Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Walter Banziger Visitors Present Sue Doss Frank Cikan Jami Morris Craig Mendenhall Corey Ravnaas Joby Sabol Katryn Mitchell Chaucer Siverson Scott Carpenter Glen Morrighetti ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2007. Chairperson Livingston presented the Recording Secretary with corrections to the minutes. Mr. Rea stated there was a misspelling on page 4, fourth paragraph “truss” instead of “tress”. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of October 10, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW Rialto Redesign Informal I-07026 (Bristor) 10 West Main Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the redesign of the façade and the construction of an addition with related site improvements. Sue Doss joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting she had included sections from the Design Guidelines that were pertinent to the proposal. She noted the City Commission meeting would be held in two weeks. She stated the applicant had decided to go through the informal review process as the City Commission had indicated they would prefer the addition to the flush with the front of the existing structure. She added Staff would prefer to see the proposal three stories instead of four stories. Ms. Doss asked for clarification regarding Staff’s recommendation that the proposed structure be only three floors. Planner Bristor explained the benefit of having the new construction subordinate to the existing building. Ms. Doss stated she had not heard Staff previously recommend a three story structure instead of a four story structure. Mr. Howe asked about the proposed windows on the east and west elevations; adding the elevations did not match the color schemes. Planner Bristor responded that the scaled elevations are more accurate than the schematics and noted that Staff will recommend simple window design on the side elevations to distinguish from the original. Mr. Banziger asked Staff if they had allowed the proposed front elevation to look like the existing elevation. Planner Bristor responded the City Commission had indicated that they would prefer to see the proposed elevation more like the existing (flush with the existing façade, not setback). Mr. Banziger stated it looked like the addition is set back 1 or 2 feet in the current proposal. Planner Bristor responded the setback was proposed at approximately two feet. Mr. Banziger asked if it was designed as such to place the facade of the addition behind the parapet. Planner Bristor responded she thought it had been, but would ask the architect (Frank Cikan) for clarification before the City Commission meeting. Mr. Rea asked if there was a deed restriction disallowing the proposed structure to operate as a theater. Ms. Doss responded there was a deed restriction for a period of ten years that restricts to live theater only. Mr. Rea expressed concern that the Building Code is not met with the current proposal; two egress exits, no egress from a number of the proposed bedrooms, and the exit path doorways swinging the wrong direction (into the stairways) causing the need for a larger vestibule. Planner Bristor responded that Mr. Cikan had spoken with the Chief Building Official regarding the windows and she would ascertain the outcome of those discussions before and during the formal application process. Chairperson Livingston asked what comments the City Commission had made. Planner Bristor responded the application had been denied, there had been discussion about process, the building being removed from the Historic Register by amendment, and they suggested the proposed addition should still be compatible to the existing building design if the front façade of the addition was even with the existing structure. She added that the City Commission did not feel they had jurisdiction to require that a theater remain in that structure. She recapped previous submittals for the proposal. Mr. Banziger stated there was something about the first floor of the addition (3rd floor) that did not seem to be in proportion to the rest of the addition; adding the setback did not seem to be working proportionately. He suggested choosing either a greater setback or none at all. He suggested Mr. Cikan and he had discussed other architectural firms that had done similar projects to historic buildings with success. He stated he liked the Rialto sign / awning as presented in the proposal and he agreed that the side elevation windows could be simpler. Frank Cikan joined the DRB. Mr. Howe suggested Building Code issues be clarified and resolved. He stated it seemed the City Commission had come to the conclusion that there was a comparison between the existing front façade and the proposed façade for the addition; adding he saw no reason the addition could not be flush with the walls below, but he would like to see the existing parapet and cornice remain. Mr. Howe asked Mr. Cikan to explain his discussion with the Chief Building Official. Mr. Cikan responded that he had spoken to Neil Poulsen and that the windows on the side elevations would have fire shutters and that the building is sprinkled, which allows some relaxations to egress. He responded the parapet would be too high if the building addition was not set back far enough; adding that the balconies had been provided for fire egress. Mr. Rea stated he