HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Martin Knight, Assistant Planner
Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Bill Rea Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Joe Batcheller
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Brandon Whallon
Ken Tucker
Lowell Springer
Frank Cikan
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2007.
Mr. Rea stated that on page 2, the second to last paragraph should read the “mullion color changing from one color to another”.
Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 7, the first line should read “along the northern side of the site”.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of March 28, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Boshaw Condos SP/COA Discussion Item (Knight)
907 & 915 North 17th Avenue
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to permit an increase of 12’ in height and a change in materials to the 4 4-plexes previously approved by the Planning
Director and known as the Lerner SP/COA, # Z-05299. Planning Staff invites comments from the DRB on the proposed changes prior to scheduling and review of this application.
Mr. Batcheller joined the DRB.
Assistant Planner Martin Knight presented the Staff memo noting the DRB had reviewed the Lerner project as it had been submitted originally. He stated the project had the infrastructure
installed and the new owner was requesting modifications to the materials used and a ten foot increase in height. He stated Staff was concerned with relation to the height of the residential
units they were looking to the DRB to provide comments regarding the requested modifications. He added that the footprint would remain the same.
Chairperson Livingston asked the height of the parapet as it existed in comparison to the requested height. Planner Knight directed the DRB to the elevations that had been provided;
noting the increase would be from 32 ft. to 42 ft. Chairperson Livingston verified that the footprint would remain the same. Planner Knight responded that it would.
Mr. Batcheller asked if traffic had been addressed for the site. Mr. Knight responded that infrastructure had already been installed and the traffic had been addressed in the original
conditions of approval.
Mr. Howe asked if the only expected problem was the requested height. Planner Knight responded that it was; adding that the neighbors would see the requested height as an issue. Mr.
Howe asked if any deviations were being requested. Planner Knight responded there were no deviations being requested as they were within the height restrictions for the zoning designation
of the site.
Mr. Rea stated that if he had seen the proposal independently of the old design he would still not approve the project as the steep pitch of the roof did not work well and he thought
the proposal a plain, generic, and uninteresting solution. He stated he thought it would be too tall given the surrounding development. He stated the buildings presented with the Lerner
proposal were unique and he preferred the original proposal.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he would not support the project as proposed as the Lerner building had been appropriate for the surrounding area and the current proposal would not
be.
Mr. Batcheller stated he agreed with previous DRB comments as the structure seemed twice as tall as the surrounding structures; he added that he would not support the proposal.
Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments though he had difficulty denying a proposal that fell within the constraints of the UDO. He stated the height would look quite massive
compared to the surrounding structures, but he would not deny the proposal based on height alone.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and was not in support of a massive building in that location given the surrounding structures.
Chairperson Livingston stated he thought the apartments in the rear with the five foot setback would be shadowed in the winter (roughly half of the year) if the requested height was
allowed. He stated that while the proposal would be within the height requirements of the UDO, the surrounding structures would need to be taken into account. He stated the DRB had
reviewed the proposal in context with the surrounding neighborhood and the current proposal would not be in keeping. He stated he would prefer to see the project kept the way it had
originally been proposed.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Rialto Building SP/COA/Change in Use #Z-07019 (Bristor)
10 West Main Street
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Change in Use Application to allow an exterior and interior remodel, a third and fourth floor addition, and re-use of the existing
structure for retail use and ten condominium units with related site improvements.
Frank Cikan joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff memo noting the location of the project and that the DRB had reviewed the proposal as an Informal.
She stated the proposal would include parking at the rear of the structure and she had attached comments from ADR Staff. She asked the DRB to provide comments with regard to the appropriate
setback for the rooftop addition, the appropriate materials to be used, and the appropriate design of the main floor entrance. She stated Staff had suggested the applicant investigate
an original storefront design.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if Staff or Mr. Cikan had images of the original bank building or the retail store that occupied the structure before the theater. Planner Bristor responded
they did not, but she had access to them.
Mr. Banziger asked the distance of the setback for the rooftop addition. Mr. Cikan responded it would be two feet.
Mr. Rea asked if the setback had been picked for structural reasons. Mr. Cikan responded the setback had been chosen to prevent the structure from looking strange and to separate the
addition from the existing structure.
