Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Dick Pohl Jami Morris,Assistant Planner Henry Sorenson Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Bill Hanson Nichole Wills Visitors Present Clarisa McCloy Brent S. Ronda Callahan Brad Ebel Ed Matos James Nickelson Dick Clotfelter Cassie Springer Kendall VanDyk ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bridger Engineers MiSP-#Z-01170 —(Morris) 2150 Analysis Drive �k A Minor Site Plan Application to allow the construction of a 7,470 square foot office building within the Advanced Technology Park. Discussion followed on consent item procedure. Assistant Planner Jami Morns presented the revisions made to the project. Ed Matos, applicant, explained the landscape plan changes. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved,Mr. Pohl seconded, to remove application#Z-01170 from the consent agenda. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Hanson noted the setback from the property line appeared to be in the 35' stream setback plus the 15' yard setback. In response to Mr. Hanson, Planner Morris stated he was correct. Mr. Pohl asked how site work could have begun before the project was approved. Planner Morris explained that site work is permitted, however, no concrete could be poured. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 25,2001 1 Mr. Hanson suggested moving the entryway to the building to add two parking spaces. Mr. Matos noted they are trying to prevent cars from pulling up in front of the glass windows. Mr. Hanson noted shifting the parking lot would provide two extra spaces and a better entryway. Mr. Matos stated he was in favor of shifting the parking lot if the DRB wanted it done. Mr. Pohl commended the applicant on the improved site plan. He concurred with Mr. Hanson that the parking lot should be shifted. He suggested installing a pedestrian walkway from the parking lot to the building. Ms. Wills concurred with comments made to this point. She suggested using pavers to connect the suggested sidewalks with the building entry. Mr. Matos stated they experimented with rotating the building,however, it would have extended beyond the setback line and would have created a problem with the entry from Research Drive. He noted the sidewalks on both sides of the development would be expensive, of direct use to the employees, and would be rarely used. Ms. Wills suggested continuing the pavers into the picnic area. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Pohl seconded,to approve the application with an additional condition to shift the parking lot 15+ feet to the north to accommodate a pedestrian walkway. The motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Lone Eagle Office Building MaSP-#Z-01171 —(Skelton) 960 Technology Boulevard, South �k A Major Site Plan Application to develop a 3.9 acre, two-story professional office building. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the Staff Report. James Nickelson and Richard Clatfelter joined the DRB. Planner Skelton noted the project is part of a PUD, therefore, a recommendation from the DRC and DRB is required for City Commission. He reviewed the four points for required landscaping. Mr. Hanson asked if the Architectural Review Committee had approved the plans. Planner Skelton noted the plans for this project had been approved by the Tech Park Architectural Committee. Mr. Pohl asked if the orientation of the building matched other buildings in the project. Planner Skelton noted it has its own orientation and is not perpendicular to the public street. Mr. Pohl asked if there were any proposed connections to other parking lots within Tech Park. Mr. Nickelson noted there was nothing in the larger PUD that provided for connections between parking lots. Chairperson Sorenson noted that when working with site plans, the DRB preferred to see the adjacent properties to help understand the relationships of this proposal to the surrounding buildings. He asked for parking calculations. Planner Skelton noted parking is two spaces over the minimum required. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 25,2001 2 He noted Staff placed a lot of confidence in the applicant providing adequate parking for his/her project,using the minimum specified in the Ordinance as a guideline, and adding additional spaces if they find it necessary. Mr. Clotfelter gave a background of his experience. He noted the new tenant is a growing pharmaceutical company. He noted the building is 97% efficient for tenant use. He stated he had been given new requirements over the last week. Mr. Clotfelter noted he had a few issues with the conditions. He noted the orientation of the structure is so it faces the street, around the Nopper Building. He noted the landscaping along the Nopper Building is a taller species as well as the agricultural building for screening. He felt they had met both the Tech