Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-16 DRB MinutesDesign Review Board Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 5:30 pm, City Hall, City Commission Chambers – 121 N. Rouse A. Call meeting to order and Roll Call Board Member ‐ Bill Rea: Present Board Member ‐ Melvin Howe: Present Board Member ‐ Lori Garden: Present Board Member ‐ Mark Hufstetler: Present B. Changes to the Agenda C. 05:42:55 PM Approve Meeting Minutes – November 18, 2016 and January 13, 2016 and January 27, 2016 ‐ minutes approved as they are written D. 05:43:09 PM Public Comment – No public comment Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes. E. 05:44:29 PM Action Items A. 15583– The Lark Hotel Addition Site Plan/COA Application – (Rogers/Kohtz) 136 West Main Street A site plan and certificate of appropriateness application to allow the construction of a 28 room hotel with ground floor commercial space on 7,333 square foot lot. 05:44:45 PM Tom Rogers begins presentation on the project. 05:59:29 PM Applicant Brian Caldwell from Think Tank Design begins applicant presentation: discusses history of the project and development plans – touching on site design, materials, etc. 06:19:02 PM Eric Nelson from Think Tank Design begins second applicant presentation. 06:21:01 PM Board opens questions for staff and applicant. 06:21:20 PM Mark Hufstetler questions Tom Rogers on how he would like the board to continue since the project presented is different than the one originally evaluated in the staff report. Mr. Rogers states that running changes are less than ideal, but that staff did not make a finding in one direction or another regarding the original project. If the board wants to review the project more and come back to it at a later date, that’s fine. Otherwise, they can comment on the revised plans as they see them now. 06:23:53 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions if there are any parking issues associated with the project. Mr. Rogers states that they have addressed all parking concerns. He states they have entered a long term agreement with the parking garage to meet their demand. 06:24:53 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions if they are running low on parking garage space. Mr. Rogers responds that he did not want to dive into that, but the short answer is yes. 06:25:18 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions the applicant on the wood materials being used and whether it will read as wood from the street. Applicant responds that yes, it will look like wood. Applicant responds that the existing part of the building incorporates the wood and this would be building on that to appear as one campus. 06:26:55 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions if the metal surfaces being used will be compatible with the existing materials. Applicant responds that yes, they will be using the same material for a portion and the same material for other areas in a different color. 06:27:56 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions if the applicant feels this new building is complimenting existing historic structures and how they have adjusted the design to fit the existing street scape. Applicant responds that the building is based on context on site. If they were not making an extension of an existing building they may have considered context differently, but they were largely looking for continuity on the existing site. He states in reference to context of the area, that massing is complimentary to the area. They decided not to come to the street with a 4‐5 story building. 06:30:59 PM Richard Ferno responds he didn’t feel that the original design was complimentary to Grand, so they brought that in line. 06:33:12 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions if they had done any after dark renderings for the property. Applicant states that they will complete those after the final design is done, as it is costly to complete them. 06:33:55 PM Mr. Hufstetler questions if the upper level windows will be obvious in the evening. Applicant responds that they will likely be illuminated. He stated that specifically with regards to the courtyard side, those windows will be illuminated depending on occupancy. 06:34:37 PM Lessa Racow questions the seating area on the front of the property near Main Street. She questions if there would be fencing there. Applicant responds that they do not currently plan to have a fence. However, if any of the occupants of the commercial space decide to serve alcohol, it would be required by the state. He states that the existing outdoor seating area showed a desire for visitors and individuals from the community to want to engage the space, so they saw it was an opportunity to expand on the Victory Taco truck that was there by adding the commercial space. 