HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Mel Howe Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Martin Knight, Assistant Planner
Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Rea
Joe Batcheller
Walter Banziger
Elisa Zavora
Visitors Present
Thomas Mosser
Jesse Sobrepena
Gram Goff
Nick Palmer
Ken Glynn
Josh Gobel
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2007.
Mr. Rea stated that on page 2, paragraph 3 it should read that he would like to see the historic vertical reader sign and not the theater marquee.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of February 14, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEMS
1. Woodhaven Village Mods to PUD #Z-07005 (Knight)
5349 Baxter Lane
* A Request to modify an approved Planned Unit Development (Baxter Square) to allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Woodhaven Village Mods to PUD #Z-07005 with Staff conditions.
The motion carried 4-0.
2. The Knolls @ Hillcrest PUD Prel. Plan #P-07007 (Sanford)
South of 1201 Highland Boulevard
* A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow concurrent construction and infrastructure-related relaxations in a previously approved major subdivision.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for The Knolls @ Hillcrest PUD Prel. Plan #P-07007 with Staff
conditions. The motion carried 4-0.
3. City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287 (Bristor)
120 West Main Street
* A request to reconsider the additional submittal materials requested by the DRB on the 1/24/07 meeting.
Mr. Banziger joined the DRB.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to reconsider the additional submittal materials requested by the DRB for City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287on
the 1/24/07 meeting City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287. The motion carried
5-0.
Ms. Zavora, and Mr. Batcheller joined the DRB.
ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Bozeman Brewery Rehabilitation Informal #I-07004 (Bristor)
801 & 803 North Wallace Avenue
* An Application for informal and advice on the historic rehabilitation and redevelopment of the Lehrkind Brewery site; proposal is mixed-use development (residential and industrial
/ commercial uses).
Gram Goff and Josh Gobel joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff memo noting that Staff was interested in feedback from the DRB regarding the mixed-use
aspect and density of the proposal.
Mr. Goff stated they were proposing rehabilitation of and additions to the existing portions of the Brewery structure. He stated the core of the building would be rehabilitated and
that parking on the site had been a thorn in their side. He stated there was a matrix between the residential and the commercial parking requirements. He stated they were proposing
more parking than required to accommodate the proposed uses. Planner Bristor added that Staff was deciding whether or not the proposal could be treated like one structure and asked
if Mr. Goff had spoken with the Building Department. Mr. Goff responded that he had and they had told him the structure would be defined as one structure.
Mr. Rea asked if the Haynes building would be torn down as the structuring and mass of the building was nearly the same as the proposed structure. Mr. Goff responded that the old Haynes
building was structurally unsound and not worth saving. Mr. Rea asked if the applicant was cutting underground to get the parking in. Mr. Goff responded they would be cutting to accommodate
parking.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant to walk through the history of the Haynes building. Mr. Goff responded that Lehrkind had originally created the building and had run it
as a brewery until prohibition times when he turned to bottling Coca Cola. He added that after the
brewery there was a logging company in that location and the pilasters had been chiseled off at that time and ribbon windows were cut through the false windows. Planner Bristor responded
that State Historic Preservation Office had documentation that lent to the building not being a contributing element to the neighborhood. Mr. Goff stated the north end of the property
used to house Bozeman Plumbing and Heating; including a docking bay. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the DRB was looking at battens with no siding. Mr. Goff responded he was correct.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what the interior of the structures looked like. Mr. Goff responded the brewery was very convoluted and one could easily get lost in it. Mr. Gobel
added that the floor was thick and the heights were differing. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification of what was being rehabilitated. Mr. Goff responded he would be rehabilitating
the main core of the Brewery building as it was the contributing portion of the structure. He added that the back of the building would be a problem as there had been many add-ons in
that location and the Wallace Avenue façade was deteriorating. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the east façade was load bearing. Mr. Goff responded that it was.
Ms. Zavora asked what the neighborhood thought of the proposal. Mr. Gobel responded that the North East Neighborhood Association and the Northeast Urban Renewal Board had been contacted
and the applicant was waiting to hear back regarding a meeting date, but the owners of the Lehrkind Mansion had been supportive. Mr. Goff added that, overall, they had heard supportive
comments regarding the additional amount of traffic that would be generated on Wallace Avenue.
