Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-16 DRB Minutes for Approval Design Review Board Wednesday, November 9, 2016, 5:30 p.m. City Hall, Madison Room 05:33:34 PM (00:05:39) Call meeting to order and Roll Call. Present were: Bill Rea, Chair Peter Constanti Charley Franklin Lessa Racow Mark Hufstetler Brady Ernst Kiersten Iwai Cyndy Andrus, Commissioner Liaison 05:35:01 PM (00:07:06) Changes to the Agenda. No changes were made to the agenda. 05:35:09 PM (00:07:14) Opening Comments. Commissioner Liaison Cyndy Andrus reviewed the composition of the Design Review Board and gave an overview of the type of projects reviewed by this body, which is advisory to the Commission. She reminded the Board that what they are looking at is the design, architectural elements and landscaping. They are not looking at parking, except as it relates to design, and traffic. 05:39:53 PM (00:11:58) Bill Rea noted there are three new members tonight who may listen, ask questions and comment but are not allowed to vote for the first two meetings. He then reviewed the process to be followed in this meeting, noting that public comment will be closed after forty comments to ensure that comments are focused. He stated forty-seven written comments have been received to date. 05:42:24 PM (00:14:29) City Clerk Robin Crough stated she has been informed by the Fire Marshal that the room is at capacity so no additional people will be allowed but it is being broadcast in the lobby. 05:44:03 PM (00:16:08) Public Comment. Responding to questions raised, Bill Rea stated that no questions will be answered during the public comment process; rather, it is a time for the Board to receive information. Brian Krueger, Community Development, stated that parking is addressed by the Development Review Committee and noted that comment should be submitted in writing since the Commission has reclaimed decision authority on this project. 05:47:37 PM (00:19:42) Randy Peters, owner of 210 South Black Avenue, noted the house was built in 1930 and is the first house on Black Avenue lying in the Black/Tracy Historic District. He is opposed to the project as it currently stands because of the mass and scale of the building, which it is not appropriate to surrounding neighborhoods and structures. He showed renderings of the proposed building in relation to existing buildings in the immediate area, noting it is quite massive. He stated privacy will be impacted as well as the potential for light pollution. He quoted provisions in the code, which identify sensitivity, compatibility and appropriateness to the surrounding area as issues to be addressed and concluded by voicing concern about the massing of this project and the lack of buffering for the adjacent residential neighborhood. 05:51:52 PM (00:23:57) Richard Canfield, 726 South Third Avenue, stated this proposal is inappropriate in terms of design, scale and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He raised concerns about numerous design changes made In the Element Hotel project, which was also a Home Base project, without City staff involvement and no apparent repercussions. He asked how the City justifies the lack of response to those actions, what changes the City has made to ensure this type of action does not occur again, and how transparency in the process can be increased. He concluded by asking staff to address these questions in a public forum at its first opportunity. 05:53:59 PM (00:26:04) Clark Babcock, 323 South Bozeman Avenue, stated he has lived in this area for many years, and has seen very few changes in that time. He went to the architect’s website where he saw a number of five-story buildings. He printed pictures of some random projects in Boulder and Denver that fit with the building code but which he does not believe fit with this neighborhood. He expressed concern about the amount of black proposed on this building, stating it does not fit with the area. He concluded by asking that the Board to consider whether this contemporary building has met the goal of fitting into the existing fabric of the historic neighborhood. 05:57:29 PM (00:29:34) Richard Brown, 507 West Babcock Street, noted the issue of infill versus sprawl has been raised several times in conjunction with this project. He stated that, while some people may want to live downtown, others prefer to live where they can have a lawn and a garden. He stated the apartments will be expensive and above the income level of many Bozeman residents. The project may be legal, but he questioned if is it moral. He noted it will degrade the enjoyment of life of the people next door and the value of their homes, and it will add more cars to an already packed downtown. He submitted a picture from Austin, Texas, showing historic structures similar to Bozeman’s downtown with high rises in the background. He is concluded by stating he is against the mass, scale and design of the project, noting he feels a design more compatible with the 1913 Fred Willson Blackmore Apartments across the street would be preferable. 06:00:24 PM (00:32:29) Darrel Behrent, 208 Lindley Place, noted the intent and purpose of the B-3 zoning district is to promote commercial development. He questioned how 1,000 of retail space with approximately 18,000 square feet of apartments on four floors above it is commercial. He turned to the design guidelines for B-3 zoning, which allow a downward transition in building height from the alley to the residential area. He noted that the Big Sky Western Bank is located along East Babcock Street, then the Blackmore Apartments, and then this proposed building, which is almost 20 feet higher. He turned attention to the site plan, which shows a trash collection area on north side with gates opening over sidewalk. He noted the trash collection should be in a service area where the truck can service it without blocking the sidewalk and the street. He concluded by noting the design guidelines state a development should respect the historic settlement patterns; and he does not believe this project complies with that guideline, particularly when considered in light of the Blackmore Apartments across the street. 06:04:11 PM (00:36:16) Alan Kesselheim, 414 East Olive Street, stated he sent a letter but has an additional item. He noted Bozeman prides itself on having a thriving downtown. A lot of the reason is that it is embraced by blocks of residential homes and thousands of people who go to local events. His fear is that as this kind of monolithic structure moves into that ring, people will be less and less motivated to live there, the quality of life will go down, and the thriving downtown will also go down. 06:05:51 PM (00:37:56) Scott Dreblow stated he has lived in this neighborhood for five years. He has serious concerns about height, parking and traffic. He strongly supports the principle of infill in city limits and maximizing density without sacrificing the quality of life. He feels that 35 parking spaces for 55 residential units is woefully inadequate, particularly if there are two adults in each unit. He is concerned that the estimate of people who would walk, bike or take public transportation is overly optimistic, and feels that the Commission should require traffic and parking studies before acting on this application. 