HomeMy WebLinkAbout19410 Armory Modification DRB Memo FINAL 2-7-20Page 1 of 17
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: BRIAN KRUEGER, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER
RE: ARMORY HOTEL MODIFICATION TO APPROVED PLAN APPLICATION, 19410
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Project Location: 24 West Mendenhall Street Bozeman, MT
Project Description: Two phase site plan modification application for a hotel development on a 19,310 square foot site in the B-3 zoning district.
Recommendation:
Phase 1: Staff finds that Phase 1 of the application, except the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening, does comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and Phase 1 of the modification is sufficient for approval.
Phase 2: The staff review finds that Phase 2 of the application does not comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and Phase 2 of the modification is not sufficient for approval.
Recommended motions:
Phase 1: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff memorandum for application 19410 and move to recommend approval of Phase 1 of the application, except the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening as described in the staff memorandum.
Phase 2: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff memorandum for application 19410 and move to recommend denial of Phase 2 of the application. Background: The Armory Hotel developer has submitted an application to modify the final plan for the Armory Hotel Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Deviations application. The hotel development was approved in 2013 by the City Commission under Application Z13064, Armory Hotel. The final plan for the development was approved in December of 2014. The modification application was submitted on September 19, 2019 and deemed inadequate for review on November 14, 2019. Six additional revisions have been submitted in response to inadequacy determinations from the City. The application was deemed adequate for review on January 13, 2020. The original application approved by the City Commission was a Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application. It allowed the adaptive reuse of an existing building and the construction of an eight story, 102 room hotel, and associated site
Page 2 of 17
improvements including on premise consumption of alcohol. The property is located at 24 West Mendenhall Street, which is zoned B-3, Central Business District. This property is located outside of the Main Street Historic District, but is located within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The intent and purpose of the conservation district is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures contributing to the historic character of established residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings. It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance significant architectural character and historic landmarks for the education, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of the Bozeman citizens as articulated in Section 38.16.010 of the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Adaptive reuse of historic structures is anticipated within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Bozeman Armory is one of 50 buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places for the City of Bozeman. When determining a site or building’s quality of significance, the National Register evaluates using four criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. The Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level. The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and the Works Progress Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard’s 163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinctive Art Deco architectural style and National Guard Armory method of construction. The other uses associated with the hotel include conference/event space, restaurants, and bars including on premises sales and consumption of alcohol. Parking was approved to be provided offsite in the downtown parking garage through a long term parking agreement. Loading zone only parking spaces are proposed along the Mendenhall Street frontage of the project. The majority of vehicular access to the site will occur at a valet station in front of the hotel that will facilitate the movement of vehicles from the loading spaces to the parking garage. Three deviations were granted from the Bozeman Municipal Code as follows for the project: 1. Section 38.10.050.B.1 BMC (2013) Minimum yards required in the B-3 district – No minimum yards prescribed for the B-3 district except a seven-foot front yard shall be required on Mendenhall and Babcock Streets. Deviation was requested to allow a new primary entrance canopy and a secondary
Page 3 of 17
entrance canopy along Mendenhall Street to extend 10’6 and 6’6 feet respectively beyond the property line towards the street curb. 2. Section 38.10.060.A.3 BMC (2013) Building Height Maximum building height for the B-3 commercial district outside of the core area is 70 feet. A deviation was requested to allow the maximum height of the hotel to extend up eight stories to 110 feet. 3. Section 38.23.150.D.7.b (2013) BMC requires that all outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded in such a manner that no light is emitted above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light emitting element, so that direct light emitted above the horizontal plane is eliminated. A deviation was requested to allow the use of the historic exterior building main entrance lights that do not comply with this standard. The application was approved with deviation number 2 above to allow a significant vertical addition to the Bozeman Armory that includes the majority of the project’s hotel rooms. The addition was approved as a rooftop addition to the Armory building set back significantly from the front façade. The tower is set back between 24 and 36 feet from the front façade, which reinforces the historic massing of the Armory along West Mendenhall Street. A pool was approved on top of the Armory building in front of the addition. The top of the addition provided a barrel roof shape to mimic the historic feature of the barrel vaulted roof over the gymnasium in the Armory building. The gymnasium space is now the ballroom of the hotel.
