Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 27, 2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23,2001 AND NOVEMBER 13, 2001 ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Stadium Center#5 FSP-#Z-01126—(Ace) 1910 Stadium Drive Lot#5 �k To allow building size and footprints for Lots 5 and 6 to vary from what as approved on the Final Site Plan. Gene Cook and Lowell Springer joined the DRB. Planning Director Andrew Epple presented the project. He stated the issue was that the Character of the project was that after the extensive review the bldgs. could come back in and be approved by staff. He stated the guidelines stated that modifications may occur if the DRB is involved in revisiting the project. He noted that the lot 5 bldg had been approved to be a 8100 sf bldg and he reviewed the parking. Planning Director Epple stated the applicants came in with a bldg which is a bigger bldg 9174 sf bigger than what was contemplated,noting bldg 6 will be 1,000 sf less than what was proposed so the parking will stay adequate. He reviewed concerns as noted in the staff memo. He reviewed the open space on the plan. He stated the action for DRB is to decide whether the modification is adequate according to the PUD. Mr. GIenn asked when the PUD was established,was it pre Master Plan. Mr. Epple stated it was, noting that if the project was reviewed under 2020 then other things may be looked for but at this point they can't go back and change things. Discussion on some sort of eatery was discussed. Mr. Cook suggested some sort of a small sandwich shop. He stated this could be possible on another lot. Mr.Pohl asked about the parking ratio. Planner Epple explained the parking ratio. Discussion on the entrance continued and Planner Epple stated he did not think that was a final entrance. Chairperson Sorenson stated there are fewer parking spaces on lot 5 &6. He stated the propertiesd will connect when a piece of the bldg comes to the property line. Mr. Epple stated the project can come up to the property line. Mr. Springer stated the guidelines read that the lots define land. He stated that in this case a maximum bldg line was established with the lot. The open space is outside of these lot lines. He stated the tenant would like the bldg to be one level. He stated Design Review Board Minutes-November 27,2001 1 the second story will be storage and will be upstairs. He reviewed the buildings. He stated there is a slight increase in the square footage and the parking ratios are exactly off of the final pud. He stated each office will have a deck area. Planner Epple showed the final landscape plan. Mr. Springer stated a lot of the buildings will be two story. He suggested if the bldgs are all two story then the site looses variety. Mr. Glenn stated he felt the request seemed reasonable. He stated the notion of greenspace in the pud he would question but is not bothered by it at all. ms. Noel stated the idea of landscaping the Kagy side with a jagged facade would be interesting. She noted she would approve the changes. ms. Wills stated she would be alright with the changes as well. Mr. Pohl has no problem with the foot print being expanded,but noted he had a problem with the entrance not lining up. Mr. Springer explained his opinion on the entrance. Mr. Epple suggested a one space shift and will talk to the engineers aobut it. mr. Hanson stated considering the sf will balance he has no concerns. Ms. Smith stated it was not significant enough to worry about the change. Chairperson Sorenson stated he agreed with Mr. Pohl, he would like the roads to line up but is in favor of the plan. M.s Smith recommended approval to the project, Mr. Hanson seconded. 7-0 motion carried. Design Review Board Minutes—November 27,2001 2 B. Lowe's Concept PUD-#Z-01223 —(Morris) East side of North 19th Avenue * A phased commercial PUD to develop 40.07 acres into 11 building sites for retail and restaurant establishments on property zoned"M-l"and `B-2". Mr. Keith Belden from Morrison-Maierle joined the DRB. Planner Morris introduced the project and reviewed the Concept Plan. She noted there were no elevations to review. She reviewed the project location and the Entryway Corridor locations. Planner Morris reviewed the Staff Report. She noted the back of the building was toward the entryway and would need to be discussed. She stated streetscape on Baxter Lane and the drive areas also needed to be discussed. Mr. Glenn asked whether the current plan worked. Planner Morris stated more effort towards pedestrian areas and landscaping needed to be seen. She explained the steps of the PUD. Ms. Wills asked about the parking on the Concept Plan and if it was for Lowe's or for the whole center. Planner Morris explained the parking situation. Mr. Glenn suggested staff should have provided a clear description on whether or not the project fit into the 2020 Plan. Planner Morris stated the description was listed on the Staff Report. Mr. Pohl had questions in relation to traffic counts and to what street the project fronted on. Planner Morris explained the primary access comes in off of Tschache Lane. She stated the recommendation from Staff was to turn the building to face the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Pohl had concerns about circulation through the site. He stated the traffic will be on Baxter Lane unless there is a signal on Tschache Lane. Chairperson Sorenson asked; long term what will happen to Tschache Lane,will it become an artery connecting to North 7th Avenue. Planner Morris explained, Tschache Lane will connect into 1 Vh Avenue. Mr. Belden gave further explanation. Chairperson Sorenson asked how the project connected with neighboring sites. He noted he was interested in how the drives would line