Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-17 DRB Minutes Design Review Board Wednesday, July 12, 2017 5:30 pm, City Hall, Commission Room A. 05:31:20 PM (00:00:30) Call meeting to order and Roll Call Present Were:  Kiersten Iwai  Lessa Racow (Interim Chair)  Brady Ernst  Commissioner Cyndy Andrus B. 05:32:11 PM (00:01:21) Changes to the Agenda C. 05:32:16 PM (00:01:26) Minutes  None D. 05:34:04 PM (00:03:14) 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. Action Items 1. 05:34:54 PM (00:04:04) 17265 Black Olive II SP (Krueger) 202 South Black Avenue. Site plan and certificate of appropriateness application for the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a five story, 47 unit mixed use apartment building and related site improvements. The project proposes 28 one bedroom and 19 two bedroom apartments, 40 parking spaces and 1 car-share vehicle in one building. Eight hundred square feet of commercial space is proposed on the ground floor.  Staff Report  Application  Public Comment 05:41:01 PM (00:10:11) Planner Brian Krueger reviewed proposed parking. 05:43:51 PM (00:13:01) Krueger reviewed the project elevations. 05:46:06 PM (00:15:16) Krueger reviewed comparison of proposed building volume vs. allowable volume. 05:47:33 PM (00:16:43) Krueger reviewed and summarized previous public comments and answered some concerns. 05:51:02 PM (00:20:12) Krueger reviewed the guideline findings for the project, stating that they are in conformance with the conservation overlay and development code for this location. 05:51:57 PM (00:21:07) Krueger reviewed the two conditions that are recommended related to the COA approval in order to confirm important design elements as the project moves forward. The conditions regard the type of glass used in the storefront. 05:53:02 PM (00:22:12) Andy Holloran presented on behalf of the applicant. He reviewed the changes he made based on the feedback received. 05:54:42 PM (00:23:52) DRB asked staff and applicant questions regarding the project:  05:54:46 PM (00:23:56) Board Member Ernst asked about the two properties to the south of the Black Olive site and if they were to be developed, if they would need to comply with B3 zoning or with the historical district.  05:59:48 PM (00:28:58) Krueger responded to a question from the board regarding the daylight plane. He stated that this project was not required to provide a daylight plane since it is not abutting a residential zone, but explained how it is calculated and that it is typically used in transitional zoning.  06:02:32 PM (00:31:42) Bike Parking is reviewed in response to a question.  06:03:42 PM (00:32:52) Board member Racow asked about the public comment regarding the utility pole placement. Holloran answered that the placement was determined by Northwestern Energy.  06:06:03 PM (00:35:13) Board member Racow asked about an area on the East side of the building that is lacking plantings. Applicant Holloran responded that they will add landscaping to that area. Racow also asked about a rooftop garden.  06:09:06 PM (00:38:16) Commissioner Andrus asked about the perforated parking panels. Krueger answered that they will allow air flor, but will shield the vehicles.  06:10:39 PM (00:39:49) Applicant Holloran responded to a question regarding the structure’s relation to the neighborhoods surrounding it. Holloran stated that the size of the building is meant to assist in the housing shortage and to fit within downtown and the zoning district. Public Comment for 17-265 Black Olive II:  06:12:35 PM (00:41:45) Ellen Stevenson had comments concerning parking, neighboring yard privacy and diminished views with the construction of Black Olive.  06:14:12 PM (00:43:22) Stewart Mitchell had comments concerning the functional and aesthetic design of the project and how it fits within the neighborhood. He also had concerns with the NCOD.  06:17:24 PM (00:46:34) Randy Peters had comments concerning compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood and the lack of change with the project in response to feedback. He asked the board to reject the proposal.  06:20:29 PM (00:49:39) Adam Oprey asked if the project was approved, how long the construction would be.  06:21:19 PM (00:50:29) Elizabeth Darrow’s comments concerned the design of the project and the lack of change from the previous application. She also expressed concern regarding the interpretation of the NCOD.  06:25:03 PM (00:54:13) Jim Walseth commented that Bozeman residents value preservation and libertarianism and argued that the Black Olive structure disregards those believes.  06:26:51 PM (00:56:01) Richard Brown commented that little has changed with the project and that the concerns that were voiced previously have not been addressed and that there was little regard for the character of the neighborhood. He asked that the board vote against the project.  06:29:04 PM (00:58:14) Nancy Johnson commented that the re-submittal of the project was insulting to the community with the lack of change for this specific site.  06:32:54 PM (01:02:04) Alan Kirk commented that the changes made to the application are not meaningful to the community regarding the size, parking challenges and transition to the residences on the south.  06:35:23 PM (01:04:33) Clark Babcock commented that the mass and scale of this site is not appropriate to the neighborhood. He stated that cutting off the 5th floor of the project would have addressed many issues, but that he does not see the necessary changes to make it appropriate for the area.  06:37:18 PM (01:06:28) Jack Renarie stated that his neighbors have started to sell their homes in response to the proposed Black Olive project due to its size and scale. He felt that the project would drive up housing costs and take away opportunity from family residents, like teachers and firefighters.  06:40:45 PM (01:09:55) Paul Neubauer voiced concerns regarding the characteristics of the area that cannot be measured for the project application. He stated that while the project checked off the boxes of the code, it was not appropriate for the neighborhood and pointed out code section 38.520.030c, which states that buildings that contain dwelling units whose only solar access is from the applicable side of the building must be set back from applicable side or rear property line at least 15 feet.  06:44:05 PM (01:13:15) Clarissa Weary comments voiced concerns regarding the design of the structure and lack of change from previous feedback.  06:46:38 PM (01:15:48) Jackie Persons commented that the congestion of parking and driving in the vicinity of the project is a safety risk for the community. She also commented on the size, appropriateness and the applicant’s lack of change from previous feedback.  