had read the 2005 City Of Bozeman National Citizens Survey; adding the survey found the most important thing was the availability of recreational activities with the image and reputation of Bozeman tying for second place. He stated he thought that Bozeman’s historic downtown was certainly a part of that positive image and reputation of Bozeman and that the Rialto Theater had been a part of the downtown image. He stated that as a theater, the Rialto had two of the top three items that were important to Bozeman residents. He stated the Department of Interior had nine recommendations that should never be done and the Rialto was proposing all but two of those nine. He stated Bozeman had created its own Design Objectives Plan and that Ch.1, Sec. D (Pages 35 & 36), should be considered with regard to this proposal; adding that appendix A, The Secretary of Interiors Standards, #3 and #4 could be considered. He stated that the federal and local preservation groups, and this Board of design professionals had supported the last rendition of the proposal (which showed a large setback for the addition) and the City Commission should take that into consideration. He stated he thought maintaining the parapet would help to provide for maintaining the historic character of the structure. He suggested the structure retain its use as a film theater and the existing marquee to continue the historic use of the structure. He stated that he hoped the applicant would take those suggestions into consideration to help bring value to downtown and the community. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he felt empathetic with the applicant and the process they have gone through up to this point. He stated the DRB had liked the previous design, but the Commission had not. He stated he felt there should be a strong separation between what was old and what was new, but the City Commission would make the final decision for the proposal. He stated he supported the proposed fourth story, he thought the proposed façade work would be fine, and the setback should be either at 40 feet + or flush with the existing structure. He stated he did not have a solution for the issues involving the parapet; adding he agreed that the third level window appeared out of proportion. He stated the architectural solution seemed weak, but he did not know if the technical solution would work. He stated he supported the previous proposal, but suggested the applicant listen to the City Commission as DRB comments would not have much merit. Mr. Cikan stated the parapet could be disassembled, built upon, and reassembled. Mr. Rea stated the City Commission would not be bound by decisions made by the DRB and suggested the applicant propose what they thought the Commission would approve. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Mr. Rea and Vice Chairperson Pentecost regarding the setback of the addition. He stated the use of materials needed to go either contemporary or historic and differentiate between old and new construction. Chairperson Livingston stated he had three opinions; 1) the DRB had roughly 100 years of professional experience between them, had reviewed the proposal three times, and he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost that the City Commission would need to make the decision for the proposal, 2) the applicant could work with the building as is and preserve the nature of downtown Bozeman, suggesting the theater use and design could be preserved, and 3) if in fact, there was no hope for Historic status, the parapet could be removed and two more floors added with windows and terracotta detailing - then the project would be finished; adding that may have been done downtown already with no one being the wiser. He stated he saw in the proposed design two buildings that were completely dissimilar and seemed totally incompatible due to scale and various other items. He suggested the applicant could have either a good architectural fit downtown and not have a building on the Historic Register or preserve the historic status of the structure. Ms. Doss stated the ideal design of the addition would be flush with the existing structure. Mr. Cikan added that delisting of the property from the Historic register did not happen automatically. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Staff what would happen in a hypothetical approval of this proposal but through an amendment process. Planner Bristor responded that if there was a Historical Inventory review, conducted following the addition, the Rialto would most likely be considered “non-contributing” to our Main Street Historic District. Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested the applicant could disregard the historical integrity of the structure and design a proposal for downtown Bozeman that was more similar to the existing streetscape (addition flush with existing building); adding that the Jonathan Foote building had contemporary architecture, excess height, and had been allowed. Chairperson Livingston stated he did not feel comfortable setting the bad precedent of disregarding the historic significance of buildings. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Story Mill Neighborhood PUD with Ph. 1 & 2 Prel. Plan #Z-07159 (Saunders) North and south of Bridger, east and west of Story Mill Road * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to allow the development of ~ 106.651 acres for a combination of B-1 (Neighborhood Business District) , B-2 (Community Business District) , R-S (Residential Suburban District), R-2 (Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District), and R-4 (Residential High Density District) development. Craig Mendenhall, Corey Ravnaas, and Joby Sabol joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the project was complex and had nearly every example of review process contained within it. He stated page three of the Staff report contained a long list of requested Deviations and contained overlapping issues; adding that design choices often had many ramifications. He gave an example of one setback deviation which affected all the properties adjacent to the proposed deviation. He stated the deviation requests for height (75 feet), increased footprints in the B-1 zoning district, reduced Entryway Corridor setbacks, rooftop mechanical equipment screening (wind and solar equipment functionality issues), and lighting standards would need to be discussed by the DRB. He added that the applicant had proposed an alternative to the required performance points for landscaping and Staff would like the DRB to provide comment on that as well. He stated the applicant had requested the institution of sandwich board signs on the site, projecting signs in a larger dimension that usually allowable, and larger than normally allowable tenant signage. He asked what the DRB thought of the packet being digitally submitted to them. He added that the proposal was more urban than what had been seen in the past and had been packaged and presented as a LEED development; adding the City would be relying on that aspect of the proposal and had included a condition to that effect. He noted one of the criteria of the PUD that would be significant would be integration with the surrounding neighborhood; adding that the existing mill would be in keeping with the requested height. He stated there had been discussion regarding Historic Preservation points; adding a portion of the site was within a Historic District. He stated if the project went through as planned there would need to be a follow-up to the Historic Inventory due to the significant amount of modification involved. He stated Staff condition #1 recommended a 10 year approval period with renewal in five year increments to provide a sunset provision; adding that if no renewal was sought, the project would need to seek new approval subject to the regulations at that time. He stated the Commission had required the proposed double-frontage lots to create front style presentation to the street. He stated the design manual contained a description of the general character and massing of the proposed structures; including view sheds and shading. He stated a section on the proposed Millspur Avenue might have encroachments into the right of way and existing conditions might cause difficulties so Staff had revised the condition to specify new construction. Mr. Mendenhall stated he would like to recommend that any building greater than a single-family home be reviewed by the DRB prior to the issuance of a building permit; adding it should be a requirement of the PUD. He stated the overview had shown the Stockyard buildings without a description and they had thought more about what those buildings would be used for. He stated that approximately 200 homes would be placed near the mill to provide for the vibrant activity in that location. He stated he could provide the DRB with a video that would let them view a walk-through of the proposal; suggesting the massing and street presentation would more visible. He stated the scale of the structures was evident on the video, as well as the pedestrian scale. He described the areas the DRB was visually touring. He stated the shadow study was also included on the video during the course of a day. He stated he would like to speak to the specifics of the buildings, but they were still at the 1,000 foot height mark of design in the proposal. Mr. Ravnaas stated the applicant’s issues with the conditions of approval were primarily related to implementing historic regulations. He stated they were trying to get approval for the overall plan with the assumption that structures would be reviewed under the COA criteria on an individual basis. Mr. Howe stated the architectural aesthetics of the proposal could be reviewed by the DRB, but if it were in standard regulations or ordinances, Planning Staff would be responsible for those items. Mr. Ravnaas stated the crux of the matter would be the distinction between a preservation project and a development project; adding the applicant thought they had a development project with historic aspects. He stated no one wanted to remove the historical integrity of the area, but the applicant was feeling like it would be a difficult project if the historical aspects of the proposal prevented portions of the project from being completed. Planner Saunders explained that the proposal consisted of three site plans; adding the other components on the site without individual drawings did not have a final design. Mr. Banziger was excused and left the DRB. Planner Bristor added that the applicant had not had an opportunity to discuss the draft historic preservation conditions prior to the issuance of the Staff Report. Mr. Mendenhall stated there were different