Modification Application Process and Applicable Standards The changes to the project proposed for the site, singly or cumulatively, do not increase lot coverage by buildings, storage areas, parking areas or impervious surfaces and/or do not result in an increase in intensity of use as measured by parking requirements, traffic generation or other measurable off-site impacts by ten percent or more; as stated in section 38.230.160.C.2. BMC (2020). This application may be processed as a modification to approved plan and is not a significant alteration of the previous use and site that requires the submittal of a new application. For site plan modifications not requiring a new site plan application, the proposed changes are reviewed against the City standards in place at the time that the original application Z13064 received adequacy, which was May 1, 2013. Therefore, most proposed modifications will be evaluated using the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code. One exception to this rule, which is applicable here, is that when the modification involves a building addition or remodel the current standards in 38.500.020 BMC (2020) regarding the applicability and compliance requirements for Article 5 of the Unified Development Code as related to project design apply. See 38.230.150.D. BMC (2020). Three different thresholds have been established to gauge how the project design standards in Article 5 are applied to different applications. Based upon the thresholds in 38.500.020 BMC (2020), this modification application is a Level I improvement. Level I improvements include all exterior remodels, building additions, and/or site improvements commenced within a three-year period (based on the date of permit issuance) that affect the exterior appearance of the building/site and/or increase the building's area by up to 20 percent. “The requirement for such improvements is that the proposed improvements meet the standards and do not lead to further nonconformance with the standards. For example, if a property owner decides to replace a building façade's siding, then the siding must meet the applicable exterior building material standards, but elements such as building articulation would not be required.” 38.500.020.B.1. BMC (2020). This modification application
Page 4 of 17
proposes changes to the exterior materials of the building and compliance with current Article 5 standards is required for building materials. The definition of development in BMC 38.700.050 is “Any manmade change to improve or alter real estate, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land, buildings or other structures, mining, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations.” The Design Review Board (DRB) review thresholds provided in BMC 38.230.040.C are for developments that require design review. The proposed modification application is a manmade change to alter real estate. The modification application proposes changes to the entire building, interior and exterior. The Armory Hotel building meets the thresholds because it is more than four stories tall. See 38.230.040.C.3. BMC (2020). Therefore, the DRB is the proper design review advisory body and must conduct the design review for the application. The DRB must provide a recommendation to the Director of Community Development to approve or disapprove this modification application. The Director of Community Development has requested an additional public notice period for the modification application. The project site was posted and the adjoining property owners within 200 feet of this project were mailed a notification. The notice period is open from February 5 through February 27, 2020 and the city is accepting public comment on the application. The Director of Community Development is the review and decision authority for this modification application.
Modifications Proposed Phase 1 and Findings This report is based on the application materials submitted to date. The overall recommendation for Phase 1, except 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening, is that the proposal is sufficient for approval. The proposed modifications in Phase 1 meet the applicable zoning standards in place as of May 1, 2013 including 38.16.050.A BMC (2013) Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness. The findings below support a recommendation that Phase 1, except 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening, is sufficient for approval. 1. The addition of 19 additional hotel guest rooms for a total of 121 hotel guest rooms. a. 3 hotel rooms are proposed to be added to the second floor; two additional rooms per floor are proposed to be added to floors 3-7, and floor 8 is proposed to add 6 rooms. The approved building included 102 guest rooms; the proposed modification is for a hotel that includes 121 guest rooms. b. The hotel room use is an allowed use in the B-3 zoning district. c. The updated parking calculations provide parking for the additional rooms. d. The spa uses were removed from the hotel’s second floor and replaced with rooms. e. The increase in hotel rooms meets standards for use and parking requirements. 2. The ballroom use was modified to include a stage and a serving bar. a. The historic stage in the Armory was to be removed in the approved final plan and include kitchen uses in that area. The stage is now proposed be rehabilitated in place. b. A serving bar is proposed directly adjacent to the ballroom floor. c. A second floor restaurant space serving the ballroom is eliminated and replaced with public event space. d. The ballroom use is accessory to the hotel.