up. He would like to know what will be happening around the site in the Concept PUD now,not later. Mr. Belden explained how the entrances would tie into Bridger Peaks Town Center. Planner Morris explained the Zoning Ordinance outlines what the applicant can do. Chairperson Sorenson suggested the Ordinance does not work well. Mr. Hanson stated there are a number of different parcels. Planner Morris stated the land will be subdivided into 5 lots. Mr. Hanson asked if the buildings were developed separate,will it be included in the whole site envelope. Planner Morris stated that each building will have to come Design Review Board Minutes-November 27,2001 3 back thru review. Mr. Belden explained how the parcels would be divided and how they will be reviewed. Ms. Smith stated that to re-review the plan the PUD needed to stipulate that all units need to go through review. She asked if Simmental Way will go all the way through. Planner Morris stated Simmental Way ends. Ms. Smith asked about the reduction of open space. Planner Morris stated that had to be decided by preliminary stage. Ms. Smith asked about land transfered between Rose Park. Planner Morris did not know. Mr. Belden explained the location of the site to Rose Park. Mr. Belden thanked the board and stated he would take trail connections into consideration. He explained the landscaped area as being 25%open space. He stated the project has the standard building and they tried to show how the rest of the site would fit in. Mr. Belden stated the Lowe's Major Site Plan will come in with the Preliminary Plat and other site plans which have to come back before the DRB. He stated traffic circulation is still up in the air,noting there is a traffic study in process. Mr. Belden stated North 15th Avenue would go through the stream if it follows the Master Plan. He noted what he wanted to review in the Concept Plan. He stated the drawing is standard and they are producing a new prototype but he did not have the elevations with him,but he would bring them back before they submit the plans. Ms. Smith stated she agreed with staff comments and would like to see how the project relates to Bridger Peaks and stated a relationship has to be established. She stated Tschache lane should be the street that Lowe's fronts on. She stated the PUD needed to reflect that the site goes thru formal review. Mr. Hanson asked what the purpose behind the openspace........ Mr. Belden explained. Mr. Hasopn asked about the access roadway. Mr. Belden stated that Lowes was isolating the back area for loadin and un-loading a private type service entrance. Mr. Hanson stated the location of the bldg. seems odd and seems scrunched up against Baxter lane. He suggested giving the bldg room to move. He questioned the access off of Tschache land and would liked ..... Mr. Hanson stated the arking area which is defined needed a pedestrian corridor to lead pedestrians from one area to another. He stated the roadway to the east, he has a problem with it, and the pickup and drop off area in the se corner and the outlet leasinto thre retail comollex to the east is an odd area. He suggested the flow of traffic could be improved in this area. The SE part of the site is distressed. Mr. Hanson stated the parking number is in excess of what the code requires and suggested as little parking as possible. Mr. Pohl stated the comments he had were already made. He asked about the parking lot count, stating the Board would like less parking instead of more. he is concerned with the pedestrian movement on the site. He stated the frontage on Tsc haceh lane is a concern without a signal. This is his b iggest concern. He stated if the plan goes thru the driveway on the east Design Review Board Minutes-November 27,2001 4 side becomes a short cut to Bridger Peaks make the site unsafe. Ms. Wills stated however the plan comes back with the bldg reorientes so the primary access is off of Baxter, she suggested flipping the access. Ms. noel concurred with Staff and added to take full advantage of Farmer's Canal. Mr. Glenn askd if the applicant knew what was happening on the other side of the site. The applicant did not. Plann3er Skelton stated there is a couple of proposals for motels. Mr. Glenn stated if the bldg is flipped and is the back and nothing gets built there then the bldg would back to North 19"'. He suggested puttig the back of the bldg towards Semmintal Way. he concurred with the Board to make the site more organized and pedestrian friendly. Mr. Belden explained how the access tie together. Pedestrian nodes would be helpful according to Henry. SEE TAPE C. Rocky Mountain Surgery Center—#Z-01221 —(Morris) Corner of Highland Boulevard and Ellis Street * A Major Site Plan Application to develop .536 acres into an Orthopedic Clinic and Day Surgical Center. Terry Stroh joined the DRB. Planner Morris introduced the project. She noted the applicant had addressed the comments and concerns that were introduced by the DRB. Mr. Glenn asked about the parking. Planner Morris stated that the parking and the openspace were determined in the PUD> She noted the parking is common. Mr. Pohl stated there were a lot of stalls that were unprotected. He suggested there were several areas like that. Planner Morris noted that the parking was addressed under the PUD. Mr. Pohl stated the plant list looked fine. Mr. Stroh explained the project. He explained the levels of the building. He stated the structure will be massive in terms of construction and will be a block bldg with rock face block and Dryvit material. He stated the flashing will be copper. He stated the tallest part of the structure is the waiting room of the clinic. He described the materials and described the building design. He explained the employee entry. Design Review Board Minutes-November 27,2001 5 Mr. Glenn liked the architectural expression. He stated he is pleased with the two story building. He stated the building will look like stucco material. Ms. Noel supported the flat roofs and the project. Ms. Wills in support of the project. Mr. Pohl concurred. Mr. Hanson is in support of the project and asked if the glazing is reflective. Mr. Stroh stated there will be a tint to the windows. Chairperson Soornson asked about the copper band and asked where it was located. Mr. STroh explained the location. Chairperson Sornson questioned the ETFS. He suggested block where the EIFS is located. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved to approve the project as presented by staff with no conditions. Ms. Noel seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Design Review Board Minutes-November 27,2001 6 D. Headlands Subdivision PUD-#Z-01104A—(Skelton) Bridger Drive, East of Story Mill Road * An Application for a Conditional Use Permit,requesting the elimination of a condition of approval,which requires the applicant to install a pedestrian trail along the south side of Headlands Drive. Mr. Van Bryan joined the DRB. Planner Dave Skelton reviewed the Staff Report and noted the applicant would like to eliminate a condition of approval which requires the applicant to install a pedestrian trail along the south side of Headlands Drive. Chairperson Sorenson stated the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance requires internal pedestrian circulation. Mr. Bryan stated there will be circulation with the trail on the North side of Headlands Drive. He stated there will be limited circulation. He stated each one of the turnarounds meet City Standards. Mr. Bryan stated the language of the condition was not conveyed correctly to the City Commission. Mr. Glen asked for clarification on the plan. Mr. Bryan stated the area in question shows where the property line would be. He stated his preference would be to see an informal rural like trail system, internal to the development. He stated he is not suggesting a formal sidewalk but some sort of path that interlinks the units. Mr. Bryan suggested they tried to specify open relationships with no interior fences so the movement could be free on the site. Mr. Glenn stated there should be some way to set up pedestrian movement between each cul-de-sac. Ms.Noel stated she was in support of an interior trail, noting with no interior sidewalk there is a potential safety issue. She stated a trail next to Headlands Drive would be redundant, but suggested a meandering trail through the site would be a good idea. Ms. Noel stated a trail linking the cul-de-sacs would mitigate potential problems, suggesting there needed to be some kind of trail. Ms. Wills stated a trail on the backside of the project would be more appealing and would link the cul-de-sacs. She suggested a meandering link is important,not only vehicular based. Mr. Pohl stated the highest priority is the trail that becomes a public trail and stated he felt linking of the homes will happen anyway. He stated the most urgent need is the trail which links the trails. He stated both trails would be redundant. Design Review Board Minutes-November 27,2001 7 Mr. Bryan stated they had meetings with adjoining neighbors and noted they did not want prominent circulation in their back yard. Ms. Smith stated she was frustrated with the project and wanted to know where the trail would lead. She suggested the development did not have a sense of community at all and having the trail in the current location, there was definitely no sense of community. Mr. Bryan state he felt there was fault in Ms. Smith arguments. Ms. Smith stated that the neighborhood park had no means to reach the park and so the park would not benefit the entire community. Ms. Smith stated that a block is far to walk to get to a trail. She stated she would not support the removal of the condition. Planner Skelton stated Staff was open to other ideas for pedestrian circulation. Mr. Glenn stated the houses should be developed to front Headland Drive and the applicant should not be afraid of a more formal public realm. He stated there needed to be some sort of trail that is usable by pedestrians. Mr. Hanson stated there are two issues and he believed the trail along Bridger Drive is important. He stated because of the linear location of the development,the pathway would be public. He suggested widening Headland Drive. He concurred with Mr. Glenn to have an informal pathway from cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac. Mr. Hanson stated there needed to be a secondary access to the park. Mr. Pohl asked what the nature of the park was. Mr. Bryan stated there has been no specific use dedicated. MOTION: Mr. Glen moved,Ms. Noel seconded,to amend condition 4, and to continue to require the applicant to have a pedestrian pathway to link the interior residential cul-de-sacs with one another and with the park on the south side of Headlands Drive. That the applicant not be required to install a full 6' wide drive,but a pathway that will still meet ADA requirements while being pervious, leaving the width and location to designers and staff for the location of the meandering trail, for use by the residents and their guest. Discussion on the trail continued. The motion carried 5-1,with Mr. Pohl in opposition. Design Review Board Minutes—November 27, 2001 8 ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn Ms.Noel moved,Mr.Ranson seconded. This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator,Ron Brey,at 582-2305(voice)or 582-2301 (TDD). Design Review Board Minutes—November 27, 2001 9 ATTENDANCE ROSTER NOVEMBER 27, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.