Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,MAY 8, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and the secretary recorded the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Bill Hanson Jim Raznoff Assistant Planner, Karin Caroline Melvin Howe Dan Glenn Senior Planner, Dave Skelton Dawn Smith Recording Secretary, Jennifer Willems Joanne M.Noel Dick Pohl Henry Sorenson,Jr. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2001, APRIL 24, 2001 & MAY 1, 2001 Chairperson Henry Sorenson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of March 27, 2001. Mr. Pohl stated there was a typo on page 5, changing Polh, to Pohl. Chairperson Sorenson stated page 15,paragraph 3, should read, "He suggested the trellis does not tie into the building",instead of, "He suggested the trellis does not tie into the curb". MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Chairperson Sorenson seconded, to approve the minutes as modified. Chairperson Henry Sorenson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of April 24, 2 00 1. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Howe seconded,to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Chairperson Sorenson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of May 1,2001. Ms. Noel stated the first sentence on page 9 should read, "Ms. Noel stated it is hard to westernize this site, given the North Italian theme". Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to approve the minutes as modified. The motion carried 6-0. Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 1 ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Oak Street Place PUD - #Z-01030 - (Skelton) Oak Street Consideration of the applicant's request to exceed the maximum allowable building height in the B-2 district of 32 feet for buildings with flat roofs for the two, three-story structures, as part of the Oak Street Place PUD mixed use development. Greg Allen joined the DRB. Planner Dave Skelton stated the wrong scale was used on the site plan, noting two-three story buildings exceeded the allowable height for a flat roof of 42'. He stated from the grade, the scale exceeded the building height. Planner Skelton stated he went to Oak Street with a transit to the west crown of Oak Street to get a sense of what the existing topography was. He stated they were not very accurate with the transit and were 10' on the east half to about 6' below the crown of Oak Street. He suggested Planning Staff had no objections to the request of relaxing the building height, but asked the DRB to give comment, advice and recommendations to forward to City Commission. Questions of Staff. Mr. Pohl asked if the drawing changed at all. Planner Skelton stated the elevations did not have the scale on them, but the proposal had not changed. He noted the elevations did not acknowledge the fact the two-three story buildings exceeded the building height. Ms. Smith asked if the building was measured from finished grade. Planner Skelton stated he gave an approximation of the finished topography as it is now in relation to the crown of the street. He stated there should be 2' of allowable building height if in fact the assumption was made correct. Ms. Smith asked how the plan was measured. Planner Skelton stated the plan was measured from the parapet wall, taking the building above the maximum height on the 3- story buildings. Mr. Greg Allen stated the height was listed on a table on the side of the site plan and not on the elevations. Mr. Howe explained how buildings had been previously measured and did not understand how plans are measured now. Planner Skelton explained, the average height of 5' from around the parameter of the building in relationship to the crown of the street. Mr. Howe asked how to measure a pitched roof. Planner Skelton explained it is from average grade to the peak of the building. Mr. Howe asked about previously requested deviations for building height on a PUD and if a precedence had been set. Planner Skelton stated several requests had been granted and no one has used it as an argument. Ms. Noel and Mr. Hanson had no questions. Design Review Board Minutes-May S,2001 2 Chairperson Sorenson stated 3 dimensional massing is important and asked if the building was on the interior instead of the corner. He suggested the buildings will have a different impact if they are tall. Mr. Allen stated the off street parking is justified with having a parking garage underneath the buildings. Mr. Allen stated the new drawings of buildings D & E were modified and explained the modifications. He stated there hae been further design on the two buildings. Mr. Pohl asked what was different about the present drawings compared to the previous. Mr. Allen stated there was not a lot of design effort put into buildings D & E, noting the elevation and everything else is the same. Mr. Pohl stated he supported staffs recommendations, suggesting there are minor differences. Ms. Smith stated she did not know if she should vote in favor of the height change when she opposes the project. Planner Skelton noted he will continue to point out she is not in favor of the project. Ms. Noel stated she supported the project and the changes. Chairperson Sorenson asked if the floor to ceiling height inside was the reason driving the changes. Mr. Allen explained the floor to ceiling height on the first floor is substantially higher because it is retail space so it is a minimum of 10', 2' in between the floor is used as a mechanical cavity, and a 9' ceiling. He stated they are trying to conceal everything within or on top of the building instead of the mechanics being visual. Mr. Hanson is in favor of the project and does not feel the height issue is significant to the project. Chairperson Sorenson stated the proportions of the buildings are important and stated if the DRB suggested lowering the buildings dramatically the aesthetic of the buildings would suffer. He stated he is in favor of supporting the project as presented. