HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Walter Banziger Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Christopher Livingston
Visitors Present
Tom Milleson
Tyson Schaefer
Brandon Whallon
Tom Stonecipher
Roger Grimes
Shelly Engler
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2007.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on page 4 remove the phrase “that he remembered personal temperature issues”.
Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 4 “solar build” should say “solar load” and remove “attack”.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of May 23, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 3-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Schaefer Addition COA/ADR Informal #I-07014 (Bristor)
541 North Bozeman Avenue
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a two-story addition on the south elevation including; a
first floor kitchen, dining room, and shop with the second floor containing a bedroom, bathroom, and deck.
Walter Banziger joined the DRB. Tyson Schaefer joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff memo noting that the applicant had already worked with her on a
fence and front porch remodel. She stated the house is significant because of its uniqueness for the neighborhood (i.e. the brick material). She directed the DRB to comments provided
by the BHPAB and added that Staff was seeking further comments/recommendations from the DRB.
Mr. Schaefer stated his proposed design had been arranged according to how he was intending to use the addition. He stated he agreed that the design was more modern than the original
design of the structure, and that he could do without the proposed upstairs bedroom and instead have a single story addition with a full basement. He suggested other methods by which
he could reduce the overall height of the structure. He stated he agreed that the proposed front of the structure would be too overzealous.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Staff recommendation #4 which suggested the applicant seek professional design assistance for his historical structure; adding that if the design were
done correctly, the historic character of the structure could be maintained. Mr. Schaefer responded that he could do a shed dormer while keeping the proposed bedroom. Mr. Banziger
stated the architect could take the proposal to the point that it would have a professional scale for the design aspects.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted that the applicant had taken on a tremendous challenge. He stated there were two options: order and exception; adding that order was trying to blend
the new with the old design, and exception was trying to make the new design completely separate from the existing. He suggested that the appropriateness of the proposal and the language
of the architecture were not consistent and recommended the applicant stay in character with the surrounding neighborhood and the existing structure. He added that the applicant needed
a proposal that would complement the materials and architectural features on the existing house. Mr. Schaefer asked for specific design recommendations. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
responded that the DRB could not make specific recommendations as there were design professionals that would do a much better job than the DRB; adding that Mr. Schaefer could call him
for names of those individuals.
Chairperson Livingston concurred that Mr. Schaefer had done a lot of hard work on the proposal based on his needs, but should consult a professional. He stated he thought the house
was very cool due to its weird position to the road. He added that there had been sandblasting and stucco done to the brick at some point. He stated the proposal looked as though it
had been stuck onto the side of the house after the applicant had decided what he would need. He suggested the applicant propose a detached shed for the proposed shop to alleviate some
of Staff’s concerns regarding the height of the structure. Planner Bristor added that if the shed would be less than 600 square feet in size, it could be located as near as six feet
from the property line. Mr. Schaefer added that the foundation had failed on the south side and he wanted to dig out the existing foundation and replace it. Chairperson Livingston
stated he liked the proposed location of the addition on the south elevation.
Mr. Howe stated he concurred with previous DRB comments regarding the applicant seeking professional assistance with his design.
Mr. Schaefer stated the addition being set back too far would be cause for him to remove and repair an existing wall that was in disrepair.
Mr. Banziger stated he appreciated that the applicant was concerned enough with the house to bring it to the DRB for review and wished the applicant luck.
2. Walgreens Informal #I-07015 (Krueger)
511 North 7th Avenue
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy with related site improvements.
Brandon Whallon joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff memo noting the project’s location in the North 7th Avenue Entryway Corridor, a TIF District, and
that it would fall under the jurisdiction of the North 7th Avenue Design & Connectivity Plan. He stated Staff found that landscaping, pedestrian amenities, or a storefront would need
to be instituted to provide for pedestrian interest. He stated the DOP showed an urban streetscape schematic for N. 7th Avenue and suggested relocating the structure to the setback
and the service entrance could be configured to provide less asphalt. He added that the right-of-way needs for Durston Road and N. 7th Avenue were a concern due to the required 25 foot
setbacks along arterial streets and another 20 foot setback to provide for the right of way. He stated he had provided renderings of existing Walgreens stores and had commented on the
proposed building materials and roof design; adding that there was a scale of formality beginning with the downtown core of Bozeman and rippling toward the fringes of town. He stated
the proposal fit between the rural design of structures within the N. 19th Ave. Corridor and the urban design of structures within the core area. He stated the DOP Plan and the N. 7th
Avenue Connectivity Plan called for a more translucent storefront; suggesting the applicant include more glazing on portions of the facade.
