Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. and the secretary recorded the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Bill Hanson Jim Raznoff Jami Morris -Assistant Planner Dan Glenn Dawn Smith Jennifer Willems-Recording Secretary Melvin Howe Joanne M.Noel Dick Pohl Henry Sorenson Visitors Present Todd Parker John Davison Mike McKenna ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2001 Chairperson Henry Sorenson asked for changes and/or additions to the minutes of January 9, 2001,hearing none,he called for a motion. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve minutes as presented. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Osco Drug MaSP/COA - #Z-01043 - (Morris) 1800 West Main Street Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing Ford Dealership and the construction of the new 18,256sf Osco Drug. Todd Parker, John Davison, and Mike McKenna,joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the project and reviewed the staff report. She reiterated concerns DRB had with the project during the Informal Review; pedestrian circulation, over all design of the building, the flat roof, and location of the building in regards to the street scape. The Design Review Board introduced themselves to the applicants. Design Review Board Minutes-May 22,2001 1 Questions of staff: Mr. Hanson stated the conditions noted in the staff report were very significant and that there are several issues which needed to be worked through. He asked why the snow removal area's were located in the parking stall areas. Planner Morris stated it is a zoning issue and had been addressed, noting the snow removal area will be located in the landscaped areas. Planner Morris clarified on the site plan the stipple pattern, noting it is going through boundary re-alignment by MDT. She also pointed out where the actual right-of-way will be and stated the Director of Public Service and the Engineering Department had reviewed the drive approach location and decided it was too close and could not forward a recommendation for approval. Planner Morris stated the Director of Public Service would not approve of the project with a drive approach less than 200', which meant the applicant will have to relocate the building and the drive approach. Mr. Pohl stated the vehicular and pedestrian circulations would change with the change of the drive approach. He noted that however the parking lot is oriented, the public will use it as a throughway making the drive aisles a huge concern. Mr. McKenna stated he understood a five lane street would be implemented on 191" Avenue which would help control the use of the parking lot. Mr. Pohl asked about the parking requirements and suggested there is less parking than required. Planner Morris stated the applicant is actually showing more parking than is required. She explained how the parking was calculated according to the actual uses within the building. Mr. Glenn asked if there were similar limitations on a drive approach for a non arterial street. Planner Morris stated it is significantly less. She stated the drive approach is measured from the intersection of the property line, no additional right-of-way would be provided for the sidewalk. Planner Morris noted MDT is purchasing part of the property and had offered to install the applicants sidewalk on their property for them. Mr. Parker stated the Informal Review had generated much negative response on the first proposal. He stated they reviewed the comments and had come up with a new plan. Mr. Parker stated there were several things noted in the staff report he feels they have responded to with the exception of actually moving the building to the corner. He stated they will have to re- evaluate the decision made by the Director of Public Service requiring the 200' drive approach and its impact. He suggested they can make the project come together, noting he agreed and disagreed with some of the new comments made planning staff report. Mr. Parker stated more than likely the building would have to moved to the west. He asked the DRB what would be expected of the applicant after the building had been moved. Mr. Hanson stated it is not feasible to process the application as a project review, suggesting there are too many issues to consider before moving forward with the project. Design Review Board Minutes-May 22,2001 2 Chairperson Sorenson stated he could not vote favorably on the project until changes have been made and the application re-submitted for another review. He agreed some concerns had been met, but felt there were still too many dynamics of the project in moving the drive aisle to make a motion on the project. Chairperson Sorenson stated it is the applicants right to process the project as presented and obtain a vote but noted if the applicant felt they were at a disadvantage, the DRB can make the vote preliminary and discuss issues which still need to be addressed as an Informal Review. Mr. Parker noted that finding out the same day as the meeting that the curb cuts needed to be 200' from the intersection, came as a surprise to them but noted it was not unexpected, he suggested there was not enough time to come before the DRB again. He asked if they move the building forward to the corner in a street scape type presentation and move the drive aisles and parking