Page 5 of 17
e. The updated parking calculations provide adequate parking for the changes to the ballroom and public event spaces. f. The alcohol service area is generally unchanged in relation to the public event space and ballroom areas. g. The modifications to the ballroom, bar, public event space and alcohol service areas related to these uses meet standards. 3. Remove stairs and outdoor terrace and add rooftop mechanical units on the second floor rooftop along the west elevation of the historic armory building. a. New mechanical unit locations on this floor are excluded from phase 1 approval due to non-compliance with the code. See discussion under phase 2 for mechanical equipment locations and screening findings. 4. Third level exterior terrace and pool replaced with rooftop mechanical units. a. The pool was relocated to a new ninth floor of the building. b. New mechanical unit locations on this floor are excluded from phase 1 approval due to non-compliance with the code. See discussion under phase 2 for mechanical equipment locations and screening findings. c. The outdoor terrace space was relocated to the ninth floor. d. Removing the outdoor terrace and pool from the 3rd floor rooftop of the Armory Building meets standards. 5. A new ninth floor is proposed for the building. a. A restaurant is proposed on the ninth floor with a kitchen, indoor and outdoor serving areas. b. Three elevators are proposed to extend up to the ninth floor to service this area. c. The outdoor terrace space is proposed to be outdoor serving areas. d. Alcohol service is proposed at this rooftop restaurant, indoors and outdoors, and the pool area. e. The building approved in application Z13064 was proposed at 107’6” at the top of the parapet and 102’8” at the top of roof. The building was approved eight stories tall and under the maximum 110’ granted under the height deviation. f. The proposed building is 112’ 4” at the top of the parapet. Parapets are allowed to extend four feet above the maximum height of the building. The top of roof framing is proposed a 105’ 3 3/4”. The building is proposed as nine stories tall and is under the maximum 110’ granted under the height deviation. g. The extra height to allow the ninth floor was achieved by reducing each floor height of the building within the addition. h. The building meets height requirements as allowed by code and as granted under the project deviation for application Z13064. i. Mechanical equipment is proposed on the ninth floor and is screened as required by a solid metal mechanical screen. j. The building meets parking and use requirements for the ninth floor.
Page 6 of 17
6. Minor changes to the floorplans occur throughout the building related to the types of hotel rooms, balconies, restaurant seating areas and kitchen areas, back of house operations, office, closets, stairs, storage areas, etc. as outlined in detail on pages six through eight of the applicant’s narrative and shown on the architectural plans A1.0-5. a. The multiple changes to the floorplans of this nature are minor and meet applicable standards related to parking and use.
Modifications Proposed Phase 2 and Findings This report is based on the application materials submitted to date. The overall recommendation for Phase 2 is to not recommend approval. The proposed modifications in Phase 2 -- excepting the chevron treatment, ninth floor restaurant exterior, and pool and outdoor terrace glass guardrails on the ninth floor -- do not meet the applicable zoning standards in place as of May 1, 2013 including 38.16.050.A BMC (2013) Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness and are not sufficient for approval. The findings below support a recommendation for denial of Phase 2. 1. Remove stairs and outdoor terrace and add rooftop mechanical units on the second floor rooftop along the west elevation of the historic armory building. a. The proposed mechanical equipment screening has changed in size, material, and finish. The original approved plan included champagne metallic metal solid panels for mechanical screening that were full length and that were consistent with the proposed metal rain screen proposed on the building façade. The approved screening was integrated into the architectural design and the overall building material palette of the building. b. Proposed rooftop mechanical equipment screening: The perforated metal panels with metal backing proposed for rooftop mechanical screening do not screen the equipment per the requirements in 38.21.050.F BMC (2013) and the mechanical screening is not integrated into the roof form or architectural design of the building. (1) The mechanical screening does not provide continuous coverage of the equipment. A large gap is present between the screen and the roof through which the equipment can been seen from adjacent properties and the public way. (2) The screening does not meet the standards in 38.21.050.F. BMC (2013). 2. Third level rooftop mechanical units and screening added to area previously approved with pool and terrace. a. The proposed mechanical equipment screening has changed in size, material, and finish. The original approved plan included champagne metallic metal solid panels for mechanical screening that were full length and that were consistent with the proposed metal rain screen proposed on the building façade. The approved screening was integrated into the architectural design and the overall building material palette of the building. b. Proposed rooftop screening: The perforated metal panels with metal backing proposed for rooftop mechanical screening do not screen the equipment per the requirements in
Page 7 of 17
38.21.050.F BMC (2013) and the mechanical screening is not integrated into the roof form or architectural design of the building. (1) The mechanical screening does not provide continuous coverage of the equipment. A large gap is present between the screen and the roof through which the equipment can been seen from adjacent properties and the public way. (2) The screening does not meet the standards in 38.21.050.F. BMC (2013). 