Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-06 Design Review Board Minutes.doc DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 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 Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Elissa Zavora Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost Christopher Livingston Walt Banziger Mel Howe Visitors Present Bill Hanson Rusty Harris Shelly Engler James Nickelson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2006. Ms. Zavora stated that on page 2 Mr. Sobrepena did not know where the boulders were on the site and on page 5 the trees were located 4 feet from the structure instead of 2 ft. Mr. Rea stated that on page 10 the word architect needed replaced with contractor. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to approve the minutes of September 27, 2006 with corrections. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. 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 an 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. (Continued from September 27, 2006.) Chairperson Livingston moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to continue the project until the next meeting of the DRB on October 25, 2006. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Banziger and Mr. Howe joined the DRB. The DRB concurred that Item #3 would precede item #2 as the applicant had not arrived yet. 3. Oak Meadows Condos Site Plan/COA/Deviations, #Z-06226 (Krueger) 1350 North 14th Avenue * A Preliminary Site Plan Application with Certificate of Appropriateness and deviations to allow construction of 82 condominium units and clubhouse with related site improvements on eight lots totaling 387,395 square feet, zoned R-4 (Residential High-density) District. Bill Hanson, Shelly Engler, Rusty Harris, and James Nickelson joined the DRB. Planner Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the project had a lot of private-public internal circulation and there was a lot of activity going on around the site. He stated there were deviations requested relating to the large lots and Staff was in support of the requested deviations to allow the lot lines not to function as lot lines for the creation of a functional condominium development. He stated there would be underground storm water detention, perimeter sidewalks, varying street widths, curb bulbs, well planned pedestrian crossings, a meandering trail, etc. He stated he thought the overall layout of the proposal was quite good and included strong urban forms. He stated Staff conditions were fairly simple and reiterated those conditions. He stated there was an issue with the parking requirements on building form #5 as there was a third room with a closet that would have to be counted as a bedroom and increase the required amount of parking. He stated he did not know when the other half of Lilac Street would be constructed; it would be constructed to look complete, but would only be half width and would not be wide enough for on-street parking. He stated there would be on-street parking internally and on Manzanita Drive so that the parking requirements would be met, but there would not be much guest parking. He stated he would like to see additional seating areas and a tree canopy in the proposal. He stated his largest concern for the proposal was the needed enhancement of the site along Oak Street. He suggested the applicant use a format similar to unit #5 design. Mr. Hanson stated the design began with a lot more units than currently proposed. He stated the proposal was attempting to emphasize the trail corridor and make it an amenity connecting to a three acre park. He stated the setback from Oak Street was designed to drain runoff and the landscaping proposed for presentation to Oak Street would be Maple and Ash trees. He stated there was a lot of variety in the proposed structures and added that they were designed to be cost effective to provide for a market not currently provided for in Bozeman. He stated there was more open space proposed than required and directed the DRB’s attention to those locations on the site plan. Mr. Hanson presented an alternate proposal for the frontage along Oak Street. Mr. Nickelson stated the proposal contained below ground filtration with a channel to carry water into the storage areas and then overflow into the main storm drain system. Mr. Rea asked if his packet had building #7 elevations. Mr. Banziger pointed out the location of the elevations in his packet. Mr. Rea asked the intended use of the room with a closet that caused difficulty with the parking calculations. Mr. Hanson responded it was meant to be an office, but the closet would need to be removed. Mr. Rea asked the purpose of the clubhouse. Mr. Hanson responded there would be a workout area and a small office. Mr. Rea asked if there was parking on Oak Street. Mr. Hanson responded there would not be parking allowed on Oak Street. Mr. Rea asked if there would be restrictions on the use of colors. Planner Krueger responded the DOP required the use of muted colors but, other than that, the applicant’s choices were wide open. Mr. Howe asked why sidewalks couldn’t be instituted in a certain location on the site. Mr. Nickelson responded there could be sidewalks there. Ms. Zavora asked if unit #1 had a door proposed exiting straight onto the lawn or if there would be a concrete pad for the exit. Mr. Hanson responded there would only be a door exiting the back of the garages. Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant was concerned with tenant privacy from the courtyard. Mr. Hanson responded he did not think there would be any concerns with privacy as the courtyard faced the rear facades and the applicant wanted the buildings facing the street. Ms. Zavora asked if planters were proposed in between units #2 and #4. Mr. Hanson responded there would be small green spaces containing little trees or bushes in those locations. Planner Krueger added that the UDO required a ten foot separation in those locations. Ms. Zavora asked which landscape features were for unit #5 specifically. Mr. Hanson pointed them out on the site plan. Ms. Zavora stated there was no landscaping on any of the side buildings. Mr. Hanson responded that the applicant wanted lawn areas that could be used by the tenants. Ms. Zavora suggested foundation plantings. Ms. Engler responded there would be too much landscaping in a narrow area, the landscaping was meant to enhance the front of the development, and the point requirements had been met. Ms. Zavora stated the proposal appeared to be 3-5 points short of the requirements. Mr. Banziger asked if the alternate proposal was similar to unit #6. Mr. Hanson responded it was similar, but without the single-story element. Mr. Banziger asked if there would be a sidewalk right below the concrete wall and would it be scored or colored. Mr. Hanson responded that there would be a sidewalk below the concrete wall and there would be no scored or pigmented pavement. Mr. Banziger asked the roofing material that would be used. Mr. Hanson responded it would be asphalt shingles. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the new units proposed would have an Oak Street address. Mr. Hanson responded there would be a complex address with an internal map of the individual structures listed. Chairperson Livingston asked if parking would be located in certain areas on the site. Mr. Krueger stated there would be on-street parking, but not on Lilac Street. Chairperson Livingston asked if there was depth proposed in front of the garages that would be suitable for a car. Mr. Hanson responded there would be 20 feet in front of the garages. Mr. Nickelson added that the largest units would not provide for parking in front of the garage as they had two-car garages. Chairperson Livingston asked the parking requirements and which proposed parking stalls were included. Mr. Hanson responded the requirement was one space per bedroom and could be located on-street or in designated parking areas; he added that the units without stacking would have the closest parking stalls. Mr. Krueger added there was a better turning radius due to the requirement of 10 feet between garages. Mr. Hanson added there would be forty feet at the narrowest between garages. Ms. Engler stated she thought the applicant had provided the required 25 points. Ms. Zavora concurred that she had misread the depicted calculations. Mr. Banziger asked why there was no changing room proposed for the clubhouse when there would be a workout area and hot tub. Mr. Hanson responded the clubhouse was a work in progress. Mr. Banziger asked if the retaining wall around the hot tub would be high enough to provide for privacy. Mr. Hanson responded the requirement was for a 6-foot high fence. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Oak Meadows Condos Site Plan/COA/Deviations #Z-06226 with Staff conditions. The motion died. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he liked the alternate design better as it concentrated on Oak Street with north facing views to the Bridger Mountains. Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost regarding the alternate design, he was concerned with the rear facades, and he would strongly support anything that came through that followed the UDO while introducing more color. Mr. Benziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding the alternate design, he was glad to hear that Staff would be amenable to more color, and he did not think the back side of the site would be a detriment. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding the alternate design and suggested less mutation of colors with the use of accent colors so as not to damage the overall design. Ms. Zavora stated she had measured the distance of open space along the sides of the site, she did not buy the idea that children would be playing in those lawn areas as grassy areas had been provided internally, and she thought more than two shrubs for a sixty foot stretch would be appropriate. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed that the alternate design was best as it presented a better face to Oak Street and would be a little more proportional, he agreed with Staff recommendations regarding the sparseness of one corner on the site. Mr. Hanson responded it was depicted as such to provide handicapped accessibility to those buildings. Chairperson Livingston stated that he agreed that there should be more use of color and materials instead of 7 shades of beige. He added that the lack of landscaping in certain areas should be enhanced as amenities for the tenants. He stated that, overall, the development was well thought out but parking would always be an issue. He stated a fair amount of guest parking would need to be instituted and snow removal might become a problem. Chairperson Livingston had stated he thought the single level unit should be two stories and Vice Chairperson Pentecost disagreed with Chairperson Livingston as he thought the one story unit was more appropriate and it would prevent the creation of a wall in that location. Chairperson Livingston concurred that Vice Chairperson Pentecost’s point was well made. AMENDED MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Oak Meadows Condos Site Plan/COA/Deviations #Z-06226 to the City Commission with the addition of condition #8 to read that alternate design of unit #7 on Oak Street be required, that variety and use of colors be incorporated into the design, and shrub foundation plantings be used on street sides and internal locations of the buildings. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Rea stated his only concern was that the DRB was approving an elevation without seeing plans. The DRB concurred that they had seen enough on the elevation replicating the one in question. 2. Hilton Homewood Suites Preliminary SP/COA, #Z-06214 (Krueger) South of Baxter Lane and East of North 11th Avenue. * A Preliminary Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of four-story hotel consisting of 97 rooms and related site improvements on two lots, zoned B-2 (Community Business) District. Greg Allen and Shelly Engler joined the DRB. Planner Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the project’s location as part of the Tange Subdivision with Mandeville Creek going through the corner of the site. He stated the site met all the parking requirements, the detention areas would be around the edges, the access would be located along the side of the site, boulevard sidewalks would be constructed, and there would be fifty foot landscaped areas. He stated Staff was concerned with the proposed design of the structure due to the large building form even though most of the DOP criteria had been met. He stated there would be a shared access drive with the Hampton Inn and it would end at the wetland boundary. He stated that entrances from the back side of the building would provide a way for pedestrians to access the type two trail and pedestrian areas. Mr. Allen added the trail would be paved instead of a type two trail (gravel). Planner Krueger stated the proposed use was very similar to existing surrounding uses and suggested the vertical offset of the building on the rear was not adequate (20%). He stated the long mass of roofline would need to be broken up and the windows providing horizontal offset would not be enough to break up the bulk and scale of the building; he made some suggestions. He stated the entrances most used by the patrons of these establishments would be the side entrances and they would need to be further enhanced. He stated the utility entrances might interfere with the proposed landscaping and the DOP called for a more natural material than cobble be used. He stated common areas would need to be instituted on the site and the areas in the front of the building would need to be enhanced. He stated the mechanical equipment screening would be a concern with a structure of that size. Mr. Allen stated they had been developing in the area for awhile and the owner of the lots would like to play off the design of the Old Faithful Inn in Yellowstone Park. He stated the roofline issues had been addressed with log outriggers and window treatments and his preference on the rock material would be to use a keystone above the window. He stated the lodge was unique and the pool area would incorporate landscaping. He stated there would be a bridge on the north side of lot 4 leading to North 11th Avenue and eventually going to the East Gallatin River recreation area. He stated the original lodge in the park had gotten abstract in design when the lodge had been added onto in the 1970’s. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the height requirements on the proposal. Mr. Krueger responded the base height was 44 feet, but if the proposal was considered “Regional Commercial” the height could be increased to 66 feet. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the vertical offset would be 11 feet in addition to 40 plus feet of height. Mr. Krueger responded the height was not measured from gable to gable and other methods were used. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what the dark areas under the windows were. Mr. Allen responded the dark areas were proposed air conditioning units with the application of a screen and louvers on the front. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked who the Pahl, Pahl, Pahl Architects were. Mr. Allen explained. Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant was trying to imitate or pick up the feeling of the Old Faithful Lodge in Yellowstone. Mr. Allen responded Mr. Banziger was correct. Mr. Rea asked if the development would fall within a district, such as the Tax Increment District. Mr. Allen responded it would be located within the North 7th Avenue Connectivity Plan area. Mr. Rea asked if the landscaped islands were all lawn. Ms. Engler responded they would be lawn as a safe alternative for pedestrians and added that she sometimes actively excluded shrubs to avoid overcrowding of sites. Mr. Rea asked the result of the material discussion on the Marriott Inn. Mr. Krueger responded the material change to synthetic stone was approved. Mr. Rea asked if the proposed pylon sign was allowable. Mr. Allen responded they would prefer the use of a monument sign and would not go with a pylon sign. Mr. Rea asked if anyone had considered constructing high end bungalows or suites. Mr. Allen responded that luxury bungalows or suites would not be viable without enough cash generation to support them. Chairperson Livingston asked the specific location of the trail through the site. Mr. Krueger noted that location on the site plan. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Hilton Homewood Suites Preliminary SP/COA #Z-06214 with Staff conditions. The motion died. Mr. Howe stated that the owner wanting to emanate the existing Old Faithful Inn was alright, but the openings were anemic and suggested the addition of casements. He also suggested a bold header or lintel. Mr. Banziger stated the courtyard facing the north side would never get any light with three or four stories surrounding it on all sides. Mr. Allen responded that he had mentioned the same to the owner and the owner disagreed due to the long mass of building facing the freeway and that the lot did not accommodate the structure facing east or west. Mr. Banziger stated he was looking at the roof line and it seemed monolithic. Mr. Allen responded that the step outs were 8 feet and could not be seen well on the two dimensional rendering. Mr. Rea stated he was excited about the project, he appreciated the scale breaking down as it neared the freeway, the courtyard would be unusable and difficult to keep presentable, he was glad there was no EFIS proposed, he was glad the Hilton was showing Bozeman respect and not going to be an entirely EFIS project, and he thought the project was unique to the point of absurdity. He encouraged the same approach be taken to the sign package that was taken to the architecture and suggested the use of lick & stick stone, logs, or surround. Mr. Allen responded the monument sign with stone detailing would suffice. Mr. Rea responded he would like to see a whole new sign package and he supported all previous DRB comments. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what roof material would be used. Mr. Allen responded dark asphalt composite would be used. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the material of the proposed shake. Mr. Allen responded it would be cedar shake. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the material of the proposed siding. Mr. Allen responded he was unsure and it could be Connects-all. Mr. Krueger added that Staff would review the proposed materials and colors at Final Site Plan review. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated his view from Oak Street was not as pleasing as the view from the highway would be and added that he did not appreciate the presentation of the building to Bozeman. He added that all the orientation issues stemmed from the courtyard and he was struggling with the proposed mimic architecture. He added that Bozeman had become a “brown town” as many of the structures were variations of brown and suggested moving away from that color. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with DRB comments regarding the courtyard and suggested enclosing it or making it more functional. She stated the orientation of the structure could be altered to provide a usable courtyard. She suggested the location on the site might not be suitable. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding the orientation of the courtyard and that it wasn’t intended to be used. He stated it must be looked at as a product with an economic structure and the entries on all sides needed articulation as a blank façade would be facing one way or the other regardless of the orientation. He suggested a lintel over the openings as stone does not magically support itself. He stated he did not mind fashioning a building after another, but stealing the architecture was the worst form of building; he was appalled. He stated the overhang and the outriggers were tolerable and suggested that breaking up the style of the windows would help the south elevation. He stated his feeling was that if this was all they could do with a Homewood Suites proposal, he didn’t want one in Bozeman. Mr. Allen responded that similar uses would naturally appear the same. Mr. Rea suggested the building be better designed. Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested designing the building from all four sides instead of just one. Mr. Allen noted the DRB was insisting the architectural rip-off and Disneyland design was disliked. Mr. Banziger stated he was insulted by the fact that a heritage item had been reproduced in Bozeman, making the “Gateway to Bozeman” look silly. Mr. Rea stated that volumetrically, the building needed more than re-skinned and suggested a four sided, appropriate design that might be less expensive. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial for Hilton Homewood Suites Preliminary SP/COA #Z-06214 to the Planning Director with reference to the minutes of the meeting. The motion died. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to continue the project based on DRB comments and the applicant resubmit the design with adequate time for Staff to review the submittal before the DRB meeting. The motion carried 6-0. 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 available for comment at this time. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board