Mr. Howe asked when the applicant thought they would start occupying the structure. Mr. Goff responded complete build-out would be two to three years.
Mr. Batcheller asked if any tenants had been lined up for the proposed commercial spaces. Mr. Goff responded that they had heard interest in the spaces, but it was hard to line out
a tenant when they hadn’t begun the project yet; he mentioned professional office interests including architects, engineers, etc. Mr. Batcheller stated he was curious how much draw
there would be for patrons outside of the neighborhood and asked if a traffic study had been required for the submittal. Planner Bristor responded a traffic study would parallel the
formal application submittal and the Story Mill project had done an extensive traffic study which included parts of this location.
Mr. Banziger asked what type of materials would be used for the historic and new structures. Mr. Goff responded the Department of Interior Standards requirements were very specific
with regard to materials and the facades would be brick. He added that brick would be included in some locations within the interior. Mr. Gobel added that they would be using real
materials. Planner Bristor added the materials would be traditional (wood, stone, metal, etc.).
Mr. Livingston asked if the units depicted on the back of the site would be located on the property line. Mr. Goff responded they were located on the lot line and explained that the
applicant had conceded the lot line to the adjoining property (Lattice Materials). Mr. Livingston asked if the applicant foresaw any problems with there being no windows in the residential
units. Mr. Goff responded there would be a skylight, but the noise from Lattice Materials would cause problems if there were windows in that location and windows located on the property
line would be a problem with the Building Code. Mr. Livingston asked if the proposal would be done all at once. Mr. Goff responded that the Tamarack building could be considered the
second phase. Mr. Livingston asked if the applicant considered his proposal a “façade-ectomy”. Mr. Goff
responded he did not think it would be a “façade-ectomy” and he was trying to stay within the scale and mass of the building and remain in keeping with the existing structures. Mr.
Livingston stated the Story Mill proposal had presented a traffic study that indicated that Wallace Avenue would not have a substantial traffic increase. Mr. Goff responded that he
did not think there was much vehicular activity on Wallace Avenue and his development would not increase the existing activity much. Mr. Livingston asked if the permitted number of
units increased the required amount of lot area. Planner Bristor explained that 3,000 square feet was required per attached unit and a deviation request would be required to allow the
applicant 1,750 square feet per attached unit. She added that the language in R-4 zoning for apartment complexes (five or more units) was not included in the HMU Zoning District and
the interpretation of Staff required the applicant to ask for a deviation for lot area. Mr. Livingston asked if the applicant thought they had proposed too many features for the site.
Mr. Goff responded he had exercised putting more units in the proposal, but the courtyard had been most difficult for them. He added that he had seen developments around the country
and seen existing courtyard units that worked well; including the solar studies.
Mr. Howe stated he liked the looks of the proposal as depicted and he had been waiting for someone to rehabilitate the site.
Mr. Batcheller stated he liked the proposal as depicted and added that he thought if he lived there he might like to have a larger courtyard and suggested relocating some of the units
on the site.
Mr. Banziger stated he was intrigued by the proposal, he was glad to hear which proposed materials were being used, he liked the use of modernism, he liked the scale of the proposal,
and he agreed with Mr. Livingston that one portion of the site was a little too tightly developed.
Mr. Rea stated he liked the proposal, though it was exhausting thinking of taking it on himself. He stated he was concerned that the Brewery penthouse level might distract from the
original façade and encouraged the applicant to maintain the “mechanical loft” look that was appropriate for the industrial aesthetic. He added that the roof form of the Aspen units
seemed odd to him. He stated it was nice to see a brewery proposal instead of a bank proposal as Bozeman could use more beer and fewer banks. He stated there would be a real opportunity
on this site for natural ventilation utilizing the proposed tower on the corner.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and commended the applicant for their thorough and thoughtful processes with their submittal. He stated he had
no qualms regarding the density of the proposal but was slightly concerned with the “façade-ectomy” of the Brewery building. He stated he was supportive of the proposal as depicted.
Ms. Zavora stated she liked the density of the proposal and she liked the courtyard as it was a great way to cover the parking area.
Mr. Livingston stated he thought there was a market for this type of development and the demand would need to be balanced out as it would be applicable to that portion of town. He
stated he liked the historic tower feature and suggested nothing could substitute for 100 year old mortar or brick; he added that even if the wall was two feet thick, the structure would
still be a significant part of the town. He stated that he hoped the applicant would attempt to do something with solar energy or other methods and suggested LEED modifications. He
stated he thought the applicant was correct to request the density as it was appropriate for the design.
Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to take a recess. The motion carried 7-0.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW
1. City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287 (Bristor)
120 West Main Street (Continued from 2/14/07.)
* 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.
Thomas Mosser joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff memo noting that Staff had discussed the proposal with the applicant following the January 24, 2007
meeting of the DRB and had decided that the best option would be to have the application reviewed by the DRB again for comments and to review the newly submitted materials. She stated
Staff recommendations are much the same as the previous reviews and Staff had not decided whether to support the requested height deviation. She stated Staff was supportive of the encroachment
into the street vision triangle but was abstaining from deciding on the height deviation request until more comments were provided by the DRB.
Mr. Mosser stated the packet submittals contained selected shots from the slideshow presentation he was showing at tonight’s meeting. He also had a scaled model on display for the DRB’s
review. He stated the slideshow would depict the solar study done for the proposal better than the pictures contained in the DRB’s packets. He used Sketch-Up on a computer and projector
to illustrate the massing of the proposal and the streetscape. He stated that the Catholic Church’s height would exceed the height of his proposal. Ms. Zavora asked if all the sun
studies had been done at noon. Mr. Mosser responded that they had. Ms. Zavora asked for the May 1st view and suggested that the study was inaccurate. Mr. Rea responded that solstice
would have an affect on the study. Mr. Mosser ran through the quarterly sun study slides again for the DRB to review. He told the DRB thank you for allowing him this review for his
proposal and allowing him to provide an explanation. He stated that after the initial meeting of the DRB for this proposal he received a letter stating that Staff would likely support
the project if the DRB was completely supportive of the request; he added that he hoped the DRB would be supportive of the requested height and the whole proposal. He stated his architect
was very familiar with the location of the proposal and had walked the street to provide a great design. He stated he thought the project did two things; complemented the mass and scale
of the historic Baxter Hotel and complemented the design of the Downtowner Mall. He stated he disagreed with Staff regarding the suggestion to setback portions of the building and suggested
that Staff recommendations were not in keeping with a hotel. He stated that the uniform façade for two thirds of a block was less than the Downtowner Mall which had a uniform façade
for a whole block and around the corner. He stated his proposal was consistent with Bozeman’s downtown and with what was already located on the site’s block. He stated the Baxter Hotel
was a huge building that was built next to a one-story structure. He added that the Bozeman Hotel and Federal Building were massive as well, relative to what was seen on either side
of them. Mr. Mosser stated he wondered when some of the tax districts created to remove blights would be used to remove the most severe cases downtown. He stated the Bozeman 2020 Community
Plan identified the heart of the community as the intersection close to his proposal (Main Street and Willson Avenue). He stated his proposal would re-anchor the downtown area and cause
a ripple to spur Bozeman to correct the existing issues of blight in that area (he cited East Willson School as an example of blight). He
stated he loved downtown and had lived there for five years; adding that the historical precedent for the downtown area had been hotel landmarks. He added that chopping up the massing
of the structure would not be what he envisioned for the downtown area, would not work for a hotel, and would not compliment the existing structures downtown.
Mr. Banziger asked if the double vehicle openings on the façade facing Main Street had been addressed. Mr. Mosser responded that the accesses he had proposed had been preliminarily
approved by the Highway Department as the proposal had originally depicted. The modification of those accesses would cause two extra vehicular movements through the site, making it
awkward. He suggested looking at the existing parking lot/gas station on that corner and added that his proposal was a better option than what existed. Mr. Banziger suggested one-way
in and the same way out to prevent vehicle stacking. Mr. Mosser responded that patrons would not appreciate a dark, unsafe parking lot and the proposed access layout provided safety
for the patrons of the establishment.