3. The exterior lighting package for the project is proposed to change fixtures, lighting types and intensities. a. The L6 fixture is proposed as an architectural accent light. (1) The proposed light spread is not directed towards an architectural element, but is directed towards an entire wall surface and is not in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.a BMC (2013). (2) The L6 fixtures on the façade send light across the entire façade of the building. The light from each fixture as defined in footcandles overlaps on the façade and is not restricted to individual building architectural elements. The entire façade is illuminated, which is not in conformance with 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). (3) The L6 fixtures in combination with the L18 fixtures illuminate the entire façade of the Armory building, in violation of 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). b. The L18 fixture is proposed as a changing color accent light. (1) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.h. BMC (2013), lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation are prohibited. (2) The L18 fixture is proposed to vary in color, which is not in conformance with 38.23.150D.7.h. BMC (2013). (3) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013), all outdoor lighting shall be aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. (4) The changing colored lighting will reflect onto neighboring residential uses and present a hazard to drivers as it will direct driver attention away from the roadway and onto the building. The Mendenhall Street right of way is approximately sixty feet wide. The adjacent buildings in this vicinity are placed close to the street. The Armory building is constructed adjacent to the street. The significant numbers of exterior lights on the Armory building and addition that are proposed to be projected onto the building will reflect off of the building onto adjacent properties. Adjacent residential and office uses exist within the vicinity. The significant number of lights proposed to project onto the Armory building may have objectionable light projected onto neighboring properties or uses. Drivers will pass by this building at a close distance. The proposed colored lighting is on the Armory building and addition. The driver’s attention will be directed away from the street onto the colored building. Therefore,
Page 8 of 17
the proposed modification does not meet the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). (5) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013), lighting shall not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface shall not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building façade and accent lighting shall not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. (6) The L18 architectural accent lighting is not an integral architectural element on the development plan, which is not in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (7) The L18 lighting does not accent architectural elements, but illuminates entire portions of buildings, contrary to the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (8) The L18 fixtures on the façade send light across the entire façade of the building. The light from each fixture, as defined in footcandles, overlaps on the façade, exceeds 5.0 average maintained footcandles, and is not restricted to individual building architectural elements. The entire façade is illuminated. The L18 fixtures in combination with the L6 fixtures illuminate the entire façade of the Armory building, which does not comply with the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (9) The L18 colored lighting proposed on the Armory building is not in conformance to the Secretary of the Interior standards for Historic Preservation. See findings below for Certificate of Appropriateness criteria. c. The L19 color light fixture is proposed as a changing color accent light. (1) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.h. BMC (2013), lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation are prohibited. (2) The L19 fixture is proposed to vary in color, which is not in conformance with 38.23.150D.7.h. BMC (2013). (3) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013), all outdoor lighting shall be aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. (4) The changing color lighting is not aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. The Mendenhall Street right of way is approximately sixty feet wide. The adjacent buildings in this vicinity are placed close to the street. The Armory building is constructed adjacent to the street. The significant numbers of exterior lights on the Armory building and addition that are
Page 9 of 17
proposed to be projected onto the building will reflect off of the building onto adjacent properties. Adjacent residential and office uses exist within the vicinity. The significant number of lights proposed to project onto the Armory building may have objectionable light projected onto neighboring properties or uses. Drivers will pass by this building at a close distance. The proposed colored lighting is on the Armory building and addition. The driver’s attention will be directed away from the street onto the colored building. Therefore, the proposed modification does not meet the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). d. The L19 10 degree fixture is proposed as an architectural accent light. (1) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013), lighting shall not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface shall not exceed 5.0 average maintained foot candles. Building façade and accent lighting shall not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. (2) The architectural accent lighting is not an integral architectural element on the development plan, contrary to the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (3) The lighting does not accent architectural elements, but illuminates entire portions of buildings, contrary to the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (4) The L19 10 degree fixtures on the façade send light across the entire façade of the building. The light from each fixture, as defined in footcandles, overlaps on the façade and is not restricted to individual building architectural elements. The entire façade is illuminated, which does not comply with the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). e. The L21 fixture is proposed as an architectural accent light. (1) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013), lighting shall not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface shall not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building façade andaccent lighting shall not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. (2) The proposed light spread is not directed towards an architectural element, but is directed towards an entire wall surface and is not be in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). (3) The L21 fixtures on the façade send light across the entire façade of the building. The light from each fixture as defined in foot candles overlaps on the façade and is not
Page 10 of 17
