HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 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 Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Elissa Zavora Martin Knight, Assistant Planner
Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Rea
Visitors Present
Tim Kearns
Martha Jo Kearns
Shawn Shahan
Dennis Foreman
Nick Lieb
Susan Swimley
Sue Doss
Frank Cikan
Shawn Louis
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2007.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on page 5 spell Pentecost correctly.
Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 7, paragraph 5, “new chemistry building” to the end of the sentence would need removed; on page 8, paragraph 3 the words “from the community”;
and on page 9, paragraph 2 the sentence containing “stated document attempted to call out” needs stricken.
Mr. Banziger stated that on page 9 the motion died before there was a second.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of June 13, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEMS
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.
The DRB approved the consent item as presented 5-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Bridger Center MiSub Master SP #Z-07119 (Knight)
100, 104, 108, & 114 Bridger Center Drive
* A four-lot Master Site Plan Application to allow the construction of four buildings and related site improvements.
Tim Kearns and Martha Jo Kearns joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Martin Knight presented the Staff Report noting what the applicant was requesting and the project’s location within
the Bridger Drive Entryway Corridor. He directed the DRB to discuss design and landscaping issues and reiterated the style of structures called out for in the Design Objectives Plan.
He stated the materials and buildings proposed were not taking the shape of either of the two options in the DOP. He stated Staff was looking for a more modern design such as the Panda
or Boys & Girls Club. He stated there were a few discrepancies in the Staff Report, but the conditions were correct with the exception of the zero lot line condition that would be changed
to read that screening would be necessary for all mechanical equipment.
Mr. Kearns stated his objective was to get direction regarding building footprints, landscaping, and building design. He stated he would like to avoid the creation of an extremely long
structure; adding that he had tried to make the buildings distinct and different from each other. He stated the site was unique as it had been sandwiched between utility easements;
adding that he had consulted Northwestern Energy on the design and location of the mechanical equipment. He stated he had borrowed the design features of the proposed buildings from
buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and that he was proposing cultured stone instead of natural stone due to costs. He stated the incorporation of metal and drivit would create
a more forward looking building design in that area as opposed to the use of timber and corrugated metal. He stated he had opted for composition roofing instead of metal due to the
ease with which it could be maintained and it would be less expensive. He stated he had not done anything with Lot #4 as it was intended to be a showpiece lot; adding that the proposal
was for four individual lots. Planner Knight added that Lot 4 would be required to be reviewed by DRB upon Site Plan submittal. Mr. Kearns stated that he thought all the buildings
on the site would be seen by the DRB; adding that he was attempting to upgrade the neighborhood. He requested the DRB consider the proposed materials and styles presented as a different
approach to design in the Entryway Corridor.
Mr. Rea asked Planner Knight for clarification of Staff condition #1 and whether there was an existing trail in that location. Planner Knight responded there was not a trail in that
location, but Staff had asked that the applicant show the nearest location of the trail given that MDOT would be working on the corridor for an undetermined amount of time. Mr. Rea
asked how Staff would feel about a glossy finish to the structure. Planner Knight responded that the color didn’t really matter as long as it was muted with a common theme among structures
in the development.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Mr. Kearns to explain which elevations went to which proposed structures. Mr. Kearns directed the DRB to the elevations and site plan. Vice Chairperson
Pentecost asked where the utilities would be located. Mr. Kearns responded his intention had been to bring the utilities into the south side of building #1. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
asked if there had been a photometric study done for the proposed parking lot lighting. Mr. Kearns responded there had been one done and explained the results.
Mr. Banziger asked for clarification on what the DRB would be reviewing and approving with regard to Staff Condition #5. Planner Knight responded the DOP required compliance with 4
of 5 design elements; adding that the parapets were not true parapets as they were not four sided. He added that the elevations that had been submitted were unclear. Mr. Kearns presented
a rendering of the roof elements which included a flat roof design with parapets, cornices, and overhanging eaves; adding that 4 of the 5 criteria from the design objectives had been
met. Planner Knight asked the DRB to review the visual appearance of the roof lines ending instead of being carried around the structures.