06:09:18 PM (00:41:23) Hanley Burton, 326 South Black Avenue, stated he does not see an attractive building when looking at this proposal, however, he finds the Blackmore Apartments are attractive. He feels the Black/Olive project is ugly and does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood or downtown. 06:10:00 PM (00:42:05) Loretta Domaszevski, 209 South Bozeman Avenue, stressed the importance of saving the character of the downtown while allowing for infill apartments. She is concerned that allowing five or six-story buildings around the downtown will result in separating existing residential neighborhoods from the downtown and will change the downtown forever. She characterized this proposal as a “building on steroids” that will steal light and sky and will suffocate the area. She has found that in Whitefish, a 35-foot height limit has been implemented; and Boulder, Colorado, has established a moratorium on buildings higher than 35 feet. She concluded by asking that the downtown be saved from the sprawl of high rises around it. 06:13:14 PM (00:45:19) Pascale Hickman, 713 South Black Avenue, stated the City of Paris regulates the height of their buildings to four stories. Also, she lived in Boulder for many years and when left it, her friends characterized Bozeman as Boulder twenty years ago. She recognized that growth cannot be prevented, but it is important to develop responsibly and compactly. She concluded by stating that when considering parking and the number of people driving, the Streamline system cannot be compared to public transportation systems in more urban areas. 06:15:10 PM (00:47:15) Jeanie Wilkinson, 415 South Third Avenue, noted the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan and the conservation overlay district guidelines for the B-3 area have been cited in staff’s analysis of this application; however, several other planning documents have not been included, such as the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan. She noted the Downtown Plan provides for buffer zones in areas abutting single-family districts to ensure a comfortable transition; and that needs to be considered in this instance. 06:18:24 PM (00:50:29) Jack Ranieri, 209 South Bozeman Avenue, stated this project is on his back fence. He noted Bozeman has a rich architectural history. The mass of this applicant’s projects to date have been maxed out for the sake of business; and he feels this project is a threat to the historic downtown and to the quality of the existing structures. He stated the buildings done by this developer have a confusing mix of materials that does not fit in the style of the community and he views them as an insult to the quality of the built environment in this town. 06:20:15 PM (00:52:20) Justin Eisel, 220 South Bozeman Avenue, stated a precedent has been set as a residential area. He cited the zoning criteria pertaining to compatibility with and sensitivity to the immediate environment of the site, and encouraged the Board to consider those as they review this application. He cautioned that if those criteria are ignored, Bozeman can say goodbye to being on the top ten lists. Action Items. 06:21:41 PM (00:53:46) 16432 Black Olive Site Plan (Krueger). 202 South Black Avenue. Southeast corner of the intersection of Olive Street and Black Street. Site plan application for the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a 55 unit apartment building and related site improvements that includes: 16 studio apartments, 24 one bedroom apartments, 15 two bedroom apartments, 35 parking spaces, 3 carshare vehicles. 1000 square feet of commercial uses are proposed on the ground floor. 06:21:47 PM (00:53:52) Bill Rae reviewed the process for consideration of this application. 06:22:35 PM (00:54:40) Brian Krueger presented the staff report. He noted the Black/Olive project is at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Black Avenue and East Olive Street. Buildings in the immediate area include the Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building, a church, Blackmore Apartments and the Federal Building. The proposed 70-foot- tall building is for mixed use development, including 1,000 square feet of commercial use and residential development. The subject property currently contains an office building with parking. The property is located within the B-3 halo, which is that area between the Main Street Historic District and the boundaries of the B-3. It also lies within a neighborhood conservation overlay district and is close to several historic districts. Brian Krueger stated the building is to cover a majority of the site. He noted that the Development Review Committee’s technical comments have been included in the packets; and those comments will result in some changes to the site plan as proposed. He drew attention to a 10-foot-wide landscape buffer on the south as well as some foundation plantings and sitting areas along Black Street elevation. He noted the trash enclosure referenced during public comment will not be allowed in its proposed location. Brian Krueger stated 35 parking spaces are proposed on the first floor with cedar slat screening the parking area. This is a five-story building with 55 apartment units, which is a permitted use in the B-3 district. The units range between 532 and 1,160 square feet, and include 16 studio, 24 1-bedroom and 15 2-bedroom units. Private balconies are proposed to meet open space code requirements. Proposed building materials include cedar slats, fiber cement panels, CMU or masonry, brick and black corrugated metal. Brian Krueger stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the applicable criteria, and the findings are contained in the staff report. He also reviewed the public comments that have been received to date, noting a majority do not support the project. He briefly highlighted items in the proposal that do not meet those criteria, including the design guidelines for mass and scale of the building, the height of the ground floor, lack of multiple materials on east elevation, design narrative, building material quality, sustainable design and techniques, transparency of windows at street level, access to the shared vehicle spaces, and location of the trash enclosure. He concluded by forwarding the staff recommendation to not approve the application because it does not meet those specific guidelines. 