Park requirements and City codes. Mr. Nickelson noted the parapet would hide the majority of the mechanical equipment,however, there would be flues for exhaust that may extend above the roof line. He stated the ground- mounted mechanical equipment would be screened with landscaping. He noted the 5' wide sidewalk further than the front of the building seemed excessive. He would prefer more landscaping along the building rather than concrete. Mr. Nickelson noted the 10' wide sidewalk is excessive and the landscaping features in the rear of the building are unnecessary. He stated the landscaping at the parking islands (condition 9.3)would reduce the number of parking spaces by 8 stalls. He noted the landscaping along the north side of the building was a concern. Mr. Clotfelter discussed the signage proposal. He noted they agreed with the condition. He stated condition 6 had surprises. He had heard from the architectural committee that they wanted the south entrance emphasized. He noted the use of natural materials at the entrances was news to him. Mr. Clotfelter noted wood and stone was not a high-tech material. He stated true high-tech would be a glass building, however, that surface would not fit in Bozeman. He noted the exterior of the building met the criteria of the Tech Park Architectural Committee and he stated it met the City's requirements. Mr. Clotfelter noted he felt they had done what the City wanted. Chairperson Sorenson noted projects can go through an informal process, which usually keeps surprises from happening to the applicant. Mr. Hanson noted one issue he had was that the building orientation limited the ability to design the parking lot. He asked if the walkway had any delineation or was it just stripped. He asked about the mechanical equipment located on the roof, and the exhaust chimneys that will be located there. Mr. Clotfelter explained the units that would be there and noted the plans called for stripped walkways. Mr. Hanson asked for the components of the structure frame. Mr. Clotfelter noted it would be a steel frame with the exterior hung from steel studs. Discussion followed on alternatives to EFIS exteriors with several being suggested by DRB members and ruled out by the applicant. Mr. Pohl discussed his concerns with the orientation of the building. He noted the existence of parking islands is very important for protection of parked cars on the ends of the parking areas. He commended the encouragement of alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Pohl suggested including clearly defined pedestrian walkways. He asked how the landscaping and the water feature evolved. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 25,2001 3 Mr. Clotfelter explained the landscaping plan then stated he would be designing the water feature area of the site. Mr. Pohl asked for the kinds of truck deliveries to this building, and if they would interfere with pedestrian circulation. Mr. Clotfelter noted there are few deliveries, most of which are by FedEx and UPS. Ms. Wills asked if the south entrance would be enhanced more to mirror the north entrance. She asked for the color palette. Mr. Clotfelter noted the color would be light,but not white. He stated the intent was not to enhance the south entrance. Ms. Wills noted she would like to see the rhythm of trees as shown on the smaller elevation. She asked if the parapet could be lowered. Mr. Clotfelter noted it was proportional with the windows and the banding. He noted the parapet would only hide the equipment if looking at it straight on. Mr. Hanson stated there seemed to be disjointedness between the parking lot and the structure. He concurred with Staff's comments that buffering with landscaping would help screen adjacent buildings. He noted none of the handicapped stalls are next to the structure, where they are normally located; they are all across driving lanes. He suggested planting landscaping between the sidewalk and the structure, and adding more emphasis on the pedestrian access with landscaping. Mr. Clotfelter suggested he be allowed to encroach into the setbacks to have flexibility in the parking design. It was noted that encroachment into the setbacks would require a variance. Mr. Hanson noted the water structure landscaping detail was not shown. He noted condition 6.4 may not be appropriate nor the requirement for the use of natural materials. He would like to see more design energy. He suggested a corner cutout to satisfy condition 6.3. Mr. Hanson would have liked to have seen color palette samples. Mr. Pohl noted the amount of detail submitted is adequate for the application to be reviewed as an informal. Mr. Hanson noted the Board should make a decision as a formal application on the information that was submitted and reviewed. Mr. Pohl noted he was concerned with the orientation of the building and the appearance of it being forced onto the