restricted to individual building architectural elements. The entire façade is illuminated not in conformance with 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). (4) The L19 10 degree fixtures in combination with the L21 fixtures illuminate the entire façade of the Armory building, which does not comply with the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). f. The L28 Canopy light is shown surface mounted on the building on both sides of an exit door and on exterior walls on the ninth floor. (1) The L28 fixtures are exterior lighting that include an exposed lens. The cutsheet provided shows a lens that is not flush with the exterior of the fixture as required per 38.23.150.F.1. BMC (2013). (2) The fixture is not mounted so that horizontal light is eliminated from a 90 degree plane, which is not in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.b. BMC (2013). (3) The fixtures do not comply with BMC 38.23.150.F which requires that fixtures meet “full-cutoff” criteria and that in all fixtures, the light source and associated lenses shall not protrude below the edge of the light fixture, and shall not be visible from adjacent streets or properties. g. The lighting plans, details, and proposed lighting fixtures and luminaries as described above do not meet standards and are not sufficient for approval. h. Fixtures L7, L17, L23, L24, D15 and M1(4) conform to standards in 38.23.150.BMC (2013). (1) While the above listed fixtures and fixture locations may be approved they are included with Phase 2 and the fixtures are part of an overall photometric plan proposed for Phase 2 in which they cannot easily be separated from the noncompliant fixtures. Phase 2 overall does not comply with standards and is not sufficient for approval. Fixtures L7, L17, L23, L24, D15 and M1(4) could be approved if provided in a new photometric plan excluding the noncompliant fixtures. 4. The exterior building materials for the building are proposed to change. a. The exterior siding building materials for the addition to the Armory are proposed to change. The primary approved palette of champagne metallic rainscreen, taupe limestone plaster, and perforated brushed stainless steel panels are to be replaced with a singular siding material in three colors. The proposed siding is a synthetic insulating finishing system known as TAFS. TAFS is a textured acrylic finish siding product that can be applied over multiple substrates. TAFS is an exterior insulation and finishing system. (1) The proposed change to the approved exterior siding materials as described above does not meet current standards and are not sufficient for approval. See findings under Certificate of Appropriateness and Article 5 of the BMC criteria below for findings to support denial of the proposed exterior TAFS siding materials. b. The restaurant on the ninth floor is new and it is proposed with a shed roof and is to be mostly glass windows with a black metal fascia and soffit. Small areas of wood siding are proposed below the windows. A stone outdoor fireplace is proposed adjacent to the
Page 11 of 17
outdoor terrace seating area. A glass guardrail is proposed around the outdoor terrace seating area and the ninth floor pool. (1) This restaurant addition exterior, outdoor seating area and pool area, and guardrails are subordinate to the primary roof form of the building and parapet at the front of the addition and comply with Certificate of Appropriateness standards. (2) This restaurant addition exterior remains set back from the Armory building and is consistent with the overall design of the addition and complies with Certificate of Appropriateness standards. (3) The materials on the restaurant addition exterior and guardrails are appropriate to standards and are subordinate to the overall siding materials proposed for the addition and comply with Certificate of Appropriateness standards. (4) The restaurant addition exterior, terrace and seating areas, and guardrails do meet standards and are sufficient for approval. While the restaurant addition, terrace and seating areas, and guardrails may be approved it is included with Phase 2. Phase 2 overall does not comply with standards and is not sufficient for approval. The restaurant addition exterior, terrace and seating areas, and guardrails could be approved if configured in another manner within the application. c. The art deco markings on the Armory building are proposed to change. The chevrons within the board formed concrete on the Armory building were approved to be infilled with brushed aluminum strips. The Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Chevrons and Other Art Deco Details” wherein the proposed treatment of the art deco chevrons and other art deco details are described. The proposed treatment with the modification is to not infill the brushed aluminum strips. (1) The proposed change to the approved treatment of the Armory building’s chevrons as described above do meet standards and are sufficient for approval. See findings under Certificate of Appropriateness for findings to support approval of the proposed chevron treatment. While the chevron treatment may be approved it is included with Phase 2. Phase 2 overall does not comply with standards and is not sufficient for approval. The chevron treatment could be approved if configured in another manner within the application. 5. The windows in the Armory building are proposed to change. a. The replacement windows on the Armory building are proposed to be changed from the previously approved windows which preserved the general appearance of the historic windows to the proposed windows that do not retain the appearance and decorative elements of the original windows. The windows proposed for the Armory building do not include muntins on the exterior of the windows that break up the window into panes as had historically existed in the Armory building windows. b. The modification narrative states that muntins were never proposed on the Armory building replacement windows on the exterior of the window. However, the Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document
Page 12 of 17
entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Windows and Doors of the Armory.” That document includes a cross section through the proposed windows for the Armory that includes muntins on both sides of the replacement windows in order to provide a similar appearance to the historic windows in design and pane dimensions. Cross Section 2 in the exhibit for this section in the original approval shows the proposed muntins on both sides of the window. c. The proposed change to the approved windows as described above do not meet standards and are not sufficient for approval. See findings under Certificate of Appropriateness criteria below for findings to support denial of the proposed windows.
