Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 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 Mel Howe Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Christopher Livingston Elissa Zavora Visitors Present Calvin Bracksma Graham Goff Ken Tucker Josh Gobel Gretel Thornton Jim Roller Mike (Rowdy) Kvasnick ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2007. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to approve the minutes of July 25, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEM 1. Shops @ Stoneridge Building C COA/ADR #Z-07060A (Krueger) Northwest of the intersection of North 19th Avenue & Oak Street * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of one building with three retail spaces and related site improvements. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Shops @ Stoneridge Building C COA/ADR #Z-07060A as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Bozeman Brewery SP/COA/DEV #Z-07145 (Bristor) 801 & 803 North Wallace * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow a mixed-use development on the Lehrkind Bozeman Brewery property. Josh Goble and Graham Goff joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting that Staff was seeking direction from the DRB with regard to the conditions of approval. She stated the applicant had been working with Staff to address the historic aspects of the structure, although the integrity of the building was very poor. She stated more structural analysis would be performed after the non-contributing elements of the structure had been removed. She stated the east façade would be a main point for the DRB to address. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Bristor her thinking on the presentation of the final structural analysis for the existing building. Planner Bristor responded that Staff wanted to see effort from the applicant that they had investigated every possible means to retain the existing structure. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked which walls Staff would prefer to see renovated. Planner Bristor responded that Staff wanted to see the east and south elevations preserved. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the intent of the structural analysis. Mr. Goff responded the intent was to preserve as much as possible; adding that the interior floors would be removed due to the differing floor levels. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what Staff would expect to see with the final structural analysis. Planner Bristor responded that if a significant portion of the structure would need to be removed she would be relying on the structural analysis for cost estimates and justification for removal. Mr. Goff added that inside the building had never been open to the public and the east façade held most of the historic architectural features. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what Planner Bristor meant by referring to a more industrial architecture in the Staff Report. Planner Bristor responded that the surrounding neighborhood contained industrial and residential (HMU zoning designation) elements and the overall site might institute those features into their proposal. Mr. Goff added that the Historic Preservation Guidelines called out the use of brick materials with simple, rectangular building form. Mr. Rea asked if Staff had concerns regarding the south façade. Planner Bristor responded that the south façade would maintain the original footprint and the applicant thought there was potential for integrity on that wall. Mr. Goff added the historical contribution of that wall was dubious. Mr. Rea stated that his concern was that the proposed phased approval would allow the project to remain undone. Planner Bristor responded that phased development would be directly linked to the Final Site Plan approval of the project and Staff had no concerns. Mr. Goff asked the implications of portions of walls slated for demolition being usable walls. Planner Bristor responded that the applicant would need to provide justification for not instituting walls found to have integrity. Mr. Rea stated he was trying to decide if there were enough checks and balances in place to ensure the completion of the proposal. Planner Bristor added that for a building to become non-contributing there would have to be an amendment process that would need to be signed off on at the state and federal levels; adding that the City would probably never execute such an amendment. Mr. Howe asked how the responses from the applicant had been received by Staff. Planner Bristor responded that the responses had been well received and merited conditional approval. Ms. Zavora asked how the lot coverage had been calculated and why the required lot coverage deviation was needed. Planner Bristor explained that the HMU section of the UDO did not permit a primarily residential structure to occupy more than 40% of the lot; adding that it would not be a deviation request that would cause concern at the City Commission and the applicant had challenged Staff’s finding that the building is primarily residential. Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant was considering removing the landscaping of the proposed courtyard. Mr. Goff responded they would not be removing the courtyard. Planner Bristor added that the City Commission had been supportive of the proposal when it was presented to them informally. Ms. Zavora asked if Staff was concerned with the vertical landscaping. Planner Bristor responded that Staff would be concerned if it needed to be anchored into the historic brickwork/masonry. She added that if a trellis system could be presented to Staff to consider, it could likely count as points. Chairperson Livingston asked if the change in use for the building would take it out of its primary historic designation. Planner Bristor responded that it would not as adaptive re-use was encouraged for historic buildings. Chairperson Livingston asked the risk of the building becoming non-contributing. Planner Bristor responded that Staff could not answer that and would rely heavily on the State Historic Preservation Office to discern. Mr. Goff added that the Bozeman Plumbing and Heating addition was not historically appropriate and would be removed. Chairperson Livingston asked what would happen if the east wall fell down during construction. Planner Bristor responded, in that case, the City would probably amend the historical inventory and historic district nomination to reflect the loss of the Brewery Building. Mr. Goff added that the applicant had to submit a bond for the demolition and would lose that bond if the wall fell; adding that a steel frame would be supplied for the wall during the demolition project. Chairperson