HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 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
Walter Banziger Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Bill Rea Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Mel Howe
Christopher Livingston
Elissa Zavora
Visitors Present
Catherine Koenen
Matt Ekstrom
Dennis Foreman
Shawn Shahan
Mike Promisco
Amy Beausoleil
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2007.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of May 9, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEM
1. Legends @ Bridger Creek II Mods to PUD #Z-07086 (Windemaker)
Midfield Street & Medicine Wheel Lane
* A request for modification to an approved Planned Unit Development Application to allow single-family town homes in an attached duplex orientation to be built on 22 lots, lots 26-38a
and 53-59a.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Legends @ Bridger Creek II Mods to PUD #Z-07086 with Staff
conditions. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Snowload Office Building SP/COA #Z-07092 (Krueger)
801 West Main Street
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a commercial office building with related site improvements.
Dennis Foreman, Shawn Shahan, and Mike Promisco joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian
Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal; adding that it was the Hardees building. He stated there were other parcels directly related to the Hardees site
and Staff was attempting to use those parcels as legal nonconforming parking areas. He stated there were odd parking conditions, but Staff was trying to make the parking work as the
intersection in that location was in the Entryway Corridor making the site very important. He stated that the B-2 zoning designation lent itself to a more suburban character and the
current regulations did not account for that. He stated most of the site elements had been worked out, including resolution to the parking by eliminating a landscaped island; adding
that the submittal would be finalized prior to Planning Director approval. He stated Staff was comfortable with the site design, some boulevard trees would need to be removed and seating
areas would be instituted. He stated that condition #1 addressed the front elevation of the building, but the rear elevation would also be presented to the public; adding that he had
crafted a condition to add additional balconies, awnings, or both to strengthen the front facade. He stated Staff was looking for additional detailing, the rear entrance was too near
the elevator shaft and Staff had suggested recessing the entrance, the detailing of the fences and balconies needed to include how they were going to be constructed and of what material,
and the underground parking and retaining walls would need to be coordinated with the balconies. He stated additional cornice material would need to be instituted on the building; adding
that the color and materials pallet would be important considering the quoins that were being proposed for the structure.
Mr. Shahan stated the applicant had seen the location as an opportunity to move downtown and extend the downtown area. He stated the 777 building had similar materials to what was being
proposed for the project and the applicant had wanted to create a good presence and usage for the area. He stated the balconies and terraces allowed for entry of as much of the environment
as possible. He stated the applicant had tried to institute natural arches throughout the structure and more balconies would come off as gaudy; adding that awnings would be in-keeping
with the design, but the windows might have to be made square instead of arched to accommodate awnings. He stated the rear entry being recessed would be a benefit to the building and
the applicant was attracted to the mature existing landscaping as they would be tying into it with the proposed landscaping. He stated they were proud of the plaza in front as they
were trying to create an office with a pedestrian feel that everyone could use. He stated there would be good access from the outside at every entrance to the building. He stated the
balcony railings would be similar to Locati’s building on Main Street and presented a rendering for the DRB’s review.
Mr. Rea asked if the lot was currently configured as depicted. Mr. Foreman responded it was pretty close. Planner Krueger noted which access would be added and which landscaped island
would be removed. Mr. Rea asked if he was seeing a wall cap depicted on one elevation. Mr. Shanahan responded there would be terraces and wall caps. Mr. Rea asked if sandstone would
be used for the quoin features. Mr. Shahan responded that it would. Mr. Rea asked if there would be private patios for each tenant. Mr. Shahan responded there would be.
Ms. Zavora asked if the patio area was included in the requirements for landscaping in lieu of parking. Planner Krueger responded that it was and listed those items included in the
landscape calculations.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the proposed ceiling height. Mr. Shahan responded it would be 8-10 feet on the first floor and 10-11 feet on the second and third floors. Vice Chairperson
Pentecost asked the function of the first level. Mr. Shahan responded it would be retail, but would depend on the tenant. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the structure would be
steel
framed. Mr. Promisco responded it would be wood and steel framed.