Certificate of Appropriateness Findings Phase 2 a. 38.16.050.A. BMC (2013) Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness, states, “All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (published 1995). The following page references and topics and statements are from the 1995 document. Findings on the proposed modifications follow each section. The project modifications, excepting the chevron treatment, as proposed do not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards or the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995 (“SOI Standards”). Findings are provided on the applicable provisions below.
Page 82. Rehabilitation. Building Exterior Windows. Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their functional and decorative features—that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Such features
can include frames, sash, muntins, glazing, sills heads, hoodmolds, paneled or
decorated jambs and moldings, and interior and exterior shutters and blinds. As noted above, the proposed windows on the Armory building modification are not in conformance to the approved final plan for the project. The Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Windows and Doors of the Armory.” That document includes a cross section through the proposed windows for the Armory that includes muntins on both sides of the replacement windows in order to provide a similar appearance to the historic windows in design and pane dimensions. Cross Section 2 in the exhibit for this section shows the proposed muntins on both sides of the window. The proposal to provide no muntins on the exterior of the windows does not comply with the SOI Standards. The windows are a character defining feature of the Armory building. The proposed windows do not retain or preserve the functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The proposed windows for the Armory building do not meet the SOI standards and therefore are impermissible under 38.16.050A. BMC (2013).
Page 13 of 17
Page 100. Rehabilitation. Building Interior Mechanical Systems. Installing a completely new mechanical system if required for the new use so that it causes the least alteration possible to the building’s floor plan, the exterior elevation and the least damage to the historic building material. The proposed modifications to the Armory building locate a large amount of rooftop mechanical units on the historic Armory building roof and the required screening does not cause the least alteration possible to the floor plan as well as the exterior elevation of the historic Armory building. The addition of mechanical systems on top of the Armory building impact the historic appearance of the building and do not comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The proposed mechanical units are a completely new mechanical system required for the new use. The proposed locations of the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical unit locations and screening do not meet the SOI standards nor the requirements of 38.16.050A. BMC (2013).
Page 122 Rehabilitation. Exterior Masonry: concrete. Protecting and maintaining masonry by providing proper drainage so that water does not stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or accumulate in decorative features. The art deco markings on the Armory building are proposed to change. The chevrons within the board formed concrete on the Armory building were approved to be infilled with brushed aluminum strips. The Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Chevrons and Other Art Deco Details” wherein the proposed treatment of the art deco chevrons and other art deco details are described. The proposed treatment with the modification is to not infill the brushed aluminum strips. The rationale provided in the application is that the infill metal strips, if installed, would not have allowed proper drainage of the chevrons and might have impacted the historic concrete exterior surface of the Armory building. The proposed treatment to not infill the chevrons is in compliance with the SOI standards and is therefore allowable under 38.16.050A. BMC (2013). b. 38.16.050.B and D. BMC (2013) Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness. The 2006 Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District are the guidelines referenced and implementing these code sections. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period or innovative design of new structures or addition to existing structures, the review authority shall be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The following page references and topics and statements are from the 2006 document. Staff comments on the proposed modifications follow each section.
