Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,AUGUST 14,2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and introduced Nichole Wills, the new DRB member to the Board. The secretary recorded the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Dick Pohl Bill Hanson Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner Henry Sorenson Joanne M. Noel Jeff Monroe, Assistant Planner Dawn Smith Jim Raznoff Jami Morris,Assistant Planner Nichole Wills Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dan Glenn Visitors Present Dick Prugh Rob Pertzborn Dave MacDonald Steve Kirchhoff Bill Hicks Steve Wilson Ted Schwink Robin Salvagi ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW A. Valley West Concept PUD #Z-01143 - (Caroline) West of Ferguson between Babcock Street and Durston Road �k A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for mixed-density housing for advice and comment. Rob Pertzborn and Mr. Dick Prugh joined the DRB. Planner Karin Caroline presented the Staff Report and reviewed the conditions. She explained the applicant was proposing alleyways in the PUD and a 30' open space. She noted the applicant would possibly ask for a relaxation in the setback for garages towards the rear of the properties, in the future. Planner Mr. Prugh explained the idea of a neighborhood with open space. He stated the project had four collector arterials in place currently,noting they tried to create a number of smaller neighborhoods within a community. Mr. Prugh noted wetlands mitigation play a major role in the project. He stated the park area and the soccer fields had been dedicated to the City. Design Review Board Minutes - August 14, 2001 1 Mr. Prugh showed where they planned to omit two lots on the plan for more open space. He stated the streets were located next to the open spaces and the parks for public use. Mr. Prugh stated there were 13,000 density units in the overall project. He noted the existing pond/lake would double in size. He explained the surrounding zoning. Mr. Pertzborn showed on the plan where a future collector street would be located. Mr. Prugh stated the plan would contain alleyways, noting residents vehicle access will come off of the alleyway. He noted there would be sidewalks for the major public circulation. He pointed out where the homeowners association would maintain the greenspace,noting there would be trail signs. Mr. Prugh stated the soccer fields were being improved, suggesting they were trying to create a dense area with open spaces. He stated, hopefully they would design the buildings, and have the project contain row housing on the outside and single family on the inside. He gave a general overview of the project. Mr. Pertzborn stated the open areas would help to support traffic lights, so the collector streets would not have all of the other access roads flowing into them. Mr. Pertzborn showed on the aerial map where the project was located. Mr. Glenn liked the traditional neighborhood design in town. He stated the block sizes were a little large, some being very large which a concern was. He asked if there would be curb cuts. Mr. Prugh stated there would be curb cuts along Babcock Street, he showed on the plan where other curb cuts would be located. Mr. Glenn stated it was redundant to do both alleyways and curb cuts. Mr. Prugh stated the intention was to design the building in connection with the alleys. Mr. Glenn suggested running the utilities behind the houses in the alleyways. Mr. Prugh stated they had planned on having the utilities, cable, and phone utilities in the alleyways. Planner Caroline explained that multi-family lots would have paved alleyways and single family lots would be gravel as discussed at the DRC meeting. Mr. Prugh stated it was suggested to have a 20' alley which would be discussed more as the project continued. Mr. Glenn stated the arterials being fronted,was a good idea and wanted to know how to keep the arterials from becoming dangerously fast. He suggested parallel parking was to maintain the safety zone between the road and the sidewalk. Mr. Prugh stated they had thought about it but were told that a miner arterial would not have parking and that was why they were looking at the 30' green strip. Mr. Glenn suggested vehicles will travel at a rate of 40-45 MPH. He suggested designing the road to accommodate the speed which would calm traffic. Mr. Glenn stated combing the approaches where there would be pedestrian traffic could be dangerous. Mr. Pertzbom stated they would be looking at the traffic and the alleyways as the project continued. Mr. Prugh stated ultimately the City was responsible for how the streets would look. Mr. Glenn suggested if the speed was not minimized,then people would be less likely to buy the property. He stated the applicant was trying to treat the collector like 8th Avenue and Willson Avenue, which are major collectors. Mr. Glenn recommended taking a closer look at how the streets are designed. Design Review Board Minutes —August 14, 2001 2 Mr. Prugh gave 11 th Avenue as an example of how buildings front an arterial street. Mr. Glenn explained the idea of what made a road a collector. He stated the applicant was trying to meld the arterial grid with the connector arterial. Mr. Glenn stated there are only three roads which move comfortably from North to South on the %4 section. Mr. Pertzborn explained the differences between arterials and collectors to neighborhood streets. Ms. Smith asked about Cottonwood Road and if it would have a boulevard out to Huffine Lane. Mr.Pertzborn stated they would. Ms. Smith stated on Ferguson Road,by the new development there was a bike lane, and asked if the applicant would be required to do the same. Planner Caroline stated that would be up to the Engineering Department,but the bike lane would be on both side of Ferguson Street. Ms. Smith asked if