Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-17 DRB MinutesDesign Review Board Wednesday, March 8, 2017 5:30 pm, City Hall, City Commission Room A. 05:32:25 PM (00:02:05) Call meeting to order and Roll Call (Hufstetler) Board Members Present Were:  Peter Costanti  Kiersten Iwai  Charlie Franklin  Vice Chair Mark Hufstetler  Lessa Racow  Brady Ernst  Deputy Mayor Cindy Andrews B. 05:33:33 PM (00:03:13) Changes to the Agenda (none) C. 05:33:43 PM (00:03:23) Minutes (none) D. 05:34:35 PM (00:04:15) 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. 05:35:21 PM (00:05:01) Scott Dreblow addressed concerns including size of the shadow footprint, clarity of information for laypeople, height and scale of the project and parking. 05:38:04 PM (00:07:44) Jackie Persons addressed concerns including traffic congestion with narrow streets, parking, height of building, loss of character to the building, diminished privacy for neighbors and noise pollution. 05:40:49 PM (00:10:29) Daryl Bahrent addressed concerns including building scale, parking and traffic, particularly during winter months with snow. 05:41:52 PM (00:11:32) Loretta Domocheski addressed concerns including the green space and trees on the south side of the building if they are removed for utility use, building height with five stories, building materials focusing on façade rather than entire structure, and parking. 05:44:40 PM (00:14:20) Thea Barens addressed concerns including increased traffic with narrow streets in winter, alternative transportation being unrealistic and the city adhering to the citizens’ opinions vs. developers. 05:46:34 PM (00:16:14) Clarissa Wary addressed concerns including public safety and traffic impact with narrow streets and parking becoming more difficult for downtown visitors as residential parking spreads further from people’s homes. 05:48:35 PM (00:18:15) Curtis Johnson addressed concerns including limited housing availability, and parking. 05:50:28 PM (00:20:08) Tyler Naiman addressed concerns including building height, building character with neighborhood and parking while supporting vertical development and increasing community downtown. 05:53:01 PM (00:22:41) Zach McQueu addressed concerns including building height, parking, and the transition from a high rise to a single family home. 05:55:02 PM (00:24:42) Susan Stevens supported the concerns of the other public comments received 05:55:44 PM (00:25:24) Rob Edwards addressed concerns including the impact on the city’s infrastructure in order to meet the needs of this project and who will bear the cost. 05:56:32 PM (00:26:12) Al Kesselheim addressed concerns including the transition between zones and parking/traffic in the downtown corridor. 05:57:55 PM (00:27:35) Mary Pat Zitler addressed concerns including Longfellow school being able to accommodate increased population, building height, parking and finding a solution that works for the community. 06:00:08 PM (00:29:48) End of Public Comment. Additional Public Comment will be taken at the end of the meeting. E. 06:01:14 PM (00:30:54) Action Items 1. Black Olive Site Plan Revisions (Krueger) 202 South Black Avenue. Southeast corner of the intersection of Olive Street and Black Street. A revised site plan application for the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a 56 unit apartment building and related site improvements that includes: 16 studio apartments, 24 one bedroom apartments, 16 two bedroom apartments, 37 parking spaces, 4 car-share vehicles. 800 square feet of commercial use is proposed on the ground floor. 06:01:32 PM (00:31:12) Krueger summarized the Black Olive Site Plan, noting that there have been changes since the initial review on November 9, 2016. 06:02:21 PM (00:32:01) Proposal is to demolish existing building and construct a new mixed use building appropriate for the B-3 zone’s commercial character area which overlaps the historical conservation overlay. 06:04:15 PM (00:33:55) Krueger pointed out that the project now conforms to requirements for both the B-3 zoning and conservation overlay district. 06:05:17 PM (00:34:57) Krueger noted that the Black Olive property is part of the downtown neighborhood and while it is adjacent to historic district, it is part of the downtown growth policy, which points to infill for the downtown area, intensifying underutilized sites. 06:05:53 PM (00:35:33) Krueger stated that there is not a historic inventory card for the existing structure. Because of this, the demolition is standard under site plan criteria. 06:07:08 PM (00:36:48) Krueger reviewed changes to site plan noting that the footprint is the same and that the garage entrance sits on Olive. The elevations, including building materials, glass, and overall architecture have changed more significantly. 06:08:31 PM (00:38:11) Krueger reviewed Level 1 floor plan, which includes seating area and parking. 06:09:43 PM (00:39:23) Krueger reviewed landscape plan, which proposes to keep all of the existing trees on the site. 06:11:02 PM (00:40:42) Krueger reviewed elevations and visual changes to the project along with building materials. 