Page 26. C. Individual Building Features. Guidelines. 1. Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and grouping of windows.
Page 14 of 17
The proposal to provide no muntins on the exterior of the Armory building windows is inconsistent with this guideline. The muntins are a functional and decorative feature of the windows. The windows are a character defining feature of the Armory building. The proposed windows in the Armory building do not meet this guideline.
Page 27. C. Individual Building Features. Guidelines. 6. In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. Using the same material as the
original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a
substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window
components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. The proposal to provide no muntins on the exterior of the Armory building windows is inconsistent with this guideline. The muntins are a critical component of the original windows design and provide a distinct appearance and profile. The proposal to not provide muntins on the exterior of the windows does not match the window profile of the original windows in the Armory building. The proposed windows do not match the appearance of the original window components with a muntin separating each glass pane of the windows. The proposed windows in the Armory building do not meet this guideline.
Page 35. Additions to Commercial Properties. Guidelines. 11. An addition should be compatible in scale, materials and character with the main building. The proposed exterior building materials of the building addition are not compatible with the character of the Armory building. The Armory building is constructed in the Art Deco style. The primary building materials of that style are smooth finish natural building materials such as stucco, concrete, smooth faced stone and terracotta. Stainless steel and aluminum were often used alongside glass blocks. Decorative details can incorporate various motifs to suit the building's function or the architect's whim. Chevrons, zigzags, and other geometrical motifs are common forms of ornament on Art Deco style buildings usually inlaid with other materials. The approved elevations and material palette included compatible building materials for the addition: smooth champagne metallic rain screen, smooth limestone plaster stucco, perforated brushed stainless steel panels with motifs, inlaid stainless steel strips within the chevron and other motifs on the Armory building. The proposed three color TAFS provided two surfaces that are rough in texture, that are synthetic in appearance, and that are not compatible with the Art Deco style. The proposed exterior TAFS siding materials are not in compliance with this guideline.
Page 50. H. Materials. Guidelines. 1. Use building materials that appear similar to
those used traditionally in the area. A large expanse of TAFS on a building downtown is inconsistent with this guideline. The proposed siding is a synthetic insulating finishing system known as TAFS. TAFS is a textured acrylic finish siding product that can be applied over multiple substrates. TAFS is not a building material that appears similar to those used traditionally in the area. The traditional building materials in the area are brick masonry, stone masonry, steel, and concrete. The proposed exterior TAFS siding materials are not in compliance with this guideline.
Page 15 of 17
Page 50. H. Materials. Guidelines. 3. New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used traditionally. A large expanse of TAFS on a building downtown is not in compliance with this guideline. The primary building materials of the Art Deco style are smooth finish natural building materials such as stucco, concrete, smooth faced stone and terracotta. The proposed siding is a synthetic insulating finishing system known as TAFS. TAFS is a textured acrylic finish siding product that can be applied over multiple substrates. TAFS is not a building material that appears similar in character to traditional materials. The scale, proportion, texture and finish of TAFS as proposed as a primary building material is not in character with traditional materials downtown. The proposed exterior TAFS siding materials are not in compliance with this guideline.
Page 50. H. Materials. Guidelines. 4. Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of the scale of the block. This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district. The TAFS material on a building addition of this size, seven stories, is not consistent with this guideline. The TAFS material does not contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block and does not reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district. Most buildings in the district and in the vicinity of the block where the Armory building is located are brick masonry, smooth finish concrete, stucco and other natural building materials that have fine detailing and ornamentation. TAFS is a rough textured product that provides a singular monotone appearance over its surface. The joints provided in TAFS appear to not replicate the fine detailing seen in masonry buildings and concrete buildings in the vicinity. The proposed exterior TAFS siding materials are not in compliance with this guideline. Because the proposed Armory building windows and TAFS material do not meet several of the guidelines, as outlined above, they do not comply with the requirements 38.16.050.B. and D. BMC (2013) and must be denied.
