HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-06 Design Review Board Minutes.doc
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Bill Rea Martin Knight, Assistant Planner
Elissa Zavora Susan Kozub, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Historic Preservation Planner
Christopher Livingston Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Walt Banziger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Joe Batcheller
Visitors Present
Jesse Sobrepena
Michael Shamblin
Max D.
Dick Stefani
Dick Prugh
Mitch Booth
Michael Richards
Larry Bowman
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 9TH AND AUGUST 23RD, 2006.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of August 9, 2006 as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to approve the minutes of August 23, 2006 as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Kagy Crossroads Office Building Preliminary SP/COA, #Z-06206 (Knight)
On South 19th Avenue in between Remington Way and Kagy Boulevard
* A Preliminary Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of two office buildings totaling 13,941 square feet and related site improvements,
zoned B-2 (Community Business) District.
Dave MacDonald, Jesse Sobrepena, and Dick Stefani joined the DRB. Planner Knight presented the Staff Report noting there were not many issues brought up by Staff. He stated DRC had
conditioned the project to provide a second access along the southern edge of the project and added that a pedestrian access and plaza would need to be instituted on the site. He stated
additional landscaping around the entryways, plaza, and sidewalks would need to be provided. He stated the landscape plan met all the UDO requirements and added that conditions 3, 4,
and 5 were still being addressed. He stated that all the units would be single-story with landscaping in clusters.
Mr. Sobrepena stated the proposed complex followed a successful general outline and the street façade they had created was fairly interesting with the entry look being carried to the
rear of the structure creating a secondary front. He added that the applicant was trying to create an economical project. He stated the colors had not been chosen and the applicant
would bring in a color material palette at such time as they had one. Mr. MacDonald stated which colors they were considering using and that the structure would tie in with the brick
element of the existing structures in the area.
Mr. Banziger asked if the bike path would be outside the property line. Planner Knight responded MDOT would handle the bike path and it would be located outside the property line.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Knight to describe the Staff condition that brick veneer was not acceptable within the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Krueger responded that traditional
materials did not include brick veneer. Mr. Banziger asked if Staff meant thin brick veneer. Mr. Sobrepena stated he was unsure what they meant other than brick veneer. Mr. MacDonald
stated the goal was to put in more architectural detail without excessive use of wood and added that the lick and stick stone was not preferable.
Ms. Zavora stated she could not see the boulders depicted on the site plan although she had been told they were there. Mr. Sobrepena responded he did not know the locations of the boulders
on the site but they would be evident on the Final Site Plan. Ms. Zavora asked if there would be edging. Mr. Sobrepena responded there would be edging. Ms. Zavora asked if the wood
chipped areas would be maintained. Mr. MacDonald responded there would be an association maintaining the landscaped areas. Ms. Zavora inquired whether the placement of two parking
stalls near the entrance would be an issue. Mr. Sobrepena responded they would be no trouble.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the mechanical equipment would be placed on pads. Mr. Sobrepena responded mechanical equipment would be located within the landscaping. Chairperson
Livingston asked if snow storage had been accounted for. Planner Knight responded an agreement would be arranged to provide for snow storage.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Kagy Crossroads Office Building Preliminary SP/COA, #Z-06206 to the City Commission
with Staff conditions.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested the removal of condition number five to allow the use of brick on the proposed structure. Mr. Rea stated he was in support of the amendment of condition
#5 and suggested amending condition #3 regarding the pedestrian access. Ms. Zavora suggested the plaza be re-oriented to face more toward 19th Avenue.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Kagy Crossroads Office Building Preliminary SP/COA, #Z-
06206 with the removal of Staff condition #5 and the modification of Staff condition #8 to include “a connection to the future bike path should be made from the public space” in condition
#1. Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Chairperson Livingston seconded, to approve the motion as amended. The motion carried 4-0.
2. Bank of Bozeman Preliminary SP/COA, #Z-06215 (Krueger)
875 Harmon Street Blvd.
* A Preliminary Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 8,833 sq. foot bank with an additional 650 square foot drive up facility on
separate lots with related site improvements, zoned B-2 (Community Business) District.