06:57:41 PM (01:29:46) Mark Hufstetler raised several questions to which Brian Krueger provided responses. He asked about integration of the car share space into the building and how the car share is to be administered to get credit for it. Brian Krueger responded that there is no requirement for integration of the car share spaces into the building; however, there are some administrative rules related to operations, including a detailed operational outline and plan for the cars and how they are to be accessed by the residents. He noted the applicant has not provided that plan, and that was noted during the Development Review Committee review. He confirmed that the car share plan is to be perpetual. Mark Hufstetler asked if the signage at the top of the building is in conformance with the code and if signage at street level will be addressed outside this review process. Brian Krueger stated the sign on the building is the name of the building and does not count toward the square footage of the signage package. Mark Hufstetler asked if the developer is required to submit visual materials that indicate the extent of the shadows from this building at various times of the year. Brian Krueger stated it is not part of the checklist for site plan review or the information provided as a part of this application. He noted that applicants have provided that information based on Design Review Board’s request for additional information. Mark Hufstetler asked how the height of this proposed building relates to the height of the Blackmore Apartments and other recently constructed downtown buildings. Brian Krueger estimated the height of the Blackmore Apartments in the lower 40-foot level and the newer buildings downtown, including 5 West and the Element Hotel, are 74 feet to the top of the parapet. The base height outside the historic district is 70 feet and the code allows an additional 4 feet for the parapet or mechanical screen. He noted the height of the proposed Etha Hotel was approximately 120 feet through a previous deviation process. The top of the sign on the Baxter Hotel is approximately 86 to 90 feet. The Federal Building is greater than 70 feet tall, but is less than the height approved for the Etha Hotel. He then stated this proposed building is 59 feet with 1 foot mechanical screening. Bill Rea stated that, after walking around town with a measuring device, he found the 5 West Building is approximately 68 to 72 feet at the street, the Baxter Hotel is about 70 feet at the street wall, the Element Hotel is about 62 feet 8 inches and the Federal Building is right at 70 feet. He noted that he did not measure the Blackmore Apartments. Mark Hufstetler noted the parking area is not climate controlled; Brian Krueger confirmed that it is not and there is no code requirement that it be. Mark Hufstetler asked how old the existing building on the site is and, if it is over fifty years old, if it has been checked for historic register status. Brian Krueger stated he will have to research that issue. 07:06:59 PM (01:39:04) Brady Ernst asked if the 50-percent transparent windows requirement is for commercial only. Brian Krueger stated a mixed use building is considered commercial for the ground floor transparency. He noted other standards in the code pertain to screening of the parking. Brady Ernst turned to the building interface with residential zoned properties. He noted that the code references properties that abut to or are across the alley from a residential zoned district and asked if that is not applicable in this case since the subject site is two properties away from the residential zoning. Brian Krueger confirmed that this project site is separated from the residential zoning. 07:09:43 PM (01:41:48) Kiersten Iwai asked why this building on this site. Brian Krueger noted the City’s growth policy and downtown improvement plan encourage infill citywide, supporting the core of the city and efficiency of infrastructure. Kiersten Iwai asked if there is anything in the plan about bicycle parking and asked about meeting sustainability requirements. Brian Krueger responded that the plan does meet the bicycle parking standards both outside and in the parking area. He noted that they will provide six or eight of the bike racks, which can hold two each. He stated the sustainability standards are wide and can be met in a variety of ways. He noted that it applies to not only the building, but the site as well. 07:15:02 PM (01:47:07) Lessa Racow asked if the building as currently designed maximizes its allowable square footage on the lot; Brian Krueger responded it does not since there are zero setbacks in the B-3 zone. He confirmed that the 10- foot setback on the south side is not a code requirement. Lessa Racow turned back to the car share, asking if it is available to the public or tenants only; Brian Krueger responded it is for tenants only. He then confirmed that they get five parking spaces per one car share; and in this instance this provision allows for fifteen fewer parking spaces. Lessa Racow asked if there is a limit on the number of car shares that can be provided in a project; Brian Krueger responded there is not. Lessa Racow asked if there is a real demand for car share or if it is an idea that will hopefully drive demand if it is offered. Brian Krueger stated it has been researched and, based on the success of this type of program in other areas, staff recommends that it be included in the local code. 07:18:32 PM (01:50:37) Responding to questions from Peter Constanti, Brian Krueger stated the City does not have any requirements for stepping down the building in this location. He noted that guiding statements are not requirements; and no specific requirements applicable to this site have been adopted to date. Peter Constanti asked about access to the roof and if there are any limitations on it. Brian Krueger responded that this issue was discussed during the Development Review Committee review; and the applicant was asked about roof access as an option to the balconies for meeting the open space requirement. He stated it has been used in other locations, including the 5 West building, and confirmed that it could be considered for this site. 07:21:45 PM (01:53:50) Charley Franklin raised a question about zoning, noting the line is two houses to the south and asked what the guidelines for determining the line and the potential of moving it. Brian Krueger noted the line could move through changes in zoning designations and zoning boundaries. He noted the best practice is to break zoning on streets rather than at mid-block. He stated that the intensity of use and the height allowances in the B-3 zone have not changed in a number of years. Staff did look at this as a potential area for conflicts nearly a year ago, but no action was taken at that time and downtown property is now becoming more valuable. He suggested that moving the boundary would be best done in a more comprehensive manner; however, this is only one work item on a long list of items to be addressed. 07:24:54 PM (01:56:59) Cyndy Andrus asked how Planning staff makes its decisions given the number of documents it has to address. Brian Krueger responded that staff looks at base zoning and the unified development code provisions. Other layers may be triggered, including overlay districts. Once the path through the overlay districts is identified, the appropriate review bodies are identified, staff reviews the application in light of the applicable criteria and the report is submitted for consideration. Cyndy Andrus noted that all of the plans have had public input when they are adopted or changes are made; Brian Krueger confirmed that is true. Cyndy Andrus noted the footprint of the new building is much larger than the existing building. Brian Krueger concurred, noting that a parking lot wraps around the existing building. He stated a driveway is located between the lot line and the building to the south of this site; and there is a proposed 10-foot landscaped area on this site so there is some separation. He noted that other recent infill projects subject to the same standards as this site have been undertaken on East Mendenhall Street near Hawthorne School. Cyndy Andrus noted that at the DRC meeting there was discussion about the roof and at this point there is nothing proposed. Brian Krueger responded that he received a revised application about 3:45 this afternoon and has not yet opened it. Cyndy Andrus asked about the size of the balconies proposed. Brian Krueger responded these proposed balconies are 100 to 125 square feet. Cyndy Andrus turned attention to the materials, asking what types of materials might be considered more stable into the future. Brian Krueger responded that many of the buildings are masonry, sandstone, brick, concrete detailed in innovative ways, steel if detailed appropriately and not just panelized, and additional glass. He noted that some newer materials could also be considered, but noted that wood is not typically found downtown. 