Mr. Whallon stated he appreciated the opportunity for DRB and Staff review. He stated it was difficult to meet the retailer’s needs as well as correspond to the Entryway Corridor guidelines.
He stated the drive-thru and service entry would be necessary and it was a site issue due to pedestrians needing to cross in those locations.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that he concurred with Staff recommendations as they were very appropriate. He noted it might not be possible to place a building of the proposed size
on the lot if the setbacks and rights of way were observed. Chairperson Livingston asked the nearest the building or parking could be to the setbacks. Mr. Krueger explained the distances
for the setbacks and directed the DRB to roughly where that location would be on the site plan; adding that shared access would be encouraged. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted the applicant
would need to provide ~60 parking spaces.
Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with Vice Chairperson Pentecost and Staff recommendations. He suggested the design might be more appropriate for a N. 19th Avenue location. He stated
the proposed suburban feel was not in keeping with the N. 7th Avenue Design & Connectivity Plan.
Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and Staff recommendations; adding that N. 7th Avenue had always been urban/industrial and suggested moving the structures closer
to the lot lines.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated there had been tremendous amounts of energy and input from the committee developing the N. 7th Avenue Connectivity Plan and those two points of connectivity
(Durston Road & North 7th Avenue) would be critical to the plan. He stated the proposed architecture was an 80’s or 90’s design and suggested the applicant read the Connectivity Plan
to present a proposal that would establish the design of the new North 7th Avenue Corridor and set a precedent for the rest of the projects in that area.
Chairperson Livingston stated the design of the project from a site standpoint was precisely what the N. 7th Avenue Connectivity Plan was trying to avoid. He stated business and property
owners on N. 7th Avenue were attempting to give the street its own identity. He stated he thought it was a great intersection with potential to be the anchor of the Corridor. He suggested
another model be used for the proposal and suggested moving the structure to the lot line and moving the parking to the rear. Mr. Whallon stated he did not know how to site plan a proposal
that would need to include a drive-thru and service area unless pedestrians were forced to cross in those locations to enter or exit the establishment. Chairperson Livingston suggested
Mr. Whallon investigate a wholly new design for the proposed structure. Mr. Banziger suggested the applicant consider the design of banks to provide ideas for the redesign.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that when Bozeman burdened a tenant or landowner with something outside of their control, they were more considerate of variances or deviations; suggesting
the applicant should investigate those avenues of approval. Planner Krueger responded that he project would be allowed to request deviations of up to 20% beyond or below the standards.
Chairperson Livingston suggested the materials and colors palette be more in keeping with downtown Bozeman to appear more substantial and anchor the corner of the site.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 (Krueger)
1783 North 19th Avenue
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 5,995 square foot restaurant including the sale of alcohol and related site
improvements
Tom Milleson joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting the City Commission’s decision regarding the design of the proposal. He stated he had provided
a memo and two elevations for DRB review. He stated Staff had been supportive of the proposal, as they had been for most of the review process, and Mr. Milleson had provided materials
that had not been proposed before. He stated the overwhelming majority of Staff had preferred the proposal with the tower element included. He stated the muted language from the DOP
had been addressed and non-traditional materials had been proposed. He stated the orientation and use of the proposed metal material and wire mesh would work very well even though the
DOP did not specifically call out those materials. He stated the applicant had met Staff and DRB recommendations regarding the display window and glazing.
Mr. Milleson stated he had taken a fresh look at the proposal and had changed the materials. He stated the entryway had been opened up and the structure had been brightened up with
colors other than tans and browns. He stated the tower element would be crucial to anchor the corner of the site; adding that the site was far enough away from other structures with
tower features. He stated the owner had allowed a way to get the real window in on the east side of the structure and he thought it was a much better design.
Mr. Howe asked how many proposed TV sets were lost to the institution of a real window on the elevation. Mr. Milleson responded that only one TV had been lost.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if Mr. Milleson had a sense of what the materials and color
palette would cost compared to the previously proposed materials. Mr. Milleson responded it would be less expensive.