Compliance with Art. 5 of the UDC - Findings. As discussed above on page three of this memorandum, when the modification involves a building addition or remodel the current standards in 38.500.020 BMC (2020) regarding the applicability and compliance requirements for Article 5 of the Unified Development Code as related to project design apply. This application is being reviewed under the Amendments to plans section in 38.230.150. BMC (2020). Subsection D. of this section states “For building additions and/or remodels to all existing development, except single to four-household dwellings in any configuration, see section 38.500.020.B to determine how the design standards within article 5 are applied.” Section 38.500.020.B. BMC (2020), in turn, provides three different thresholds to gauge how Article 5 provisions apply to an application. This modification application is a level I improvement that affects the exterior appearance of the building/site and/or increases the building’s area up to 20 percent. The requirement for such improvements is that the proposed improvements meet the
Page 16 of 17
standards and do not lead to further nonconformance with the standards. For example, if a property owner decides to replace a building façade's siding, then the siding must meet the applicable exterior building material standards, but elements such as building articulation (see section 38.530.040 BMC (2020)) would not be required to meet standards. The approved exterior siding is proposed to be modified in this application. The proposed siding must meet the following current standard:
BMC 38.530.060.C.3. Standards for the use of exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS).
Such material/finishes may be used as a decorative accent cladding material if it is
incorporated with other permitted materials and it complies with the following:
a. On buildings of three or more stories or 5,000 square feet in footprint or greater EIFS is limited to no more than 25 percent of the total façade area and is not the primary cladding material. On buildings of two stories or less or less than 5,000 square feet in footprint, EIFS is limited to 60 percent of the total façade area;
b. Highly textured EIFS finishes are prohibited;
c. EIFS must include an integrated joint or trim pattern;
d. EIFS must not be used on the ground floor when directly adjacent to a sidewalk,
pedestrian or vehicular pathway.
Departures will be considered provided the material’s integration and overall façade composition meets the intent of the standards. The proposed use of TAFS in this application does not comply with this standard. TAFS is an exterior insulation and finishing system. 1. The Armory hotel is more than three stories and EIFS is limited to not more than 25 percent of the total façade area and may not be the primary cladding material. 2. The TAFS proposed is an EIFS. 3. The TAFS is not a decorative accent cladding material. Rather, the TAFS is proposed as the primary exterior building siding material. 4. The TAFS exceeds 25 percent of the total facade area and is proposed as the primary cladding material. 5. Two of the proposed TAFS surfaces are proposed with a highly textured finish. 6. Because of the proposed extensive use of EIFS on the entire building, including some prohibited highly textured EIFS, the proposed modification does not qualify for a departure because it doesn’t meet the express intent of the standards. The proposed exterior siding materials do not meet the standards in 530.060.C.3. BMC (2020). A large area of TAFS on a building does not meet the intent of the building materials section in 38.530.060 BMC (2020). TAFS is not a durable material that provides visual interest from vehicular and pedestrian vantage points. TAFS is susceptible to damage from maintenance and weathering in the Bozeman climate. The freeze and thaw cycles in Bozeman winters make this material susceptible to failure.
Page 17 of 17
Further, a large area of TAFS on a building does not meet the intent of the building character section in 38.530.030 BMC (2020).
1. To promote regionally appropriate architecture that is based on human scaled design details, durable high quality materials, sustainable design measures, and that responds uniquely to the site's context. TAFS is not a human scaled material unless integrated with other more detailed high quality materials. TAFS can have a shortened lifespan in this climate. TAFS has shown itself to not be a durable material in Bozeman. TAFS in this project does not respond uniquely to the site’s context as outlined in the findings regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness criteria above.
2. To emphasize high quality design in Bozeman's built environment. TAFS is a material that does not represent the high quality design downtown that can be seen on other buildings that integrate multiple building materials, material detailing, and architectural interest including the use of brick masonry, stone, steel, and architectural concrete such as board formed concrete.
3. To avoid generic, corporate architectural designs that are not readily reusable or convert to another use that lessens the character and identity of Bozeman. For example, some franchise convenience uses have very specific architectural features (such as a distinctive
roofline design that functions as a sign) that reinforce their identity. While TAFS in this application is not a generic or corporate architectural design, the use of TAFS on the Armory addition lessens the character and identity of Bozeman by inserting a large amount of this material into the downtown area where the material is not a design tradition and is not represented on a large scale anywhere else downtown along the street frontages. The City of Bozeman Planning Division received a response from the Engineering Division that they did not have comments on the proposed modifications. No comments were provided from the Engineering Division.
Attachments:
19410 Application and Documents
19410 Plans
19410 Color and Material Palette
Z13064 Approved Final Plans
Z13064 DRB Staff Report