Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011409 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:36 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Rea Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Elissa Zavora Christopher Livingston Randy Wall Walter Banziger Visitors Present Jesse Sobrepena Karl Cook Rich Fillbach ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 Ms. Zavora stated that on page 3 the language should include “she thought the site should still be fenced along the road”. Mr. Rea stated on page 3, the second paragraph should state “and” instead of “rather” and the last sentence should read “should still be interpreted within the Historic fabric”. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of December 10, 2008 with corrections. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. USDA Office SP/COA #Z-08284 (Krueger) 2229 Boot Hill Court * A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a one-story, 9,953 sq. ft. office building with related site improvements. Jesse Sobrepena, Karl Cook, and Rich Fillbach joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal within the I-90 Entryway Corridor. He explained there was only one existing building to the north of the site, which was owned by the State of Montana. He noted more parking could be accommodated than would be required and noted the applicant would have to go through the review process for each site within the Lewis & Clark Subdivision. He noted there would be a shared access drive plan and interior parking with the buildings located on the exterior of the project. He stated he had read the design review criteria and had found the proposal to be in keeping with those requirements. He noted most of Staff’s conditions of approval were standard and reiterated those conditions. He stated Staff Condition #4 addressed uncontrolled circulation and the designation of drive aisles; he noted Staff had suggested additional parking to assist in circulation. He noted the uncontrolled edge would need to be mitigated until the next portion of the proposal was developed to prevent people from driving over the edge and an alternative type of fencing would be considered by Staff. He noted Staff Condition #6 was significant as the applicant had proposed a temporary path connection and Staff would require the installation of a sidewalk from Simmental Way to connect to Boothill Court. He noted Engineering would be requiring full frontage infrastructure. He stated a common signage plan would be required due to multiple tenants and stated Staff had felt the proposed building would be appropriate for the site and were supportive of the high quality materials proposed to be used. He stated Staff was supportive of the project with Staff conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Sobrepena stated Planner Krueger had accurately presented the site information. He noted a tenant had been arranged, though there would be a straight forward, plain program for the building. He noted it was the first building among a group and stated he was curious to hear DRB comments. Mr. Wall asked if there were color renderings for the proposal. Planner Krueger responded there were no color renderings and roughly fifty percent of applications did not contain color data. Mr. Wall asked for clarification that the color renderings were not necessary to the review of the proposal by the DRB. Planner Krueger explained that if issues arose, the color pallet could be reviewed as a Consent Item prior to FSP approval. Mr. Wall asked if the parking was depicted as crossing the lot line. Mr. Sobrepena responded the parking was depicted over the lot line but there would be a shared access agreement. Mr. Banziger asked if curbing had been discussed for the edge detail of the road instead of a fence to keep the sight line open and clean. Planner Krueger responded Staff was uncertain how the rest of the development would be arranged and Staff was attempting to minimize waste by preventing the necessity of removing unneeded curbing. Mr. Banziger asked if there was a timeline for the south side of the development. Mr. Cook responded he had the State under contract for those parcels but would likely begin that section sometime in the next two years. Mr. Sobrepena noted the site lines from the southern lot had been maintained by the proposal of a one story building instead of a two story building. Ms. Zavora asked if the tree depicted where a future building would be had been intentional. Mr. Sobrepena responded it was an error. Ms. Zavora asked if the curb and gutter along Simmental Lane would require landscaping as well. Planner Krueger responded landscaping would be required. Ms. Zavora asked if a seating or stopping area had been discussed for the proposal. Planner Krueger stated Staff had anticipated the installation of those features with the development of the southern portion of the site. Ms. Zavora asked what would be located behind the building to the north. Mr. Sobrepena responded it would be concrete patio area with access from the interior of the building to the exterior. Ms. Zavora asked if native grasses would be included. Mr. Sobrepena stated the applicant would be amenable to the use of native grasses. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the proposed brick would be real or thin brick. Mr. Sobrepena responded they were intending to use real veneer. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the USDA did a critique of the architecture. Mr. Sobrepena responded they did critique the design. Mr. Rea stated he was curious about operable windows. Mr. Sobrepena responded there would be an operable window in each office. Mr. Rea asked if the “monitor” barn design could be used for natural light and noted it would have the potential for natural ventilation (passive cooling) as well. Mr. Sobrepena responded the “monitor” barn design would depend on budget constraints, but it would be considered by the applicant. Ms. Zavora asked why some of the plant species quantities were N/A. Mr. Sobrepena responded he was assuming those plant species had not been included in the proposal and the legend had been re-used from a previous set of plans; he noted he would ask the landscaper. Ms. Zavora suggested including the symbol for boulders on the legend. Mr. Sobrepena responded he would tell the landscaper. Mr. Banziger asked what sustainability practices had been discussed for the proposal. Mr. Sobrepena responded those features were still open to discussion as the proposal was in the early stages. Mr. Banziger suggested looking into sustainability features. Chairperson Livingston asked why the parking had been arranged much like that at Hastings. Mr. Sobrepena responded landscaping had been required for the parking area and had not been depicted at this time. Chairperson Livingston suggested curbing should be installed on the uncontrolled edge as it could be twenty years, instead of two years, when the rest of the site was developed; he suggested either locating parking in the uncontrolled area or reducing the amount of asphalt. He stated snow storage would work for the uncontrolled edge in the winter, but would be all blazing asphalt in the summer. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the land was within the Entryway Corridor by a little or a lot. Planner Krueger responded the corner of the property was within the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Wall stated he had no objections to the proposal though he did not particularly care for the I-beam awning with a metal tie rod to the building, but he knew it was common in Bozeman. He suggested the “shed” roof form be used. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Staff conditions of approval and suggested using a material for the uncontrolled edge that did not accrue garbage. He encouraged the applicant to investigate sustainability features; pervious asphalt, storm water for irrigation, etc. He noted the USDA should provide a good example for the community and the institution of sustainability features. Ms. Zavora stated she was supportive of the proposal and commended the designer for matching the building style and the surrounding area. She noted the Green Ash might not fit in well, but the overall landscape plan was well done. She encouraged the applicant to include stopping or seating areas to enhance the proposed landscaping. She recommended the applicant match the existing building with regard to the use of turf or native grasses. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and reinforced Mr. Banziger’s statements regarding the institution of sustainability features; on demand water heaters, etc. He stated he was overall supportive of the proposal and he liked the proposed materials. Mr. Rea stated his concern was the view of the structure from the I-90 Entryway Corridor and encouraged liberal interpretation of muted tones as they were addressed in the DOP. Mr. Sobrepena responded he felt the same way about the muted tones and the structure would be classic red brick with metal colors. Mr. Rea commended the applicant on doing a four sided building and suggested more sustainable practices be included. He commended Staff on the inclusion of a condition to address phasing of the development. He stated he would like to see the curb installed at the uncontrolled edge, but beyond that, would be amenable to three wire fencing. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and suggested reducing as much of the proposed asphalt as possible to alleviate heating in the highly unstructured area. He stated early on would be a good point to work strategies in to provide for sustainability features. He stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions of approval. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for USDA Office SP/COA #Z-08284 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to re-elect Christopher Livingston as Chairperson and Michael Pentecost as Vice Chairperson. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public comment forthcoming. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board