lot, would this make greater sense to the DRB. Mr. Hanson suggested the proto type building the applicant has which contains the drive thru, service access, and the main building access, will not be easy to shift to the corner. Mr. Pohl suggested the applicant has illustrated a building which will need access on three sides and by shifting the building there will not be three accesses. Mr. Davison suggested there are Osco stores which only have access on two sides. He suggested there is not a lot of pedestrian traffic and the curb cuts must be where they are. He stated they will look at a different building function or try flipping the building. Mr. Glenn stated prototypes are not suppose to be site specific and suggested there should be some flexibility. Mr. Parker stated they have modified the plan to answer the comments, questions, and conditions. He explained and pointed out on the plan how the building, the entries, and the drive aisles could be shifted. Mr. Parker suggested turning the building 90 degrees clockwise and flipping it over. Mr. Glenn stated the service entrance would then be located toward an arterial street. Chairperson Sorenson stated pedestrians will have to walk approximately 1 block to the main entry of the building. Mr. Parker stated by flipping the building the parking will be close to the front door of the building. He traced the plan onto trace paper to show the DRB what he had in mind. Chairperson Sorenson stated the idea sounded good but he still questioned the parking in relationship to the building. Mr. Pohl clarified that the two frontages, Main Street and North 19`h Avenue, both would just be landscaped area which is a plus. Mr. Glenn stated architecturally there needs to be an expression of the northwest corner of the building. Mr. Parker stated the entry would have to remain where it is because of the parking. Mr. Hanson stated the mechanics available are to review what is presented to DRB staff. He stated the magnitude of the changes make it unfeasible to vote on the project. Mr. Pohl is uncomfortable approving the project in such a conceptual stage. Mr. Glenn suggested voting against it and having it come back for a second review. Design Review Board Minutes-May 22,2001 3 Mr. Hanson stated there is not enough information to approve the project. There was discussion on continuing the project to the next DRB meeting but there was conflict with scheduling the project for City Commission. Chairperson Sorenson stated the applicant had been blind sided by the DRC, the Director of Public Service and MDT in reference to the 200' drive approach. Mr. Parker suggested they have met with the DRC three times now and today was the first time there was comment on the project. Planner Morris explained the process of review before the project goes to the City Commission and noted MDT and City Commission have different ideas on access off of North 19' Avenue. She reminded the applicant that this issue had been identified in March during informal review and that the traffic study had not been submitted to her office until May 11, 2001. It was decided the applicant would not have enough time to put materials together to make the next available City Commission meeting. DRB concurred they could not recommend approval of the project to City Commission as presented and continued reviewing the project as an Informal Review. Mr. Parker presented a plaque with proposed materials and stated windows were added as requested by the DRB, creative and efficiently. He suggested the same materials wrap around the whole building, noting the building entrance should be extenuated. Planner Morris stated the applicants is requesting a 20% deviation for the sign. Mr. Parker stated they have changed from a pylon sign to a small monument sign. Mr. Parker stated landscaping has been provided along with a pedestrian path to the entrance of the building. Mr. Parker stated there is actual modulation on the plane of the building. Mr. Parker reviewed staff conditions and explained how they have complied with the conditions. He suggested condition#1 will be complied with, condition#2 is not a huge issue, but stated the colonnade provided shelter for customers and for outdoor sales. Mr. Parker stated the towers should be EIFS material and would like this condition changed. He agreed with condition#5 and stated the intent with the detail of the truss should replace each of the awnings but slightly smaller on condition#6. Planner Morris stated the wood feature is better than the metal. Mr. Parker stated he would like that condition to go away and he feels what is proposed is fitting for the remainder of the building. Mr. Parker stated they could shift the street trees as suggested in condition V. Mr. Hanson stated it is not valid to talk about the parking at this point. He stated the way the building will address Main Street and 19'h Avenue needs to be considered and the barrier needs to be screened with berming and landscaping. Design Review Board Minutes-May 22,2001 4 He suggested bringing the building to the corner making it more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Hanson agreed with the applicant and felt the colonnade element needed to be a functional element and the West Main Street side will be the dominant side of the building. He stated he did not feel there