bike lanes would be installed on West Babcock. Planner Caroline stated she would be talking with the Engineering Department over the next two weeks and would find out the specifics. Ms. Smith asked if applicant was aware of the high ground water on the property. Mr. Pertzborn explained they were. Ms. Smith stated she did not have a problem with the block size. She stated the curb cuts could be put in the PUD. Ms. Smith asked if the commercial block by the pond, would have parking. Planner Caroline stated they would have parking. Mr. Prugh stated they may have to put in a couple of bridges depending on the wetland study. He explained the wetland situation. Mr. Pertzborn stated this was the biggest wetland project in the state. Ms. Smith liked the project and liked the idea of mixed use in the area, and the design. Mr. Pohl stated he was impressed with the overall layout of the subdivision. He stated he would like a greenway connection between the two park areas. Mr. Pohl stated a connection would be an enhancement to the subdivision. He stated if the alleyways were gravel,the length of the run would produce a lot of traffic, in return would produce a lot of dust. Mr. Pohl stated the curb cuts would have to be coordinated for guest parking,he suggested parallel parking would help the situation. Mr. Pohl stated he did not understand the need for a sidewalk and a bike trail along the same street. Planner Caroline explained the reasoning. Mr. Pohl suggested when the PUD requirements were set,place a strict street tree plan in the PUD so it is a coordinated street tree plan. Mr. Pertzborn stated they would like to get mature landscaping put in. Ms. Wills concurred with Mr. Pohl in the connection of the parks with greenscapes. She stated the quality of the design was nice and liked the greenspace. Design Review Board Minutes— August 14, 2001 3 Chairperson Sorenson asked about the soccer field construction. He stated the right angles which cut into the soccer fields were awkward. Mr. Pertzbom explained the reasoning for the right angles,noting it was because the fields were existing fields. Chairperson Sorenson stated he would like to see a more positive difference between the green areas and the lakes. Mr. Pertzborn explained the grass would not go to the edge of the lake. He stated there were a certain amount of wetland points which have to be met. Chairperson Sorenson agreed the overall project had a sound concept. Mr. Prugh stated they are truly in the"Process"at this time. He stated he would have preferred the soccer fields in another location. Mr. Prugh stated he planned on talking to Heritage Christian School about exchanging some land, in the future. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, for initial approval of the concept plan with comments as reviewed. The motion carried unanimously. B. Sunspots MiSP/COAJDev#Z-01095—(Monroe) FINAL REVIEW 421 North Broadway Avenue �k A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the demolition of the existing storage building and construction of office complex with showroom/warehouse combination, approximately 10,000 sf and related site improvements. Planner Jeff Monroe reviewed the Staff Memo. Mr. Bill Hicks joined the DRB. Planner Monroe stated the project had come back for final review as a condition which had been placed on the project for approval. Mr. Hicks stated he was out of town during the last review and had worked on the comments as they were provided to him. He stated they will bring in large boulders to protect trees, yet allow pedestrians to travel along the site without the threat of being injured. Mr. Hicks stated they will have a gazebo implemented and landscaped lawns for employees. He stated they have closed off the truck access and have implemented a rock formation with a sign located in the center of the access. He stated they will have droughty,non-irrigated landscaping. He indicated large Norwegian Maples would be used and over time they would create a beautiful edge to the street. He stated the boulders and large trees would aide in slowing traffic. Mr. Hicks stated they were trying to improve this corner and clean up this area of town. Design Review Board Minutes— August 14, 2001 4 Mr. Pohl stated he thought the access and the amount of asphalt was a big concern. He stated he did not understand why the applicant did not incorporate larger landscaped areas. He noted he would like to see more greenspace incorporated. Mr. Hicks stated he would speak with the owner. Mr. Pohl asked about the back out. Planner Monroe explained the back out,noting it was a hammer head for larger vehicles. Mr. Hicks explained that the retention pond would be drained in the winter and retained in the summer as a pond, and would overflow if necessary. Mr. Pohl asked if the walk was intended to go out to the roadway. Mr. Hicks stated yes,the walk was intended to go out to the roadway as a requirement of the DRC for handicapped access. Mr. Pohl suggested the walk way needed to be at a right-perpendicular angle, to Broadway. Mr. Hicks stated the boulders would be placed in a natural fashion. Mr. Pohl stated the Norwegian Maple, as stated by Mr. Hicks,was actually called the Norway Maple. Mr. Hicks stated he took the name out of the city books. Ms. Smith stated she would also like a reduction in the asphalt area. Mr. Glenn concurred. Planner Monroe stated since neither himself nor Mr. Hicks were in attendance at the previous meeting, there had been a lack of communication as far as where there needed to be more landscaping and less asphalt. Mr. Hicks would approach his client on the idea of the asphalt becoming landscaped. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Ms. Smith seconded, to approve the modified site plan to include the condition that some asphalt be replaced with landscaping and have the sidewalk installed perpendicular to North Broadway. The motion carried unanimously. C. Brookside II CUP#Z-01126—(Morris) 2100 West College �k A Conditional Use Permit Application for the construction of one 18-unit and three 12-unit apartment buildings as a Zoning Planned Unit Development. Dave MacDonald and Lowell Springer joined the DRB. Planner Morris reviewed the staff report and the conditions placed on the project. Mr. MacDonald explained drainage on the site. Planner Morris stated Planning Staff was looking for addition amenities in the open space. Ms. Smith asked about the parking requirements and if the project had enough parking. Planner Morris stated the applicant had already addressed the parking issue. Design Review Board Minutes - August 14, 2001 5 Ms. Smith asked if the Design Review Committee (DRC) was comfortable with having two accesses off of College Street. She noted she had concerns with the accesses. Planner Morris stated DRC had no comments or concerns about the accesses off of College,noting there were no plans for expansion of right-of-way at this time. Mr. MacDonald stated the overall plan had only two entrances. Mr. Pohl asked if the existing house would be removed. Mr. Springer stated they would like to keep the existing house,but if it were to be removed, it would be removed during the third phase of the project. He noted if the house was removed,the area then would be protected open space. Mr. MacDonald stated a survey had been done in reference to the existing trees. Mr. Springer stated the hedge would be removed to save an existing mature Spruce Tree. Mr. Pohl suggested including more islands in the parking area. Mr. Springer stated they would like to incorporate islands, if credit would be given for landscaping. Mr. MacDonald explained the parking orientation,noting the plan allowed for one parking stall per bedroom in each unit. Mr. Pohl suggested clusters of landscape material around the perimeter of the site. Mr. MacDonald explained ideas on traffic calming. Mr. Pohl stated the applicant may need to fence the north property line. Mr. Springer stated there would be landscaping and fencing used for screening. Mr. Springer noted the grade of the site was flat with a slight slope to the north. Mr. Springer stated the site economics dictated the need for the type of housing proposed. He stated there is 3/4 of an acre of open space on the site. Chairperson Sorenson asked where the plaza and pavers,recommended by staff,would be located. Mr. Springer showed on the plan where the plaza would be possibly located. Mr. MacDonald stated they are trying to preserve as much open space as possible. He explained the building orientation around the park,noting the idea was to maintain a nice visual appeal. Planner Morris explained the potential open space plan depending on what happened to the existing house on site. Mr. MacDonald explained they planned on developing in two phases to leave the existing houses in place as long as possible. Mr. Glenn suggested the applicant look at the new student housing adjacent to the"Hedges" building on campus, and look to it as an example. He expressed concerns about elevations of the site plan, suggesting they were generic elevations. Mr.MacDonald explained the buildings were designed to use as long term rental property. Mr. Glenn suggested the buildings did not have a good design, suggesting more relief with greater variation. Mr. Glenn stated he would like to see more attention to the fagade facing the public, suggesting more brick and articulation as recommended by staff. Design Review Board Minutes - August 14, 2001 6 Discussion on the gables and screening continued. Mr. Glenn stated the main idea for renovation was in the ground plan. He stated the plan showed single entryways and suggested"ground plane activations" (units directly accessible to the outside). He suggested this would activate the ground level and would privatize the ground level, and attract families. Mr. Glenn suggested exploring the idea of giving the first floor units direct access doors. Ms. Smith asked about storage. Mr. Springer stated every unit had its own storage and explained the location. He explained where the individual storage units were located. Mr. Glenn explained the public concern for storage,noting when room is not available, everything spills out. Planner Morris stated the applicant requested parking in lieu of landscaping which could be approved by ADR Staff. Ms. Smith stated she would not suggest making the trade for the parking spaces in this type of project. Mr. MacDonald stated the project would be predominately student housing. Ms. Smith stated the existing landscaping is not an issue but if the existing landscaping on the plan is indicative to what will come, she felt it was not enough. Mr. MacDonald explained where the open area was and where the vegetation will come out from. Ms. Smith asked about the materials of the buildings. Planner Morris stated further recommendations would be to vary the color of the buildings. Mr. Springer stated two different schemes which work together would be alright. Ms. Smith suggested deeper earth tones to lessen the impact of the long building. Mr. Pohl asked how closely the phases would be built. Mr. MacDonald stated they needed to move a property line and complete parking,he estimated a two or three year build out. Mr. Pohl asked if the phases would mirror each other. Mr.MacDonald stated they would. Chairperson Sorenson commented on staff's comments. He stated he wasn't sure about the additional dormers which were being recommended. He stated the existing dormer showing on the plan doesn't make sense,they needed to be narrowed to match existing relief or width of patio. Chairperson Sorenson stated the two buildings felt awkward,he suggested having the buildings surround the open area. He stated the yard between the buildings, being