Ms. Zavora asked if there would be landscaping between two buildings. Mr. Kearns responded the landscaping would not be between buildings but would be made to appear as if it were for
one structure.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the aprons, curbs, and utilities had been put in with improvements to the street. Mr. Kearns responded it had been with the subdivision of his property
that those items had been required.
Mr. Rea stated he thought something other than muted colors would be appropriate and he was not a fan of the proposed cultured stone. He stated the nature of that neighborhood in Bozeman
lent itself to consideration of the views from the east to the Bridger Mountains. He stated he felt comfortable with everything else that he had seen. He asked for DRB input on his
statements.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comments regarding the use of something other than muted colors. He stated the building seemed industrial from the front and thought the
proposal needed more street presence (i.e. awnings, etc.). Mr. Kearns concurred there should be some distinction between entities occupying the structures. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed
with Staff’s concerns regarding the roof lines and the end view of the roof from the road. He asked the reason that a flat roof had not been proposed. Mr. Kearns responded he did not
want to have to install roof drains due to maintenance and the lack of a space for storm retention. Mr. Banziger suggested more detailing in that location to provide for a better end
view of the buildings.
Ms. Zavora stated the landscaping seemed minimal. Mr. Kearns responded that the landscaping had not been completed due to the relocation of some of the boulevard trees to allow for
the underground utilities. Ms. Zavora asked if there would be trees in the landscaped islands. Planner Knight responded that landscaping in those areas would be required. Ms. Zavora
suggested the institution of more landscaping wherever possible on the site instead of just installing boulders. She suggested landscaping could be instituted around the perimeter of
building #4; adding that the parking areas could be screened with landscaping as well.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what was located next to the site. Mr. Kearns responded it was Zigs Lumber Yard and parking lot. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he had no problem
with the proposed materials, but he struggled with the fact that his site was located within the Entryway Corridor as the proposal would be under a great deal of scrutiny. He stated
he agreed with Staff conditions that the proposal would need to be ramped-up and taken to the next degree; suggesting other materials could be used. He suggested there was an office
building feeling in an industrial zoning designation. He recommended using lively colors and did not agree with Staff regarding the use of muted tones. He stated the stone would need
to work with the color of the metal; suggesting natural materials be used for the project. He stated he thought the site plan
worked fine and suggested the DRC had addressed any issues the proposal may have had. He strongly encouraged the applicant, from a legal standpoint, to install the correct amount of
illumination in the parking lot to provide for safety. He asked Mr. Kearns how he felt about Staff Conditions. Mr. Kearns responded that he thought Staff Conditions were reasonable.
Chairperson Livingston stated the area was very interesting due to the surrounding structures and some existing structures that could be better. He stated he had a hard time approving
a proposal with Staff conditions that would need to be substantially reworked; adding that the submittal seemed incomplete due to the lack of overall building design. He suggested the
design of the buildings be simpler with regard to materials and the applicant institute more color. He stated the flat roofed building with the parapet would need more articulation
on the entrances and suggested pulling the proposed parapet back. He recommended a more industrial appearance to the proposed design. He stated bonderized metal tended to rust after
a few years and suggested a different material be used. He suggested the applicant investigate the possibility of making the proposed structures reflect their surroundings.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that he agreed with Chairperson Livingston’s comments and there were conflicting statements in the Staff Report. He suggested the applicant follow
one direction and take Staff and DRB comments into consideration. He suggested the applicant open and continue the proposal to the next meeting of the DRB to provide him with time to
consider different materials, colors, and styles.
MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to open and continue the proposal to the July 25, 2007 meeting of the DRB. The motion carried 5-0.
2. Langland/Lieb Demo & New SHR #Z-07125 (Bristor)
608 South Grand Avenue
* A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new single-household residence with related site improvements.
