HomeMy WebLinkAbout072209 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 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
Randy Wall Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Christopher Livingston
Bill Rea
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Matt Cotterman
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2009
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Chairperson Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes of June 24, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Rogers Concept PUD #Z-09066 (Skelton/Krueger)
1727 West College Street
* A Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a second office building with related site improvements.
Matt Cotterman joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the application was being processed concurrently with a minor subdivision application.
He noted the site’s location and that its size was ~1 acre. He stated the project was in the vicinity of the MDOT roadway project that was currently being completed at the intersection
of South 19th Avenue and West College Street. He noted there would be two new building accesses and Staff was seeking comments from the DRB to provide to the applicant. He stated the
applicant could request relaxations for the proposal as it was a PUD, but the City would require a higher quality design if relaxations were requested. He stated he had spelled out
individual sections that Staff had concerns with regarding the proposal. He stated there would be three primary Deviation requests; two relating to Planning and one relating to Engineering.
He stated the first two Deviations were to allow encroachments into the setbacks. He stated the Engineering Deviation was to allow access to the site nearer than would normally be
allowable. He stated Staff was not supportive of the requested Deviations to the setback requirements and added the applicant’s argument was that the roadway had already been expanded
with no more changes in the near future. He stated Staff did not look at transportation corridors as being static and instead reviewed them under a long time horizon; he noted any number
of transportation changes could be made in that location. He noted that the applicant had proposed a chamfered
edge to the right of way and a nearly zero setback in that location. He stated that one reason Staff was not supportive of the Deviation for setback requirements was that the location
could be used as a landscaped or plaza area to provide amenities on the site. He stated the open space proposed for the PUD would need to be outside the setback areas to provide access
to users of the property and Staff had determined the open space would not have appropriate use as proposed. He stated both sites would need to relate to each other better; pedestrian
activity, higher amenities in landscape areas on West College Street, and the south access would likely not be supportable. He noted the dermatology building had recently completed
an addition that met the setback requirements and Staff had encouraged the applicant to maintain the existing building setback pattern in the vicinity. He stated the building architecture
had very little detail, but in general it would be a two-story building with parking below; he noted the building did not present itself well to the street and no primary entrances had
been proposed for street frontages. He stated that, in general, the second building would be appropriate in comparison to the existing structure. He stated that Staff, the DOP, and
current City Commission policy would anticipate a plaza area at the corner or to the south elevation of the building. He stated Staff did not feel the current proposal provided the
higher form of design that the Design Objectives Plan and the PUD guidelines required. He noted the parking and parking lot landscaping would be appropriate.
Matt Cotterman noted the owner had taken previous comments into consideration and was prepared to make many of the suggested changes. He stated the owner wanted to construct a landmark
building in that location but the major issue was the Deviation to encroach into the setbacks; he noted MDOT had already taken a significant amount of right of way and the owner/applicant
did not think they would need any more rights of way. He stated other concerns could be addressed with the new design, but the owner would like to be allowed to encroach into the required
setbacks.
Mr. Banziger joined the DRB.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Krueger if the new CVS building on 19th was in the Entryway Corridor as well and if they met the setback requirements. Planner Krueger responded
Mr. Pentecost was correct and the development had met the setback requirements. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the maximum allowable height for the site. Planner Krueger responded
the maximum height would be 44 feet and would depend on the roof pitch, but the applicant could request a Deviation to allow more height. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what the address
of the property would be as that would determine the front of the structure. Planner Krueger responded the address would not be issued until after planning approval to allow time for
the Fire Department, Engineering Department, etc. to review the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost clarified that Staff was supportive of the Deviation for the access on 19th. Planner
Krueger responded the access had already been approved in that location as it was MDOT jurisdiction and already existed.
Mr. Rea asked for clarification of the buildings within the PUD. Planner Krueger responded there were only two buildings within the proposed PUD.
Mr. Wall asked if when the right of way was taken had there been financial compensation to the owner or a civil action. Planner Kruger responded there had been financial compensation.
Mr. Cotterman added there had not been a civil action up to this point, but there had been
negotiations regarding the amount of compensation. Mr. Wall asked if the architect had planned on being at the meeting tonight. Mr. Cotterman responded the architect was from out of
town and had intended more participation with the formal application. Mr. Wall asked if there would be formal action taken on the current proposal. Planner Krueger responded no formal
action would be taken until the formal application submittal, but the City Commission would instead provide comments.