06:50:00 PM (01:19:10) Mary Padzitzer’s comments voiced concerns regarding parking and the traffic that will come from this development.  06:52:11 PM (01:21:21) Daryl Barrent stated that he did not believe the development was geared toward increasing commercial presence as B3 zoning dictates. He also voiced concerns regarding snow and garbage falling from the balconies onto the sidewalks and the lack of change from previous applications.  06:56:18 PM (01:25:28) Al Kesselheim stated that his comments had been voiced by others repeatedly. He pointed out the massive outpouring of the community and asked that they be heard.  06:57:39 PM (01:26:49) Kate Bryant stated that she owns a rental property adjacent to Black Olive and that they take pride in offering affordable housing. While they support infill and density, she stated that it is a matter of scale. She asked that Black Olive provide a plan that promotes community and affordable housing. Discussion: 07:01:47 PM (01:30:57) Board Member Ernst stated that the mass and the scale of the project is still an issue as it does not fit with the residential neighborhood to the south and to the east. He added that the back half of the project is in the S. Tracy, S. Black historic district according to the 1987 map made from colored pencil. He voiced concern regarding the adjacent properties that fall within the historic district and stated that he could not see them building up without conflicting with the historic preservation standards. He brought up a stadium housing project that was proposed to be adjacent to Alder Creek Subdivision and the determination from the Zoning Commission was that it should be a gradient between zoning and housing from high residential to low residential. He argued that this project relates to downtown, but does not relate to the residential area behind it. 07:13:02 PM (01:42:12) Board Member Iwai asked Mr. Holloran why he has not considered reducing the stories of the structure to 3-4 stories rather than 5. Mr. Holloran answered that the project is appropriate to B3 zoning and that the process seems to be very subjective. He also stated that they have to consider the economics and cost of land downtown. Iwai continued by asking about underground parking and why that was not considered. Holloran stated that it cost $50K per space in order to do that and that they are trying to help make the price of these units more attainable and offer a larger variety of housing types. When asked how long it would take to construct, Holloran answered 12-14 months from the demolition process. Iwai commented that she can tell that this project is symbolic to the community in where Bozeman is heading. She also stated that there is a need for infill within the city. Iwai stated appreciation for the changes in the upper stories and the color changes in the project, but said that she still felt that the transition is awkward and the design doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood. 07:24:41 PM (01:53:51) Interim Chair Lessa Racow stated that she appreciates the changes that Mr. Holloran has made to the project, highlighting the increase in enclosed bicycle parking, the pedestrian entrance on the SW side of the building which will allow residents to enter with their bicycles, the effort to balance the parking and the architectural changes at the top of the building. Racow continued to state that the building is not aesthetically pleasing, noting the dark colors on the façade. She continued that there should be a balance between the building and the neighboring residents. She made a recommendation that the 2nd floor be commercial as well and noted that she had no issue with the size of the building, but its design. Racow commented that the design needs to consider not just the residents, but other citizens who want to visit downtown and have a place to park. She voiced concern that this would not impact the housing shortage as many residents may be seasonal or that units would be leased as vacation rentals. Racow reiterated that from a design standpoint, the building feels too dark and too heavy and that she would like to see a project similar in this site, but that she would like to see a different design overall. She asked that the Commission consider moving the utility pole to the East onto the Black Olive portion of the utility easement, that it would be a respectful gesture to the neighbor immediately to the south. She added that immediately to the west in the SE corner, where there is currently vacant space with rock and mulch, that there be some ‘unfriendly’ foliage to prevent loitering or unwanted camping. 07:37:04 PM (02:06:14) Commissioner Andrus responded to some public comment and clarified that the Design Review Board was not given any direction or ‘marching orders’ specific to this project from the City Commission, but they are to perform as they always do with regard to building design. Andrus also reminded the public that this is a new application, not a continuation of an application and also reminded the public not to speak to an individual, but to an application. Recommendation: 07:41:15 PM (02:10:25) Board member Brady Ernst asked to open up for more discussion since the board lacked a quorum to vote on a motion, but wanted to provide a recommendation to the commission. MOTION to recommend denial based on the design review boards findings of non-compliance from previous discussion: Brady Ernst MOTION SECONDED: Kiersten Iwai 07:42:19 PM (02:11:29) DISCUSSION: Board member Ernst stated that the recommendation to deny the application is due to the mass and scale of the building in relation to the historic district to the south. He argued that there are not enough historic districts and that is what makes them special. Board member Iwai stated that she could not single out a specific reason why the board is recommending denial, but that she believes that there is a better fit for this location as far as design is concerned. Interim Chair Racow supported Iwai’s statement that the design is just not a fit for this location and that there is a better option. She stated that the building is vital to the community, but that the design is not right. VOTE: Unanimous – Motion to recommend denial passes. F. 07:47:01 PM (02:16:11) FYI/Discussion Board member Ernst requested that an agenda item be added to vote on a replacement Chair and Vice Chair for the board. G. 07:47:55 PM (02:17:05) 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).