06:15:12 PM (00:44:52) Krueger displayed a quick-shot of the building, which provides a sense of how the different elements will appear. The changes in the materials do meet standards for downtown area. 06:17:26 PM (00:47:06) Krueger displayed some perspectives showing how the building compares to adjacent properties. Krueger also noted that the single family homes within B-3 are considered legal non-conforming structures as the code does not allow single detached residences. Those properties will be developed over time to conform to B-3 zoning. 06:19:39 PM (00:49:19) Krueger addressed the question of whether the city’s guidelines require a transition between B-3 properties. The code does require an air-space setback between B-3 and residential, which is provided in this project. 06:21:06 PM (00:50:46) Krueger reviewed the public comments received thus far. The project was re- noticed to allow for additional comment. Krueger noted that many of the comments received have been in support of infill and height. 06:23:06 PM (00:52:46) Krueger stated that the findings in relation to the Certificate of Appropriateness for this project are that this project is in conformance with the Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. As a result, the city is recommending approval with some conditions of approval to confirm some of the building materials and their transition around the structure. 06:24:51 PM (00:54:31) City Planning is requesting a motion and a recommendation in the affirmative or negative. The staff report is recommending affirmative. A staff report will be prepared for the City Commission. The applicant is required to provide a narrative as to how the project has changed. 06:26:48 PM (00:56:28) Krueger stated that they would be open for questions after the applicant presentation. 06:27:08 PM (00:56:48) Board member Racow asked for clarification on recommendations from Planning. Krueger stated that they’re recommending a commercial wrap of the parking garage and are concerned about the material transition on the ground floor between the denser split face CMU material and more traditional brick veneer on the front of the building. The city is also looking for recommendation from the board on the perforated metal material on balcony in addition to the material color palette. 06:28:42 PM (00:58:22) Applicant Presentation: Andy Hollerin and Tobias Stroll provide a presentation on behalf of the applicant, noting that they’ve made significant changes to the exterior of the building. They also pointed out that the exterior seating on Black Ave. will be open to neighbors and will provide an active community space. They envision a coffee shop going into the space. Hollerin addressed the balcony material, stating that due to comments they received, they changed to a more closed material, but are open to change. 06:32:26 PM (01:02:06) Stroll presented the original design in comparison to the current design, trying to provide a more historic feel with masonry and traditional materials. Stroll also noted their attempted to make the building more inviting at the street level. 06:37:40 PM (01:07:20) Vice Chair Hufstetler stated that the Design Review Board will now have the opportunity to ask questions of the developer’s representatives or city staff. Hufstetler requested that the DRB keep the questions to the areas of the design where the DRB has been asked to provide input and has jurisdiction. 06:38:34 PM (01:08:14) Board Member Lessa Racow asked the applicants to review the future B-3 building, which was provided as an example (not a planned project). The applicants explained that the comparison is to show what this area could look like in this zoning area. Racow continued to ask about the balconies along Olive on the North elevation and how they will affect the seating area below – particularly with water dripping and whether that would be addressed in the design. The applicant responded that they would investigate that further. 06:43:51 PM (01:13:31) Board member Ernst asked the applicants to show a transition of the CMU split face to the brick veneer. Stroll stated that they would investigate the material transition. Ernst directed a question to Krueger asking whether the open space was solely satisfied through balconies. Krueger responded yes. Ernst then asked about the non-conforming homes in B-3 and if those were to be re-developed whether they would maintain the historic overlay guidelines. Krueger responded that the two properties to the south, zoned B-3, may be mixed use, but that because they’re in the conservation overlay, those guidelines would apply. 06:50:01 PM (01:19:41) Board Member Charlie Franklin brought up the scale of the building and that in previous meetings, it was found to be too large for the area. Franklin asked the applicants how they are addressing that concern through building articulation. Stroll responded that they attempted to address those concerns through more opaque sections of the buildings and through warmer materials such as wood. Stroll also stated that on the south side, they pulled the building back through setbacks to provide separation and privacy for existing properties. 