needed to be a condition to have the colonnade on the Northl9' side. Mr. Hanson stated he felt the applicant has made every effort in reference to the windows with obvious sills, and every effort to add windows. He suggested putting the emphasis on the main side of the building. He stated the issue of the obvious sills can be handled and feels there needs to be some detail around the windows. Mr. Hanson did not agree with condition#4 and stated the EIFS could be successful and suggested using a tighter grid pattern or a different texture. Mr. Parker suggested brick pavers as suggested in condition#5 do not last long in Bozeman and suggested concrete would probably work better. Mr. Hanson would not like to see gables over every tower. Chairperson Sorenson stated the applicant talked about a two sided building instead of a three sided building. He stated there is a possible traffic problem with pedestrian circulation through the drive isle. He suggested it would be a difficult situation with a three sided building, each having a different function. Chairperson Sorenson stated he sees a circulation problem and felt the applicant needed to address this issue. He personally felt an urban building should have a flat roof. He suggested when you move to an urban context it calls for a more urban type of approach. Chairperson Sorenson stated in working out the cost he would like to try and concentrate the materials and use the more expensive materials for articulation. He suggested clerestory windows for transparency and using the transparency at strategic points on the building. Chairperson Sorenson suggested using the rich material toward Main Street and the entries. He suggested if the applicant wanted to continue the gables on a regular interval, he is not against a parapet wall along Main Street. Chairperson Sorenson stated the building is located on a major corner in Bozeman. He stated the building becomes overkill when the same material is wrapped around the building and suggested a scale compared to the pedestrian scale is important. Chairperson Sorenson stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson and felt adding medieval tresses is not a good idea. He stated EIFS damages easily and feels it can be a problem in terms of maintenance. He suggested a more durable material in the lower level of the tower. Mr. Howe stated EIFS material should not be located where it can be damaged and feels the material on the existing Osco building has worn well. He reiterated the concern with vehicles using the drive as a short cut through the parking lot. Mr. Pohl stated his concern about the roof form itself. He suggested there is to much red on the building making it eye jarring in contrast with the green roof behind Osco. Mr. Pohl stated he would like to see the color of the roof toned down to a more subdued red. He suggested a vertical wall face is a good idea. Mr. Pohl stated the landscape had been treated well and suggested there is more opportunity now to work it. He would like to see the through aisle changed to slow and divert traffic from flowing through from Main Street to Babcock Street. Design Review Board Minutes-May 22,2001 5 Mr. Glenn stated the overall architecture has been greatly improved but noted the facade is very continuous. He suggested it is almost impossible to make the building urban and suggested one story with the height and the parapet was not a good idea and feels two stories would be more appropriate. Mr. Glenn stated next year Montana Power will double electricity prices and suggested windows should be looked at through a monetary perspective and suggested controlling heat load with the amount of light used by putting in daylight windows. He stated he would like to see the project flipped over and suggested that when you have a corner building you should not have to hide it, and noted there should be less landscaping on the corner. Mr. Glenn stated there will be a challenge in terms of the drive-thru and suggested changing the position of the entry so there is not stacking in front of the drive-thru. He felt drive-thru's were not a good thing and not environmentally a good idea. Mr. Parker stated there will be two lanes and suggested there would not be a lot of stack up. He noted the site is special and that he has never had to do so much to a site. Mr. Parker gave his thanks to the DRB. Chairperson Sorenson stated when the DRB granted a change in signage, it was because the particular company has a handicap with their site and a difficult location. He suggested somewhere on the corner, develop an architectural feature which would include the name of the store instead of having it on the ground. Planner Morris asked that the Board consider the 20% sign expansion as requested by the applicant. She noted The Design Objectives Plan strongly discourages granting the 20% when reader board signs are proposed. She recommended further discussion of this item at the next meeting. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Howe seconded to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. f y Ll Henry Sorenson, Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-May 22,2001 6 ATTENDANCE ROSTER MAY 22, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS l. 2. 3. 1� ►� .. j/V1 n/(e l 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.