Lowell Springer and Mike Richards joined the DRB. Planner Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the project had been seen by the DRB in Informal review. He stated the applicant
had addressed the majority of those concerns with the Site Plan submittal. He stated the internal sidewalk system depicted on the site plan would need to include a more interactive
system within the parking lot and crossings of driveways should be stamped, scored, pigmented pavement. He stated there would be no direct pedestrian connection to the bank and Staff
had received approved designs for outdoor furniture and fixtures throughout the project; he added that the proposals would be required to include the approved designs in their projects.
He stated there were 26 parking spaces depicted on the site plan with six ADA spaces which would be more than required. He suggested the removal of one line of ADA spaces and one regular
parking space to provide for pedestrian areas. He stated Staff was looking for a transition from the formal bank landscaping to the landscaped areas in the seating areas and parking
lot. He stated there were not many boulders on the plan and Staff suggested the boulders be instituted in the seating areas to make the transition to a natural area. He stated the
interior landscaped areas needed to be 75% live vegetation and the landscape plan would need to be consistent from one sheet to the next with additional species of trees instituted.
He stated the rest of the conditions were standard and included the submittal of a color materials pallet.
Mr. Springer stated he brought the refined drawings of color perspective of the proposed structure. He stated the desired signage showed in the color renderings although there was not
much proposed. He stated that each of the renderings contained different colors on the awnings and the applicant preferred the copper awnings, but may need to choose the patina material
instead. He presented the materials that would be used for the roof (shingles) and facades (brick). He stated he agreed with Staff conditions with the exception of the screening of
the mechanical equipment; the applicant proposed one area of mechanical equipment on the ground and it would be screened by Canadian Juniper. He added that the species of trees would
be modified to a hardier tree. He stated the handicapped parking stalls had been appropriately located as there would be a lot of elderly traffic, the applicant was averse to changing
to their entrance adjacent location, and that he would work with Staff on the location of the handicapped parking stalls. He stated the drive-up needed to be viable and they would propose
a boundary adjustment at such time as they needed to remove it.
Ms. Zavora asked if the DRB was preliminarily approving the project. Chairperson Livingston responded that the DRB would not review the proposal again. Mr. Springer stated the site
had been approved in subdivision review and the proposal’s landscaping only needed review directly around the building. Ms. Zavora stated the applicant had depicted vegetation where
there was none proposed and suggested the landscaping be depicted accurately on each plan and rendering.
Mr. Rea stated he had no idea what the DRB was approving as there were so many discrepancies between renderings and site plans. Planner Krueger noted which was the official submittal
to the Planning Office and added that the DRB would be approving that plan. Mr. Rea asked if a depicted strip was brick or EFIS. Mr. Springer responded would be brick but the pattern
did not show up well on the rendering. Mr. Rea asked if he was seeing a precast sill and not a precast surround. Mr. Springer responded he was seeing a precast sill and the applicant
would prefer that. Mr. Rea stated the south elevation had a tremendous amount of brick detailing and would be wrapped to the east elevation, but he did not see that amount of detail
on the west elevation. Mr. Springer responded most of the detail was there.
Mr. Banziger asked for clarification on which changes not depicted on the official submittal would be instituted in the proposal. Mr. Springer elaborated. Mr. Banziger asked if the
brickwork would be located higher up on the building. Mr. Springer responded his intent was to suggest those proportions. Mr. Banziger asked if the roof line would be a flat roof.
Mr. Springer responded it would be flat with a walk up porte cochere.
Ms. Zavora asked who did the landscaping plan. Mr. Springer responded it was the same landscaper who did the overall PUD. Ms. Zavora stated it did not seem a professional landscaper
would locate Aspen’s four feet from the structure.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the outdoor patio area to the east of the main building would be a break area for the employees and wouldn’t it be a security issue if it was public seating.
Mr. Springer responded it would be a security issue and public seating areas had been provided elsewhere.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Commission. The motion died.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested the applicant resubmit the proposal with all requested changes depicted on the formal submittal. He stated he would tend toward the black canopy
as it would be unifying. He added that he thought the massing and scale had improved.
Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost’s suggestions and he liked the scale better. He stated he liked the tall clock tower, he hated to see the end of the brick detailing
and it should be continued to the other facades, the dragon-toothed area of detail did not fit in the rendering’s version, the darker awnings were preferable, and he agreed that the
proposal was not finished being designed at this time and if he had to choose tonight he would pick the color rendering proposal over the site plan. He stated he supported the idea
of just the high density cast sill and added that the only part of the building that was unresolved was the entryway. Mr. Springer responded that the elevations presented a difficult
storefront framing situation that would be very expensive. Mr. Rea asked what material would be used above the stone. Mr. Springer responded there would be Drivit above the stone.
Mr. Rea encouraged the use of brick above the stone. Mr. Springer responded the use of brick caused too much bulk in the façade. Mr. Rea suggested stone be used.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments with the exception that he would like to see how the height of the stone would be depicted, particularly on the columns. He
stated that he liked the proportions of the elevations better than the proportions of the color rendering.
Mr. Batcheller stated there would need to be more continuity between the height of the structure and the columns. Mr. Springer responded that would be consistent in the final submittal.
Ms. Zavora stated the landscape architect needed to re-evaluate the trees proposed four feet from the structure. She stated she would appreciate the renderings matching the drawings,
and the north side of the building had very linear plantings that should flow with the rest of the landscaping of the building.
Chairperson Livingston stated that the drawings depicted one large tower and many smaller towers, but the color rendering showed better proportions and better articulation of the entryway.
He stated he preferred the rendering without the stone surround, both awning choices were fine, and he was happy to see the renderings contained refinements that would carry the project
forward. He stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and suggested the bike racks be located closer to the entryways. He added that the massing was depicted better.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to open and continue the proposal until the next meeting of the DRB. The motion carried 4-0.
3. Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA, #Z-06209 (Kozub)
1783 North 19th Avenue
* A Conditional Use Permit Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 6,759 square foot restaurant including the sale of alcohol and related site
improvements, zoned M-1(Light Manufacturing) District.
Shelly Engler and Mitch Booth joined the DRB. Planner Kozub presented the Staff Report noting the property’s location near Home Depot and within the Stoneridge PUD. She stated the
proposal would be reviewed by the City Commission as a Conditional Use Permit for a liquor license. She stated the true front of the structure would face North 19th Avenue. She stated
the proposal included an outdoor seating area facing the community storm water pond. She stated there were some discrepancies between the elevations and the color rendering and Staff
had seen them as an opportunity to choose the best proposed features. She stated Staff wanted to see the east elevation shown on the color renderings as there was more detail proposed
for that elevation. She also stated that landscaping would need to be added and detailed so that point calculations would be accurate. She stated Staff wanted to see a strong pedestrian
connection to the pathway on North 19th Avenue and recommended breaking up the massing of the south elevation with exaggerated pilasters. She added that the North 19th Avenue path needed
to meander with a buffer between it and the parking area. She added that the proposed white backlit signage was not allowable.
Mr. Booth stated there would be a rock faced water table followed by brick veneer. He stated there would be a patio area with doors facing the community storm water pond.
Mr. Banziger asked what material would be used for the two windows on the south elevation that went into an office and a storage area. Mr. Booth responded the windows would be opaque
spandrel windows for security reasons and would not be seen as different from any other window except at night when light would not shine through from the inside.
Mr. Rea stated he had not heard of this establishment before and asked if the nearest franchise looked similar to the proposal. Mr. Booth responded that it would look much like the
Billings restaurant.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked why franchise architecture had not been more discouraged by Staff. Planner Kozub responded that the Design Objectives Plan did not prohibit franchise
architecture, but rather “discouraged” it and recommended the applicant address the question related to franchise architecture for Buffalo Wild Wings proposal. Mr. Booth responded the
company had publicly traded last year and now used a new design which would discontinue this particular design for any new restaurants.