Ms. Zavora asked if Mr. Mosser did not receive support from the advisory boards and had to eliminate proposed features, what would they be (what was “Plan B”). Mr. Mosser responded
that his “Plan B” would be a four-story structure with no pool or underground parking which would not cast much smaller shadows than a six-story structure would cast. He added that
he thought it would be a missed opportunity not to institute the six-story structure on the site. He stated he could not do the proposal this summer if there were too many design issues
and added that there had been no indications from Staff at the Informal Review (four-story hotel proposal) that he would need to break up the façade. He added that his “Plan B” might
also be a ten-story structure. Ms. Zavora asked if the Mercury Advertising building was independently owned. Mr. Mosser responded that it was and Mercury Advertising had gotten to
occupy the building without resolving their encroachment on his property. Ms. Zavora asked how the encroachment would affect the spacing between buildings. Mr. Mosser responded the
encroachment would not affect the design of his proposal as the zero lot lines would apply and he would build right up to the existing structure. He added that his proposal would have
a positive impact on Bozeman’s downtown and suggested it would be nice to have City support.
Mr. Howe asked Mr. Mosser what he would do about the parking he alleviated if he did not get the requested deviation for the proposed height. Mr. Mosser responded a four-story building
(as Informally proposed) would only provide interior surface parking. Mr. Howe asked Planner Bristor for clarification on how the DRB was to review the proposal. Planner Bristor responded
that the DRB would need to provide a formal recommendation to the City Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287 with Staff conditions.
The motion died.
Mr. Howe stated he enjoyed seeing the animated display and the model in the context of the neighborhood, but he was torn on going against the UDO for the requested height deviation.
He stated there were no numerical limits in the ordinance to provide for massing of facades, which was challenging.
Mr. Batcheller stated that he thought of the core of a city as an area that contained big buildings. He added that it would be a definite improvement to what existed and his concern
was how the building would affect pedestrians on the street level. He stated that overall he liked the project
and was supportive, but would not be supportive of a ten-story structure.
Mr. Banziger stated he concurred that he would not support a ten-story structure, but did not object to seeing a six-story structure downtown or the proposed massing. He stated he would
not use the Downtowner Mall down the street as a good example of architecture/massing. He suggested the existing Baxter Hotel had a broken façade to help minimize its massing and suggested
working with the architectural detailing to make the building appear to have broken facades without changing the proposed footprint. He stated that the Highway Department had no aesthetic
knowledge in terms of designing a building and he did not think the current entry design was appropriate for the building façade. He suggested reconsidering what the applicant was presenting
to Main Street. He suggested the landscaping requirement that included structural screening to prevent parking from facing Main Street could have a more pedestrian friendly design that
was more sidewalk oriented and less vehicular oriented. He stated he thought the six-story scale would be complimentary to downtown Bozeman. Mr. Howe added that detailing of the ground
and second floors could break up the façade of the structure.
Mr. Rea stated he was inclined to support the proposal but suggested setting the structure façade back from the property line (Main Street) at each higher level/story. He stated he
was most disturbed by the probable winter shadow and suggested that setting the structure back further would help avoid that situation. He stated he supported the proposal and it would
be a great addition to the downtown area, but his major concerns were the south and east elevations. He stated he hoped the project got built.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost thanked Mr. Mosser for making a massing model and bringing it to the DRB for review as it had addressed many of his major concerns. He stated he did not think
time had a monopoly on size and there could be an appropriate 7-20 story structure as long as it was well designed. He stated that the proposed building was very disrespectful to its
neighbors (south and east), but thought the living and lodging on Main Street was important. He stated that the historical anchor of the Baxter Hotel was being challenged but he would
not want to say that the DRB could not accept a great big chunky box on the corner. He stated the proposal did not just change the corner, but the whole historic downtown and caused
a ripple effect through the Main Street area. He stated he agreed with previous DRB comments that the shadow from the structure would cause difficulties, but did not think it would
be detrimental to the existing buildings across the street. He suggested the evolution of the block to the south might occur just because of the proposal’s location. He stated the
mass along the streetscape seemed appropriate as he had looked at Billings to compare the proposal with their taller buildings. He stated that he could see Staff’s point by the making
the suggestion of the structure rising to a six-story structure on the corner and stepping down in height for the remaining portions of the building. He also stated he agreed with Mr.
Rea’s comment and suggested stepping the structure back further on the site.
Ms. Zavora stated she would not like to see the structure step up in height to the corner and she thought it ruined the idea of a hotel; she suggested it should look like the whole structure
served the same purpose. She stated that her concern was that the existing structures were dwarfed by the proposed structure, but she was supportive of the requested height. She suggested
stepping the structure back (concurring with Mr. Rea and Vice Chairperson Pentecost) to provide for the streetscape. She stated she did not have issues with regard to needing to break-up
the façade. She stated she was in favor of the project as proposed and suggested using concrete planters or hanging planters to screen the parking areas. She stated landscaping would
be possible for the
purpose of screening the parking.