Chairperson Livingston asked the materials to be used on the arches. Mr. Shahan responded it would be sandstone. Chairperson Livingston asked if there would be columns and their proposed
locations. Mr. Shahan responded there would be columns on the interior of the structure. Chairperson Livingston asked the logic for the awnings on the front and rear instead of on
the sides. Mr. Shahan responded the applicant did not want to take away from the rest of the structure by instituting too many features on the building. Chairperson Livingston stated
the west elevation was 10 feet from the property line and asked the requirement for the number of openings along that property line. Mr. Shahan responded that he did not know. Chairperson
Livingston stated the number of openings on that side might be in violation of Building Codes. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that at a 15 foot setback, 25% of the wall could contain
openings, but far less would be allowable at a 10 foot setback.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the site was very important and would deserve the DRB’s full attention. He stated he was supportive of the proposed parking as it seemed logical to make the
alley part of the drive circulation. He stated he would prefer to see the landscape island removed to provide for the streetscape. Planner Krueger responded that Staff had discussed
the parking issue and the current answer would provide a method of shared parking between developments. Mr. Rea stated he supported Staff recommendations regarding the awnings and the
balconies; suggesting no balconies just awnings on the south side, with no awnings just balconies on the east side. Mr. Shahan responded that part of the concept was the access to the
structure and his concern was that he might lose some outdoor access if the openings were in violation of Building Codes. He noted he did not need functional balconies on the southeast
side of the building, but he would want functional balconies on the southwest side; he suggested he might use balconies only. Mr. Rea stated he appreciated the arched openings and the
French doors, but the awnings on the south side would be critical. He stated the cornice was unacceptable (needing a more elegant profile) due to the language created by the quoins
and other architectural features; he suggested using a pre-cast form or something that was not as straight. He stated he was glad to see the wall caps on the balcony walls, and applauded
the applicant for the proposed underground parking.
Ms. Zavora stated her primary concern would be to keep the existing landscaping intact; asking which vegetation would be kept and which would be removed. Planner Kruger directed Ms.
Zavora’s attention to those locations on the site plan. Mr. Shahan responded that their intention would be to keep as much mature landscaping as possible. Mr. Rea asked if the street
vision triangle would need to be maintained on the one-way road (Mendenhall Street). Planner Krueger responded there was no requirement, but it would be best to provide for the street
vision triangle in case the one-way street was modified at a future date. Ms. Zavora stated she had counted the points required and the drought tolerant species could be counted as
three points each due to the proposal having more than 75% of those species; adding that the proposal exceeded their required points.
Mr. Howe stated that he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding the cornice design being more molded. He stated there were other methods of limiting sun gain besides awnings and
suggested the applicant use some other method. He stated the usable balconies were interesting and should not be used only as decoration; suggesting a simple guardrail could be used
that would make the detailing appear differently.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and added that throwing on balconies for the sake of adornment did not seem like a good idea, but the south elevation
would be pretty bland. He stated that he liked the glass proposed for the south side of the building, but there would be temperature difficulties with a southern exposure and large
expanse of glass. He stated he appreciated the residential feel of the side street (8th Avenue). He stated he thought the main level could be brought down to scale if awnings were
placed only on the main level and the awning protruded enough for protection. He stated he thought the proposal was headed in a good direction and suggested more detailing be included.
Chairperson Livingston stated he thought the revised set of plans depicted the right direction for the design of the cornice. He stated the proposal looked very wall paper like (too
plain with not enough relief); he suggested some sort of shading and that the applicants look at how quoins are used on a building. He stated that, historically, awnings were instituted
for shading and security and the expanse of windows would cause an incredible solar load within the structure. He suggested an interesting balcony could provide shade on the window
below and relief for the south façade. He stated that he would rather see the arched tops be done in brick and he was glad to see that the proposed plaza area would be inhabited as
it would promote people to park their bikes there. He stated that, typically, awnings on the east and west elevations did not work due to the low angle by which the light would hit
the structure. He stated that the building was very symmetrical, but there were features on the east and west elevations that did not look symmetrical. He stated he might consider
a modification of the arches on the second and third floors if they would work better with awnings.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Snowload Office Building SP/COA #Z-07092 with Staff
conditions. The motion died.
Mr. Shahan stated he had changed his mind regarding the expanse of glass and he would institute all Staff and DRB recommendations to the best of his ability. Mr. Rea stated that his
concern was with the importance of the location and the design of the structure; suggesting that the DRB may have to review the proposal as a Consent Item at a future meeting. Chairperson
Livingston and Vice Chairperson Pentecost concurred. Mr. Shahan suggested the applicant’s concern would be the time frame involved if the DRB required another review of the proposal;
adding that he did not want the proposal pushed out another month.
AMENDED MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Snowload Office Building SP/COA #Z-07092 with
Staff conditions and the addition of condition #10 that the proposal be reviewed as a Consent Item before the DRB prior to FSP approval. The motion carried 5-0.
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 7:00 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board