Nick Lieb joined the DRB. Mr. Lieb stated that the brick house had been built around the turn of the century and the owner had begun a remodel project without permits from the City
of Bozeman. He stated the house had been open to the elements for a little over a year and if the City would approve the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new
house, he would follow through with the purchase of the lot. He stated repairs to the existing house would cost a substantial amount of money to essentially build a new house inside
the existing house. He estimated the cost of renovation at $290-$300 per square foot with the cost of rebuilding being roughly $169 per square foot. He stated it was his hope that
the house could be saved, but given the substantial damage it did not seem feasible; adding that the mortar had been compromised in the rubble foundation and there was no structural
integrity. He stated the brick was failing in many locations and the back part of the roof was sagging due to structural beams being removed. He is proposing a traditional Victorian
home that would have features similar to that of the existing; adding that the footprint would be nearly identical. He stated the house was a contributing structure within a Historic
District. He cited several new homes and additions in the same neighborhood. He stated the existing garage would be kept; adding that it had been built in the 40’s or 50’s. He stated
Staff had been concerned with the height of the proposed structure; adding that there was a 2 ½ story and a 3 story structure in that same neighborhood. He stated the plan would be
to use cedar lap siding instead of hardi-plank and he agreed that
there should be more windows.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant actually owned the property. Mr. Lieb responded he only had it under contract and was not obligated to buy it.
Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant had considered reusing the brick material. Mr. Lieb responded the bricks were very porous, crumbling, and could not be reused. Mr. Banziger asked
if the applicant would consider using new brick. Mr. Lieb responded that the new brick that was made to look old would look crappy and cheap; adding that he would consider brick, but
would prefer lap siding. Mr. Banziger stated the report did not make it sound like the building was not salvageable, but expensive to salvage. Mr. Lieb responded that the foundation
could be pulled apart with his hands, the walls had no support (no collar ties), the roof had no support, etc. and he thought there would be no way to lift the structure.
Ms. Zavora asked the history of the damage to the structure. Mr. Lieb responded the owner had illegally begun a remodeling project and had been ordered to cease and desist. He added
that the roof had been torn off and the shingles had been removed which had alerted the City to the illegal work being done on the property. Ms. Zavora asked the scenario if the determination
was that the house must be preserved. Mr. Lieb responded he would not be able to afford preserving the house and he thought he was the only idiot that would put in a bid for a house
in its current condition.
Mr. Rea stated that Staff requested a true cost comparison and asked if that was the letter that had been provided in the submittal materials. Mr. Lieb responded that Staff had found
that letter as cost estimate sufficient.
Mr. Banziger stated the proposal was a “catch 22” due to it being unlikely that anyone would want to spend that much money restoring the existing structure. He stated he would like
to see more Victorian elements with brick features instituted on the proposed new structure and he agreed with Staff recommendations. He suggested not replicating the existing building
and adding detailing.
Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Staff’s recommendations (especially the windows) and he would describe the design as lacking the maturity of the existing neighborhood. He stated he struggled
with the aesthetic concern and supported the proposal with hesitation due to the precedent that would be set if the DRB supported the demolition of a historic structure.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he concurred with previous DRB comments and offered suggestions for a process that would allow salvage of the building regardless of the cost. He stated
ignorance of the law was not an excuse and he began to see the proposal as setting a precedent. He stated the part that amazed him about the house was that had been through two major
earthquakes and was still standing 110 years later. He stated that the ballooned walls could potentially cause the structure to come down, but it hadn’t even though there had been heavy
snows and no wall supports; adding that the roof design had sustained the structure. He added that he could not support the removal of the structure and suggested using Rhino software
to view all angles of the house photo-realistically to look into renovation.
Chairperson Livingston stated he had visited the site prior to the meeting and it had been mind boggling to him that the renovations to the structure had been so disorganized. He stated
he had
stopped paying attention to the house after it had been for sale and bought by the current owner; adding that it was a real gem. He stated the cost numbers were justified, but the numbers
would still be expensive when constructing a new house. He added that the structure was contributing to the Historic Inventory and his question was when will there no longer be any
historic designation due to not enough historic buildings. He stated that some historical houses had been bought and sold as parts; adding that the fate of an old house would be up
to the community. He suggested he would stay on the side of preservation as the house and town deserve that.