06:52:36 PM (01:22:16) Board Member Kiersten Iwai asked for clarification on what input Krueger requested in regards to the parking garage being wrapped. Krueger stated that through regulations, they’re required to wrap the parking garage and are asking about the façade. The applicant would be allowed to leave it blank, but that a portion of the wrap could provide additional commercial space as intended. The city attorney stated that the outdoor seating space meets the requirement for outdoor commercial space, but the concern is whether the seating area is the best use of that space and that they are looking for comments from the DRB. Iwai also asked whether the bike racks were covered. Krueger responded that they are not. 06:56:21 PM (01:26:01) Board Member Peter Constanti asked how, when and why the B-3 zoning line was drawn. Krueger responded that this area has been a planned growth area of the city since the 1950s, but that the growth and intensification of the outer limits of the B-3 areas have not been seen until recently. Constanti also asked if the applicant considered utilizing the roof space as a public outdoor area. Hollerin responded that they are still planning on exploring that and that there are many factors to consider. 06:59:08 PM (01:28:48) Deputy Mayor Cindy Andrews asked whether a sample of the window and store front glass will be provided. Stoll responded that they would be able to provide that. Krueger clarified that those would be required prior to building permit approval, but that it may be possible to present that to the commission prior to that point. Andrews also requested anything that would provide more detail on the building materials. She continued to ask about the seating area outside of the proposed coffee shop and what would happen if that space were not utilized by a coffee shop and particularly what would happen to the area in the winter. Stroll responded that the space is covered and would provide weather protection and that they looked into heating the area. 07:03:10 PM (01:32:50) Vice Chair Hufstetler asked for clarification regarding the commercial wrap guidelines and if there is a certain percentage of space to be used commercially and if there is a distinction between office or retail. Krueger responded that there are no requirements for which type of commercial space. 07:04:54 PM (01:34:34) Hufstetler asked how high the ground floor windows would be with the unbroken pane of glass. 07:05:42 PM (01:35:22) Hufstetler asked about the balcony wrap material and if that was the best choice. Stroll responded that they are exploring opacity and are open to ideas. 07:07:13 PM (01:36:53) Hufstetler asked how high this rendering is in comparison to the proposal last year. Hollerin responded that it was 2 feet taller than last rendering to comply with ground floor requirements. 07:07:42 PM (01:37:22) Hufstetler asked about shadow footprint and how the neighborhood to the south would be impacted during certain times of the year. He also asked if they’ve done any night renderings to show how much light would be emitted. Stroll responded that they did look at the shadow footprint and that the properties to the south would not be impacted due to how the sun moves. He stated that they have not done a night time rendering. 07:09:44 PM (01:39:24) Hufstetler asked Krueger about city requirements for articulation on second level elevations. Krueger responded that the regulations are very broad for B-3 to allow for a wide variety of designs. 07:10:48 PM (01:40:28) Hufstetler asked about the secretary of interior’s guidelines and how designs impact the NCOD and visual impacts for historic districts. Krueger responded that they follow the City’s historic guidelines and that they are aspiring to meet the Secretary of Interior’s requirements with the design guidelines, depending on the Commission’s desires. Currently, visual impacts are not a significant part of the deliberation, but they are researching this. 07:14:06 PM (01:43:46) Iwai asked Krueger about public comments received in support of infill. Krueger responded that they are looking at public comment that addresses this project specifically. Krueger stated that they would like to look more closely, but that it’s not uncommon to receive comments supporting and opposing a project. 07:16:33 PM (01:46:13) Racow asked Krueger about Rob Edwards’ public comment and about how this project will impact the city overall and who will bear the cost. Krueger responded that the engineering division has identified an offsite sewer that will be required and that the applicant is working directly with engineering to find a solution. 07:18:46 PM (01:48:26) Constanti asked about the design process and asked how the applicants determined that 37 parking spaces were adequate for a project this size. Hollerin stated that they felt parking and transportation trends would change rapidly and that more and more people would not have a car and are interested in the car sharing program. 07:21:11 PM (01:50:51) Public Comment Re-opened (Hufstetler) 07:22:06 PM (01:51:46) Randy Peters stated that he is opposed to the current design, but that he would support with appropriate design and balance to adjacent neighborhood. He referred to the code’s statement of ‘protecting neighborhoods’ and continued to discuss the downtown neighborhood. He asked the board to reject the proposal until issues are resolved. 