Ms. Zavora asked if the door depicted on the rendering existed on the floor plan. Mr. Booth responded there would be no door in that location.
Chairperson Livingston asked what sort of provisions had been made for the screening of the equipment on the roof. Mr. Booth responded the parapet would completely screen all the mechanical
equipment. Chairperson Livingston asked how tall the mechanical equipment would be as it would easily be seen from sightlines from North 19th Avenue. Mr. Booth responded they had not
had a problem being able to see mechanical equipment from the ground.
Mr. Batcheller asked how close the grease dumpster and trash compactor would be to the creek. Planner Kozub responded that no equipment, parking, or curb would be allowed to encroach
into the 35 foot stream setback. Mr. Batcheller asked if there would be any real danger with the location of the trash enclosure. Planner Kozub responded there would not be any real
danger other than maintenance issues.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial for Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 to the City Commission. The motion carried
4-0.
Mr. Rea stated the reason he put the motion for denial forward was due to the proposed franchise architecture and added that he thought the building unappealing and not in keeping with
the surrounding area. He suggested a more careful review of the U.D.O. and D.O.P. would assist the applicant with the screening of mechanical equipment. He stated the DRB strongly
supported pedestrian connections with demarcation and suggested the institution of those features into the proposal. He suggested the use of precast stone or “lick & stick” stone.
Mr. Booth responded it would be actual stone they used. Mr. Rea stated the use of EFIS had gone too far and he would like to see a building designed for this site instead of a building
designed for Cincinnati, etc.
Mr. Batcheller stated he agreed with Mr. Rea that the structure was not designed for the site. He added that he would like to see consideration given to the orientation and location
of the patio area. Mr. Booth responded the patio would be located on the side of the structure with the natural stream and pedestrian pathway. Mr. Batcheller stated the approach of
pedestrians from the south would be faced with a stark elevation and he would like to see something more welcoming and less like a road block (less cold). Mr. Booth responded there
would be steel cable trellis with ivy planted along that façade; it was just not depicted accurately.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Mr. Batcheller and did not think that a trellis with ivy would lessen the stark appearance of the façade. He stated the pond could be better connected
to the pedestrian pathways so that the applicant could take full advantage of the sunset, stream, and wetlands.
Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments and suggested that the proposed 80 feet of ivy in a trellis should be broken up along that façade. She suggested that the patio
location as proposed would hardly see sunlight due to the duration of winter in this area. She stated the U.D.O. and D.O.P. required trees every certain number of feet and they were
not depicted correctly on the submittal.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he would have loved to have been given the opportunity to design this structure specifically for this site. He stated that the can design did not do
architecture justice. He recited that a physician once said, when speaking with an architect, that when the physician makes a mistake he buries it, but when an architect makes a mistake,
he covers it with ivy.
Chairperson Livingston stated there were no parking calculations included and suggested the DRB’s concern would be too many parking stalls proposed. He stated he agreed with previous
DRB comments and suggested that being the last structure of a franchise design meant there were a number of those same structures before it.
4. Owenhouse Ace Hardware Preliminary SP/COA, #Z-06194 (Bristor)
8695 Huffine Lane
* A Preliminary Site Plan application to allow the construction of a one-story hardware store with a basement totaling a 25,270 square foot footprint and related site improvements zoned
B-2 (Community Business) District.
Larry Bowman and Dick Prugh joined the DRB. Planner Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the project in a Class II Entryway Corridor. She stated the provided parking
calculations were incorrect and the parking would need to be decreased. She stated MDOT wanted to see “porkchop” instituted for the access. She stated the proposed landscaping was
inadequate and Staff wanted to see better screening along Huffine Lane and more screening along the pedestrian connections. She stated Staff was looking for the DRB to make suggestions
for additional design and landscape features. She stated the DRC would ensure the conditions from subdivision approval regarding water rights and other easements were properly addressed.
Ms. Zavora asked what a “porkchop” was. Planner Bristor responded it was a one way in and one way out access design.
Mr. Batcheller asked if the access had to be placed in the proposed location. Mr. Prugh responded yes and added that the access had to be a certain distance from intersections and right
of ways.
