Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY,JUNE 9, 1998 MINUTES ITEM I. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. She directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Kim Walker Mara-Gai Katz Debbie Arkell Gene Graf Roger Cruwys John Sherman David Jarrett Walt Willett Andrew Epple Lowell Springer Bill Hanson Carol Schott Doug Morley Paul Gleye Ed McCrone Henry Sorenson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 27, 1998,MEETING Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to the minutes. Mr. Gleye moved, Mr. Cruwys seconded, that the minutes be approved as submitted. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Gallatin Center Concept PUD#Z-9859 - (Arkell) West of N. 19'" Avenue between Baxter Lane and Valley Center Drive A Concept PUD to allow development of 142 acres into commercial PUD lots. (Final review) Gene Graf and Dave Jarrett joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the application. Mr. Gleye asked why the applicant is proposing private streets. Mr. Graf noted private streets would not create as much asphalt cover as public streets, also, he is proposing a swale to emphasis the green area and the creek. He noted that West Catron Creek had been relocated in the 1950's and he and his client recently relocated it closer to it's original path. Mr. Jarrett noted they will meander the trail alongside the creek. Planner Arkell clarified that the streets will be dedicated,they just will not be installed to city standards, but will be built similar to Catron Street. Mr. Graf noted the changes they are proposing to Catron Creek. Planner Arkell noted that the proposed 70 foot landscape easement shown adjacent to North 19`h doesn't extend to the lots on the north side of Valley Center Road, and the zoning ordinance requires a minimum 50-foot Design Review Board Minutes-June 9.1998 i landscape setback along this entryway. Mr. Graf noted the location of the deeded access points along North 19th Avenue. He noted how the existing streets are proposed to be extended and options available. He continued that the City Commission will have to decide if the North 27th should be extended through Thomas Drive along the west property line or if it is acceptable in the location proposed. He noted they are continuing discussions with the City Engineer regarding this issue. Planner Arkell explained that the preliminary PUD can provide the details on building footprints, etc., and if so, future site plan review may not be required. If the detailed information is not provided, site plan review would be required for all lots. Mr. Hanson asked for the uses of the land, to which Mr. Graf noted the existing uses for Costco and the Wingate Hotel. He noted the possible uses in the current proposal are most uses permitted in the districts for which the land is zoned. Mr. Cruwys noted that he feels most of the uses are already etched in stone, due to the details provided on the plan. Mr. Jarrett noted they have no one signed up for that area as of yet. He noted that their developers have said that 4 or 5 large business may be interested in the 15 acre parcel. (There were two conversations at once.) Mr. Cruwys asked if West Catron Creek is an active stream. Mr. Graf noted it barely flows out of a wetlands area. Mr. Cruwys noted the massiveness of the parking areas with no green space relief was a concern last week. Mr. Jarrett noted they are focusing on eye appeal, and want an attractive development. Mr. Cruwys noted the large parking lots are rarely filled to capacity. He noted that Lot 8, and others to the west, back right up to the property line. He was concerned about the blankness of the backs of the structures and the need for green spaces with trees. He'd like to see the "drainage easement" changed to stream corridor. Mr. Hanson concurred with most of what Mr. Cruwys stated. He asked about the road design not having curb and gutter. Mr. Graf noted that was correct. Mr. Hanson noted that the life of the road surface will be shorter without curb and gutter. Mr. Jarrett showed a diagram of the layout of the street, swale,trail, and creek. Mr. Hanson was concerned with the amount of traffic on the proposed street. He and Mr. Graf discussed the similarities and differences between this street proposal and Kagy Blvd. to South 19"Avenue. Mr. Jarrett noted that they will maintain the streets themselves, including the repair of them. Mr. Hanson was also concerned with the width of the gravel shoulder alongside the street. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell noted that the City Commission allowed Catron Street to develop at a less than city standard when they approved the Graf minor subdivision, even though Staff recommended City standard streets. Mr. Hanson was concerned about the standards that will be used during development. Discussion followed on whether or not DRB will see this project again, and they were advised that they will review the preliminary plan, once submitted. Design Review Board Minutes-June 9,1998 2 Mr. Cruwys noted that Lots 12, 13, and 14 are quite small and may not be buildable. Mr. Jarrett noted that lot 13 will probably be split and go half with each of the other two lots. Mr. Willett noted he likes the design, and commented that he hopes the buildings will be scaled down with more massive green spaces on each lot. Chairperson Walker commented that with all the parking there may not be room for buildings. She'd like to see larger green areas. She was concerned with the private roads and how pedestrians will circulate. Mr. Graf noted there are continuous sidewalks and trails included on the plans. Mr. Graf noted 1.4 acres of the 3+acre lot that the Wingate Motel will be built on will be green space. Mr. Gleye asked how far North 27th Avenue will extend. Mr. Graf noted it will probably cross the Dead Man's Gulch intersection. Discussion followed on the extensions of other streets. Mr. Gleye noted that in Lots 6, 7, and 8, the backs of the buildings are facing the collector street. Mr. Graf and Mr. Jarrett noted that they are suggesting a jog in North 27th street to allow double frontage for the adjoining property. (Mr. Sorenson joined the DRB.) Mr. Gleye asked about the parking, noting it appears to be the largest unrelieved expanse of parking in Bozeman. Mr. Graf disagreed. Mr. Gleye recommended that they address some kind of entrance treatment to enhance the look from the street. Mr. McCrone noted he concurred with Mr. Willett on increasing the green space. He asked how long it will be before they will be 70 to 80% built out. Mr. Jarrett noted it would be approximately 10 to 15 years. Mr. McCrone commended the architectural guidelines as for how thoroughly they have been written. Mr. Sorenson noted concern with the architectural review where the construction committee could include architects, planners, etc. He feels that every member of the committee should be a licensed designer. He noted that in the concept for the community vision, he recommended they implement the use of green spaces, as Mr. Cruwys has suggested. He suggested that Mr. Graf and Mr. Springer(Stoneridge PUD) get together and connect their stream course and pedestrian way, which should save them both in detailing what will happen between the two properties. He suggested master planning the land use, and the scale and key elements; the tenants would then be able to build within that framework. Mr. Jarrett noted that each prospective business has a different concept and if they don't see what they want, they choose to go somewhere else. Mr. Sorenson noted that he has experienced the growth of a city over the farm land or forests, and those areas are now strip malls and parking lots. Mr. Graf noted his family plans to stay here and not sell any more land than necessary. He noted the plans under review now are engineering diagrams that don't show the green areas. He noted they are going to try to separate their development from the one to the east by making it better and more eye-appealing. Design Review Board Minutes-June 9,1998 3 Mr. Cruwys expanded on Mr. Sorenson's idea of how a community can be laid out by describing a community he designed, noting that he built the framework, and the tenants came. He discussed how the framework could be worked out before the engineers get started on their part. Mr. Graf noted that they are looking at no maintenance exteriors. B. Keller Supply Company MaSP/COA#Z-9888 - (Sherman) 75 Rawhide Ridge - A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a 19,770 sq. ft. office, showroom, warehouse structure in the North 19`h Entryway Overlay District. (First of two reviews) Doug Morley and Lowell Springer joined DRB. Urban Designer/Planner John Sherman presented the application. He noted his concerns are with the metal exterior. He distributed photos of other structures recently constructed in the area. Chairperson Walker asked if Planner Sherman was going to make a full staff report for the next meeting. He noted he would be including it with the next DRB packet. Mr. Springer noted they have run the project through the Simmental architectural committee. He noted the setbacks required by the association. He noted there will be another building constructed on the north side. He noted that the association required windows along the blank side. He explained the reasoning behind the design. Discussion followed on the placement of the sidewalk, the landscaping that will be installed and where, the ramp, the type of trees in the landscaping. Mr. Cruwys