aspects; the planning aspects tied to the PUD and specific building issues would be DRB aspects. Mr. Ravnaas added the conditions of the PUD caused significant issues with the LEED related aspects of the design. Planner Saunders added the design manual would specify which portions of the proposal in which they would be applicable and everything outside of those areas would be exempt from those design standards. Planner Saunders clarified that Historic Design (Secretary of Interior) standards would be applicable to only historic structures. Mr. Mendenhall asked if the Secretary of Interior Standards applied to the PUD as a whole or COA projects within the PUD. Planner Saunders explained that they would apply to both; adding that a condition of approval would be to resurvey and re-nominate the Historic District between phases 8 and 9 of the development, even if that meant non-contributing status. Mr. Sabol stated the Secretary of Interior Standards would be followed, but if it were a condition of approval and unattainable for some reason, the project would be brought to a standstill. Planner Saunders responded that the Secretary of Interior Standards were further developed and adopted locally and applied within any registered Historic District regardless of specific conditions. Planner Bristor added that without a specific condition of approval, the applicant could get approval without meeting those standards. Planner Saunders stated Staff wanted clear and specific Design Guidelines that would address the historical aspects of the proposal. Mr. Ravnaas responded that the Standards required them to recreate the historical structures and therefore the standards would not be met under the current proposal. Mr. Sabol suggested that the wording of the condition would need to be reworked. Chairperson Livingston stated the applicant had a good idea of what would be done with the existing buildings and the Historic Inventory, so the applicant could specify which of those properties the Secretary of Interior Standards applied to; adding the specific inventory items should be treated with extra care due to their part in the Historic Inventory. He stated some of the things being proposed in the design manual read similarly to historic guidelines. He suggested the historically significant things could be set aside and addressed separately. Mr. Howe suggested the applicant was concerned that there would be no alternatives if the condition of approval were established. Planner Saunders responded the language of the condition could be modified. Mr. Sabol responded a preamble could be included in the design manual to clarify. Mr. Ravnaas added the preamble should also be included in the Staff Report. Chairperson Livingston suggested the applicant keep in mind that there might be a danger of damage to the Historic District and how would the buildings keep their historic designation; adding that the language of the condition was attempting to address that concern. He stated the Story Mansion was a good example of the commitment of the city to the preservation of historic districts and structures. Mr. Rea stated he thought the digital packet was a great idea, but he was not supportive of any fixture that allowed up-lighting. Mr. Saunders explained the proposed lighting would have a lower overall light output. Mr. Rea asked if he were hang-gliding over the “M” at night, would he see light sources. Mr. Mendenhall responded that no light sources would be seen as they would be washing over the building or the trees. Mr. Rea asked, as the phases of development progressed, would there be any assurance that, through whatever means, the development would be required to be completed. Planner Saunders responded that would be addressed with the subdivision approval as conditioned and one phase would need to be completed before the next phase began; adding there was an opportunity to bond uncompleted items, however the City would not release building permits until those items were completed. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if LEED’s established goal was driving some of the requested deviations. Mr. Mendenhall responded that it was. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how the UDO regulations were being addressed with regard to LEED certifications. Planner Saunders responded there would be trade-offs for deviation requests; adding the proposal would be the low end of LEED recommendations for density. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there were requirements within the LEED Neighborhood to require each building to be LEED as well. Mr. Mendenhall responded there were two agencies (LEED and Building Codes) that contradicted each other and were currently in discussions to harmonize. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the proposed deviation for the light fixture would present light horizontally. Mr. Mendenhall responded that LEED did not allow the presentation of a light source from any building. Chairperson Livingston asked if the proposed Entryway Corridor setback took into consideration the widening of Bridger Drive. Mr. Ravnaas responded that it did and they had provided an extra 10 feet. Planner Saunders added that the State had not yet released its EIS regarding the widening of Bridger Drive. Chairperson Livingston asked why affordable housing was a goal. Mr. Sabol responded the City wanted the proposal to contain the affordable housing. Mr. Mendenhall added there was a requirement for affordable housing in the LEED certification, but it could not be attained in the proposed location and would not therefore be a point the proposal would gain. Chairperson Livingston asked how the 50% construction waste stream production was guaranteed or policed. Mr. Mendenhall stated there were construction waste management regulations and the contractor would be held responsible. Chairperson Livingston asked how it was possible to weigh the difference between the historical and developmental aspects of the proposal with regard to the jeopardy of the Historic District. Planner Bristor responded it would be impossible to say at what point the District would fall apart, but most likely the boundaries of the District would change and there might be more building listings than a District. She stated the question would be how what was proposed was more of a benefit to the community than a detriment. Chairperson Livingston stated the applicant had done a great job of attempting to preserve what existed. Mr. Rea stated he thought that, unlike the downtown area, the proposed site was not as obvious; adding he did not think it would be critical if it lost its Historic designation. He stated he applauded the applicant and they had brought credibility to themselves by attempting to save some of those features. He stated his big concern was the timeframe involved in the phasing of the development. He stated he liked the street layout, but thought there could be additional work and clarity. He stated he was not supportive of allowing more signage than the rest of the community. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and he appreciated the work the applicant had done on the project and the graphics they had brought for the presentation. He stated the proposal was well presented given its complexity and he was highly supportive of the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he felt the DRB was looking at the proposal from 1,000 feet and he was not concerned with architectural features at this point. He stated he was more concerned with the flavor of the architecture and he was frustrated with the design guidelines due to their demand of design and colors; suggesting they draft more broad guidelines and adding he was supportive of the DRB reviewing all of the buildings. He stated the project could be dissected at such a time as it became important to dissect it and he felt strongly about reviewing each building for continuities sake. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea regarding the idea of losing the historic status as it would never lose its historic presence and he would allow latitude on the historic structures. He stated he thought it was a great proposal and it should be moved forward. Chairperson Livingston stated that page 24 of the Design Objectives Plan called out natural tones of color and he did not see that as being important for this proposal. He stated on page 27 of the Staff Report, the language should read “transparent” instead of “translucent”. He stated that any buildings that met the DRB review threshold should be review by the DRB, but not every building within the site. He stated he was supportive of the requested height, but he had an issue with the Entryway Corridor setback being so small as there would be a park and residential development surrounding. He stated some of the parking areas did not show much vegetation in the parking lot and the heat build-up load could be reduced by the institution of trees. He stated the sight of sustainable technology without mechanical screening made the public aware of those things in their world and was not a bad idea; adding that screening of ugly mechanical equipment should occur. He stated he thought the Mill building tower feature (glass) on the east side should be lower and subordinate in height to create a link. He stated he thought all of the buildings carried a consistent look of “industrial chic” and it came through in the proposal. He stated it would be nice to see a color pallet and he was supportive of the proposal and thought it would be a good project. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Story Mill Neighborhood PUD with Ph. 1 & 2 Prel. Plan #Z-07159 with Staff conditions and the addition of two conditions; 1) that anything throughout the site meeting the DRB review criteria as outlined in Unified Development Ordinance be reviewed by the DRB, and 2) the proposed design guidelines be more specific in those areas that will not be reviewed by the DRB. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Rea stated he did not think the second condition was necessary. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded his concern in forming the condition had been the residential portions of the site that the DRB would not be reviewing. Mr. Howe added the second condition couldn’t hurt. Mr. Sabol asked for clarification on the specificity of the design guidelines (250 feet of detail instead of 1,000 feet of detail). Chairperson Livingston confirmed that he was correct. Planner Saunders added that the small Architectural Review approval letter would be required prior to City Building Permit approval. 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 8:46 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board