the same length as the buildings themselves, created an awkward open space. He noted aesthetically the yard was confining between the buildings with the windows facing each other. Chairperson Sorenson stated the tradeoff would be the big mature trees,noting there was not much that could be done unless the mature vegetation was taken out. He concurred with Mr. Glenn to have a more active zone on the bottom floor. He suggested a common area on the inside and the outside. Mr. Springer suggested the log house could provide the common area. Chairperson Sorenson stated long buildings are fine if they are aesthetically treated right. He suggested changing the parking access to the building. Design Review Board Minutes - August 14, 2001 7 Mr. Springer stated the density is 54 units and to get the parking spaces needed and to save trees, the parking needed to be located on the outside of the site. Mr. Glenn suggested flipping the area and having the parking lot and the yard next to each other. Mr. Springer stated, then the residents windows look out over the parking area on both sides. Mr. Springer stated more entrances pose problems for security reasons. Mr. Glenn stated the reason to activate the ground plane was for security. Mr. Springer disagreed with Mr. Glenn. Mr. Glenn stated if people had their own yard and their own door, there would be more eyes on the street and on the courtyard. Mr. Springer disagreed. Mr. Springer showed on the plan the location of the trees which were worth saving. He stated there was 50 feet between the buildings. Mr. Glenn stated what happened in the entryway corridor, and the view corridor, is the control factor of the DRB. (NOTE: This project is not in the entryway corridor). There was discussion on the way properties are developed based on income level of potential tenants. Mr. Pohl asked what the house would become if retained. Mr. Springer stated it would be a common house for the residents. Planner Morris asked if the DRB would like condition#9 to be more open ended. Chairperson Sorenson stated he did not think it was a good idea to pave the area noted in condition#9. Mr. Pohl stated if the house was eliminated, then it is a logical place for a pad, and if the house was retained, then attach a pad for recreation. Planner Morris agreed that if the house was removed then the picnic tables and barbeque grills could be installed on the existing pad. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Ms. Smith seconded, to deny approval of the application, unless the applicant agreed to address concerns of the DRB. Discussion: Ms. Smith asked if the project would move forward to City Commission with the motion to deny from DRB. Planner Morris stated it would. Mr. Pohl favored the project and preferred the trees be respected and an arranged development around the trees. Mr. Glenn suggested coming up with a list of conditions. Ms. Smith would consider the house as being a bonus, noting if there was a trade off then she would like to readdress the project. Mr. Glenn suggested the existing house was what gives the project character. Mr. Springer asked if the DRB would approve with conditions, and have someone from the DRB sit in with them at the City Commission meeting. Design Review Board Minutes—August 14, 2001 8 Chairperson Sorenson stated he was torn by the project because Mr. Springer had pointed out good ideas. He stated the character and quality of the architecture was a factor and the levels of theses characters had been compromised. Chairperson Sorenson stated the treatment in the major amenity of the site was good,noting there were difficult design problems. Motion carried 3-1,with Mr. Pohl in favor of the project and Chairperson Sorenson, Mr. Glenn, and Ms. Smith in opposition. Mr. Springer asked if rather than going to City Commission with a negative recommendation from the DRB, could they make modifications and come back to the DRB again. Planner Morris stated the City Commission meeting would have to be moved and the project would have to be re-noticed. Mr. MacDonald decided against continuing the project and to move forward with the City Commission date as scheduled. He stated they have tried to design the project from a budgetary standpoint. Planner Skelton explained the process of redesigning the project and asked the DRB to give an itemized list of the concerns. Mr. Springer stated it is in the best interest for the project to continue and to work with the treatment of the street, elevations, and to meet the challenges and concerns. Mr. MacDonald expressed his concern. Planner Skelton suggested a review of the conditions. Mr. Springer stated he felt it would be wise to see if they can revise the plan and come back to the DRB with the revisions. Mr. Glenn explained the reason he gave the motion for the denial. He would like to have the project continued and then see it again. Discussion followed on whether or not to continue the project. A short recess: The applicant decided to move the project forward to City Commission with the negative recommendation from DRB. D. Wal-Mart Expansion MaSP/COA#Z-01112—(Skelton) 1500 North 7th Avenue �k A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an 84,000+/- sf expansion to the existing building and related site improvements. Robin Salvagio, Ted Schwink, Brian Gallik, and Steve Willson,joined the DRB. Planner Dave Skelton reviewed and explained the content of the Staff Report. He noted the applicant had substantially increased the interior landscape islands, landscape areas, setbacks, linear open space and public plazas. Planner Skelton explained the recommendations and the changes the applicant had made as referenced in the Staff Report. He explained the applicant had spent a lot of time on the re-design on the treatment of the public areas, open space, and landscape. Design Review Board Minutes -August 14, 