06:36:17 PM Deputy Mayor Andrus questions again how the applicant feels the property contributes to the downtown area. Applicant responds that it was important to make a strong connection to the existing building on site. He states that across the street is a bank and they were not attempting to make a connection to the bank. He states that the property is not directly in the historic overlay district. He states that they are trying to create best‐practice architecture that is in line with what is being done today, not false historical buildings. He states that they are also working on the Rialto and that project is directly in line with other historic buildings, so it’s important to have it fit the fabric of historic downtown. Whereas, with this property, it’s an opportunity to grow from the preservation that was upheld with the existing buildings downtown. 06:38:50 PM Deputy Mayor Andrus questions the life expectancy of the metal and wood. Applicant responds that it should be relatively maintenance free for 25‐30 years. Discussion continues regarding materials being proposed. 06:41:25 PM Bill Rea questions the open bench that currently exists in the existing building. Applicant responds that it was intended to be a planter, but because it sits in the public right of way, they were going to finish it to be a bench. 06:42:22 PM Bill Rea states that the review feels a little more like an informal review. Applicant responds that none of the base requirements, like parking, connection to utilities, etc. have changed and so he would like to keep the revisions moving forward based on their input. 06:44:05 PM Questions for the applicant and staff closed and open for public comment. 06:44:28 PM Public Comment – Eric Bendick states that he lives on the south side of town and frequents down town. He really appreciated what the Lark has done to bring in the community. He feels it is embracing the community and inviting them in, in a way that Main Street should be proud of. He feels it is adding a dynamic that has not been seen in many other projects and adds life to downtown in a way that many other projects do not. 06:46:46 PM Public Comment ‐ Nolan Campbell – 218 East Olive – He stated that the original building created a lot of positive buzz about Bozeman. He stated that a lot of developers try to push the cheapest building allowable by code – and that’s not what you’re seeing here. He states that with regards to historical context – when the historical buildings were created, they weren’t trying to replicate something. He supports not keeping to a historical context, but allowing development to grow more naturally. He appreciates the collaboration and presented changes that have been made. 06:49:58 PM Christian Shultz – 1604 W. Lincoln Street – He states that he is the owner of an art design studio and wants to put on record his support for the project. He states that when he looks at a lot of development downtown, he sees something that is being repeated all over – a faux historical building. He states it is not his personal favorite, but is something that has dominated downtown. He would like to see some more diversity downtown. He thinks the Lark adds some diversity. He sees the architecture of Bozeman as a layering of different eras of architecture – he would like to see the city embrace old and new. He feels the Lark – in a very short time – has become an architectural icon. He feels it is inviting in people from all over the world. He thinks that it would be a very healthy addition to downtown. 06:53:51 PM Michael Wilson – He stated that he moved here in 2002 and open Plonk. He states that he supports the project because it will keep us unique and promotes infill downtown. 06:55:19 PM Kevin Boyels – Rocky Creek – He supports the original hotel and appreciates it. He does question building a hotel without parking for vehicles. He questions the type of experience they are promoting to have guests walk 2‐5 blocks from a parking garage or having to park on the south side of town in a residential area. He’s curious of the effect this will have on repeat customers. 06:56:39 PM Public Comment – Bob Bailey – 329 North Montana Ave – Stated that he stayed in the Lark in May 2015. He stayed there prior to moving to Bozeman and said it was everything he wanted in the next chapter of his life. He stated that it is unique and it should be celebrated. Stated that he visited Yelp and it had the highest ratings in Bozeman. Of 15 comments all gave it 5/5 stars. Read the reviews from Yelp and stated that the comments made tonight are not alone. He stated that the first was well received and the second part compliments it very nicely. 07:00:41 PM Jeff Krauss – wasn’t going to speak, but wanted to speak to the historical context being mentioned so far this evening. He stated that we are not looking to mimic the historical context. This was a transition point as you transition out of downtown. He states that they are trying to mimic what is already in place and not what is further east, what is truly historical. He stated that traditionally, it is more associated with 19th or 7th than it is to downtown. 07:03:27 PM Close public comment. 07:03:54 PM Open up discussion among the board. 07:04:52 PM Melvin Howe comments that they are presented with a project that is a bit of a surprise. He stated that the first half of the project was a surprise also, but a pleasant surprise. He states that driving into downtown, it is a fresh and modern space. He feels that this addition will do the same. He states that he tries to think what Fred Willson would do and he thinks that he would have gone with it – never doing the same thing twice (I assume this to mean that he would not try to replicate past architecture). 