Chairperson Livingston asked for clarification of the setbacks for the original building. Planner Krueger explained which the old were and which were the new right of way and setback
lines. Chairperson Livingston asked if there was an amount or percentage of open space required. Planner Krueger responded there was an amount which was roughly 30%, but many options
were available to the applicant on how to achieve the 30% requirement. Chairperson Livingston asked if the open space was being reviewed for the whole acre. Planner Krueger responded
the open space was reviewed for the whole acre, the whole PUD. Chairperson Livingston asked what was meant when the shortage of parking would be allowed. Planner Krueger responded
that the parking requirements had been analyzed for the site as a whole and those requirements will have been met within a stall or two; he added the applicant would be responsible for
either providing the last stalls or requesting a Deviation. Chairperson Livingston asked if the site plan accurately depicted the amount of vegetation on the site. Mr. Cotterman responded
the site plan did not accurately depict the new conditions on the site, but the owner had indicated he would like to preserve the mature trees. Chairperson Livingston asked if the detention
facility would be located underground and asked where it would be located. Mr. Cotterman responded there would need to be a detention facility and it would likely be underground, but
its location had not yet been determined.
Mr. Wall asked if part of the PUD was a request for a Deviation for less than the required amount of parking. Planner Krueger responded the applicant had not requested a Deviation for
parking and could institute the required amount of parking on the site.
Mr. Banziger asked if the proposed size of the structure had been driven by a monetary need. Mr. Cotterman responded he was unsure of the reason, but if the setback requirements would
need to be met, the building would be half the size of what was proposed.
Mr. Wall stated he was disappointed that the architect was not in attendance at the meeting as the City Commission would be reviewing the proposal in August. He stated the location
was very important and he thought the corner deserved the treatment outlined by Staff. Mr. Wall stated Planner Krueger’s Staff report was thorough and well done and he agreed with most
of Staff’s findings. He stated the owners were clearly aware of the take of the right of way for the improvements to 19th & College. He stated Deviations and Relaxations were used
to address hardship and, given that the owners were aware of the right of way and had been compensated, the hardship had been alleviated. He stated he agreed with Staff that the building
would be too big for the parcel and he was not supportive of the proposal as presented. He stated the elevations were Rocky Mountain generic and were not noteworthy of a landmark building;
he added he did not think the building as proposed would be worthy of that corner. He stated he did not support any of the requested Deviations, he concurred with Staff, and the architectural
features would need work. He stated the proposal was so far off the mark that it would need to be completely redone and reviewed by the DRB at a later date for more specific comments.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Staff recommendations. He stated items g and u from the Staff Report were the most important with regard to the presentation of the
structure. He stated that if the footprint was such that the setbacks made it difficult to institute, there could be a Deviation sought for the height requirements and a three story
structure could be built with as much square footage as was currently being proposed. He stated a strong three story structure could become a gateway to the entrance of the campus and
be good for the corner site. He stated the reduction in footprint with the increase in height would allow for ~2,000 sq. ft. of open space on the site. He suggested increased height
would be more appropriate and he thought the third level would demand a higher price tenant due to the available views. He suggested Mr. Cotterman let the architect know about the Design
Objectives Plan and Board comments.
Mr. Rea stated he was impressed with the setbacks, design guidelines, etc. as they were to prevent the very building being proposed. He stated he agreed with Mr. Wall that the proposal
should begin from square one and be redesigned. He encouraged the architect to look at solar orientation (huge west facing windows), the water table with regard to underground parking,
no on-site storm retention, the elimination of one curb cut – especially at the corner, and LEED certification. He stated since 2001 or 2002 something has occurred on 19th Avenue or
College Street each year and he would not be supportive of encroaching into the setbacks for that reason. He suggested the applicant visit the site and go back to the drawing board.
Mr. Banziger stated he fully supported Staff’s recommendations and suggested the applicant review those comments and instruct the architect to do the same. He stated he agreed that
the building would need to be stronger and he would like to see different materials used with stronger institutional architecture as opposed to the lodge structure depicted. He stated
he thought the building would need to have a greater emphasis to the street and he concurred with both Mr. Wall and Mr. Pentecost’s comments. He suggested increasing the height to a
three story structure with the institutional architectural style that would match what would be instituted adjacent to the site in the future. He stated he fully agreed with Mr. Rea
regarding sustainability features and the orientation of the building. He suggested the architect take a look at the site to design a building more appropriate in that location.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB and Staff comments. He stated he had visited the site, had biked around, and he thought the whole site needed to be reconsidered
with regard to parking locations, dumpster locations, etc. He stated he agreed with Staff that the West curb cut on College Street would be a nightmare. He suggested the site could
be designed instead as where could things be located instead of here is where they are. He stated he thought an entire clean, fresh look at the site would help to achieve all of recommendations
mentioned. He stated he did not think the architect had ever been to the site; he cited that he did not think the lot sloped as much as depicted, and the floor plans would not work
as depicted.
Mr. Wall added he concurred with the elimination of the curb cut on West College Street.
Chairperson Livingston added the site had an incredible amount of potential especially with regard to the improvements that had been completed on South 19th Avenue and West College Street;
he noted it was an important corner.
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 6:40 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board