Chairperson Livingston asked the historical status of the structure. Planner Bristor responded it was a contributing element in the Main Street Historic District. Chairperson Livingston
stated the contributing status could be lost and asked why that was. Planner Bristor responded that the proposed modifications would change the structure significantly enough to make
it a non-contributing element to the Historic District. Chairperson Livingston stated the historic preservation issue became which historic use one would rehabilitate the structure
back to (i.e. a bank, post office, or theater). He asked if the decision of the DRB should include the setback of the addition, the materials to be used for the façade and rooftop addition,
and the design approach for the ground floor entrance. Planner Bristor responded he was correct.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked when the renovation of the bank was done on the corner as he thought that was the time period when the cornice had been removed. Planner Bristor responded
she thought the cornice had been removed prior to the renovation of the bank, but she was uncertain when.
Mr. Howe stated he supported the project as proposed and saw nothing wrong with it.
Mr. Banziger stated this proposal was a tremendous improvement from the original submittal and he was in support of Staff comments. He stated he thought the two foot setback should
be larger, he thought the proportion of the windows was not objectionable to him, and he was concerned the brickwork would be matching too closely and not be distinguished enough from
the original brick.
Mr. Rea asked Staff’s intention in allowing a Certificate of Appropriateness to be issued to investigate the condition of the original brick. Planner Bristor responded it was not Staff’s
intention to allow the applicant the opportunity to remove the original brick façade but rather investigate its condition. He stated allowing a contributing property to become a non-contributing
property would be unacceptable to him. He stated there was a photograph of the vertical theater sign in the UDO or the Design Guidelines and suggested the applicant review the photo
as he would be in favor of seeing that restored. He stated he would like to see the two foot setback increased and suggested a 30-40 foot setback so that the façade would not be visible
from the street. He suggested using historically appropriate materials that would be distinctly different from the existing instead of trying to mirror the existing materials as long
as the addition was set back from the existing facade. He stated a theater entry into a usable retail space would be awkward; adding he would like to see a historic storefront (i.e.
the hardware store or post office) and the vertical theater sign.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the applicant was proposing to make renovations that would remove it from the historical register and he was hesitant to support that request. He stated
the square footage and density dictated the façade be even with the existing structure and suggested not changing the structure so significantly that it would be removed from its contributing
historical status. He stated there needed to be a line between the original structure and the new addition and he supported no setback if the design of the addition was phenomenal and
the line between old and new construction was not blurred enough. He suggested increasing the setback to maintain the significance of the structure. He stated the redesign of the entry
might cause deceit for patrons of the establishment and he did not feel that rebuilding something that used to be there would be appropriate.
Mr. Batcheller stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost and Mr. Rea that the setback of the rooftop addition should be increased. He stated that if the setback was increased
the materials would be a mute point. He stated people’s point of reference would be a theater as they would not remember the post office and suggested designing the entrance with that
in mind.
Chairperson Livingston stated that if the structure was indeed a contributing historical element, he would have a hard time supporting the proposal. He stated the proposal violated
the Design Guidelines and the Department of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation due to the proposed façade. He stated the proposal would set a terrible precedent for the downtown
historic district as the character, nature, and stock of Main Street would have been challenged. He stated applicants had continued to peck away at the historical inventory of Bozeman
and suggested a moratorium on those types of projects until the historical structures could be inventoried to observe which would be left. He stated he was opposed to the proposal as
presented. He stated there should be a forty foot minimum setback required for the rooftop addition, the bands were not consistent with historical masonry, and the theater lineage should
be included on the main floor entrance.
Mr. Howe asked if the proposed addition had been built 85 years ago, would the addition have a setback or not and what materials would have been used. He suggested that no matter when
the addition was added, it would be obvious that one had been added. He recommended the applicant take the building back to its original design for its original use. He stated he did
not mind seeing a new addition on an existing structure as it was bound to happen; adding that the DRB shouldn’t suggest an owner couldn’t maximize his building. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
responded that the discussion was not regarding recreating history, but preserving existing history and suggested the decisions made by the DRB and others would change with time. Chairperson
Livingston added that the Standards for Rehabilitation clearly outlined what would
be appropriate and what would not.