suggested using some different deciduous and a large number of conifers trees. Mr. Springer noted he would like rather not put slats in the chain link fence, but rather install a hedge in front of it. Mr. Cruwys noted that there are 2 x 4's across the top of the fence and caps over the posts. Planner Sherman noted that if outside storage is used, they are required to have a 6 foot high opaque fence. Chairperson Walker noted the building doesn't have a character. It is a very functional warehouse building. It has very long expanses and no enhancement of the entrance. Mr. Springer noted he used few architectural features, trying to keep the structure simple. Mr. Gleye noted the problem is the roof doesn't serve the plumbing supply business well. He suggested getting rid of the mansard roof entirely, as it makes the length of the building greater by emphasizing it. Mr. Willett asked if it is a wholesale or retail. Mr. Daws noted there is minimal retail. Mr. Gleye asked where the entry doors are located. Mr. Springer explained they are within an alcove to protect them from the wind from the west. Design Review Board Minutes-June 9,1998 4 Discussion followed on the fence and the improvement of them with landscaping. Discussion on the roof features and breaking the roofline with different planes and emphasizing the entryway and de-emphasizing the rest of the building. Planner Sherman asked if there was any mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Springer noted it is not, it is located in a mechanical room. Mr. Sorenson noted it is a large rectangular roof and a flat roof is appropriate,however,he noted the unrelieved long surfaces are not appropriate and the mansard roof isn't a functional form. He suggested moving the pods and covering them with a distinctly different material than the rest of the building. He suggested a pitched roof, which is more simple and bold. He noted the concept of the mesh screening with the landscaping is great. Mr. McCrone noted the roof is fine with him. He commended the use of landscaping on both of the faces of the building. Mr. Hanson is concerned with the expanse of the east elevation even with the addition of windows. He noted the mansard roof creates a great lineal statement. He suggested something that starts and stops walls. He noted the use of masonry helps to break up the walls in this case. He feels this proposal is better that Gibson Guitar and but not to the level of some of the newer buildings in that area. He noted the chainlink fence would be best with landscaping as screening for the opaqueness. He suggested the PVC coated chain link fence. Discussion followed on the appropriateness of the fence and the life of this type of fence. Mr. Willett suggested stopping the mansard roof and grouping the windows with a short section of mansard roof covering them, it would look better. Mr. Cruwys concurred with Mr. Sorenson that gathering some of the windows would help break up the length. He noted plantings should not be used in lieu of good architectural taste,but they should compliment one another. Planner Arkell noted that Mr. Springer has two options-he can stick with what he has proposed or he can start over. Mr. Springer noted he has received several good comments that he can work with, and he can have the new plans here for next week's packets. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT For the Good of the Order: Chairperson Walker noted that having two reviews on some of the projects is difficult for the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell explained the idea. Chairperson Walker suggested not doing this type of review again. She wants a staff report and the option to table, approve, or deny. Discussion followed on what Mr. Springer has to do by next Tuesday. Mr. Gleye noted that clear, consistent procedures are necessary for applicants. He also noted that any new issues will Design Review Board Minutes-June 9,I998 5 be difficult to bring up next time. Mr. Hanson noted that one of the problems is that the submittal needs to stop if the submittal isn't complete. In other communities, the submittal is sent back if not complete. He noted that if all criteria have been met, then process the application. Chairperson Walker suggested that all staff use the same format, type, style for staff reports. She would prefer to continue, approve, or deny an application, based upon the staff report and the meeting content. Mr. Sorenson noted it is better if the Planners come in to the meeting as the tough guys. That way the DRB can massage the conditions. MOTION: Mr. Gleye moved, Mr. Willett seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 7-0. Kim Walker, Chairperson, Design Review Board c Design Review Board Mnutes-June 9, 1998 6