Mr. Banziger asked if the wire mesh screen would be inside the entire interior of the columns. Mr. Milleson responded that it would. Mr. Banziger asked if the sign would be on the
screen material. Mr. Milleson responded it would.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he appreciated Mr. Milleson’s study between the two proposed elevations and he agreed with Staff that the option with the tower features would be a
better design. He stated he was excited that the applicant had gotten rid of the lick & stick stone and used real materials that would complement the project and the surrounding area.
Mr. Howe concurred with previous DRB comments and Staff recommendations.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and Staff recommendations. He stated Mr. Rea would be glad to see the red color used for the building facade. He stated he
was still concerned with the location of the TV’s within the patio causing glaring outside to N. 19th Avenue. Planner Krueger responded the glare would be checked at the time the applicant
applied for occupancy of the structure and the issue would be addressed at that time.
Chairperson Livingston asked Mr. Milleson if there was a column missing on one set of plans. Mr. Milleson responded that there was a column missing. Chairperson Livingston stated he
thought the applicant had done a good job. He stated he did not want to know if the floor plan had changed or not as the entrances and exits appeared to be in the right locations, and
he appreciated the removal of the arch. He stated the materiality was great and Mr. Milleson had done a tremendous job in furthering the proposal through the review process. Mr. Banziger
added he thought the patio area really added to the proposal.
MOTION: Mr. Pentecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 with Staff conditions. The
motion carried 4-0.
2. Hilton Homewood Suites SP/COA #Z-06214 (Krueger)
Baxter Lane
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a four-story hotel with ~90 rooms and related site improvements.
Greg Allen and Harry Howard joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal had first been seen by the DRB in September of 2006. He noted
the location of the project and previous comments from the DRB. He stated the proposal had been put on hold to provide time for discussion of different options and directions from Staff
being generally supportive of those options. He stated the project had been re-noticed and had been taken back to the DRC for a two week review. He stated the building had been reoriented
and he had not looked to see if the actual footprint had changed. He stated the southern orientation of the courtyard was a major change from the original proposal. He stated he did
not re-review the DOP criteria for the DRB memo, but he would be happy to provide clarification for those items as needed. He stated Staff supported the project, but with a substantial
number of conditions of approval. He stated Staff had to determine whether or not the changes to the
elevations and site plan were significant enough to discuss modifications to the conditions of approval. He stated the bulk of his comments would be related to the proposed building
elevations. He stated the reoriented building would still provide the main entrance in the same location facing the main public avenue and the front yard of the structure would be on
Baxter Lane. He stated the color and materials palette would be key for a building of the proposed size; adding that it was the largest building being proposed for that area. He stated
Staff felt that there was an over emphasis on EFIS proposed for the structure. He stated the pitched roof had been removed, but it caused more emphasis to be placed on a solid 50 foot
high wall (3 stories of EFIS material). He stated the language of the building had become more modern and Staff was supportive with the orientation and form of the building. He noted
that the scale of the building with that much EFIS proposed would not provide the human scale required in the DOP. He suggested that higher quality materials in combination with EFIS
would be more appropriate, there should be definition between the floors, and the northeast corner would be a blank façade and would need more fenestration. He stated that the DRC had
discussed a boulevard sidewalk along Baxter Lane and had suggested the front entrance extend into the front yard to draw the eye to the entrance. He stated that some of the building
ends had large expanses of EFIS with no character and suggested the institution of additional fenestration (i.e. glazing). He recommended that the secondary building entrances from
the parking lot be covered to provide definition and give assistance to the blank elevations. He stated Staff was suggesting a clarification for darker colored windows. He stated he
recommended the DRB review the proposal prior to FSP approval to ensure that the conditions were met. He stated the building was double-fronted and the applicant would be allowed more
signage and that the signage be accurately depicted on the Final Site Plan. He stated the character emerging with the building would need to be tied into the other site amenities and
that Staff recommended the detention ponds be instituted as a landscaped feature. He stated he liked the cornice detail as it was interesting with the steel channels and awnings. He
stated there were a lot of comments regarding the brown tones proposed for the project, but he would let the applicant address those comments.