07:35:58 PM (02:08:03) Bill Rea noted that the parking issue keeps coming up and becomes a design issue because it’s a pretty big impact on the building. He asked how eliminating a floor of apartments would impact the number of parking spaces required. Brian Krueger responded that eliminating 13 apartments could eliminate the need for 13 parking spaces. Bill Rea noted two spaces in the parking garage might be impossible to get out of without backing out the entire way. Brian Krueger responded that a 24-foot clear backing distance is required, and these spaces meet that requirement. The garage would be sprinkled, so there would be no requirement for a turnaround area for fire apparatus. Bill Rea expressed concern about losing the ride share spots and where they could be located on the site. He then turned attention to the 10-foot-wide landscape area on the south, noting it is also identified as a utility easement. Brian Krueger responded that a landscape area can be located in a utility easement; however, the trees shown on the plan will probably not be allowed. He stated the shrubs along the foundation would be allowed. 07:39:18 PM (02:11:23) Bill Rea asked if the applicant would be allowed to build to the zero lot line on the south side of the lot or if the utility easement is currently in place. Brian Krueger noted there are a lot of utilities on the site, and he is not sure if there are any alternatives for the gas line location. Bill Rea asked if the property owners to the south could build a 70-foot-high building on their lot at the zero lot line. Brian Krueger responded that the building to the south is within a historic district and has been inventoried. He noted that building may be contributing to the overall integrity of the district. Bill Rea asked if the historic designation would impact that lot if it were vacant; Brian Krueger responded that it would since the historic district triggers a different set of criteria and review procedures even though it is also zoned B-3. Bill Rea asked about franchise architecture and if staff had addressed that issue. Brian Krueger responded that those regulations apply in the entryway corridors but not on this site. 07:42:33 PM (02:14:38) Break 07:52:15 PM (02:24:20) Andy Holloran, Home Base, gave the applicant presentation. He noted that the Development Review Committee reviewed the application a week ago, and this afternoon he submitted a revised application to address those issues; however, this presentation addresses the staff report, which was based on the original application. He quoted from a document which identifies the need for housing downtown, at all price points and for both rent and sale. He found it compelling that development is to be compatible with the site and adjacent neighborhoods. He stated that, as a result of meeting with neighbors, he has reduced the height of the building, created additional setbacks on the south side of the lot, tried to create a balance that provides compatibility and is appropriate for the neighborhood. 07:56:27 PM (02:28:32) Responding to questions from Bill Rea, Andy Holloran confirmed that the picture of the building that he is showing is different from the one previously submitted and is in direct response to the staff report. Bill Rea noted that the new project needs to be reviewed through the entire process so that staff has a chance to address it in light of code requirements and prepare a new staff report for consideration by this Board. 08:01:04 PM (02:33:09) Andy Holloran addressed the comments in the staff report, beginning with the height of the ground floor, noting a preference for staying at 12 feet to keep the overall building height down instead to increasing it to 15 feet. He then addressed the east elevation comments, noting it has been broken up with materials and colors and a building relief at midpoint. He stated a narrative was requested, and it describes the vision, goals and compatibility of this project with the downtown and the neighborhood. He asked if the code addresses compatibility of corrugated metal and cedar materials with the downtown, citing several examples of where corrugated metal and wood are used. He turned attention to sustainability, noting the intent to reuse stormwater for irrigation, the use of rigid insulation around the entire building, and installation of a split mechanical system that is energy efficient. He addressed the street facade, noting that 50 percent glass is being required; and he is meeting that with the revised plan. He presented the revised parking plan, noting that access is to remain on East Olive Street. The trash enclosure has been moved to the west side of the drive aisle, out of the site triangle, and integrated it into the building. The three garage bays have been eliminated along South Black Avenue and the number of parking spaces in the building has been increased to 36, and the number of bike racks has been increased to 16. 08:13:20 PM (02:45:25) Mark Hufstetler stated the building doesn’t relate to the area or the neighborhood conservation overlay district. Since this building is in a key location, he asked how it can integrate visually and structurally with the area. Andy Holloran responded that the building is not in a historic overlay district; Mark Hufstetler reminded him that it is within a neighborhood conservation overlay district. He drew attention to the Blackmore Apartments to the north which are 3½ stories tall, the Federal Building, the Professional Building and a 2½ story home to the south and two single-family homes to the east. Andy Holloran noted the surrounding mature trees are important to integrating this project into the neighborhood. He stated the neighbors encouraged including a commercial space to serve as a gathering space, which he has addressed with a coffee shop. He stated that encouraging walkability, the use of bicycles and ride share will help to reduce vehicular impacts. Mark Hufstetler stated architectural compatibility is important, with a design that shows rhythm and detail, which is necessary for a successful project in the conservation overlay district. Andy Holloran responded that the downtown plan must also be considered as well as the B-3 zoning. Mark Hufstetler turned attention to the term patina, noting concerns have been expressed that some of the proposed materials will simply become old and shabby. Andy Holloran stated he believes wood can age beautifully and that the materials proposed are appropriate. Mark Hufstetler noted that permanence of material is key for buildings in the central core. He also noted that the materials