Mr. Rea suggested this would be an opportunity for precedent setting and letting the community know that it would be unacceptable to allow the removal of historic properties.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Commission. The motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Rea in opposition.
3. 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 on the ground floor and four (4) condominium units on the upper floors with related site improvements.
Susan Swimley, Sue Doss, Frank Cikan, and Shawn Louis joined the DRB. Ms. Swimley stated she had focused on Staff recommendations to institute additional detailing and their concerns
with regard to maintaining the historical contribution of the structure.
Mr. Cikan directed the DRB to the submittal materials and explained what items had been changed from the original submittal. He stated the upper floors had been set back 45 feet and
the applicant had used previous DRB comments to design the addition to the structure to appear completely separate from the existing. He stated the floor plans had changed to reflect
the new design.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if any more height had been proposed. Mr. Cikan responded there had not because there would have had to have been a deviation requested and approved.
Mr. Rea asked why the storefront had been pulled back from the street front so far. Mr. Cikan responded previous DRB comments alluded to emulating what was there now.
Mr. Rea stated he agreed with staff question #1, that #2 the structure would not be distracting, that #3 it does, that #4 the storefront should not be flush with the second floor, and
#5 that educational signage should be required due to the potential loss of the other theater.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with staff question #1 – yes, that #2 the structure would not be distracting, that #3 was okay, that #4 the storefront should not be flush
with the second floor, and #5 that sure educational signage should be required due to the potential loss of the other theater. He stated that he had no problems with the design. He
stated he was surprised that the applicant had not sought a variance for the height and included another floor. Mr. Cikan responded that it was a cost issue.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated he differed slightly on question #2; adding he did not think the proposed addition would be distracting, but personally
he would have done it a little differently. He stated the only other issue he had would be if the addition affected the historic status of the structure.
Ms. Zavora stated she saw the structure from a citizen’s point of view and she thought the proposal was attractive and unique.
Chairperson Livingston stated that for Staff question #1 – he liked the setback, that #2 it did distinguish well between new and old construction, that #3 he had a problem with the entire
exterior being drivit and suggested a more durable material be used (such as Ariscraft), that #4 he did not mind the proposed storefront being flush with the second floor. He added
that keeping the storefront and marquee might help maintain its historic status but would be absurd due to the majority of the façade remaining, and #5 why not keep the historic signage.
He suggested more of a Vargo’s façade than what had been proposed due to the presentation of the block. He stated he felt strongly about not using drivit on the entire exterior. He
added that these were the weirdest floor plans he had ever seen in his life.
Mr. Banziger agreed with Chairperson Livingston that the proposed drivit should be replaced with brick. Mr. Rea added that the drivit would not be seen from very many angles and he
saw no problem with it.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Mr. Cikan if brick would be a possibility instead of drivit. Mr. Cikan responded that anything was possible. Ms. Doss added that a lot of square footage
had been lost with the redesign of the proposal and numbers would have to be run to see if brick would work. Chairperson Livingston added that the brick would create a different textured
surface even if it was brick veneer. He added that the thin brick product might be cheaper.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Rialto Building SP/COA/Change in Use #Z-07019 with Staff
conditions and DRB comments as recorded. The motion died.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Rialto Building SP/COA/Change in Use #Z-07019
with Staff conditions, DRB comments as recorded, and the addition of condition #6 to encourage the applicant to investigate a material other than Drivit to be used on the east and west
facades. The motion carried 4-1 with Chairperson Livingston in opposition.
Mr. Banziger asked if Chairperson Livingston had considered the possibility of the addition moving the structure to a historical non-contributing status. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
added that it hadn’t always been a theater and the historical status would be negotiable. Chairperson Livingston responded that the modern era buildings were usually the first on the
historical inventory chop block.
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 8:45 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board