HomeMy WebLinkAbout051309 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston 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 Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Walter Banziger
Christopher Livingston
Mel Howe
Visitors Present
Michael Peris
Debra Rosa
Swep Davis
Dan Stevenson
Ben Elias
Lowell Springer
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2009
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of April 29, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Greater Yellowstone / Gallatin Seed INF #I-09003 (Bristor)
215 South Wallace Avenue
* An Informal Application for advice and comment for a proposed change to office use and improvements to building C with related site improvements.
Ben Elias, Dan Stevenson, Debra Rosa, and Mike Peris joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the complex was on South Wallace
Avenue and that it had been individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. She noted there were three buildings on the site and the proposal was specific to building
C. She stated the site had an old CUP application and a new CUP application would need to be approved to allow office uses in building C. She noted the locations of the parking areas
and stated major changes would not occur to the existing parking arrangement. She stated an interesting note was that that the zoning of the property was currently residential but with
the adoption of the Growth Policy Update the applicant could submit a ZMA and request a commercial zoning district, which permit the office use.
Mr. Elias stated they were excited to look at the project as the rehabilitation of a dilapidated structure for a client as good as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
Mr. Banziger asked for an overview of the sustainability efforts that would be put into the building as he had noticed the proposed photovoltaic system. Mr. Stevenson responded that
the Greater Yellowstone Coalition had requested as many sustainability features as possible within a certain price; he noted the skin of the building would need to be removed and reapplied
with strategic transplants of that skin for replacement of damaged pieces. He stated it would be important for the proposal to respect the neighborhood by maintaining its character
at the same time as maximizing the day lighting; he added that new window openings had been proposed to accommodate day lighting. He stated natural, cross ventilation of the building
would be the primary ventilation for the building and they were looking into no refrigerant based cooling for the structure. He noted the elements proposed for the roof were a combination
of a photovoltaic system with solar thermal collection units; he noted they would be located on wedge shaped pieces of architecture that would be stack on a ventilation mechanism that
would contain fans operating at low speed and low static to assist in ventilation. He stated the applicant would contain concrete floors throughout and be a radiant floor that tied
into the solar thermal collection system. He stated they would work very hard at minimizing the load for the structure; lighting had good control and day lighting precluding normal
lighting as often as possible. He stated water would be collected and re-used for non-potable purposes such as toilet flushing and irrigation.
Mr. Elias stated the applicant would investigate any opportunities to re-use materials and maintain controlled demolition of the existing structure; he noted exterior windows could be
removed and re-used on the interior of the structure. Mr. Stevenson added that he thought the building would be gold LEED certified, but at a minimum LEED certified at some level.
Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant’s intention was to have a green roof as depicted on the renderings. Mr. Stevenson responded the green roof concept was the intention of the applicant
and would contain as many native plantings as possible. He added they were also looking at the application of vegetation on the building that would allow cooled air into the structure
through the openings. Ms. Zavora asked if the primary entrance would be on the west side. Mr. Elias responded the west entrance would be secondary and the primary entrance would be
located on the south side; he added planters would be included on the south side to provide a small nature interpretive center. He stated one goal of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
had been to become more transparent; he noted the main reason for the design of the south elevation was to provide for transparency and provide an invitation for the public to see what
happens inside the Greater Yellowstone office. Ms. Zavora asked if buildings A & B would be altered. Planner Bristor responded the only thing being done that affected the other buildings
was the removal of the connection between buildings B & C; she added parking would be calculated for the whole site recognizing that things have changed since 1993. Ms. Zavora asked
if the landscaping requirements would be calculated using the whole site. Planner Bristor responded the landscaping would be concentrated around building C. Ms. Zavora asked if the
parking for the building was considering the entire site. Planner Bristor responded it would be tricky and Staff was considering determining those requirements using the intensification
of use criteria; she noted the parking lot landscaping would remain the same as would the existing parking. Ms. Zavora asked if the 23 required points would hold if the zoning was changed.
Planner Bristor responded the required 23 points would likely remain as a requirement.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification of the demolition of the inside of the structure. Mr. Elias responded the interior would be removed in its entirety and only structural
aspects of the building would remain.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the concrete slab would be removed as well. Mr. Stevenson responded the concrete would have an insulated over-pour with radiant heating.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if other uses would be in the building or if Greater Yellowstone Coalition would inhabit the whole structure. Mr. Elias responded the Greater Yellowstone
Coalition would occupy the whole structure. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if evacuated tube or flat plate solar thermal would be used. Mr. Stevenson responded he was uncertain which
type would be used, but he thought flat plates would be better for the commercial use of the building. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the grey water bill in Montana had been passed.
Mr. Stevenson responded he believed it had been passed during the current legislative session. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked where the storm water storage area would be located.
Mr. Stevenson responded the site sloped to the west so the storage area would be as close to that location as possible to minimize the necessary amount of run off. Vice Chairperson
Pentecost asked if any of the sheathing would be removed. Mr. Stevenson responded some of the sheathing would be removed where moisture damage had occurred. Mr. Springer added that
all of the sheathing would likely need to be removed.
Chairperson Livingston asked if snow storage had been indicated. Planner Bristor responded snow storage areas had been included in the original CUP Application but would need to be
shown on the new CUP Application. Mr. Springer added that the snow storage area was on the lawn on the south side of the building.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the proposed changes would change the historic rating of the building. Planner Bristor responded that building C was not listed on the National Register
so the rating would not be affected; she added that the changes do require the historic inventory of the site to be updated with the formal CUP Application. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
asked why the sod canopy had been proposed. Mr. Elias responded it had been proposed to help soften the appearance of the elevation and they just really wanted to do it.
Mr. Howe stated he was supportive of the project as proposed simply because they were doing so much with sustainability features and he appreciated that.
Ms. Zavora stated she did not follow the landscape point schedule and she would like to look at the proposal prior to final approval. She noted many of the proposed species were not
drought tolerant; she added she would need to see more specific information on the proposed quantities. She stated counting the trees next to building A toward point requirements did
not seem feasible as they were nothing more than volunteers growing out of the foundation. She suggested more Montana native drought tolerant species be chosen for the site. She stated
it would be a great opportunity to plant something that was not often planted but would still do well in a landscape; she added she liked the proposed awnings. She stated the rendering
did not match the site plan and suggested the rendering looked nice, but would look better if it had matched what was depicted on the plan. She stated she was supportive of the proposal
overall.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Ms. Zavora regarding the institution of the proposed awnings. He commended the applicant for pursuing a gold certification from LEED. He stated
they had done a nice job of preserving the exterior materials and he was excited to see the project move forward.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he appreciated seeing applications for adaptive re-use and he believed it was a great move to attempt to maintain as much of the original as possible
to keep the historic integrity intact. He stated he thought it would be a good, energy efficient building and it was a great direction to go in. He stated he applauded the solar direction
the applicant was headed in and he was supportive of the proposal as presented.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and he thought it was nice to see the applicant attempting to salvage the existing structure. He stated he thought
the strategies for load reduction, passive ventilation, etc. would work well. He stated it would be interesting to see how light would be brought back into the space and the idea of
upgrading the building with the proposed features was right on the money. He stated he thought it hit on the aspirations of the community and he was supportive of the proposal as presented.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how long it would be before the Greater Yellowstone Coalition would outgrow the structure. Ms. Davis responded there were offices in other communities
and they would expand before the Bozeman headquarters office; she added the current Greater Yellowstone Coalition office was using 7,000 sq. ft. and this proposed space was much larger.
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.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board