2001 9 Planner Skelton continued to review and explain the content of the Staff Report and the conditions in great detail. Planner Skelton noted from the informal review, the applicant had taken the recommendations given by staff and added covered gabled roofs at the main entrances. He stated he felt there needed to be more emphasis on the scale of the gables. He suggested the covered entrances should be incorporated on to the south entrance, noting the treatment and relief are incorporated in the new Wal-Mart materials. Planner Skelton stated the north elevation should contain similar features of the west facade and should be carried around to the east elevation as well. He stated staff would like the applicant to take into consideration the idea of additional color and architectural features for the facades. Mr. Pohl asked for clarification on the pedestrian crossings that led off of North 7`h Avenue. Planner Skelton stated the crossing is up at the light. He stated that MDOT concluded with the traffic generated the proposed expansion would not trigger the need for additional street improvements on Oak Street or North 7th Avenue. Mr. Pohl asked if there was any need to expand the storm water retention area. Planner Skelton stated the storm water flows eastward, is detained, and then spills into the 100' swail which drains to the north under the interstate. Mr. Pohl asked what the berm height was along Oak Street. Ms. Salvagi stated berming was 3 to 4 feet with variations. Mr. Pohl asked what the functions of the pedestrian open space and public plaza were. Planner Skelton stated it was an amenity for pedestrians to enhance the relationship of the building with the streetscape of Oak Street, and to provide for an open public plaza for patrons to interact. Mr. Pohl suggested the access was very seasonal. Mr. Wilson stated it is currently a full time access. Mr. Glenn asked what was happening with the vacant land to the east. Planner Skelton stated for the project to proceed, there was a need for annexation of the area to the east of the site. Mr. Glenn asked what beside the Entryway Corridor Guidelines,were used as the determining factors of the site, and if the applicant was asking for any other deviations besides sign deviations. Planner Skelton stated the applicant was not asking for other deviations and noted additional determining factors were taken from the Deign Objectives Plan. Ms. Salvagi reviewed the aerial picture requested by the DRB, and explained the surrounding areas. She reviewed the site plan progression and some of the changes made to the landscaping and the decrease in parking. Ms. Salvagi noted the building had not changed significantly. She reviewed an architectural progression site plan. She stated the applicant had tried to change as much of the criteria from the last meeting as possible. Ms. Salvagi noted the differences between the last site plan presented and the current site plan presented. Design Review Board Minutes- August 14, 2001 10 She noted landscape had been extended up to the door of the new addition, leaving room for a shuttle drop and one lane of traffic, but still maintaining vehicular movement to this part of the site. She explained the route of the future shuttle drop and large berming on the plaza area. Ms. Salvagi stated the berming of the Oak Street entrance could be changed to a formal streetscape if desired by the DRB. Ms. Salvagi stated at the last meeting there was a need for a less chaotic pattern for parking, noting now there was no mix of 60 degree and 90 degree parking. She stated the parking lot had been decreased in size to a 4.6 parking ratio,noting they had added much more landscaping in the parking area as a measure to the decrease in the parking lot size. Ms. Salvagi explained the long linear landscape islands. She reviewed the previous issue about"too much parking",noting the pedestrian east/west feature will continue and colored paving will be implemented at the crosswalk to the main entrance. She noted they were slowing traffic coming into the site by keeping the main landscape isle,noting there are 27' drive isles. Ms. Salvagi noted DRC was in support of the 27' drive isles and the on site traffic circulation. Ms. Salvagi noted another big change with the drive isles off of West Oak Street. She stated the original plan showed drive isles that curved in and now are shown straight. She noted 6"raised tables were incorporated for cars to drive on with scored concrete to get the attention of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic. She stated the pedestrian area had raised planters with seats, freestanding benches, trees and tree grates, and planters along the building. Ms. Salvagi stated there would be side walk sales and an outdoor seating and eating area would be implemented. She stated more buffer was implemented on all sides, noting the landscape ratio was 39 percent of the site. Mr. Schwink stated the major thrust of the site was the front plaza area. He stated the elevations were typically the same, except for the two entries on the North 7th Street side. Mr. Schwink stated they had extended the canopies to meet the Wal-Mart sign and a covered entrance would be implemented, but the walkway would have to be widened. Mr. Schwink stated they did not want to force the canopy,but leave a transitional space. He suggested the canopies would be composed of wood and metal materials. He stated EMS was the proposed material for the columns in the garden center. Planner Skelton suggested the use of laminated beams or other natural materials (i.e.,heavy timbers). He explained the ridges and metal roofs which were originally over the two entries,had been abandoned so pilasters could break up the elevation with roof elements. He stated there were varying masses of pilasters ranging from 8-10 feet wide,used to give relief all