07:06:18 PM Lessa Racow questions if they will offer valet or do they currently offer valet for customers. Applicant explains that currently do offer valet parking. However, they are fortunate in that they have spaces available for onsite parking as well. Where some hotels only have valet, if there are customers who will need their vehicles immediately, the hotel is able to accommodate them. 07:08:11 PM Lessa Racow states that she likes the existing hotel. She states that she appreciates that they brought in the revised drawings. She thinks the revisions are more cohesive. She appreciates that they are building up the corner of that block – which is better than the parking lot that is there. She feels it will be a great anchor to downtown. She likes the store front glass along Main Street and thinks it gives it a nice commercial feel on the ground level. I she has reservations about the dark gray color and questions what it would look like as a lighter gray or a non‐reflective white. She thinks that a different color might give it a more modern color. She is not bothered by them not doing a brick more historical‐looking building – especially since it’s on the corner and not abutting another building. She feels its fine to be its own building as long as it is a permanent structure. She stated she was concerned originally with the wood, but understands now the materials being used. She likes the wood tying into the existing building, especially now that it has been scaled back. She said she has reservations about the unaligned windows, but will leave it to others to discuss – she is worried that the windows will make it look dated, quickly. She appreciates that they got a landscape architect – and you can see the quality in it. She feels it was an asset to their project. 07:13:33 PM Mark Hufstetler states that he appreciates the original Lark as well. He feels it is an asset to the community, in that it has enhanced the pedestrian landscape. He feels it extends the pedestrian connectivity of the west. He states that he knows what was there before and they had a design challenge with creating the Lark and handled it well. He appreciates the design change presented tonight. He feels the level of insight is limited because they’ve only had a few minutes to review the drawings. He feels Jeff Krauss made a good point that previously that was the edge of downtown. He feels it made a transition from urban core to the rest of town. He feels over time the downtown core has been expanding and that it will continue to expand, so they need to consider that as they approve buildings along that core. He appreciates the added density of the building – he feels it’s a respectful size. He states he would have been fine with additional stories at the street. He feels they are installing the bookend to downtown, so there is a level of importance to this building that something on the interior might not have. He feels it’s an innovative building and will serve the street scape very well. He is concerned with the multi‐story end on the back. He feels it is very heavy and not very compatible with a commercial urban core – especially one with a pedestrian level of interaction. He feels this could be helped by adding more textural detail. Even though it is set back, people will see that and it is a representation of that the rest of the street scape could look like – and he’s not sure it will do it justice. He feels that some comments may have missed the point of historic overlay districts. He states the exiting buildings have a diversity in architectural styles – in the past, they had even more variety, and they interacted well together. He stated that what makes a historic neighborhood work is the interaction between buildings, not uniformity. Therefore, the buildings need to be respectful in orientation and scale. He said the project has an innovative design – he is glad it’s not another red brick building. He is glad the project creates a memorable design. He feels this building is not compatible in that it doesn’t respect the rhythm of the current neighborhood. That it perhaps falls a little short. Because of the materials used, he feels it may not have the level of texture evident in other buildings downtown. He feels the texture is key in making the building compatible. He’s glad it doesn’t match architecture, but it should respect the overall cultural landscape. In comparing it to the Lark, it complements the Lark’ design very well, but possibly turns something unique into something monolithic – which could do a disservice to the Lark overall. 