Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. and the secretary recorded the minutes. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Bill Hanson Dan Glenn Karin Caroline,Assistant Planner Joanne Noel Jim Raznoff Jami Morris,Assistant Planner Dick Pohl Jennifer Willems, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Henry Sorenson Nichole Wills Visitors Present Grant Johnson Terry Stroh Dick Clotfelter Sean Marsh James Nickelson Cassie Springer Maureen Shaughnessy Kendall Dyk Eric Mills ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2001,FEBRUARY 27, 2001,AND MARCH 13, 2001. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mrs. Smith seconded, to approve the minutes of January 23,2001 as presented. Mrs. Smith moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes of February 27, 2001 as presented. Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes of March 13, 2001 as presented. All motions carried unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Lone Eagle Office Building MaSP-#Z-01171 —(Caroline) 960 Technology Boulevard, South �k A Major Site Plan Application to develop a 39,000 + square foot, two-story professional office building, and related site improvements. Mr. James Nicholson, Mr. Dick Clotfelter, and Maureen Shaughnessy,joined the DRB. Design Review Board Minutes—October 23,2001 1 Planner Karin Caroline explained that Planning Staff changed hands on the project and she would be taking comments to City Commission on November 13, 2001. Planner Caroline reviewed the staff report. She noted the staff report was first revised by Planner Dave Skelton, and then herself. She explained that page 3, section 3 in the staff report,there was noted the incorporation of a 5' sidewalk. She stated the sidewalk had been incorporated into the plans because of concerns noted by the DRB, giving pedestrian movement all the way around the building. Planner Caroline stated the landscaping plan was meek at the last meeting but since then had been revised and now met criteria of the PUD guidelines. She reviewed the conditions of the landscaping. She explained that landscaped islands had been incorporated into the plan,noting there would be a 4' bermed area with boulevard trees along Technology Boulevard. Planner Caroline stated that the boulevard trees would be replaced if they could not be saved. She stated there have been rock material as well as shrubbery and ornamental trees incorporated to the north, south, and significantly towards the east side elevations. Planner Caroline stated the south elevation now has an offset;the south elevation would then mirror the north elevation of the building,being stepped back in. She stated there are additional offsets along the south elevation, and a canopy,to mirror the north elevation. Planner Caroline stated there was an architectural rendering of the proposed building, and presented a picture of the rendering. She noted the architectural guidelines do not call for different materials, which the DRB had suggested. She explained the building relief would be given by the landscaping and/or in-ground lighting. Planner Caroline noted staff conclusions had changed some,in reference to the lighting and the detention ponds. She noted all of the drive aisles met code requirements for emergency vehicular access and turn around. Planner Caroline noted that Staff was still looking to see a signage plan. She continued reviewing the staff report. Ms. Wills asked about the elevation pattern. Planner Caroline explained that the pattern would be shown on the final site plan. Ms. Wills asked if parking needs had been met. Planner Caroline stated the applicant had between 1 and 3 stalls more than the minimum requirements. She explained how the parking calculations worked. She noted that parking was allowed on Technology Boulevard, which is not taken into consideration for the calculation. Chairperson Henry Sorenson asked about condition#3. Planner Caroline stated the comment was a carryover as a general condition. She stated she has scaled everything, and condition#3 could be removed. Mr. Dick Clotfelter thanked the DRB members who attended the last meeting. He noted the areas which were in question on the project. Design Review Board Minutes—October 23,2001 2 Mr. Clotfelter stated he would use a pre-cast panel for the building material on the bottom area which would match the rest of the building. Mr. Gary Ebberhardt with Re-Max, the exclusive sales agent for the advanced Tech Park, explained how the Tech Park was planned. He stated Phase I had received full review. He explained the existing three buildings, noting they consisted of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Ebberhardt explained Phase II would consist of five buildings, approximately 30,000 square feet. He reviewed pictures of Phase II. He explained that project#4 was a development for Intermountain Labs, noting they had sold this building to the University. Mr. Ebberhardt stated Yellowstone Center was operated by Turner Center, and consisted of 20,000 square feet in the project. He explained that Bridger Engineers was project#5,just under construction. He stated the entrance faced the front of the tech park building. Mr. Ebberhardt stated there were three undeveloped lots on the site. Mr. Clotfelter explained that the development would be mixed use. Ms. Shaughnessy handed out preliminary notes to clarify items that would not fit on the conceptual landscape drawings. She stated not all of the plants or materials were detailed on the plan. Ms. Shaughnessy reviewed issues of the DRB. She explained the site had been divided into habitat zones and explained the zones. She stated there was no path delineated