Mr. Prugh stated there were options for the design of the access, but not the location. He stated the access to the park had a rail fence and the applicant was unsure what they would
do about pedestrian access there. He stated that the set of calculations submitted had been done incorrectly and the storage areas in the basement had been calculated as retail area.
Planner
Bristor responded the mathematical calculations seemed to be off and suggested checking the calculations. Mr. Prugh asked the allowable fence height for the outdoor sales area as he
had read the requirements as only applicable to fences on lot lines, not interior sales areas; he added his request for a ten foot tall fence were for security reasons. He requested
being allowed to lower the height of the fence to eight feet, but keep the columns at ten feet in height. He stated the design of the structure was to provide for quality with a streamlined
approach to the elements of the occupants. He stated there was more landscaping proposed for the corner of the lot which was also the location of the signage.
Mr. Banziger asked if the “porkchop” could be removed with the redesign of the site. Mr. Prugh responded the “porkchop” was required by the MDOT as a one way in and one way out and
could not be removed.
Mr. Rea asked if there was any connection to the mall parking lot. Mr. Prugh responded there was no connection to the mall parking lot. Planner Bristor added that there was a lot between
the mall and this site. Mr. Rea asked if ACE Hardware required the “Owenhouse” sign to be smaller. Mr. Bowman responded Owenhouse was required to be smaller. Mr. Rea stated he would
rather see “OWENHOUSE Ace Hardware” on the signage as opposed to “Owenhouse ACE HARDWARE”. Mr. Prugh responded the signage requirements were very strict.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost raised the question that the proposal’s address may be incorrect as he was doing a project that would seem to neighbor this proposal, although, his was nearly
to Four Corners. He asked if he would be able to make a left turn into the establishment from Huffine Lane. Mr. Prugh responded that, legally, the turn would not be feasible. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost asked if the building abutted the front setback. Mr. Prugh responded that it did not. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the entry columns were located in such
a way as to be an obstruction for the vehicle upon entering the site. Mr. Prugh responded a building looked much better at an angle than head on.
Ms. Zavora asked if the bank had a required “porkchop”. Mr. Prugh responded the bank had been grandfathered in and was not required to have a “porkchop” entrance. Mr. Banziger suggested
instituting a side entrance by the bank instead of from Huffine Lane. Mr. Rea added that the “porkchop” made the site nearly undevelopeable. Mr. Prugh responded that they had exhausted
their options.
Chairperson Livingston stated it would be impossible to legally turn into their site from Bozeman and added that it would be an inconvenience to the customer. He stated he found the
project stark and asked why if seating, trees, and a canopy were instituted on the site would there not be vision into the store and vice versa. Mr. Bowman responded that wall space
was crucial to his type of business as there would be items that would need to be displayed on the walls (i.e. ladders, hosing, etc.). Chairperson Livingston asked why there was not
more landscaping instituted on the site. Mr. Prugh responded the simple design would be surrounded by landscaping and he would address the corner of the lot. Chairperson Livingston
asked that if in the existing store people came as much to socialize as to shop. Mr. Bowman responded that they did, but an out of town store would be different than a downtown store.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Owenhouse Ace Hardware Preliminary SP/COA #Z-06194 to the City Commission
with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-0.
Ms. Zavora stated she thought the proposal was stark in front and suggested the institution of more landscaping. She suggested extending the perennial bed and low plantings on the burms.
She stated the exterior seating could double as planters and she liked that Oak trees were proposed, but was concerned that they were proposed too closely to the retention pond.
Mr. Batcheller stated it was kind of a monolithic looking building and suggested softening the corner. He added that the pedestrians would naturally head for the entrance and the proposed
pedestrian path did not make much sense.
Mr. Banziger stated he liked the open design of the existing store as it enabled people to view the merchandise from the outside. He suggested that the applicant consider keeping the
proposed structure more in keeping with the existing one.