07:23:59 PM Bill Rea states this is more of an informal in that the project is still living and breathing, not a final version. He stated that when he first saw the original drawings, he was concerned, but feels those issues have been addressed nicely. He likes what has been done with Lark 1 and the addition of Victory Taco. He thinks this is the right solution for that corner. He supports the changes made from the original drawings and that it is headed in the right direction. He feels is fits the downtown improvement plan. He likes the change in the way the building addresses the street corner – he was prepared to address that, but it’s already been done. He feels that the plaza will be a nice spot in the summer. In terms of design he feels we’re at a 90%. He feels the last 10% needs to address scale of the building along Gran. He feels the abstract windows should be a more human scaled, he feels that it throws off the façade. He said the windows seem to imply a 3 story building, but it’s more like 5 and that’s “architecturally dishonest” so he feels the windows should be scaled down. He feels that the tower has been scaled better and fits better. He agrees that they should add another floor on the corner ‐ there would be more leasable space. He feels it’s a small detail, but the overhang might be undersized. He feels the Lark has a lot going on, on its own and it has its own iconic look and he’s afraid that too much happening on the new building could compete with that. He feels the Lark 2 has been tuned down a little already, but that it still may be a little over detailed. If it were a little quieter, it could let Lark 1 be the focus, and would help with guest orientation. He loved the red control tower. He has no concerns with the yellow color or materials. He likes the plaza and that it’s inviting and hopes that instead of alcohol, maybe serve coffee to not have to add a fence there. He agrees with much of what was presented in the staff report, but it is a new design now, so that needs to be sorted out. He appreciates the comments about parking and hopes that the parking garage has enough space to accommodate guests – he said it sounds like the applicant has a great solution for parking. He hopes that overall it moves forward. 07:33:34 PM Deputy Mayor Andrus states that the staff report was well done and she appreciates that it was done in a way that allowed for the applicant to respond and that the applicant did respond to the criticism. She stated she is in favor of what has been done and the landscape proposal. She thinks some texture on this would be a good idea. She said she thinks about that in the context of there being a lot going on and isn’t sure how to add texture and to quiet the building down a little. She feels the flat gray wall could use something. She stated this is reminiscent of the coop, which concerned people, but is a great building now. She stated that this is a good direction for the transition to midtown. She appreciates the context that Mark is talking about the building with regards to historical context, but she thinks a new building is exciting in downtown. She likes adding the interesting change in design. With regard to parking, she stated that they have currently put a hold on leasing additional spots until they can get a count on how many vehicles are currently coming in and out of the garage. The parking commission is also looking into what the next parking solution will be if that garage is full. She just wanted to let people know where they stood with regards to parking. 07:37:12 PM Lessa Racow moves “Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment and information presented, I make a motion for application 15583 and move to recommend approval of the site plan and certificate of appropriateness with the recommended conditions. Second by Melvin Howe. 07:38:18 PM Discussion on the motion. 07:38:22 PM Mr. Hufstetler stated that he will abstain from the vote because he thinks it’s important to respond to a staff report that is current – since we do not have that given the design revisions, he is not comfortable making a vote. 07:38:59 PM Melvin Howe stated that he is comfortable voting. Bill Rea states that procedurally no one is sure how to handle it, but he likes that it is moving forward. He questions how staff would like to move forward. 07:39:38 PM Mr. Rogers states that the board has the authority to question staff based on the revised materials and can ask the applicant to come back – which is less than ideal, considering it will adjust the time line of the project. He stated that the motion is good, because it does not include staff findings. He thinks that their review at the meeting was comprehensive and included public comment. The meeting was recorded and will be forwarded to the commission. He stated that staff findings will be updated before going before the commission. He doesn’t feel the proposed changes anything fundamentally on the site plan – which was approved at the DRC with conditions. 07:42:21 PM Bill Rea questions how beneficial it would be to review this project again. Mr. Hufstetler states that it would not be much different, but that it would be about setting a precedent and respecting a procedure that is in place. 07:44:28 PM Vote: Melvin Howe: Approves Lessa Racow: Approves Bill Rea: Approves Mark Hufstetler: Abstains E. 07:45:14 PM FYI/Discussion F. 07:45:25 PM Adjournment For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the second and fourth Wednesday of the month at 5:30pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582‐2307 (TDD 582‐2301).