on the street level facade are to address that issue as well as enhance the pedestrian experience; and he feels this proposed development is the reverse of that. Andy Holloran stated he believes this building has a strong architectural presence and is appropriate. He expressed concern that this type of issue was not raised during The Lark hearing; and the types of materials he has proposed are the same as those approved for that project. Mark Hufstetler noted The Lark’s immediate neighbors are different from this building’s and, as a result, is not a comparative example. He then asked how this building will look at night and how much light will come out of it. Andy Holloran responded the residents will have their lights on. The exterior lighting will comply with the City requirements. He noted surrounding buildings are active during the day but quiet and dark at night. He feels this building will bring life to the area. 08:26:53 PM (02:58:58) Responding to questions from Peter Constanti, Andy Holloran responded that the west elevation is located on the property line. 08:28:21 PM (03:00:26) Responding to Charley Franklin, Andy Holloran stated masonry is on the base of the building in the front and the rear, but they are hoping to replace it on the corner where the coffee shop is to be located with a stronger material. Charley Franklin asked if the fitness center remains on the second level above the coffee shop; Andy Holloran responded that it does and that the number of apartments remains at 55 units. Further responding to Charley Franklin, Andy Holloran confirmed that where the three shared ride parking spaces are eliminated, the flat panel will extend to the ground. 08:30:26 PM (03:02:31) Responding to Lessa Racow, Andy Holloran stated he has not explored the possibility of commercial on the entire second floor. 08:31:00 PM (03:03:05) Kiersten Iwai noted that the members of the audience had a definite negative reaction to the applicant’s response on the issue of light emanating from this building at night. She then asked what type of resident the applicant hopes to attract to this building. Andy Holloran responded that he envisions all walks of life and all age groups attracted to this development. He anticipates young students, millennials, young couples, empty nesters, and those who use this as a second home. Responding to Kiersten Iwai, Andy Holloran confirmed that he is not willing to lower the building or reduce the number of units any further. He would be willing to exchange the balconies for a green roof. Further responding to Kiersten Iwai, Andy Holloran stated he has tried to decrease the footprint as much as possible while retaining the amount of space needed to accommodate the number of living units proposed. He stated the studio apartments are 532 square feet and he does not want to decrease the size of the units any further. He confirmed that with elimination of the garage spaces on South Black Avenue, they gained one parking space and an additional row of storage units for the residents. Kiersten Iwai expressed concern about the responses to sustainability and asked if this issue will be explored further. Andy Holloran responded that he will continue to look at additional options. 08:39:07 PM (03:11:12) Responding to Cyndy Andrus, Andy Holloran stated that increasing the height of the ground level from 12 feet to 15 feet would increase the overall height of the building, and he is attempting to keep it as low as possible. He noted the majority of the ground level is parking, and 15 feet is excessive. Cyndy Andrus stated she feels more relief could be provided on the east elevation. Andy Holloran noted the original design included fiber cement panels, and the revised drawing shows wrapping the wood around the corner a distance of approximately 30 feet. 08:41:38 PM (03:13:43) Responding to Bill Rea, Andy Holloran stated he has not had any experience with a car share program. He is interested in pursuing the Maven program, which operates on a cell phone application. He noted that the cars would be available only to residents of the building. Bill Rea asked if the applicant has considered a hotel on this site rather than this proposed apartment building. Andy Holloran responded that it could be a hotel, noting it would be an acceptable location. He stated the downtown parking garage was the stimulation for growth along Mendenhall Street, including the Element Hotel and 5 West. This site is too far from that garage, so parking is a big issue. Also, the activity in the area would be greater with a hotel than with residents. 08:46:33 PM (03:18:38) Lessa Racow asked Andy Holloran if he will manage the apartment building. Andy Holloran stated it is his intent to keep this a residential rental development. He noted that costs are being driven by the costs of land, materials and labor. 08:48:23 PM (03:20:28) Bill Rea opened the public comment portion of the meeting. 08:49:13 PM (03:21:18) Paul Neubauer, 210 South Bozeman Avenue, distributed copies of an excerpt from the NCOD guidelines, noting it was added to the code in 2015 to protect neighborhoods from scenarios like this one. He noted that this property shares property lines with four residential properties in a residential neighborhood that is zoned B-3. He acknowledged that people who live downtown drive less; however, they still have cars. He noted that a parking study in the downtown area has not yet been done, and stated a project of this size should not be allowed until that study has been done and revised parking requirements adopted. He cited several planning documents which indicate projects are to address compatibility with existing neighborhoods, noting that the project should be lower and include one off-street parking spot for each unit. 08:53:02 PM (03:25:07) Kate Bryan, owner of property to the south, stated the house was built before 1964 and is located in the B-3 zone. She noted the property lies in the historic district, which would trigger rigorous requirements if they were to make changes to the site; however, this project is not taking those issues into consideration. She stated this project would be detrimental to their property in terms of light, privacy and noise. She drew attention to the perspective drawings, stating she does not feel they are accurate, and noted there are no depictions from the south or southeast. She is not opposed to development of this site, but it needs to be compatible with the surrounding area and no taller than the Blackmore Apartments. She is concerned about a wall of high rises around the downtown that is inconsistent with the character of the community. 08:56:39 PM (03:28:44) Karen Mitchell, 216 East Koch Street, stated the skyline of Bozeman is changing and she is concerned that this project will set a precedent for future development. She characterized this application as maximizing profit on a piece of ground and using inexpensive materials. She urged the Board to not approve this building in its current state because it warrants more conversation about the future of downtown Bozeman and she does not want to see this area of the community compromised. 