07:25:50 PM (01:55:30) Paul Neubauer stated that his comments do not represent the Planning Board on which he serves. Neubauer addressed concerns with parking including allowing space downtown for tourism. He continued with concern for maintaining the historic neighborhood character. He called for the City Commission to represent the citizens concerns when determining an outcome for this project. 07:29:15 PM (01:58:55) Brian Segal stated that he opposes the project due to the setbacks, using the Element hotel as an example. He requested underground parking and removing one story while increasing the setbacks. 07:33:01 PM (02:02:41) Stuart Mitchell stated that he opposes the project, but supports infill. Segal stated he would like to see growth supported by everyone and requested a smaller structure. 07:36:16 PM (02:05:56) Margaret Benett addressed concern for homes to the east of the development, particularly with privacy. She also expressed support for Mitchell’s statements and argued that the UDC exists to protect neighborhoods. 07:38:25 PM (02:08:05) Richard Brown stated opposition for the project due to its size and parking issues. Brown stated he would be in support of a smaller structure. 07:41:19 PM (02:10:59) Laura Fedro stated she opposes this project and sold her home as a result. She addressed concerns with the building not fitting in with its surrounding and with parking. 07:42:38 PM (02:12:18) Genie Wilkinson addressed concern with the project’s compliance with the Bozeman guidelines for historic preservation and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. Wilkinson read some excerpts from the historic guidelines. 07:46:17 PM (02:15:57) Kate Bryan stated she is not anti-growth or infill and feels that if the project were scaled down, it would be appropriate. She continued to address concern that the NCOD guidelines are being focused on a specific section developed without much public input and not the overall document. Bryan continued to argue that at one time there was intent to have transition zoning, but that it was later changed. 07:49:36 PM (02:19:16) Tyler Brugman stated that he felt this was a positive and necessary improvement for students in Bozeman and that this project will help with the housing demand in the city. He stated that this will provide quality housing without the responsibility of a single family home. 07:51:33 PM (02:21:13) Vice Chair Hufstetler closed public comment opportunity. 08:01:01 PM (02:30:41) Board Discussion Continued (Hufstetler) 08:01:59 PM (02:31:39) Racow thanked applicant for taking board comments into consideration and implementing them into the updated design. She supported the seating area at the corner if there were to be a coffee shop or small eatery and felt it would be highly utilized. 08:03:34 PM (02:33:14) Racow commended the ground floor parking exterior wall treatment as a great improvement over previous design, adding more detail to ground level. She also supported the matte metal screening for balcony areas adding a modern touch. Racow also commended the applicant on opening the car share program to neighbors and not only tenants. 08:05:32 PM (02:35:12) Racow addressed concerns from an aesthetic perspective stating that she felt the windows on the north elevation were random. Racow requested that more thought be put into the arrangement of windows. Racow stated she felt the building looks dark and ominous. 08:08:35 PM (02:38:15) Racow commented on the table area on the west elevation that she didn’t feel it was a good solution for that area of the building and may encourage loitering. She recommended adding bike parking in this area and adding an entrance for residents. Racow requested a bike spot for every resident where a parking spot was not available. Racow also requested that the glazed windows go to the ground. 08:11:52 PM (02:41:32) Racow stated that the loss of glazing on NW corner of the building took away something from the character of the structure. 08:13:06 PM (02:42:46) Racow requested to see the east elevation addressed as it felt neglected and empty. She requested to see something on the ground floor that would break up the wall. 08:14:57 PM (02:44:37) Ernst stated that he felt the building was too large for this site and noted that he’d prefer that they would look at site context as opposed to zoning that was established in the 1950s. Ernst continued to discuss the building height in comparison to the Federal building. Ernst argued that the residential properties would always be significantly shorter than the structure and this building would feel looming and ominous as a result. 08:19:30 PM (02:49:10) Ernst stated support for commercial development and walk-ability within a couple of blocks off Main street, but does not feel that this building is appropriate for its surrounding area. Ernst concluded by stating great site, wrong building, wrong size. Ernst agreed with all staff comments, but does not approve the building’s height in this context. 08:23:33 PM (02:53:13) Franklin stated that the building is starting to move in a direction that is more historically appropriate with the brick and north elevation. Franklin supported Ernst’s comments on mass and scale of the design for the neighborhood context. 08:25:42 PM (02:55:22) Franklin discussed the pros and cons of balcony material and transparency. 