HomeMy WebLinkAbout20456DRBSummaryMemo6-9-21_CommentResponses_0702821Page 1 of 2
TO: MARTY MATSEN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NICOLE STEIN, SMA ARCHITECTS – Transmitted via Email
FROM: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
PLANNING STAFF
RE: ONE 11 2.0 SITE PLAN, COA + DEM #20456
DATE: JUNE 10, 2021
Owner & Applicant: HomeBase Partners, 20 N. Tracy Ave. andy@hbpartners.com
Representative: Nicole Stein, SMA Architects, 109 E. Oak St. 1E. nicole@architects-sma.com
Project Location: Property is currently addressed at 110 W. Beall St. and is legally described as
Tracy’s 3rd Add, S07, T02 S, R06 E, Block B, Lot A, PLAT J-198 and Tracy’s 3rd Add, S07, T02 S, R06
E, Block B, Lot 8 – 10 City Of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.
Project Description: An addition to the constructed One 11 building for 67 new units with a shared
lobby, bike/ski storage, structured parking that will connect to One 11 1.0, and share a common
open space courtyard on level 2. Additional surface parking is also proposed in the adjacent lot to
the southwest with access, landscaping, striping and other improvements. The project site is
zoned B-3, Downtown District.
Administrative Design Review: On Wednesday, June 9, 2021, the Design Review Board (DRB)
reviewed this project. The motion to recommend approval failed 3-2. With 3 votes against, and
2 votes for recommending approval.
The following are comments made by the DRB. These comments are not necessarily required for
approval of the project, however, staff recommends that the team looks into how these
comments could be addressed and incorporated into the design. Please provide comments to
how they will or will not be addressed. If the design is to change, provide updated drawings with
the response submittal.
• There were several comments regarding the similar materials used between One 11
(constructed) and One 11 2.0. Some suggested that 2.0 should read as a different
building, while other board members suggested varying the materials and form so that
2.0 felt like an evolution of the One 11 design, instead of a continuation. It was stated
that these projects should read as individual buildings and the 2.0 building as designed
would overshadow the design success of the constructed One 11 building. These
comments were further explored through a material study at the west, east and north
facades of 2.0 – as these are the most primary facades visible from the street. As a
result, the material at the 6th floor of the east and north facades were changed. More
detail is given to these efforts in the third comment below.
• Several staff members noted the continuous use of a single material (buff brick) the
entire length of the Beall Street did not meet the design philosophies that would be
appropriate for a pedestrian oriented sidewalk, and that there was not enough material
Page 2 of 2
variety to make an interesting pedestrian experience. The façade utilizes step backs at
the main entry, storefronts, and residential entries on the level 1 façade at the buff
brick locations to create depth. The design team believes the brick grounds the building
given the scale above while adding depth and varieties at each different type of
opening/entrance.
• The proposed façade step back on the top floor of 2.0 is much less pronounced than
was built for One 11. The board would prefer to see a similar step back on the 6th floor
of 2.0, especially along the long Beall façade where the prominent vertical elements are
all of similar height to reduce the vertical massing facing north. The design team
reached out to coordinate with our structural and MEP engineers to best coordinate the
exploration of this comment from the DRB. While the applicant agrees with the DRB’s
comment that a step back at the 6th floor, we learned that it is structurally unfeasible
given the depth of the residential units at more than 35’-0” on the north side of the
building and the need to use this long façade as a critical component of the lateral
diaphragm and structural shear wall. The design of the units on the north side of the
building was driven by the incredible views to the Bridgers and maximizing the livable
space on this side of the building was a primary goal to achieve those views. As a result,
the structural system has to respond to this depth – utilizing the full height of the north
wall up to the 6th floor in the same plane.
• Two board members commented on the amount of bike parking. Recommending the
available wall mount bike racks be increased to accommodate the needs of residents.
The design team reconsidered the bike storage proposed in this room. We are now
providing a total of 61 bike parking spaces in the Ski/Bike Shop/Storage room.
• One board member recommended more variety in the species of street trees used for
public landscaping. The species of tree is being proposed as part of the North Central
Master Site Plan landscaping strategy. Adding variety to the species that was selected
would dilute the significance of the species that was selected to form an identity for
North Central as a cohesive exhibit.
The full recording of this action item at the DRB meeting can be viewed here:
https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/99
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Danielle Garber, Associate Planner