Livingston asked if there was a chance the south wall could be saved. Mr. Goff responded that it would be based on the structural integrity. Chairperson Livingston asked if an arcade would be created with the use of the steel structure. Mr. Goff responded that it would. Chairperson Livingston stated the proposed offices were on a split level and asked if there was a staircase up to the back area and how it would be accessible. Mr. Goff responded there was a staircase and there would be elevators on either side to provide for accessibility. Chairperson Livingston asked the materials to be used. Mr. Goble listed the proposed materials (i.e. brick and metal). Chairperson Livingston asked the applicant’s thinking about the proposed brick color; adding that the proposal was entering into the “misrepresentation of a historical building” and asking how they would address those issues. Planner Bristor responded that the photographs used by the applicant were taken during the buildings significant period; adding that the new construction would need to be differentiated; the work performed to the east façade would be considered re-construction. Chairperson Livingston sited examples of new construction that obviously did not match the existing. Planner Bristor responded that Staff would encourage the applicant to match the existing as closely as possible for the proposed reconstruction. Chairperson Livingston asked how a tree could be put in the proposed raised planters. Ms. Zavora responded that there were trees that would do just fine in raised planters; adding that there were some concerns due to the vegetation being subject to extreme temperature changes in this area’s climate. Mr. Rea stated that he could not answer whether the applicant should be required to rehabilitate the building in a higher percentage, though he would like to see that happen. Mr. Goff responded the intent was to salvage as much of the structure as possible. Mr. Rea stated he respected the design approach, but was concerned with what would happen if the development was sold. He stated he did not think the overall architectural design was too commercial, he liked the south elevation along Aspen Street, and they did not need to institute more industrial architectural elements. He stated he would like to see the final structural analysis as the applicant would be doing one anyway. He stated he agreed with Staff conditions as they erred on the side of caution. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with Mr. Rea on a higher percentage of rehabilitation and that the overall design would not be too commercial. He stated that he did not feel the DRB had any jurisdiction over a structural analysis and the analysis would provide for safety. He stated he supported the project with Staff conditions. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments and did not feel comfortable commenting on structural integrity. She stated her concerns were in regard to the proposed raised planters as she thought they were necessary to have in Bozeman and the applicant would need to consider the weather for raised planters and water features. She stated she supported the project with Staff conditions. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he thought the applicant should be required to restore or rehabilitate the largest percentage of the structure possible, though he did not know what that percentage would be. He stated that he would like to see the final structural analysis that showed what efforts were made to save the building. He stated that any effort the applicant could make to retain the historical character of the structure would be wise because once it was gone it would be gone forever. He stated that he did not think the overall architectural design would be too commercial and did not see a need for more industrial elements. He stated he still struggled over the marriage between the old and new construction; adding that there was nothing that bothered him more than being deceived into thinking a new building was really old. He suggested the applicant have an obvious line of demarcation between new and old and that he agreed with Staff conditions. Chairperson Livingston agreed that the applicant should be required to rehabilitate as much of the structure as possible; adding that the façade could be kept and load bearing, but the cost involved might kill the project. He suggested using the removed brick to repair the rehabilitated wall. He suggested the applicant use complimentary, but different colored brick to make the rehabilitated portions less lonely in appearance. He stated he did not think the material palette would be too commercial for the area and he agreed that the DRB should review the final structural analysis. He stated he had a problem with the requested zero lot lines for units at the back of the proposed structure as there would not be enough lighting or through ventilation. He stated he agreed with Staff conditions and he thought the project was challenging on many fronts and would be a good project; adding that it would be easy to bulldoze the entire thing and those complex decisions would make the project better in the end. He added that the submittal had been very well put together, but the materials palette and design guidelines could have been put together better. Planner Bristor asked the DRB to address the proposed tower feature. The DRB concurred that the original height of the tower feature should be instituted and that the current proposal’s tower seemed too “squat”. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Bozeman Brewery SP/COA/DEV #Z-07145 with Staff conditions and the addition of a condition to require the applicant to submit the final structural review to the DRB as a Consent Agenda Item. 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.} Mike (Rowdy) Kvasnick from 720 North Montana Avenue stated he had received the public notice as an adjoining property owner too late to prepare and respond to the proposal. He indicated that the system of notifying adjoining property owners was ineffective and needed to be addressed. He stated that the TIFF District should be addressed and suggested a Steering Committee be instituted. He stated the traffic situation in Bozeman was terrible and there was no safety in traffic design. He suggested there was no such thing as smart growth in Bozeman and the size of Bozeman should be the big picture. He stated the things that weren’t being addressed were pissing people off. He stated he had 30,000 lbs. of brick that could be used to match the Brewery Building. He suggested the DRB attempt to do something about smart growth and added that haste would make waste. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board