08:59:21 PM (03:31:26) Chris Naumann, Executive Director of the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, noted he is charged with implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan. He stated it is important to recognize the downtown is a neighborhood, and it is to be the location of the most dense, tallest buildings in town. Housing for all incomes should be encouraged, and this would be a unique housing product for the downtown. He noted the design guidelines speak to the fact that the downtown plan encourages intensification of development and asked that this application be reviewed in light of both the existing residential neighborhood and the needs of the downtown neighborhood. 09:03:13 PM (03:35:18) Lisa Kurk, 227 East Olive Street, stated the neighborhood is comprised of middle class working families living on narrow streets that serve as overflow parking for the downtown. She noted the area already struggles with impacts from the core in terms of parking, noise, light and crime. She does not feel they were represented in the guidelines for the downtown core and is very concerned about how the mandate for infill development can be managed while protecting those residents in the area. She noted that developing a vibrant downtown core is juxtaposed to protecting the quality of life and historic neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown and asked that development reflect the character of the historic neighborhood. 09:06:03 PM (03:38:08) David Schwartz, 8216 War Eagle Drive, stated he’s a college student, raised in Bozeman. He knows several people in his age group without cars that would benefit from this type of development. He suggested this project in the downtown area is more appropriate than the apartment sprawl west of Nineteenth Avenue. 09:07:30 PM (03:39:35) Bill Rea closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 09:08:20 PM (03:40:25) Lessa Racow asked if the City has considered assigned street parking permits for residents. Brian Krueger responded there have been some discussions about that possibility. He noted there are residential parking districts in other areas of the community. A parking plan for the downtown area was recently completed, but the consultant acknowledged that there is a big difference between residential districts that abut downtowns and those in other portions of the community. Further responding to Lessa Racow, Brian Krueger stated the parking study also raised the issue of another parking garage or expansion of the existing garage to address parking needs as well as the possibility of surface parking lots around the edges of the downtown core so that some of the existing surface lots could be sold. He noted there are several dynamics to be considered as parking issues are addressed, including the possibility of shared cars. 09:14:40 PM (03:46:45) Cyndy Andrus noted that for several years the Parking Commission has been looking at parking issues. She stated a variety of issues are being considered as they move forward through the new parking study and how to address the future of parking and intermodal issues. 09:16:32 PM (03:48:37) Responding to Kiersten Iwai, Andy Holloran stated there were two scheduled neighborhood meetings, noting approximately eighty attended the first meeting and over a hundred attended the second meeting. Each of those meetings lasted two or three hours. An estimated eight to ten meetings were held with individual neighbors in his office. Kiersten Iwai asked if this project will be affordable for the young professional or college student demographic. Andy Holloran recognized there are those who would be interested in this type of housing, but he does not know if it would be affordable for them. 09:19:53 PM (03:51:58) Bill Rea asked if the architect for this project was involved in any of the projects that were shown in the applicant’s presentation. Andy Holloran responded that the design firm has not done any projects in Bozeman. He then stated he took images from the City’s GIS database for the perspectives shown earlier. Bill Rea stated he feels there are some pretty significant errors in the perspectives shown. He noted that a 3D model would provide a more accurate perspective, but recognized the costs can be significant. Bill Rea asked why the paragraph in the NCOD distributed by Paul Neubauer is not adequate to require a reduction in the height of this building. Brian Krueger responded that the language references abutting residentially zoned properties, not a residential use. 09:25:04 PM (03:57:09) Responding to questions from Bill Rea, Brian Krueger stated the Downtown Improvement Plan recommends that the City reduce parking requirements for commercial uses downtown, so the first 3,000 square feet of commercial use is exempt from parking requirements. He noted that many local businesses have been drawn to the downtown as a result of this change. Bill Rea noted that public testimony suggested changes were made to the Element Hotel after it was approved and asked how that can be prevented. Brian Krueger responded that was a situation where the staff was made aware of changes and that the building was not being constructed according to plan; however, there is not enough staff to monitor construction sites. He noted that the building inspectors do not roll out the plans to check for compliance; rather, they monitor for life safety issues. The building owner submitted a modification application that described the changes made and they were brought back to this Board; many of those changes were approved. He stated staff is trying to better address changes before they occur and to assess after the fact permit fees for those that are not approved before the work is done. He noted that all those who develop in city limits sign an application that states the project will be constructed according to plans and that any changes made will be approved before the work is done. Bill Rea asked if a performance bond is required; Brian Krueger responded that the City does not require a bond. He stated the preference is to work with the development community rather than taking a heavy handed approach. He recognized it is important to ensure the development on the ground is what was approved in the plans. 09:34:59 PM (04:07:04) Brady Ernst asked about the intent of the more stringent language in the NCOD regulations. Brian Krueger responded the Commission chose not to adopt a proposed transitional zone between commercial and residential zoning districts but chose to leave the language more open to spur infill development. 09:38:35 PM (04:10:40) Mark Hufstetler noted there were multiple violations in development of the Element Hotel and asked if no penalties were assessed and none of the unauthorized changes were ordered reversed. Brian Krueger responded that no penalty was imposed and he is not sure if any changes were not approved. 09:40:36 PM (04:12:41) It was moved by Lessa Racow that, in regards to Application No. 16432, Black/Olive Site Plan, the application be denied based on findings of non-compliance with applicable criteria contained in the staff report. 09:41:11 PM (04:13:16) Seconded by Mark Hufstetler. 