08:26:49 PM (02:56:29) Franklin feels that the south side of the structure does not relate to the area it is adjacent to. He recommended that a level be removed on the Southside and suggested something like a rooftop garden for the residents. 08:28:03 PM (02:57:43) Franklin agreed with the comment of B-3 impact on R-2 zone. Franklin argued that this structure does not pay respect to the historical single family neighborhood. 08:29:00 PM (02:58:40) Franklin supported Racow’s comment that the sitting space could be abandoned over time. He recommended some garage door so that the space can be opened or closed. Franklin felt the scale and articulation of the building had not been addressed per previous comments. 08:30:49 PM (03:00:29) Iwai supported Racow’s statement regarding the randomly placed windows on one side of the building and recommended more uniformity. Iwai stated she is not opposed to the outdoor seating, but that she felt more bike parking would be a better use. Iwai spoke in support of the car share and felt it would be more utilized for her generation. 08:32:37 PM (03:02:17) Iwai commended the use of more brick and masonry to provide more Bozeman character, but did not feel the height of the building was appropriate. She also felt that the color scheme felt too dark. 08:33:19 PM (03:02:59) Constanti stated he travels by the property site every day and commented that a good design should be site responsible. He did not feel that the scale was appropriate. Constanti stated that he had opinions on the minor changes, but felt the major issues of size and parking had not been addressed. He supported the balcony material, but felt the seating area would collect more leaves and snow than people. 08:35:54 PM (03:05:34) Constanti felt that the east façade was the least interesting and was more noticeable as a result. 08:38:23 PM (03:08:03) Vice Chair Hufstetler addressed the commercial wrap and stated that the guideline was hard to quantify, but was minimally attempted. Hufstetler stated the space on the east is narrow and thought it would not be used. 08:40:22 PM (03:10:02) Hufstetler was not in support of the balcony material as it would be visually prominent and could overshadow the brick. 08:42:20 PM (03:12:00) Hufstetler argued that the only attempt made by the developer was to meet the quantitative requirements set in the design code and that the objective was efficiency rather than quality architecture. 08:43:33 PM (03:13:13) Hufstetler asked that the city look at the broader intent of the project and the neighborhood when making determinations on this project. Hufstetler argued that we should look at how the building itself will interface with the neighborhood and how the areas will interact with each other. 08:46:48 PM (03:16:28) Hufstetler spoke to the NCOD and historic conservation. He argued that this building is not compatible with the historic overlay and explained his reasoning. 08:49:16 PM (03:18:56) Hufstetler recommended that any building older than 50 years old should be considered for historic context. 08:50:23 PM (03:20:03) MOTION: Lessa Racow motioned to approve item 16432 Black Olive Site Plan with modifications to recommended conditions to report findings. Kiersten Iwai seconds the motion 08:52:07 PM (03:21:47) Vice Chair Hufstetler calls for vote  In Favor (None)  Opposed (Unanimous)  Motion Fails 08:53:15 PM (03:22:55) MOTION: Lessa Racow motioned to deny item 16432 Black Olive Site Plan based on Design Review Board’s findings of non-compliance with applicable criteria contained within the staff report. Charles Franklin seconds the motion 08:54:25 PM (03:24:05) Racow withdrew motion 08:56:44 PM (03:26:24) Iwai commented that while she agrees with staff findings overall, she feels an obligation to the citizens who have participated to address the design of the project. 08:58:17 PM (03:27:57) Krueger commented that in past meetings, if a motion has failed to pass, it could be interpreted as a denial. Krueger continued to explain that he would be able to put together the notes to provide to the commission. 08:59:16 PM (03:28:56) MOTION: Brady Ernst motioned to recommend denial of the application with modifications to the staff report to include a reduced height building. 08:59:44 PM (03:29:24) Lessa Racow seconds motion 08:59:54 PM (03:29:34) The board requests guidance from staff on appropriateness of motion. Krueger stated that the motion is not specific enough to implement. 09:01:10 PM (03:30:50) Ernst withdrew motion 09:01:14 PM (03:30:54) MOTION: Lessa Racow motioned to deny item 16432 Black Olive Site Plan based on the DRBs comments during the course of the meeting. Peter Constanti seconds the motion 09:01:49 PM (03:31:29) Racow commented that these apartments will not be affordable for the general population for college aged students based on a public comment received earlier in the evening. 09:02:44 PM (03:32:24) Vice Chair Hufstetler calls for vote  In Favor (Unanimous)  Opposed (None) Motion to deny application passes F. FYI/Discussion (none) G. 09:03:17 PM (03:32:57) Adjournment For more information please contact Brian Krueger at bkrueger@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, Mike Gray at 406-582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).