the way down the elevation. Planner Skelton made note that the applicant would revise the sign to comply with the ordinance. Planner Skelton stated the painted masonry materials were to remain the same as on the existing building. He stated the applicant had responded to previous comments and ideas from the informal meeting. Design Review Board Minutes-August 14, 2001 11 Mr. Glenn asked why the employee parking clustered on Oak Street, and if it were possible to put the parking behind the building to the east. Ms. Salvagi replied the back of the building functioned as a delivery area for trucks and semi's, and the mix of pedestrian and vehicular movement was unsafe for employees. She stated the applicant wanted their employees in a safe, visible area. Mr. Glenn stated the pedestrian pathways were a great improvement and asked how the islands were used to bring pedestrians to the storefront. Ms. Salvagi explained the islands were the function of the plaza areas and were used as a safe walkway to the store. She stated they could continue the plaza to the sidewalks on North 7lh Avenue. Mr. Glenn asked if campers/trailers were allowed to park in the parking lot 24 hours a day. Mr. Wilson stated it was not a policy of Wal-Mart and asked for suggestions on ways to control it. Ms. Salvagi stated they had implemented double islands to discourage the congregation of such vehicles. Mr. Glenn asked about the massive amount of parking and if the applicant was over the maximum amount of parking allowed. He asked how the applicant arrived at their number. Mr. Schwink stated the parking ratio in an urban setting is approx. 4 %2 and in this instance is 5.1 percent existing. He noted they are willing to compromise to the absolute minimum so the customer does not have to park off site. He suggested they have tried to create areas in the parking lot to break up the setting. Mr. Glenn stated typically,the current parking lot is vast and not filled. Ms. Salvagi stated the"Super Center"is Wal-Mart's vehicle of the future, and suggested there would be a need for the parking in the future. Mr. Glenn would like the applicant to come back and ask for more parking, as needed, instead of parking which is phased based on demand. Mr. Glenn asked about the closure of existing Wal-Mart's. Mr. Schwink stated they do not have a Super Center in the chain that has gone dark. He noted they have had situations where they could not expand so they had to relocate and build another store, leaving a store dark,but still promoting the re-use of that store, but not in the direct competition with them. He suggested there is a burden on Wal-Mart when they have to vacate a store. Mr. Glenn stated that a vacant store is a huge danger to the City when there is such a large portion of acreage. Ms. Salvagi stated the owners purchased a piece of land with the idea of possible expansion. Mr. Wilson suggested that is why the owners have expanded,noting the desire to open the Super Center out of existing stores. Ms. Smith asked about parking in the area of the plaza. Ms. Salvagi stated the parking is existing, just not shown on the plan. Ms. Smith asked about the existing landscaping, and how much more the new addition would bring. Ms. Salvagi explained that there are 4 long,major islands, and 3 on the new addition. Ms. Smith added,the applicant could not maintain the landscaped areas which surround the existing store, and asked how they planned to maintain the landscape in the future. Design Review Board Minutes - August 14, 2001 12 Ms. Salvagi stated they were proposing an automated irrigation system, and are planning to put a new fabric underneath the shrub areas. Mr. Glenn suggested choosing the appropriate type of landscaping. Ms. Smith asked about garbage receptacles. Ms. Salvagi stated they would be implemented. Ms. Smith stated the cart corrals only extend to a certain point, noting they do not service people who have to park further away. Mr. Schwink stated the location of the cart corrals had not been strategically placed, and suggested they would resolve the issue. Mr. Pohl stated he liked the people space in front of the store and asked how it would interface with sidewalk sales. Mr. Wilson stated they wanted to increase the size of the sidewalk to accommodate both pedestrians and merchandise. Ms. Salvagi stated they encouraged sales outside of the store. Mr. Pohl stated he was confiised on how to shop in a Super Store and asked if there were other ways to get your merchandise to your vehicle besides walking all the way through the parking lot. Ms. Salvagi noted the proposed customer pick up lane which is located out of the flow of traffic. She reviewed the purpose of the pick up lane. Mr. Pohl asked what the crossing was for. Mr. Wilson stated it was for the handicap crossing and it denoted the pedestrian crossing. Mr. Pohl stated the crossing did not line up with any pedestrian zone. Mr. Wilson stated they could get it to line up with a pedestrian zone. Mr. Pohl stated the back of the store seemed to be the north side of the store and suggested there was need for more screening. Ms. Salvagi stated the area was a retention area on this side of the store. She noted she could have more evergreens could be placed along the detention area. Mr. Pohl suggested more shade or a canopy area over the"pedestrian drop zone". Ms. Salvagi stated they would be losing a row of parking, the drive isles would shift, and they would widen the areas of the plaza. She stated the area would be shifted about 18' feet, allowing the projection of the canopy off of the building. Mr. Pohl stated Oak Street will be a very important frontage. Mr. Pohl asked if there was thought to the noise coming from the shop to the pedestrian area. Mr. Wilson stated the doors would be shut as soon as the vehicles are pulled in. Planner Skelton explained why the entrance could