09:41:25 PM (04:13:30) Mike Hufstetler stated he is uncomfortable acting on the proposal at this time because a new set of drawings has been received and a narrative was shown for only a couple minutes on the screen. His preference is to continue this meeting until such time as the current set of plans is in hand. On review of the application materials that are the subject of this report, he finds in complete agreement with the staff recommendation that the application submitted is not in compliance. He recognized the applicant has responded to those comments with a new set of plans that this Board has seen briefly, but he does not feel those plans are complete or successful in addressing the staff comments. He also noted some of the presentation materials were designed to refute the statements of intent in the City documents. He feels rejection of the original application is appropriate. Mike Hufstetler then spoke as the architectural historian member of the Board, stating this building is in the heart of the conservation overlay district. He noted that since the existing building on the site is over fifty years old, it is appropriate for the City to complete a site form for the building and conduct an evaluation of its eligibility for the registry of historic places. He turned to interaction between the proposed building and the remainder of the district. He noted a successful integration of a project into an overlay district tends to incorporate design elements that respect and reflect the rhythm of adjoining buildings and the streetscape. He stated this lot is at the interface of a single-family neighborhood and a neighborhood with more mixed uses and higher density but the key architectural characteristics are not apparent, including sense of heaviness and solidness to the design. He noted that is particularly important at the street level, particularly where pedestrian travel is encouraged. He finds that this building does the opposite, particularly along the Olive Street facade. Mike Hufstetler addressed the massing and the volume of the building. He recognized this is a location where larger volume buildings are to be allowed; however, architectural compatibility is essential. He noted that a building in rhythm with the Blackmore building is important. He stated this plan has large areas without texture, has little depth or dimension to the windows, and has no features like a cornice or a fenestration pattern. He characterized this as a generic building and not a downtown building. He recognized that could be rectified by including some of the items he has just listed and the use of more permanent materials. He reviewed the overall design philosophy of the B-3 district. He stated this part of town is an area for high density development that connects the two most important neighborhoods in historic downtown Bozeman—the historic downtown core and the historic residential neighborhoods. It is critical to focus on that and figure out a way to unify those two neighborhoods rather than build a wall around downtown Bozeman. He challenged the City and the developers to use the connection as a fundamental tenet when looking at building design. 09:56:48 PM (04:28:53) Lessa Racow stated she feels this project is at an informal review level and encouraged the applicant to consider that process. She feels there are some great things about this project, but she is opposed to how it is currently presented and she agrees with staff findings. She appreciates the applicant looking at how to change the design; however, she noted there is very limited information on the new design. She also appreciates that this is a rental project and that it is a mixed use building. She noted that changing the second floor to a commercial use would help the parking situation and would provide additional commercial space downtown. She noted residents are passionate about their neighborhood; and it is important to be sensitive to the community. Lessa Racow turned attention to landscaping and voiced appreciation for using a licensed landscape architect. She stated that overall, it is good but it would be nice to use subgrade boulevard irrigation or drip irrigation with perennials and the existing trees. She likes the use of Skyrocket Juniper on the south side but would prefer modulation in the building exterior. She voiced support for a green roof on this building, noting it would be an asset for the tenants. She is concerned about the 10-foot landscape buffer on the south side and the potential for vandalism and loitering in that area and would prefer eliminating it from a safety standpoint. She is also concerned about the wood slatting and the potential of breaking it and vandalizing the vehicles. Her preference would be a more vandal proof material for the parking garage. Lessa Racow stated she finds the shared care an intriguing concept. She noted that she has had experience living in a situation similar to this one and, while she did walk and bike to many places, she still owned a car. She voiced concern about the number of parking spaces being credited for the shared car spaces, particularly since she feels that most of the residents will have a car that needs to be parked somewhere. She feels a good place for the shared cars would be on the street and letting them be open to the public because she does not expect there will be a high demand among the residents. She stated the local public transportation program is not the same as the public transportation systems in other communities. Lessa Racow voiced concern about the location of the elevator, stating she feels it will be difficult for people to move furniture and appliances in and out of the building. She agrees with staff’s findings on the building materials, stating she does not find the proposed materials substantial or long lived. She noted the applicant has used brick on projects in the past and would encourage masonry on this project to reflect character of the adjacent buildings and to give substance to the building facade. She does not have an issue with the use of wood, but she does have an issue with cedar. She noted that The Lark Motel used a treated wood designed to last sixty years and suggested it would be a preferable alternative to the wood proposed in the application. She is pleased to hear more bike parking is to be provided and noted it should be located inside the parking structure. She feels adding a second commercial floor would be beneficial and would help with the rhythm of the building. She finds the arrangement of the windows on the east and west elevations to be confusing. She concluded by stating she feels this is a good first effort but feels it has a long way to go. She would be willing to consider continuing this hearing to the next meeting if the applicant wishes to pursue that option. 10:11:28 PM (04:43:33) Charley Franklin voiced his agreement with the staff report and the comments from other Board members. He noted the Board hasn’t seen the new application but, from the applicant’s presentation, it does not seem to be significantly different or address his concerns, which revolve around permanence of the materials proposed and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He characterized a transition zone as an interesting place and noted he feels relocating the B-3 lot line would result in completely different looking project. He believes the variety of forms and the scale of the building are out of place, and it does not provide visual interest. He noted the Block M project includes several successful elements that could be incorporated into this project, including the use of brick, a variety of forms in elevation and in plan, and providing rooftop decks. He stated that alley facade reads as one giant box even with the changes in materials that the applicant has proposed. He feels this is a good application for an informal review particularly since it impacts the area and the development patterns. He agrees with densifying and smaller apartment units but he does not agree with the way the building is presented or how it interacts with the community. He encouraged the applicant to look at Block M as an example of a better transition to the neighborhood. 