Mr. Allen stated he would like to address the technical aspects of the proposal and Mr. Howard would address the design aspects of the proposal. He stated the applicant was in agreement
with all but two of Staff’s conditions of approval. He stated that the proposed EFIS was meant to be more like stucco and explained the process of applying the material. He stated
there was no mention of a percentage other than a 75% minimum of certain materials should be used; adding that the current proposal had less that the 75% minimum amount of EFIS. He
stated windows had been added on many of the blank facades after hearing Staff comments. He stated the applicant was investigating an adobe brown color for the windows and assured the
DRB that Homewood Suites would agree that no one wanted to see franchise architecture.
Mr. Howard stated he was not an architect, but an artist, and added that he had seen Bozeman’s architecture develop over the years. He stated Bozeman was wrestling with light and shadows
in their proposals. He stated a building of that size would need to appear strong with steel awnings creating a huge horizontal sweep to break up the facades (he cited the design of
the YT building in the Tech Park). He stated he liked the idea of covering the entries from the parking lot and the applicant was open to suggestions regarding the color. Mr. Allen
added that Brown Cow and Monastery Brown were the proposed colors. He stated there were no expansion joints in the stucco, but there would be natural hairline cracks to create fenestration.
Mr. Krueger asked Mr. Allen if the window surfaces would be flush with the building or inset. Mr. Allen responded the lodge windows would have insets of 3 to 4 inches at the bottom
and 2 to 3 inches at the top; adding that the other windows would be flush with the facade.
Mr. Howe asked if the applicant was thinking of having the awning the same as the renderings provided. Mr. Allen responded they would be the same. Mr. Howe asked if the synthetic material
would go on mesh and then substrate. Mr. Allen responded the substrate would be Dimsgold.
Mr. Banziger asked if the YT Building were extended to four stories how would the design be altered. Mr. Howard responded it would include buttresses if it were four stories. Mr. Banzgier
asked how there would be fenestration between the floors. Mr. Howard responded the light would be broken and shadows would provide fenestration.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what a proposed material was. Mr. Howard responded it would be cor ten metal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how far the metal would extend. Mr.
Allen responded it would be 8-10 feet high. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there would be EFIS insulation at some point. Mr. Allen responded there would be some EFIS without insulation.
Mr. Banziger asked how the proposed EFIS would hold up to the weather in Bozeman. Mr. Howard responded that over a waterproof hard board the EFIS would hold up quite well. Mr. Allen
added that what they would use did not involve the use of foam and was a better, longer lasting product; adding that the new EFIS was a result of fixing the existing problems with applying
EFIS. Mr. Grimes added that the new EFIS had been used for a wide variety of applications. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the finish he would feel with the proposed EFIS. Mr. Howard
responded that it would have a bumpy texture.
Chairperson Livingston stated he had missed a statement regarding the windows location with relation to the wall. Mr. Allen responded the statement had been that the windows would be
slightly recessed. Chairperson Livingston asked if the window frame would be flush with the exterior wall. Mr. Allen responded they would be extended less than an inch; explaining
that there would be depth outside of the nailing fin. He added that with the regular insulation, the dew point would never get beyond the batting inside the wall.
Mr. Howe stated he was struck by the difference of this proposal from the last one and it would be a very striking building. He stated it had a definite nuance of southwestern architecture
despite the fact that it was sitting in the middle of a 5,000 foot elevation valley in Montana. He stated he thought Bozeman needed different types of structures and he liked the proposed
colors. He stated the addition of the windows would be good, but could understand that some structures would need blank walls with no windows. He stated the cornice detailing was really
nice and he had no problem with the proposed materials. He noted the project was not proposing the same EFIS material that had been used for the last 20 years though he would not push
for 75% EFIS, but liked the look of the material.
Mr. Banziger stated the proposal had made a 180 degree turn that was refreshing for him to see. He stated he was happy with the fact that there would be more light allowed in structure.
He stated he would be more likely to see broken-up facades if the rendering had been more detailed; suggesting that Mr. Howard provide more extensive drawings. Mr. Banziger stated
he was being told one thing and being shown something else; the description was elegant, but would need to be visualized. Mr. Krueger noted the project would ultimately be approved
by the Planning Director and would not go to the City Commission. Mr. Banziger stated he would never buy into EFIS he had never seen it last or hold up well beyond 3 or 4 years. He
stated he supported the proposal with Staff conditions. Mr. Howe asked if more detailing would be required from the
applicant. Planner Krueger responded that if the DRB provided a recommendation of approval it would be forwarded to the Planning Director with Staff recommendations of approval and
changes would be seen upon FSP submittal. He suggested a graphic be provided at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Mr. Banziger suggested the graphic might provide enough information
to meet the conditions recommended by Staff.