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to recommend approval of the project as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 B. Gallatin Valley Health/Fitness Club MaSUB - #Z-01053 - (Caroline) Ferguson Avenue & West Fallon Street A Conditional Use Permit Application for the construction of 49,400 sf health/fitness facility and related site improvements. Don Stueck, Steve Roderick, and Bob Bushing joined the DRB. Planner Karin Caroline presented the application and reviewed the staff report. Though the project is outside an entryway corridor, she stated staff felt the project may have substantial impact being the first one in the area and wanted DRB to look into considerations and possible recommendations for architectural design and landscaping. Questions of Staff: Mr. Pohl asked why staff required the sidewalk and the trail. Planner Caroline stated the trail is an amenity the applicant is proposing and sidewalks are required. She stated the Engineering Department is requiring a sidewalk to take pedestrian traffic along Ferguson Avenue from the public right of way and for pedestrian circulation. Mr. Pohl suggested meandering the sidewalk and the trial. Planner Caroline stated there is a drainage issue but suggested passing a recommendation for consideration to City Commission to have the sidewalk and trail meander. Mr. Pohl asked if the perception of the entrance is off of Fallon Street or Ferguson Avenue. Planner Caroline stated the primary entrance is off of Fallon Street. Mr. Pohl suggested Fallon Street would not be the primary entrance and is a collector street. Planner Caroline stated Granite Street is also a collector street. Planner Caroline stated the entrances will have stop signs and the only other stop sign is at the intersection of Ferguson and Durston Road. Ms. Smith asked since this is a business park at the east side of Ferguson and the parking is over the required amount, has there been any thought for shared parking. Planner Caroline stated shared parking across Ferguson Avenue would not be a good idea for safe pedestrian passage. She suggested as the property develops, shared parking agreements will probably come into play trying to minimize parking. She stated the project will be fairly well and consistently used. Ms. Smith asked if the lighting will tie in on both sides of the Ferguson Avenue. Planner Caroline stated the lighting which has been proposed for the project is primarily parking lot lighting, and a few wall mounted lights. She stated Spring Creek Subdivision does not have a lighting theme for the area. Ms. Smith suggested Ferguson Avenue needed a speed limit. Planner Caroline stated it is posted, though people do use it as a throughway. Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 4 Mr. Howe suggested the site has much more parking than required. Planner Caroline stated 252 stalls are required and the applicant has proposed 275 stalls. He asked if the applicant needed all of the parking. Planner Caroline stated the applicant is looking towards future needs. Mr. Howe asked if the sod remaining is required to be sprinkled. Planner Caroline stated the sod must be on a permanent irrigation system. Mr. Howe asked if the Planning Department is alright with the proposed interior landscaping features. Planner Caroline stated the proposed landscaping does meet code, noting staff is looking for possible additional amenities for the actual health club members in an outdoor environment such as picnic tables and benches. Ms. Noel asked about flip flopping the swimming pool and the basketball court. She asked if the aesthetic concern is part of staff s rational. Planner Caroline stated flip-flopping them was not an architectural concern but more of a convenience for the pool, to gain southern exposure. Chairperson Sorenson asked about the trail system and what the future plans were. Planner Caroline stated within the area there is a trail easement and a very significant drainage issue, noting the Recreation Board has looked at the plan and has suggested there is future trail linkage. Comments of applicant: Mr. Stueck stated there are two separate entities, a five lot Minor Subdivision, lot four is the Dimension Center or the Performing Arts Center, noting there is one single lot in the middle of the block. He stated there is a Master Plan in the whole Minor Subdivision for the trail system with given easements. He explained how the trail system will tie in with the lots clear to Baxter Drive. Mr. Stueck stated one of the conditions of approval for the subdivision was the need for sidewalks to be installed along Ferguson Avenue, unless a variance is granted by the City Commission or an alternative pedestrian system is approved by the DRC and trails committee. He suggested, at this point they are only required to have an 50' set back having the extra 30' of setback for drains and the pedestrian corridor so the irrigation ditch can be taken care of. Mr. Stueck stated there will be an amenity irrigation type drainage system which will run all the way through and continue to Durston Avenue, then past Valley West. He stated instead of putting sidewalks along Ferguson Avenue they would use the pedestrian system to tie everything together and meander to the north. Mr. Stueck stated all the sidewalk, curb and gutter is part of the whole minor subdivision development. Mr. Stueck stated the exterior done in EFIS (dryvit), will go all the way around the perimeter of the building with stepped metal siding. He stated the cap gives the building a step down, you can parapet all the way around the building. Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 5 Mr. Stueck stated the front part of the building will be leased to Bozeman Deaconess Hospital as an urgent care type of facility and the parking lot, with a drop off, was designed for the hospital. He suggested the hospital would use the main entrance off of Fallon Street. Mr. Roderick stated the goal is to add to the property, adding value and offsetting expenses for the project, suggesting they are not in a land lock for future growth. Mr. Stueck suggested the project is hoping to have 3,000 members and at any time there could be 10% of the members there utilizing 300 parking stalls. He stated there will be no parking on Fallon Street or Ferguson Avenue. Mr. Stueck stated if there is no parking available, people will park and walk to the site. He stated the facility has many different uses and they have tried to hide the parking lot. Mr. Stueck stated there will be two future buildings which will face onto Huffine Lane. He stated hedges to the north will be planted to screen Ferguson Avenue. Mr. Pohl asked if there will be an indoor running track. Mr. Stueck replied "yes". Mr. Pohl asked why the hedges separate the trail from the site on the west and north sides. Mr. Stueck stated the purpose was to shield the parking lot. Mr. Pohl would suggest bringing the hedges in more so there is space for the trail to interact with. Mr. Stueck suggested this area was for snow removal. Mr. Pohl stated he liked the amount of planting on the project but had concerns with the actual location of the hedge. He stated if there is a running trail, there should be openings in the hedge for access to the open space/trail area. Mr. Stueck pointed out on the plan where the hedge breaks. Mr. Pohl asked why the future volley ball space and the retention area are the same area. Mr. Stueck stated retention ponds are on the backside, very linear. He stated there is a lot of space by the parking area for tennis or volleyball courts. Mr. Pohl stated the plan shows the building being built back 80', and asked if it was correct. Planner Caroline stated the building is shown from property line, 50' and is actual 80'. She stated an early requirement was to get more space between Ferguson and the proposed building. Planner Caroline stated originally parking encroached into the side yard setback. She stated there is a 30' easement and a 50' setback, so somewhere within this area the trail could be located. She stated if the drainage area was in the public right-of-way, then it would have to be piped; if it was not in the right-of-way, then it could be an open space amenity. Mr. Pohl stated another concern was vehicular circulation. He suggested the users will not enter at the main entrance off Fallon Street. He asked why the drive isle for Ferguson entrance was not allowed to continue straight through and connect with another drive isle. Planner Caroline suggested the applicant plans on rearranging 28 parking spaces along the west side, and relocate them along the north side which will still meet parking requirements. Mr. Stueck concurred. Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 6 Ms. Smith asked if the subdivision goes all the way west to cottonwood. Mr. Stueck stated it does not; there is a small strip of property which separates the two properties. Ms. Smith asked about the trails. Mr. Stueck stated eventually the whole trail system will be master planned and right now Valley West is coming in with a Master Plan for the complete 440 acres. Ms. Noel asked if the parking for Deaconess would be designated with signage. Mr. Stueck stated the parking would not only be for Deaconess, but is part of the regular parking. He stated there will be no signage stating the people who will be using the athletic club can not park in this area. Mr. Roderick stated they wanted the parking to work by design versus by rule. Mr. Hanson asked what the need for the extra parking was based on. Mr. Roderick replied it was based on history of operating previous facilities. Chairperson Sorenson asked about parking, he suggested there are too many drive aisles which are wider than the parking spaces. Mr. Bushing stated the drive aisle needed to line up with the street and the extra property. Chairperson Sorenson stated the building could shift to allow for an extra lane and allow more parking. He suggested there is more asphalt than necessary, and would encourage the maximum use of the drive aisles. Chairperson Sorenson suggested the interior plans concept was to have a circulation core throughout the building. Chairperson Sorenson stated the building turns its back on the Ferguson Avenue street side. Ms. Noel asked how wide the main drive aisle was. Planner Caroline stated it is a minimum of 26'. Mr. Hanson asked about the EPDM roofing material, stating the proposed material may be due to cost, suggesting the applicant thought it was a cheaper way to go instead metal. Mr. Stueck stated that the high pitched area over the swimming pool and the entry ways will be mechanically adhered. Mr. Hanson asked if the applicant was being penny foolish on the roof material. Mr. Stueck stated they are looking for a twenty year warranty and it is basically the same roof system as on Bozeman Ford and other big area roofs. He suggested it is a greyish material. Mr. Hanson stated PVC moves around and asks if the EPDM would do the same. Mr. Stueck stated the roof will cost approximately $4.00 per square foot with 50, 000 sf. Mr. Hanson suggested there are only two components which will be primarily seen, over the pool and gym. Mr. Stueck stated the first time the design came out, the gymnasium was the end wall, the highest wall facing toward Huffine Lane. He stated the front entry showed an exposed ceiling which looked like an open corridor directly to the cardio and weight machines. Mr. Stueck stated the reception area was open for visibility to the exercise equipment. He stated the pitched roof has always been the same and noted the wall along Ferguson Avenue has windows so it does not look like the back of the building. Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 7 Mr. Stueck stated the back entry gable looks the same as the front of the building. He stated the back entry is an emergency exit to Ferguson Avenue which leads back to the trail. Mr. Stueck stated the 3 racquet ball courts were located along the wall, and the gymnasium is open. He stated the front entry has been the same, wide open, so it would go straight through to the back area. He explained how the building is set up. Comments of Staff: Mr. Pohl stated from the staff's recommendations, he favored all of the comments made. He stated he favored the idea of introducing more gabled roofs to break up the long facade especially at the emergency exit. Mr. Pohl would favor an alternative to the roof being all white, suggesting a lot of the roof shows on the project. He would like to see a reconfiguration of the parking lot, and feels there are ways it can be approved upon. Ms. Smith concurred with Mr. Pohl to add a recommendation about the parking lot. She stated she is concerned with the parking lot and the whole subdivision. Ms. Smith would add a recommendation to rework the parking lot. Mr. Howe concurred with Mr. Pohl and Ms. Smith, and supports all staffs recommendations. Ms. Noel concurred with staffs conditions and would like to add something about utilizing the parking better particularly by having the drive aisle go through and eliminating some spaces. She suggested a green color as opposed to burnt ochre for the building and qualified the condition about the roof and suggested breaking it up with different color schemes. Mr. Hanson stated he is supportive of the project and feels it would be an excellent addition to the Bozeman community. He stated he would like to revise condition #4. He suggested beveled siding would be a huge mistake for a building this size, noting the materials proposed are very modern in imagery and stone would also be a mistake. Mr. Hanson stated what is being proposed is adequate noting color and proportion could be added to the building with the EIFS material. He stated condition#6 is concerned with the EPDM roof and noted the concern should be with the exposed areas on the gabled forms. Mr. Hanson stated he thinks condition #6 should also be modified to speak specifically to the exposed portion of the roof. He stated the roof is 50% or less of the gross and suggested looking at an alternate material on the roof. Mr. Hanson suggested a standing seam metal roof would be better. Chairperson Sorenson stated the DRB needed to know what the applicant knows and see what the applicant sees for the surrounding lots and their future development and how it connects with this development. He would like to see how the Master Plan for the area really fits. Planner Caroline stated this is the first of five lots. Chairperson Sorenson would like to know about the pedestrian trial system, how circulation will work through the whole park, as much as possible. Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 8 He concurred with conditions 1 & 2 and asked why there is a need for a sidewalk on both sides of Ferguson Avenue when there is a trail system. He concurred with Mr. Hanson and thinks materials, perhaps concrete, might fit in some places around lower levels and areas which can take abuse around door ways, some material which is similar but can take more stress. Chairperson Sorenson stated he liked the combination with metal siding. Mr. Stueck stated the whole back wall is painted concrete and so are the pillars. Chairperson Sorenson disagreed with the gables, stating he thinks it is a good idea that over the secondary entry ways, there is a protective overhang and maybe columns. He stated there needed to be a high archy of elements. Chairperson Sorenson stated the buildings are high and the roof will not be seen much because of the pitch but feels white would be too glary and would suggest a darker material. He stated the spine has a steeper pitch and would like to see a metal roof over the feature. He suggested he would like to see the buildings address the street in a friendly manner. Chairperson Sorenson suggested if a building is turned in a way which people are not allowed to come in that side, (from Ferguson Avenue directly) it is not a good idea. He would suggest architecture which the applicant wanted but also welcomes people. Mr. Stueck stated there is no other access off of Ferguson Avenue allowed and suggested this is why the parking lot has to face the other way. Chairperson Sorenson would like to see the exit facing Ferguson Avenue articulated more with overhead columns and landscaping. He stated the emergency exits have no side walks to the road. Mr. Stueck stated they are only emergency exits and the applicant had to follow code. He stated condition#7 has been fulfilled to his satisfaction. Chairperson Sorenson stated he would like to see the parking resolved in a more efficient way and suggested there is too much parking. Mr. Stueck stated on the original plan there was a standing seam on the spine, and he asked if there was a darker roof on the membrane area which would satisfy requests of the DRB. Mr. Hanson stated the roof is limited to the colors, grey and white. Chairperson Sorenson suggested a richer material on the spine and the grey. Mr. Hanson suggested Chairperson Sorenson's modification would include #4, #5 and how to word item#6 and#10. DRB suggested condition#7 has been addressed. MOTION: Mr. Raznoff moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to recommend approval of the application with all of staff conditions with the following modifications; the deletion of condition#4, modify condition#5 to state, the applicant shall provide some type of roof element over exterior doorways, the rest can remain the same, modify condition#6 to state, the application shall provide alternate material and /or color on exposed gabled forms, delete condition #7, add condition#10, to revise the parking layout to make more efficient use of double loaded drive isles, and add condition#11, the hedges on perimeter of the site be installed in a more natural way. The motion carried unanimously. Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 9 ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Henry Sorenson, Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-May 8,2001 10 ATTENDANCE ROSTER MAY 8, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS T 3. I&IJj 4. t b�L 6A.0 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.