10:17:46 PM (04:49:51) Brady Ernst stated he feels this is a great usage of B-3 zoned property, providing density near downtown. He noted that downtown has a 55-foot height limitation, and he feels the adjacent streets should reinforce that type of density and height. He agrees with the staff report and acknowledged that the developer has tried to address those comments. He noted the buildings around it include a blighted parking lot at the Post office, small residential homes and a City building; and this building is trying to bridge that gap. He turned attention to materials shown in the various projects, noting they work because the projects are small. He stated that eight townhomes in this location would work well, and the proposed materials could be used since they are a scale that fits a home scale. He has no problem with wood and feels a cedar rain screen application would be fine. He finds the cement panels are more a residential application. He has no problem with the metal if it is a high quality metal. He cautioned, however, that a lot of these materials will not age well, and the charm of the downtown is the weathering of the materials, including the brick. He voiced appreciation for the Black/Olive name, noting that a black olive is simple and humble. He stated that, rather than being jewel of the neighborhood, this should be a humble building in the neighborhood, not lighting up the neighborhood. He noted that in a residential area, people may not have a problem with the activity that occurs in commercial development during the day but they prefer darkness and quiet in the evening and night. He encouraged more bike parking on the site. He concluded by voicing agreement with the distorted perspectives, and suggested the GIS department may be able to assist in providing the base information for more accurate perspectives. 10:25:47 PM (04:57:52) Peter Consanti stated he feels if this project were on the other side of Olive Street it would make sense; however, its location and its mass adjacent to a residence doesn’t seem to work. He stated the mass that doesn’t step back and doesn’t respond to anything is a big issue. He feels that Olive Street is the threshold and reiterated this project doesn’t work. 10:26:54 PM (04:58:59) Bill Rea stated he supports the motion as it stands. He stated the 15-foot-high ground floor is important, noting that it makes the City more walkable. He likes the materials except for the cedar, stating it won’t hold up and will patina to gray, so everything on the building becomes gray and black. Also, some of the proposed metals will not patina; rather, they will simply become water spotted. He appreciates the examples shown in the applicant’s presentation and encouraged him to look at those examples further. He likes the Black and Olive logo on the first slide much better than the one on the building drawings and asked the applicant to continue using it. He recognized that this is a subjective process and results in a legislated design, noting he personally finds the proposed building ugly. He noted the building has no context at all; it could be in another location in the city or in another community and is not special to the location of Black and Olive. He stated it is out of scale and should not be over three stories tall. The bigger building makes more money for the developer; but that is at the cost of the soul of the city. Bill Rea identified some things for the City to address, including solar rights and solar shadows, ride share program regulations and parking requirements. He noted that parking impacts the design of the project and he feels that commercial and parking on the first level of a three-story building would be good. He feels this is a brilliant project and a great location; however, this building is wrong for the site. 10:35:58 PM (05:08:03) The motion carried unanimously. 10:37:17 PM (05:09:22) Revision to Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors (Owens). Citywide Special presentation to provide update on revisions to the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan, including review of: project schedule; consultant memorandum of public engagement and content recommendations to date; and fundamental changes to the entryway corridors as relates to frontage standards in the proposed Unified Development Code amendments. The agenda for an upcoming design and development professional workshop will also be considered. 10:38:24 PM (05:10:29) Rebecca Owens presented the staff report. She gave a brief overview of the regulations in the city, noting the existing Design Objectives Plan was last updated in 2005. She stated that the revisions include an overhaul in purpose. She gave a quick update on the consultant memo included on the website, noting issues where more clarity is needed include what is greenspace, how to manage it and how to integrate the function of those areas, more secure spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the need to become more up to date on sustainability standards. She noted while tradition, design and style is important to the community, there is a need for creativity, variety, human scale interest and permanence. Rebecca Owens stated coordination with the UDC update is needed. She noted that the entryway guideline corridors currently identify the setback requirements; and under these revisions the setbacks will be decreased. She noted that the UDC and hard standards should be where the dimensions are found, not in the design objectives plan. She noted, however, the design objectives plan can identify how those setback areas are treated. She stated the repurposing of the design objectives plan is to provide guidance for enhanced performance guidelines that can be implemented in conjunction with requested departures from the standards that meet the character of the community and are specific to it. Rebecca Owens invited the Board members to attend a technical workshop on Tuesday, November 15, and identified the issues to be addressed at that workshop. She then turned to the next steps in the process, noting the website will be updated, a special presentation will be made to the Commission, and public hearings on the revised document will be held by the Zoning Commission and City Commission. 10:51:48 PM (05:23:53) Bill Rea encouraged the Board members to provide input through e-mail and to attend the workshop on Tuesday if possible. 10:52:20 PM (05:24:25) Responding to Cyndy Andrus, Rebecca Owens stated that people can attend just a portion of the workshop but encouraged Board members to attend the last hour or two if possible. FYI/Discussion. No comment was received under this agenda item. 10:54:54 PM (05:26:59) Adjournment. Bill Rea adjourned the meeting.