not be changed, due to vehicular circulation. Ms. Salvagi stated they could implement a large planter and a couple of trees to obstruct more of the view of the shop. She noted they could expand to allow more landscaping. She suggested there was not nearly as much traffic into the shop as into the other areas of the store. Mr. Pohl asked why the intersection came in at an angle. Mr. Wilson explained. Design Review Board Minutes— August 14, 2001 13 Chairperson Sorenson asked the applicant about the off street parking spaces and how to remedy the situation. Mr. Wilson stated they had spoken with Planner Skelton, and suggested they would remedy the situation. Chairperson Sorenson reviewed the conditions and asked the applicant their feelings about them. Mr. Schwink reviewed condition#4 and stated the canopy would be closer to the drive isle. Mr. Schwink stated the pediments were only at the entrances to identify them, explaining the use of the pilasters. He stated they want the pediments to say"Entrance"and the pilasters to give relief. He noted detail is what is seen over the entrances now and stated they concur with that part of condition#6. Mr. Schwink stated Planner Skelton would like the height of the canopy to increase but Mr. Schwink would like to keep a pedestrian scale. He stated they would be laminated beams, and wood benches, (condition#7). Mr. Schwink stated they have stayed with existing materials. He stated the north wall will remain and they plan to continue the color palette consistent with the existing color scheme,noting the decorative trusses could be made out of anything. Mr. Wilson stated typically the Wal-Mart signs are internally luminated, the signs over the food center are not. He noted they would provide photos of the lights. Mr. Wilson stated they were not sure about signage at this point, and possibly would not need a deviation as stated in condition#9. He suggested they would be eliminating some of the signage. Chairperson Sorenson stated the one condition he opposed to,would be the use of false pediments which would not create an entry. Mr. Glenn suggested the applicant had approximately 10 acres of green space, which becomes lost with the distribution of the project. He stated he did not like the idea of 200,000 sq. ft. of artificially lit store. He suggested having a day lit store,reducing the amount of energy taken from the earth. Mr. Glenn stated day lit stores were better in general for the public and for employees. He would like the applicant to explore the idea of day lit buildings. Mr. Wilson stated that Wal-Mart was asked to sit in on the energy discussion with President Bush and suggested the store is on the leading edge. Mr. Glenn argued the point of implementing a day lit building Mr. Glenn would like to see some of the money Wal-Mart is spending on the project spent on the North 7'1' stretch of street. Ms. Smith suggested the applicant had done good work and felt a little more needed to be done. She stated she was in support of Planner Skelton's conditions as listed in the staff report. She noted she was not in support of the signs or the parking situation. Ms. Smith had a hard time supporting the high ratio of parking, noting she did not see the number of shoppers to warrant the amount of parking. She stated the lighting situation bothered her because of the energy shortage. Ms. Smith suggested it is a hot topic on how the lighting situation with businesses, affects the energy shortage. She would like more information on how the lighting would affect the shortage. Design Review Board Minutes — August 14, 2001 14 She stated with the expansion of Comfort Inn, the proposed lighting would affect the rooms which face out towards the parking lot. Ms. Smith suggested the applicant could do a little more with the design of the building. She noted she felt people were more likely to shop in a store that appealed to them. Mr. Pohl thanked Planner Skelton for an excelled job on the review of the project and the suggestions recommended in the staff report, as well as the level of changes the applicant had done. Mr. Pohl stated he felt the project was do-able. Chairperson Sorenson concurred with Mr. Glenn in the aspect that the clerestory element let natural light in,but was undecided if that was for the DRB to determine. He stated the applicant had come a long way toward the goals set before them. Chairperson Sorenson appreciated the reduction in parking and noted the false pediments were confusing and artificial in character. He stated he would prefer landscaping to break up the long rows. He agreed with putting landscaping on the rear side of the building. Chairperson Sorenson stated there needed to be a collector node off of the sidewalk which needed to be thought out on both ends. He encouraged the joining of the Iandscape rows to the North 7th Avenue side of the parking lot. He stated he felt it was important to Bozeman to get those islands to North 71h Avenue. Mr. Wilson stated they could make that happen. Chairperson Sorenson stated the project met staffs conditions for the most part. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Sorenson seconded,to approve the project with staff recommendations, excluding pediments on the east side,including an additional recommendation which would make a physical pedestrian connection to North 7ch Avenue from the west isle ways, providing additional landscaping on the east side of the building as screening from the delivery area, and improving the physical connection to the south pedestrian connection on the Oak Street side. Mr. Schwenk asked if it would still be feasible to use painted materials. Mr. Glenn replied the recommendation in the staff report stated not to use the painted materials and that the use of exterior materials in a more natural finish was desirable. Mr. Schwenk stated the existing north side of the building already had these materials and he asked if they could continue around the building with the same materials. Mr. Wilson stated the paint on the store had held up well and was not a problem situation,but if it were, then he could see having to change materials. Mr. Glenn suggested matching the existing muted colors,keeping the one painted element, and surrounds the rest of the building with non painted surface. Mr. Schwenk stated the blocks were limited in color. He stated he did not know what materials were available in the area. Mr. Glenn stated it was not just a matter of maintenance,but texture and the appearance. Discussion on band material, color, and the exterior fagade continued. Design Review Board Minutes-August 14, 2001 15 Discussion: Mr. Glenn stated if the applicant used wood trusses,then the painted orange strip should be a brick band and the rest of the store should be primarily be done in block materials. Mr. Schwenk stated there is a company which produced a type of block made of clay masonry. He asked if there was latitude in the type of block. He stated the colors may change slightly, but they will stay close to the pallet. Mr. Glenn concurred with the recommendation not to put pediment on the back side of the building, noting he was unsure whether the pilasters would be adequate. Mr. Pohl suggested placing trees along the boundary, in groups. Ms. Salvagi showed on the site plan where the existing trees were located and where they would incorporate more trees. Discussion on pilasters and the trees continued. Planner Skelton stated he wanted to get to a point where, regardless of the use of the building, they were dealing with the review of a retail facility which was larger than what is typically reviewed, that a flat roof is a flat roof, and that a big box, is a big box, but three dimensionally. He asked how to resolve the use of exterior facades and their relationship to the interior spaces without imitation and artificial decoration on the exterior. He stated,to avoid the argument of a big box ordinance, there was a need to investigate other ways to work out the three-dimensional appearance and ensure the governing body that the DRB could handle decision making on a facility without making it a big box issue. Planner Skelton suggested opening up the building with a lot of skylights at the entrance, as well as more of a storefront appearance. He stated how a decision making body looks at architectural treatment depended heavily on the recommendation of design professionals. Planner Skelton stated he wanted to send the right message, to give a comfort level on dealing with a long, linear building, and a long horizon line. Mr. Glenn suggested a separate ordinance for big box stores, noting big box store applications seem to be received on more of a regular basis and have unique conditions. He stated he felt day lit buildings would dramatically change the look of the building. Discussion on windows, day lit windows,pilasters, and drop ceilings continued. Ms. Smith stated she was not opposed to the condition of the motion, but stated condition#3 and condition#6, each had six parts to them,noting they were"in depth"conditions. She stated she was not comfortable continuing with the applicants reply being"we will look into it". Ms. Smith stated condition#7 had four parts to it. She stated if all of the conditions were considered, then there would be a lot of changes and she felt the DRB would have no idea on which way the applicant would go. Ms. Smith suggested nowhere in the conditions was the parking issue discussed. She stated lighting was another issue and felt there needed to be a final lighting plan. Planner Skelton stated he hoped the nature of his staff report would demonstrate some integrity in the level of review and thoroughness he has devoted to the project, and that he would follow through with the conditions and make sure that the applicant comply with them. Design Review Board Minutes- August 14, 2001 16 Planner Skelton stated the scale of the project is significant enough that DRB might want to see the project again prior to Final Site Plan approval. Ms. Salvagi stated they had taken the comments from the Informal Review and addressed them accordingly. Planner Skelton explained the agenda for the City Commission. Mr. Pohl asked Ms. Smith if she was close to approval and then reiterated some of the items in which she had issues about. He suggested if the issues were handled accordingly, Ms. Smith would be ready to approve the project. Ms. Smith concurred. She stated she would like to see how the conditions are implemented. Mr. Glenn stated he would not be in support of the project. Chairperson Sorenson explained the two ways to move forward with the project; 1.) The applicant could continue to City Commission with a motion from DRB to deny the project, or 2.) The applicant could come back before the DRB after the conditions had been met and before the City Commission meeting. Mr. Wilson stated they would make the changes and come before the DRB again prior to the City Commission meeting. Ms. Salvagi stated the City Commission would scrutinize the project anyway. Ms. Smith suggested if the applicant met the conditions before going to City Commission, it would be better for them. Mr. Pohl retracted the motion and moved to continue the project until August 28'h, 2001. Mr. Glenn seconded. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 3. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Glenn seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ,4141�-Z Henry S enson, Chairperson Design.Review Board Design Review Board Minutes - August 14, 2001 17 ATTENDANCE ROSTER AUGUST 14, 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. (,j 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. �� 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.