on the plan for pedestrians to walk around the whole site,noting there would be a small path on the site starting at the main entrance, going to the main back exit. Ms. Shaughnessy explained the pedestrian walkways on the site. She suggested a decorative border on the sidewalk. She noted the water feature was the main focal point of the landscaped feature,noting there would be five or six ton boulders with a waterfall and a pond. Ms. Shaughnessy explained how the long pond would flow under the sidewalk into a culvert with a bridge or railing. She stated there would be boulders all the way along the bank of the pond, on the west side, and on the east side there would be grass to the water. She suggested it was an eco system in itself. She recommended the pathway be asphalt for handicapped accessibility. Ms. Shaughnessy explained that the boulevard trees needed to be replaced. She explained that there would be spaced street trees which would form a canopy, and 4' high berms. She explained her ideas on the trees and landscaping. Ms. Shaughnessy stated there would be a combination of shrubs and grasses. She stated the banks of the retention ponds would be lined with the lawn, noting the bottom would be lined with pebbles and cobblestones. Ms. Wills asked about one of the zones of parking located near the southeast corner of the building in back. Mr. Clotfelter explained the parking orientation. Ms. Wills suggested making the lot in question, all greenspace. Ms.Noel asked about the loading and unloading area. Mr. Clotfelter explained the loading and unloading situation. Ms. Noel asked about the color of the building. Mr. Clotfelter showed the color of the base of the building,parapet, and the canopies. He stated the visible roof would be dark green. Ms.Noel asked if the walkways would be tinted, and how they would be brought out. Mr. Clotfelter explained that they are looking at the movement of the walkways. Design Review Board Minutes—October 23,2001 3 Ms. Smith asked about the north and south elevations, landscaped beds. Ms. Shaughnessy stated they would be at sidewalk level, and bordered with the sidewalks. She stated the final level of the mulch would be lower than the sidewalk. Mr. Pohl asked if the applicant did further studies about the building orientation. Mr. Clotfelter explained that the plan as it is, seemed to be the most workable. He stated the orientation of the building worked with the streets aesthetically. Mr. Hanson asked about the issue of the berm and if the applicant had thought about putting the berm between the pond and the street. Ms. Shaughnessy explained how the berm would be oriented. Mr. Hanson asked what the water level would be in reference to the sidewalk. Ms. Shaughnessy stated it would be 1-2 feet below the sidewalk. She stated there would not be a big drop off when you cross the bridge. Chairperson Sorenson stated he went through the architectural guidelines and explained design considerations. He asked how the building responded to solar orientation. Mr. Clotfelter stated the sun was predominant to the west side and explained the orientation. Ms.Noel stated she appreciated the work that had gone into the project and how the issues had been addressed. She suggested removing the central greenspace(four package lot spaces), adding a parking space with the north area, and removing the hammerhead parking to the east. She encouraged the pedestrian pathways be discussed more. She stated the fagade of the building would look better with the diamond patterns on the upper level only. Ms. Noel suggested a tinted pavement for the pedestrian walkways. She noted she was in support of the project. Ms. Smith supported the project and noted the parking lot has a nice flow and doesn't fell that it dead ends. She noted she was impressed with the landscaping proposals. She stated the beds around the buildings at ground level might have a harsh life with snow and foot traffic, suggesting raising the beds, or use planters. Ms. Smith suggested carrying the concrete pattern on the sidewalks, from the pedestrian walkways to the building. She liked the proposed colors and wondered if they needed more separation in their tones. Ms. Smith stated the guidelines for the park looked for unique buildings and she noted she felt this particular building was different. Mr. Pohl complimented Ms. Shaughnessy on the design. He stated concerns about the landscaping and that the sidewalk near the driveway, does not have to parallel the entrance,but may meander it near the landscaping and water feature. He suggested this would ease snow removal. Mr.Pohl stated the street trees need to have continuity in species in what is mandatory to keep a uniform appearance. He noted he was also concerned by the four parking space area. He suggested eliminating those spaces and replacing them with greenspace. Mr. Clotfelter stated the Fire Department needs a certain radius for turn-around and did not want to eliminate the four spaces and have a vast expanse of asphalt. Discussion continued. Design Review Board Minutes—October 23,2001 4 Mr. Hanson applauded the applicant's efforts on the project. He stated with the location of the building and the pond amenity would be huge. He would like to see the berms limited to 4' or 5' in height. Mr. Hanson would like to have the pedestrians within the Tech Park allowed into the water feature amenity. He stated he struggled with the flow,but now liked the idea that the building breaks the parking into two pieces. He stated the end of the landscaped peninsula could be looked at as an urban element with lighting. He would like to see greenscape instead of sidewalk around the building. Chairperson Sorenson complimented the applicant on meeting the goals and the attention to the project. He complimented Ms. Shaughnessy on the landscaping, noting he believed there are difficulties with such a formal building and getting the pedestrian flow to work around it. Chairperson Sorenson suggested treating an area of asphalt as a pedestrian plaza. He did not like the four space parking area. He suggested creating a pedestrian plaza or hadscaped area, along the south elevation. Chairperson Sorenson stated the fagade to the north and the south is the same and some sort of treatment of shading along the south elevation would do a lot to minimize energy needs. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to recommend approval with staff conditions 1-7 and add two additional conditions. The first being the deletion of the two stalls in the center of the four parking space island, increase landscaping in that island, and to take the two landscape islands, one along the north boundary, one along the east boundary, and replace them with parking stalls. The second,being to accent the walkways by using a material with a contrast in color and texture, different from the rest of the parking lot. Discussion: Chairperson Sorenson suggested the building did not open itself to pedestrian access. Mr. Hanson stated the textured asphalt is an interesting material. He suggested using this material instead of making a complete change to a pedestrian space. Discussion on the pedestrian area continued. The motion carried 5-1, with Chairperson Sorenson in opposition. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Northern Rockies-#I-0140—(Morris) Corner of Highland&Ellis * An Informal Review Application for advice and comment to construct a 33,916 square foot surgical center and orthopedic center. The lower level would consist of 17,339 square feet, and the clinic would consist of 16,577 square feet. Design Review Board Minutes—October 23,2001 5 Ms. Smith and Chairperson Sorenson had to leave the DRB meeting early. Mr. Terry Stroh joined the DRB. Planner Caroline reviewed information on the project location and the building. Mr. Stroh explained that the main level would be a clinic and the lower level would be a surgical center. He stated there would be canopies at the drop off area and explained how people would enter and exit the same area,noting the two separate functions of the entry/exit. He explained the orientation of the building. Mr. Stroh stated the materials would be split face block, in a darker color, and the lighter area would be the area of Dryvit. He noted there would be timber for the columns and the soffits would add a shadow effect to the building. He explained the windows in the Dr.'s offices, (2nd Floor), and noted they were not important in the building, except in the waiting room. Mr. Pohl stated he was confused on the landscaped plan and the parking area. Mr. Stroh explained modifications have been made since the initial idea. He explained the parking layout had been done by another firm. He noted there is a 15' grade difference on the site. He stated there are huge mechanical issues. Mr. Stroh noted the lower level entry could be seen from Highland Boulevard. Mr. Pohl stated the newer elevations are a big improvement. He stated the area of the building with the elevator and stairwell seemed very high. Mr. Stroh stated they needed the height because of mechanical equipment on the roof and the elevator shaft. Mr. Pohl suggested adding 2nd story spandrels to this area to break up the blank facade. Mr. Pohl liked the choice of materials. Ms. Noel asked for an explanation on the entrance island or canopy noted on the site plan. Mr. Stroh stated the area would be used for signage. Ms.Noel liked the flat roof and the use of the materials. She suggested bringing the elements of the brackets down. She stated the band of dryvit stands out and suggested looking into that. Ms. Wills stated the proportions work much better with the new roof shapes, and worked well with other medical building designs in the area. She liked the materials, and noted the layout of the building on the site worked with the double entry. She suggested screening the staircase by adding a second row of spandrels (windows). Mr. Stroh stated there are drawings of the screened staircase. He stated the entry worked well and the generator is a code requirement, which would be incorporated into a small building structure which will have the same materials and detailing. He noted the generator would be located inside of this building. Mr. Hanson stated there will be lines through the dryvit. Mr. Stroh stated previously there were two tones of dryvit. He stated they will look at the tones of dryvit. Mr. Hanson suggested texture where the dryvit is to add more detail. He suggested breaking up the large piece of dryvit. Design Review Board Minutes—October 23,2001 6 Mr. Hanson stated on the north elevation there is a roll up door and suggested on this particular elevation, a canopy would help break up the fagade and cover up the doors. Mr. Stroh agreed that would be a good idea. Mr. Stroh explained that there will be gradually stepping down with landscaping along the east elevation. Mr. Hanson liked the flat roofs. Mr. Stroh stated they will be using real copper banding. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Pohl moved, Ms. Smith seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Henry Sorensoi , Chairperson Design Review Board Minutes—October 23,2001 7 ATTENDANCE ROSTER OCTOBER 23, 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. l_ Z��i4 T tf �U 1 y Z 2. Z 4W A, 3- 4. LEI 5. A,Mc 5 � l- 2 5 S< �i 2 Coo J 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.