Mr. Rea stated the wishbone would cause people only to be able to arrive there by bike or on foot. He stated that he liked the building much more than big box stores; he suggested using
something other than EFIS and using bright red ceramic tile on the sign to draw attention. He added he would love to see “ACE” subordinate to “OWENHOUSE” on the sign. He encouraged
the applicant to seek whatever avenue necessary to improve access to the site and potentially be rid of the “porkchop” feature.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Rea on the use of ceramic red tile to draw attention to the structure. He stated he loved the design because of the brutalism and
the fact that it was a hardware store. He stated he supported the sign and the 10 foot high fence. He stated he would not propose redesign or reorientation of the building, but suggested
asking MDOT for a right-in left-in on the east end of the site. He stated the EFIS would accomplish a smooth surface going on quickly to protect the building, but hardiplank would be
a more detailed, economical choice.
Chairperson Livingston suggested a large format, red porcelain, metal. He stated he thought there was a perception that Owenhouse was a public gathering area instead of just a hardware
store and that if there had been seating instituted on the existing site, people would have to be shooed away. He stated he appreciated the concern for the wall space, but thought there
was a reason why people wanted to go there and the applicant should attempt to capture the intangible feeling of community with a different character and softness to draw people in.
Mr. Bowman stated the interior would reproduce some of the history of the existing store and added that the downtown store was a different environment that was more of a gathering place
than a destination. Chairperson Livingston stated that as a destination place it would be nice to be the first destination. Mr. Banziger suggested consideration of the future when
the bounds of the city may reach to that point.
ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW:
1. Golden Rule Building Informal, #I-06024 (Bristor)
7 West Main Street
* To review proposed restoration and renovation of building’s original appearance and new rear addition; and provide for retail uses in basement and first floor and office spaces on
second floor, zoned B-3 (Central Business) District.
Planner Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the DRB was seeing a removal of the existing façade with rehabilitation and restoration back to the original façade. She stated there
had been an adjustment to the second floor layout and the Preservation Office was concerned that the escalator would not be kept. She stated the applicant had requested the addition
of a third floor, but that request had been retracted. She stated the DRC was concerned with the proposed uses of the structure, and each use would bring forth different issues of code
compliance. She stated the basement area renovation would be important for increasing the usable space.
Mr. Rea asked if the elevations he was seeing were different. Planner Bristor responded that they were different. Mr. Rea suggested they keep the more recent submittal as it was better
and asked what materials would be used. Planner Bristor responded she did not know materials as the proposal was in Informal review and added that she would like to see the existing
openings used with the rehabilitation to help salvage original materials.
Mr. Rea stated he loved the front and back, but his concern was that he didn’t want to see someone with a big idea not completing the job once it was started. He stated that as a professional,
he was concerned that Bozeman was losing all its great examples of 60’s and 70’s architecture. Mr. Batcheller added this was a tale of two buildings; fun and funky in the back and contemporary
in the front.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the escalator did not meet Fire Safety Standards due to its width and could not be used. He suggested keeping the escalator as a monument (i.e. hung
from the ceiling). Planner Bristor agreed that it could be instituted and worked around internally.
Ms. Zavora stated she would like to see the concrete features removed for the sake of going back to the original design.
Planner Bristor asked the DRB’s thoughts on instituting awnings on the second level. Chairperson Livingston responded there had been an awning all across the front at one time.
Mr. Rea stated the awnings wouldn’t be maintainable on that façade due to it facing the south, the pigeons, and the normal wear and tear that would be evident due to the elements. He
added he did not think the awnings were on the building originally.
Mr. Banziger stated it would be a shame if the brick did not make it through the renovation process.
Chairperson Livingston stated that if the façade had to be totally recreated to look like an old façade, he would not be supportive of the proposal. He stated he would want to know
the extent of the damage to the original façade through investigation and suggested a contemporary downtown façade if the damage were too great. Mr. Banzinger stated recreation of historic
elements would be alright in a new structure, but not a contemporary structure. Mr. Rea stated the structure should always take into consideration the area in which it sits. Chairperson
Livingston stated he thought it was a matter of choosing which contractor to do the work and added if there was nothing to salvage, there should not be an attempt made.
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 9:17 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board