site. He noted there was a lot of pavement on the southern side of the building for only a few delivery vehicles. He stated he'd like to see adequate landscaping and pedestrian access to both the south and north sides of the building. Mr. Pohl suggested the plantings be grouped,rather than located at random. He noted he'd like to see the detail of the water feature. He stated more detail is usually shown on the landscaping plan. Planner Skelton noted in terms of submittal requirements, this submittal meets the requirements. He noted if the DRB cannot forward a favorable recommendation to City Commission,the applicant had the opportunity to try to work out the details with the DRB at a later meeting, and the hearing before the City Commission would be continued. He noted an alternative would be to require the final site plan to be reviewed by the DRB prior to final approval. Chairperson Sorenson noted when a full landscaping detail is submitted, it gives the DRB something to review. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 25,2001 4 Mr. Clotfelter noted the architect wanted to design a rectangular building in a rectangular lot. He noted it took a lot of work on the architect's part to get this structure. Mr. Pohl noted vehicle and pedestrian accesses needed to be addressed around the building and between other structures in Tech Park. He stated he was not ready to approve the project as submitted. Ms. Wills noted she cannot make a judgment at this time with the amount of material presented. She commended the simplicity of the building,however, asked for the color palette, and other details. She wanted to see a function for the cutout on the second story corners, and suggested the west elevation needed enhancement. Chairperson Sorenson commended the applicant's idea of providing an amenity to the Tech Park; however, he'd like to see how it interfaced with the whole PUD. He stated he is interested in a high performance area and something that functioned well. He noted his concern with EFIS and that durable materials needed to be used where wear and tear will happen to the structure. He suggested adding awnings or shades to add to the architectural features. Chairperson Sorenson stated he did not find the site plan simple and suggested it did not work well. He noted there were no provision for pedestrians to collect and enter the building. He suggested a more efficient use of parking. Mr. Clotfelter noted they studied the parking and pedestrian flows and felt both are well done. He stated both could be better delineated. Mr. Clotfelter asked if the DRB could agree with him that the exterior finish detail and the flow of fabric,people, and landscaping needed work. He stated if the DRB agreed on the building, then they would work on the rest of the issues. Mr.Nickelson noted the project should be reviewed according to the PUD guidelines. Mr. Hanson noted the site development was too weak for the DRB to make a decision at this time. He stated the detail in the water feature was missing, the elevations are plain and flat, and the DRB required elevations to show what will be developed. Mr. Clotfelter stated he was confused. He noted he had the endorsement of the Tech Park Design Review Committee, and Morrison-Maierle met with Staff to discuss requirements of the City. He stated he was told that other than adding more fenestration, the project was ready to go. He noted he felt he had to start over again,which he is unwilling to do. He noted the design of the structure met the requirements of the partner/tenant. Chairperson Sorenson apologized for the misunderstanding. He noted the DRB is here for the review. He stated the Board had made some valid comments based on good design. He stated an informal meeting would have been a good step. Mr. Nickelson noted that when the informal was presented,they were told that the review wouldn't go before the DRB. Since then,he stated, it had been determined the application review by the DRB was necessary. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 25,2001 5 Planner Skelton reviewed the choices before the Board and the applicant. Chairperson Sorenson asked the applicant if they wanted to continue this review. Mr. Nickelson asked for a continuance until October 23rd. Mr. Clotfelter concurred. He noted he would ask for a change in Staff. Planner Skelton noted the request for a continuance had to be submitted to the Planning Office in written format. ITEM 3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5.50 p.m. Henry Sorenson, Chairperson Design Review Board " r ,Z City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 25,2001 6 ATTENDANCE ROSTER SEPTEMBER 25, 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. (AW''�o-1-') "0- 70 X /�, l�, C. 1 2. 3. C i�h� 4. �r—� Gn PJ. 5. 6. 44 4, 7. a e 0-o aI Q �CooL,,5(y►1 pn7 Z�C 9. 10. 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.