Mr. Rea stated that 85 years ago, the restrictions of the current masonry would not have allowed something like the present proposal. He stated he found it offensive that the property
owner was allowed to make an additional amount of money per year and deplete the character and value of the existing Main Street.
Mr. Cikan stated that his country (Czechoslovakia, Prague) was an architectural museum and he thought there was a danger in dictating designs as architecture would be judged differently
in 100 years. He stated they named buildings after famous people with the next generation not remembering the history of the structure itself; adding that he could attempt to imitate
what had been there, but imitation would not do it justice.
Mr. Banziger stated he supported the Rehabilitation Standards, but he agreed that the historic guidelines could sometimes be too restrictive as it might prevent owners from adapting
the buildings to the future uses (he referenced universities with historic buildings).
Mr. Rea asked if the applicant could go above the 55 foot height limitations. Planner Bristor responded they would have to request a deviation for any height greater than 55 feet for
the addition. Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested that if someone had just bought a theater, the owner had chosen their own destiny and had decided to spend the money to provide
for their desired use instead of rehabilitating the existing structure. Mr. Cikan responded that when the previous owner sold the Rialto Theater, they had included a non-compete clause
that disallowed any new owner from using the structure as a theater to prevent competition and that was the reason the rehabilitation of the theater had not been pursued.
Chairperson Livingston stated cities in the mountain west had suffered greatly due to development and it was evident what had been lost in regard to historic structures; authenticity.
He stated he thought there was a method by which the downtown could be caused less suffering as opposed to the loss of its moral fabric; he added that he had stated this as a resident
and not a historian to provide for maintaining a sense of authenticity.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Rialto Building SP/COA/Change in Use #Z-07019 with the
following conditions; that the appropriate setback for the rooftop addition be held at 40 feet from the existing façade, that the proposed rooftop addition be in an architectural language
different from the existing façade, that the ground floor entrance be rehabilitated to match its neighbor to the east, and that the vertical Rialto theater sign be reintroduced based
on a historic photo. The motion died.
Mr. Batcheller stated he would like to have a better idea of what the Vargo’s storefront looked like before he decided if the proposal should look like it.
Mr. Howe stated he did not mind the reference to the façade next door, but he was concerned regarding the 40 foot setback as it would remove 40 usable feet from the structure.
Mr. Banziger stated the 40 foot setback would cause a loss of two units per floor (Mr. Cikan
added that it would be six units total) and he was uncomfortable voting on something he had not seen.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated 2,400 square feet would be lost if the 40 foot setback were observed. He stated the City Commission had approved an 85 foot building (City Hotel) and
suggested the applicant could observe the setback and request a height deviation to allow for the proposed number of units. He stated he would want to reword the motion regarding how
the main floor entrance should appear.
Mr. Cikan stated he had spoken with the owner of the structure on the east side and he had no plans to do anything with his building for a long time; adding that a height greater than
proposed would adversely impact the existing structures.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Rialto Building SP/COA/Change in Use #Z-07019 with Staff
recommendations and the following conditions; that the appropriate setback for the rooftop addition be held at 40 feet from the existing façade, that the proposed rooftop addition be
in an architectural language different from the existing façade, that the ground floor entrance be rehabilitated to reflect the City Of Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation’s
recommendations for a historical storefront, and the proposal be reviewed by the DRB prior to Final Site Plan approval as a Consent Item. The motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Howe in opposition.
2. Shops @ Stoneridge COA/ADR #Z-07060 (Krueger)
Northwest of the intersection of North 19th Avenue & Oak Street
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of two buildings for retail space and related site improvements.
Lowell Springer and Brandon Whallon joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff memo noting the location of the proposal. He stated the City Commission had
approved the site layout of the development as a whole and the DRB would have the task of approving the building designs. He stated the size of the buildings had to be within the approved
size and they were proposed as such; he added the DRB would be reviewing the proposed materials and colors with acknowledgement that one façade would be designated as a service entrance.
