Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042909 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:33 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 Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Wall Mel Howe Visitors Present John VanDeLinder Debbie Arkell Sash Mike Wiseman Lee Hazelbaker ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2009 Mr. Rea stated on page 4 in his paragraph the 3rd line down should instead read “as long it was not painted to look like it was rusted”. MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of April 8, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. City Shops Lower Yards Shops/HRDC SP/COA #Z-09053 (Thorpe) 1812 North Rouse Avenue * A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a new 25,380 sq. ft. shop/office complex joint facility and a 4,000 sq. ft. sand storage structure with related site improvements. John VanDeLinder, Debbie Arkell, Mike Wiseman, and Sash joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe thanked the DRB for rearranging their schedule and presented the Staff Report noting the property was on a site with multiple buildings while two structures were being proposed with the current application. She stated the informal application had reviewed the proposal and this application was for the back half of the proposal. She noted multiple agency exemptions had been requested including landscaping and Staff was supportive of the exemption; she noted there some areas where additional landscaping would be provided and would include street trees and boulevard plantings that would be set back to allow for improvements to Griffin Drive. She stated that once the outdoor storage location was decided, Staff had recommended placing lilac trees around the fence where the storage area would be seen by the public. She stated there would be a field tested detention system installed on the site so the City might recommend the system in the future. Mr. Wiseman explained the detention areas proposed for the site and those locations. Planner Thorpe stated Staff was supportive of the proposal as it was a new approach to what could have been a plain looking building. She stated there were two lights on the site that were grandfathered in, but the applicant could work with the City on new fixtures. Mr. Wiseman stated that part of why the roof form had been chosen was due to two facilities sharing the same spaces and they had attempted to keep the snow out from in front of the bay doors using the design. He stated he was exploring the idea of using a cistern for rainwater, but the project might be too small in the first phase to justify the use of the cistern, though it could be implemented in future phases of construction. He directed the DRB to a color rendering of how the site would look from Rouse Avenue and noted they had tried to break up the facade. He stated the more public part of the building would screen much of the site once that phase of construction began. He noted logical brakes in the siding had been instituted and day lighting options had been investigated. Sash stated anyone visiting the building would likely come up on the south side where many of the HRDC offices would be and the storefront appearance had been proposed. He stated the south side would need to accommodate a forklift so the storefront appearance would not work in that location. He stated a water fill would be used by the City and would be a self contained unit to assist in circulation on the east side of the structure. Mr. Wiseman stated the future build-out would be the phase in which the landscaping would be installed given that Rouse Avenue was scheduled to be widened. He directed the DRB to the proposed materials for the structure. Sash noted the locations of each color of proposed siding. Planner Thorpe asked what color the sand storage building would be. Mr. VanDeLinder noted the building came in white and red. Planner Thorpe suggested green might be the best option. Mr. Rea asked if Staff condition #5 regarding 75% muted colors was from the UDO. Planner Thorpe responded it was an ADR condition. Mr. Rea asked if anyone had investigated building the sand storage building similar to the rest of the proposed structures. Ms. Arkell responded they would have liked to but it would be too expensive. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked when the next phase of construction would be commenced. Ms. Arkell responded it would not be for at least the next five years as it was not included in the CIP. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked if LEED certification had been sought. Mr. Wiseman responded that the most beneficial and cost effective sustainability features would be investigated. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked how the building would be heated and insulated. Mr. Wiseman responded the storage buildings would not be insulated and the metal buildings would have built it barriers and insulation. He stated the center and office portions would have above code minimal insulation. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked if the sand storage structure had been decided on. Ms. Arkell responded that the Commission had decided to use the proposed structure due to the cost. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked how the storm water would be reused on the site. Mr. Wiseman responded they were considering using it for toilet flushing. Sash added that getting the site set up for future installation of the cistern and related systems would be completed for minimal costs; he added that the site would be tied into the existing storm system. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked why the more muted red color had been chosen instead of what had been depicted. Sash responded that the manufactured colors that were offered did not include that specific color of red and customized paneling would cost more. Mr. Howe stated he thought the graphics proved that the applicant had seen to the needs of the client and he was supportive of the project as proposed. Mr. Wall stated he was supportive of the site plan and the civil site plan was especially good. He stated his one concern was the proposed windows and that they appeared to be an after thought. He suggested putting transoms in those locations instead. Mr. Wiseman responded the front portion of the future phase reflected the original concept of the site design and noted there was still some work to be done on the future design that would make the design of the windows change. Mr. Wall suggested taking the time to modify those windows to make them appear less as if they had just been thrown on; he suggested transoms. He stated it would be an industrial yard and he could understand the metal building challenge of no articulation, but he saw no problem in including the historical component of Bozeman that includes metal. He stated he thought he would prefer to see one color across the structures. He stated he thought the City would need to be more sensitive with regard to the statement “as funding allows” as the City would not extend the same latitude for another applicant. Ms. Arkell stated it was also the City’s concern and they attempted to comply with the regulations, but when using tax payer money the costs would need to be mitigated. Mr. Wall stated that really, the landscaping as it was is likely the nicest landscaping in that area. Mr. Wall asked where snow storage would be located. Mr. Van DeLinder responded it would be taken to the old Humane Society site. He stated he appreciated everything that the City does to make the City a nice place. Mr. Rea stated he had looked more carefully and found the 75% requirement within the D.O.P. He stated he disagreed with Mr. Wall in terms of color as he liked the accents; he suggested liberally interpreting muted colors and suggested red. He stated he agreed with Mr. Wall with regard to his statements about funding and he was shocked at the language included in the Staff Report referencing exemptions. He encouraged liberal interpretation of the muted color comment and suggested glass or polycarbonate doors on the south elevation to allow for solar gain and natural light. Sash responded an insulated door with steel backing would be included for the City side. Mr. Wiseman responded that windows would be included on the top edge of the doors. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he appreciated the fact that the applicant had taken what could have been a boring building and made it better than what it is. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea that more than one color should be used and that more vibrant colors should be used; he suggested Stageline buses would be there so he saw no issue with the color yellow. He stated that for a shop storing buses and trucks, it likely had the most thoughtful design he’d seen. MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for City Shops Lower Yards Shops/HRDC SP/COA #Z-09053 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 4. 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 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:21 p.m. ________________________________ Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board