Mr. Livingston stated he appreciated the model and the slideshow presentation. He stated the suggested break-up/setbacks of the massing of the façade (as suggested in the Staff Memo)
did not represent a collection of buildings and the proposal presented an articulate and uniform façade that spoke to its use. He stated that the facades on the ends (east and south)
bothered him as they were on the lot line and had no windows even though they contained articulation. He stated he would like to see the street trees continued as it would add more
interest to the site from the street level. He stated that just because Bozeman wanted people downtown, it would be unnecessary for a lot of people to be downtown. He stated that his
original comments about massing paralleled Staff’s concerns and were directed to the north and west facades and that they tended to be out of scale; i.e. the Baxter Hotel is tall, but
doesn’t have much mass so is not a fair comparison. He stated the Federal Building was roughly the same height and size, but was a similar kind of comparison; adding that the massing
of the structure bothered him from a height standpoint. He stated he realized that the proposal was outside of the historic center of Bozeman, but a number of projects had attempted
to compromise what people perceive as being the reason why Bozeman is what it is. He stated there was a perception that historic structures within historic districts would be vital
to the reason why Bozeman was in the position it is in. He suggested not destroying the historic scale and massing of downtown Bozeman and recommended a proposal such as this be located
off of Main Street. He directed the DRB to his sketches of the structure against an existing structure and stated he had come to the conclusion that there would be too much on the site.
He added that going against the UDO in that location was inappropriate.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission with Staff conditions and the modification of Staff
condition #16 to read that the design adhere to the guidelines of the Unified Development Ordinance as it pertains to height, 16b would be struck completely, 16c would remain, 16d would
remain, 16e would remain. The motion was denied with Mr. Livingston and Vice Chairperson Pentecost in agreement 2-5.
MOTION: Ms. Zavora moved, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for City Hotel & Residence Club SP/COA/DEV #Z-06287 with Staff conditions
and the modification of Staff condition #16 to strike 16a and 16b. The motion carried 5-2 with Mr. Livingston and Vice Chairperson Pentecost being in opposition.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that his proposed motion had been determined by the logic that adherence to the governing document (U.D.O.) was the guideline for every architect in
the City and there was no need to allow that exception in Bozeman. He stated if the penthouse was removed and the applicant abided by Staff’s condition to allow a 25% height increase,
it would be a lost story that wouldn’t have been seen from the street anyway.
Ms. Zavora stated she did not believe Main Street had been called historical because it contained only one story structures. She stated she would not agree to bend the rules to allow
an applicant to propose whatever they want but she would rather see people building up instead of restricted to shorter structures. She suggested keeping things centralized to Main
Street.
Mr. Batcheller stated he thought the rules (height restriction for Main Street core area) were flawed and he agreed with Ms. Zavora’s comments regarding cramming people into the outskirts
of town. He stated there really wasn’t a whole lot of difference between 5 and 6 story structures.
Mr. Howe stated that the height of proposed structures downtown will be a result of the high cost of land and it will drive applicants to request more height. He added that he was more
against the height request than for it.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding massing, but also agreed with the previous comments regarding cramped locations for people. He stated if the proposal
was approved, it would not be long after that others started to propose those heights in Bozeman.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the deviation request was part of following the rules in Bozeman and it had been put in place in the ordinance as such. He stated he thought the rules were
working for the proposal and was not in support of the 2nd motion.
Mr. Livingston reiterated the comments he had made previously and stated he felt there was a certain sense of inevitability that the scale and massing of downtown would change, but he
also felt that other areas in the urban core would have the opportunity to increase the scale through infill. He stated he would not have as much of a problem with the proposal if it
did not have 300 linear feet of continuous façade wrapped around the corner.
Mr. Howe mentioned that he had not heard of any other proposed building in Bozeman having been argued over regarding the height with suggestions for making it larger than proposed.
Mr. Howe asked if the DRB was discussing height as much as massing. Mr. Livingston responded that his perspective was the perceived bulk of the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
agreed.
Mr. Mosser added that the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan had called out increasing the allowable height of structures in the downtown area.
ITEM 6. 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 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board