He stated Staff’s conditions addressed the rear of the facades and the continuation of the design onto those facades. He stated the rear of the structures as proposed did not include
the 75% masonry presented on the other facades. He stated he would like to point out that there had been a drive-thru approved for the site and it would include a small window. He
stated he did not address specific conditions for the drive-thru window as is could be filled-in at a later date or highlighted more obviously to direct patrons of the establishment
to that location. He stated another of Staff’s concerns was mechanical screening and the parapet height could be increased to screen the mechanical equipment. He suggested additional
modulation on the rear of the structures could be used for presentation to the adjacent properties.
Mr. Whallon stated he thought the height of the cornices and the rear parapet could be raised to create a four-sided appeal for the structure and screen any mechanical equipment. He
stated the 75% masonry requirement on the rears of structures could be easily met, as well as the color and materials palette condition. He stated that the applicant had issue with
Staff condition #2 (to include raised planters) as the applicant had converted one parking stall per building to
landscaping and included street trees on both sides of the drive isles. He stated he would like to see the street trees considered in lieu of raised planters as the applicant had not
been required to include the street trees. Planner Krueger stated that Staff considered the addition of street trees in that area of the PUD a part of the PUD conditions of approval;
adding that there was an additional condition requiring foundation plantings and raised planters with plaza and seating areas located around the B-1 zoning district buildings.
Mr. Rea stated that the landscape plan depicted two trees and the elevation depicted six trees. Planner Krueger directed the DRB to the specific landscape plan for the site instead
of the landscape plan for the PUD. Mr. Whallon responded it was the applicant’s intent to provide more landscaping than required. Mr. Rea stated the east elevation in the submittal
depicted no trees and asked which one was correct. Mr. Whallon responded they both were correct as one was for the PUD approval and one was for the Site Plan approval. Mr. Springer
added the landscaping would be the sum total of the site plan and the rendering.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the landscaping could be instituted in lieu of parking. Planner Krueger responded the approved parking could not be altered and Staff had suggested
locations where raised planters could be located. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the depicted colors were also the proposed colors. Mr. Whallon responded they were the proposed
colors.
Mr. Batcheller asked if all the other buildings within the PUD had been approved. Mr. Whallon responded there was one building aside from this one that had not been approved as of yet.
Mr. Batcheller asked the reasoning behind the design of the structures. Mr. Whallon responded he had been asked to provide a “downtown corridor” by the City Commission.
Mr. Banziger stated that building B had been depicted with and without trees and asked for clarification of how many trees would be located along each elevation. Mr. Springer directed
the DRB to the correct number of trees for each elevation. Mr. Krueger responded that the trees shown on the fronts of buildings were required with the approval of the PUD; adding that
the raised planters would be in addition to proposed trees. Mr. Whallon added that the applicant was under the impression that the landscape requirements had been met with the institution
of landscaping instead of parking as part of the PUD approval.
Chairperson Livingston asked for elevations for the existing approved structures within the PUD. Planner Krueger directed the DRB to those elevations; adding that there were not identical
building themes throughout the PUD.
Mr. Batcheller stated he liked the current proposal better than what he had seen before. He stated the proposal seemed to be an attempt at a new-urbanism approach and he agreed with
Staff regarding vegetation and fenestration on the rear facades of the structures.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Staff comments with regard to the additional plantings being necessary, the rear facades, and the height of the parapets to provide for screening of
the mechanical equipment.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he supported Staff conditions and the inclusion of additional trees in lieu of raised planters. He stated he thought the proposal created a “mini-Main”
and he thought the drive-thru had been handled appropriately.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with Staff comments and suggested the institution of seating areas because the distance between the buildings promoted people staying in those
locations for longer periods. He stated the structures in the center of the development would need to be considered with regard to the durability of the rear facades and the landscaping;
adding that he liked trees more than planters. He stated there would be a lot of mechanical equipment and the parapet would be critical in its screening. He stated he thought the proposal
could work as long as the applicant gave attention to detail and design features. He suggested using the most durable materials possible.
MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Shops @ Stoneridge COA/ADR #Z-07060 with Staff
conditions with the modification of condition #2 to allow trees in lieu of raised planters. The motion carried 6-0.
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 8:15 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board