Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-07 Design Review Board Minutes.doc DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Elissa Zavora Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Michael Pentecost Bill Rea Walter Banziger Visitors Present Thomas Mosser Jamie Hurd Jeff Welch ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2006. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of December 13, 2006 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287 (Bristor) 120 West Main Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the demolition of the existing Imperial Inn motel and the adjoining commercial building and the construction of a new hotel and condominium units with related site improvements. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the project’s location within the Main Street Historic District. She stated there were two deviations requested: a request for 25 feet more height than allowable and a request for encroachment into the street vision triangle. She stated Staff would not support a 45% increase in height, but would support a 25% increase in height and that Staff supported the vision triangle encroachment. She stated there would be two large openings for the parking area which would break up the Main Street streetscape. She submitted public comment for DRB review and added that the damage to surrounding structures would be addressed by regulations the Building Department had in place. Mr. Mosser passed out additional materials (added to file) including a photograph of a model of the proposed hotel. He stated that he had prepared an exhibit that would illustrate that a pedestrian at street level would perceive a 13% deviation with the requested height relaxation. He added that only 68 feet would be seen, not 80 feet (in actuality, 68 feet represents a 23% increase to the allowable 55 feet). He stated that his building was 16 feet away from the Baxter Hotel and it would not cause an obstructed view as they would be staggered. He added that the Baxter Hotel was immediately next to a single level structure and was seven times what was next door as far as height was concerned. He stated that the width of the proposed structure was not as wide as it seemed on the plans and cited the Baxter Hotel façade being three times the width of the neighboring structures. He cited other structures within the core of Bozeman’s downtown that took up an entire block and added that his proposal would be in keeping with the existing area. Mr. Rea asked where the 55 foot height limit came from. Planner Bristor responded that it was to keep the core of the Main Street Historic District intact. Mr. Rea asked if it was the highest a structure could be in town. Planner Bristor responded that downtown Main Street was a maximum of 55 feet and other areas in B-3 zoning districts had a maximum allowable height of 70 feet. Mr. Rea asked if Staff supported the proposed parking. Planner Bristor responded that Staff was in support of the proposed parking. Mr. Rea asked why the rendering handed out at the meeting was different from the rendering they had already received. Planner Bristor responded that the rendering had been given to the DRB to illustrate the proposed materials and was from the Informal submittal materials. Mr. Rea asked if the model was accurate. Mr. Mosser responded that the parapet height was less than depicted, but the rest of the model was accurate. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification on the distance the 55 foot height limitations covered. Planner Bristor responded the Main Street Historic District went from Rouse Avenue to Grand Avenue. Mr. Mosser added that the City Manager had mentioned to the newspaper that he would like to see a 70 foot tall structure where the existing City Hall building is. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there had been a street study done for the project that showed the existing buildings and the proposed building in contrast. Planner Bristor responded there had not been a street study done but it could be a condition of Final Site Plan approval. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there had been a solar study done. Planner Bristor responded there had been no solar study done. Ms. Zavora asked Mr. Mosser that if Staff did not support the height and the deviation was denied what would be eliminated from the structure. Mr. Mosser responded the floors could not be eliminated as it would be economically disastrous and he had no plan B if his project was denied. He added that the addition of the underground parking caused him to add two floors to his proposal after the Informal review for economic reasons. Chairperson Livingston stated the parking requirements had not been met according to the Staff Report. Planner Bristor responded that it might be as few as five cash in lieu spaces short of the requirements and added that 35 cash in lieu parking spaces were being requested from the Parking Commission until the calculations were finalized. Chairperson Livingston asked Staff and the applicant if the height of the project had been an issue for the city. Mr. Mosser responded that he knew he was requesting over the allowable height. Chairperson Livingston stated he had not seen the height of the proposal in context with the surrounding buildings in any of the information given to the DRB. Mr. Mosser responded that there was $100,000.00 sitting on the table and it would have been helpful to go through the design review process before the technical review process. He added that he and Staff had known of his request for a height deviation but he had heard nothing about Staff not being in support of that request until he received a Staff Report. He added that he was in the process of providing a depiction of the proposed structure in context to the surrounding buildings. Chairperson Livingston stated there was an argument to be made regarding the bulk of the proposal and suggested a model or computerized rendering would be helpful. Mr. Rea asked why the 55 foot height restriction in the Main Street Historic District had been instituted. Planner Bristor responded that it had been instituted because the existing structures were four stories tall and were roughly 55 feet tall. Mr. Rea stated he thought the idea of a downtown area would be to include the tallest structures with the heights of structures tapering toward the edges of town. Planner Bristor responded that she wanted to clarify that Staff was supportive of the height relaxation, but not as presented. Mr. Mosser added that the 2020 Plan encouraged heights of 70 feet within the B-3 zoning designation. Planner Bristor added that Staff was attempting to protect what Bozeman already had intact along Main Street with height being added on the fringe of Main Street (Babcock, Mendenhall) or at corner locations along Main Street. Chairperson Livingston asked how far away from the parking requirements the project had been when it was proposed as a four story building. Planner Bristor responded that a definite number had not been calculated, but it would have reflected a decrease in hotel units. Chairperson Livingston added that the only two options were to provide the parking or cash in lieu of parking. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to open and continue the project to the next meeting of the DRB to allow time for the applicant to provide color renderings, streetscape, and perspective drawings or a 3-D rendering (such as a model) for the City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287. The motion carried 6-0. Chairperson Livingston stated that time pressures being placed on proposals had been disastrous in the past and the DRB should not be pressured to abide by the current schedule. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he had spent a lot of time trying to visualize the proposal and he appreciated the fact that the applicant was attempting to put a nice hotel downtown. He stated he understood the economics of the underground parking and two additional floors. He stated he had issues as the Baxter Hotel and the Bozeman Hotel were two markers that delineated the Main Street Historic District and the proposal would create a gateway instead of a marker. He stated that the scale of the proposal was huge, asked why it hadn’t been studied in context. He suggested a model depicting the context of the proposal with the surrounding area would be crucial. He stated the solar study would show the impact of the structure on the sidewalk across the street and would be very informative. Ms. Zavora stated she thought it was a great project and she liked the idea of height in the downtown area. She stated there were enough buildings that were not four stories tall and the marker she noted when she looked downtown was the church steeple, not really the Baxter Hotel. She stated the Courthouse seemed like a tall building and suggested it would be nice to have another big building. She added that she agreed with previous DRB comments and would like to see the proposal in context as well. Mr. Rea stated he liked the proposal; the elevation worked historically and anchored the street. He stated he knew $100,000.00 was a lot of money even if it was only 2% of the total budget and suggested that, with such a big investment and it being a part of Bozeman forever, the applicant spend the money to provide the studies and the contextual rendering. He stated the one thing that he really had a problem with was the dual entry to the parking along Main Street and suggested he would rather see all the parking access off of Grand Avenue. Mr. Mosser responded that he had considered a Grand Avenue entrance and it caused crossing over of traffic to the drop off area at the hotel. He added that the drop-off area would need to be accessible and convenient. Mr. Rea asked if it was more of a porte-cochere instead of a driveway. Mr. Mosser responded that it was and added that the glass facades facing Grand Avenue and Main Street would provide great facades to those frontages. Mr. Banziger stated he could foresee conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at the location of the access from Main Street. He stated most hotels had access on a less busy street. Mr. Mosser directed the DRB to the traffic study included in their packets and added that his design was eliminating the pedestrian traffic conflict insisting it was an established fact. Mr. Banziger stated one lane coming in and out lessened the number of places a pedestrian had to look for vehicles and suggested relocating the access to the Grand Avenue side of the site. Chairperson Livingston stated he saw Staff’s concern regarding the façade being in keeping with the current historic method in which downtown Bozeman had been developed. He stated developments were typically in thin blocks with a 180 foot façade of repetition. He stated he was not as concerned about the overall height as it would be a matter of time before developments of this height, or taller, would be proposed downtown. He suggested it was a matter of perspective and he appreciated the perspective provided, but would like to see the Baxter Hotel in context and opposing this proposal as he could not see the penthouse, etc. He stated he thought the project was attractive and he was not as concerned with the proposed height relaxation. He stated that Bozeman, in terms of planning and architecture, held those things in high regard and that was why it was perceived as a desirable place. He stated the historic residences and buildings had been torn down and he wondered where the historic inventory was at this time and these issues would need to be discussed with that in mind. He stated he understood the timing aspects and suggested a color rendering depicting the proposed six story structure. He stated the DRB would be more comfortable recommending approval for the project if they had a model or color rendering to review. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that showing the building in context could only lend support to the proposal. Mr. Howe added that it would be easy to use an existing model and replace it with his project and suggested it would be easier for him to provide a favorable recommendation if he had visual aid. Chairperson Livingston stated it was a big landmark building and he thought that would be okay but suggested the applicant provide studies, models, and color renderings. Mr. Mosser was amendable to continuing the project until the next meeting of the DRB. Jamie Hurd and Jeff Welch, 22 South Grand Avenue neighbors of the proposal, added that they would like to see context for the proposal as well. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for specific numbers of rooms. Mr. Mosser directed them to the parking calculations (roughly 53 hotel units with additional extended stay units). Chairperson Livingston added that the “Sketch-Up” program was not the best for specific design features, but would give an idea of perspectives. Mr. Mosser responded that he understood. Mr. Rea suggested a framed, full view rendering (like the Informal rendering) be presented at City Commission. ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded to maintain the existing officers in their existing capacities for the next year. The motion carried 6-0. Chairperson – Christopher Livingston Vice Chairperson – Michael Pentecost ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board