be included. Chairperson Sorenson asked why some of the drive isles are one direction and some have multi- direction. Mr. Wilson stated the customer feels more comfortable in a one way direction situation, according to customer survey. He suggested Walmart would like more one way roads instead of two way roads. Chairperson Sorenson suggested there are more two way roads, so reduce parking and clarify the direction pattern. He suggested mixed parking and 90 degree angles do not work well together. Mr. Pohl stated the entrance node at the garden center should be acquired at the other entrances. He stated the pedestrian node needed to come out much farther and noted his concerns about the people who are forced back thru parking to get to their vehicles. Mr. Pohl stated he is not concerned about the building elevations,but noted there were more trees on previous views, and he would encourage trees in front and on hardscape. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 11 Mr. Pohl stated the parking lot is huge and a long way to push your groceries, he suggested a pickup lane be incorporated. He suggested he liked the node and hoped it could be expanded to other area. Ms. Salvagio showed where the existing entry is and where the new one will be located. Mr. Pohl would like to see more landscaping of the old green space. Ms. Smith asked how many spaces are in the parking lot now. Mr. Wilson suggested the parking ratio is 5 spaces per 1000 sf of store. She asked Planner Skelton about the size of the building foot print and the size of the parking lot, what she could relate it to. Planner Skelton suggested comparing the WalMart project and to Target and Bob Wards together. He suggested doing the same with the parking to decipher a comparison. Ms. Smith asked if the entrance off of Oak Street exists. Mr. Wilson stated they do exist. Ms. Smith asked if the second entrance off of Oak Street needed a turn lane. Mr. Todd Whipple stated the street is intended to be a drive access. Ms. Smith stated there is no lighting proposed. Mr. Wilson stated the intent is to carry on the exact same lighting as existing. Ms. Smith suggested the addition of other types of materials and architectural relief. She stated there is no backside to the building and stated it is surrounded by hotels which make the impression of Bozeman. She noted the location is very visible. Ms. Smith agreed with the comments made by Planner Strahn. Ms. Noel asked about the far parking spaces. Mr. Wilson suggested they were for the employees, noting the entrance in the area. Ms. Noel concurred with the Board, stating the relationship between the building and the parking lot needed to be studied. She suggested the entrance to the west was not good. Mr. Raznoff agreed, the corner is very important and he felt there was a need to soften the big store and make it more appropriate for the location. He stated he felt he did not understand what was being closed. Ms. Salvagio showed how the Old Baxter Road came through, noting it still is a public right of way. She indicated on the plan where the existing building is and where the proposed site will be located. Mr. Howe stated the applicant would be well advised to take the staff report and DRB comments seriously. He asked about the ratio of parking spaces. Mr. Wilson stated the ratio as being 6/1000 square feet of the store. He stated they would like to provide 1070 parking spaces. Mr. Howe suggested the amount of unused spaces would be the same. He suggested the area not being used for parking would be the same. Mr. Howe suggested looking at the parking,noting the parking is too great. Mr. Wilson stated that Wal Mart is making a huge investment and wanted to be able to support shoppers in the Bozeman and the surrounding areas. Ms. Salvagio suggested accommodating the parking for the future in the zoning ordinance. Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 12 Ms. Noel stated she would not underestimate the view from I-90, and suggested you see the whole site from the overpass and she felt there was bleakness about the site. Chairperson Sorenson stated the retention pond is a major feature and suggested looking at it as an aesthetic amenity. He suggested using the water to feed the amenity. Planner Skelton stated he would like to see more detail on the facades and noted the public plaza needed to be moved further west and south. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Noel moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. I�k enry So enson, Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-April 10,2001 13 ATTENDANCE ROSTER APRIL 10, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS 1. C2 G AJ. 2. `Yck�off �� S 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.