Mr. Pentcost stated the proposal had gone from the look of Yellowstone Park to somewhere in the southwest. He stated the scale and mass seemed appropriate though the proposal would
have a huge impact on I-90. He stated he appreciated the departure in the form, but it appeared to be a 1980’s building. He said Legorretta was huge with Stucco design and his power
lied in his use of color; adding that a 250 foot long building with solid Drivit was a tough pill to swallow. He stated real stucco would not work in Montana due to freeze/thaw and
there would be no cracks in the fake stucco to provide fenestration. He stated he saw a massing model and an empty palette that could be appropriate for Montana; adding that the form
could be maintained while changing the materials to be used. He stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions. He stated he was struggling with the materials palette
and the climate in Montana made it necessary for the materials to have some horsepower to them. He suggested the applicant provide a building that they could be proud of.
Chairperson Livingston stated the comments from the last DRB meeting included happiness that EFIS had not been proposed for the structure and that Bozeman had become Browntown. He stated
the landscaping around the main drop-off area was not extensive enough and suggested instituting more landscaping in some locations. He stated he had mixed feelings regarding the YT
buildings as he thought they were appropriate for their scale and not the scale of the proposal. He stated he liked the smaller scaled elevations the best in the proposal due to the
single-story scale being appropriate for the proposed materials. He stated he heard criticism from the community about the Hilton Garden Inn appearing as a large ice chest; adding that
he wondered if the proposal would be any different. Mr. Howard responded that there would be 12 feet of metal on the buttresses and the EFIS would never be touched by humans; adding
there were no shadow lines on the Hilton. Chairperson Livingston stated the wall surfaces would be much the same in this proposal. He stated the awnings would not be effective on any
of the east, west, or north facades, but were instituted merely for superficial decorations. He stated he supported the proposal with Staff conditions with the exception of #9 because
he would not want to see the item on Consent Agenda as it would be too late for modifications at that time.
Mr. Howard noted that awnings would provide a pergola for patrons to look out of and there would be distilled light and shadows; adding that there might be something in the distilled
nature of the building amongst the current busyness of the structures in Bozeman. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that the current proposal would work best as a massing model. Mr.
Allen presented photographs of existing structures that had proposed an equal or greater amount of EFIS. Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted that the City Commission had voiced their distaste
for the use of EFIS. Mr. Allen responded that the DOP would need to be changed to reflect that EFIS would not be an allowable material. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he would have
to refer to Planning Staff to determine whether the DOP had been met or not. Mr. Howe added that the DRB would only review the aesthetic design of the proposals and suggested that every
one of the DRB members had expressed concern that EFIS would be used. Mr. Allen stated that the proposal could have been forced through on the merits of meeting all of the City requirements.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost noted he understood the intent of the documentation and had many of the same concerns when he was presenting proposals to the City as an architect. Mr. Allen
asked if the proposal had been brick, would it have been approved. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded that the brick would work if it spoke to the scale, massing, and other materials
proposed for the structure.
Mr. Howard asked for clarification of what the DRB was asking. Chairperson Livingston responded the DOP addressed the intent of good design, but did not furnish the specific recipe
for that design. He stated his feeling was that the applicant felt there was something rich in what he had done and the DRB did not appear to see that. He stated the building was a
different scale from what Mr. Howard had previously done. He suggested Mr. Howard present detailing of how the EFIS substance would work on such a massive scale; adding that it was
a matter of perception.
Mr. Banziger stated he heard the vision of the applicant but could not visualize it; adding that he would need to see a more specific example of how the proposed EFIS would work. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost added that he found himself wondering what fourteen feet of core ten steel would feel like.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, no one seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Hilton Homewood Suites SP/COA #Z-06214 with Staff conditions. The motion
died.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Hilton Homewood Suites SP/COA #Z-06214 with Staff conditions
and the revision of condition #9 to bring the proposal back as a regular agenda item instead of a consent agenda item. The motion died.
MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial to the Planning Director for Hilton Homewood Suites SP/COA #Z-06214. The motion
carried 3-1 with Mr. Howe in opposition.
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 9:15 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board