HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 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
Joe Batcheller Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Christopher Livingston Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Michael Pentecost Martin Knight, Assistant Planner
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Visitors Present
Shelly Engler
Jerry Perkins
Ray Johnson
R.M. Short
Lee oldenburger
Jeff Sandholm
Thomas Bitnar
Keith Belden
Molly Skorpik
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2006.
Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 4, the statement should read that Chairperson Livingston had stated he thought the single level unit should be two stories and Vice Chairperson
Pentecost had 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.
INFORMAL RECOMMENDATION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost recommended, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to approve the minutes of October 11, 2006 with corrections. The motion carried 3-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEM
1. Walton Homestead Lot 11 CUP for PUD #Z-06237 (Kozub)
710 Matheson Way
* A Conditional Use Permit Application for modifications to an approved Planned Unit Development to allow the relocation of a common boundary resulting in a smaller lot width and area
than normally permitted under the PUD.
INFORMAL RECOMMENDATION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost recommended, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Walton Homestead Lot 11 CUP for PUD #Z-06237.
The recommendation carried 3-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
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 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 October 11, 2006.)
Richard Shanahan and Lowell Springer joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the DRB had seen the project on September 27, 2006 and explained
what the DRB had requested at that review. He stated the applicant had revised the drawings to be more consistent and Staff recommendations for the proposal would stand as presented.
He stated there had not been an updated elevation submitted for the proposed drive-thru. Mr. Shanahan added that the drive-thru had not been modified. Mr. Springer added that the
drive-thru would match the proposed bank exactly. Planner Krueger stated Staff would need to see the drive-thru before the Planning Director Staff report was due. Mr. Springer stated
some of the DRB comments did not jive and the applicant had made changes based on what would be best for the proposed bank. He stated the stone height around the windows had been lowered
and they were ready to incorporate all the suggested site changes. Mr. Shanahan added that he had asked if the applicant should make the site changes to the plans at the last meeting
of the DRB and Planner Krueger had told him he would not need to. Mr. Springer stated they had taken Ms. Zavora’s comments and incorporated them on the site plan and they had no problems
with any of Staff or DRB comments.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there was a column layer problem with the elevations. Mr. Springer responded they did have a layer problem. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if
the area labeled stone had been incorrectly labeled. Mr. Springer responded that it had. Mr. Pentecost stated he would prefer to see the entryway composed of brick rather than stone.
INFORMAL RECOMMENDATION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost recommended, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for the Bank of Bozeman Preliminary
SP/COA, #Z-06215 with Staff conditions and the addition of condition #9 that the elevations be updated to match the information on the renderings; particularly that the entry be shown
as brick instead of stone and match the provided elevations. The recommendation carried 3-0.
Mr. Batcheller asked what caused the applicant to decide on the copper color. Mr. Springer responded that the DRB had been in twain on the preferred color and the applicant did not
want to make the structure half black and half copper.
Chairperson Livingston read Ms. Zavora’s comments from a prior e-mail to the DRB members in her absence. Mr. Springer responded that the requirements addressed by Ms. Zavora had been
met by City Standards and added that he had done what she had asked. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost and would like to see the entryway be brick
instead of stone.
3. Sandholm/Bidegaray SP/COA #Z-06234 (Krueger)
Lot 57, Bozeman Gateway Subdivision
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of an approximately 8,000-square-foot, two-story office building along north side of West Garfield
Street, zoned B-2 (Community Business) District.
Jeff Sandholm joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal’s location within the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision, Phase 3. He stated the
DRB had seen the project in an Informal review. He stated his first reaction to the proposal was that it was a much better layout than the initial proposal and there had been a change
to the first Staff condition regarding the trash enclosure; that it could not be located in a public access easement as it had been proposed. Planner Krueger suggested locating it in
the parking lot and stated he would work with the applicant as it was not a major site issue. He stated the pedestrian crosswalk would need to be stamped and colored to be consistent
with other areas within the subdivision. He stated the standard control joint detail would not work according to the design guidelines and it would need to be modified to something
other than that. He stated there would need to be more detail on the landscape plans with boulders and planting beds incorporated on the site. He stated there had been a material sample
submitted and he would need clarification on the colors that were being proposed. He stated that overall the project was more conservative with much more masonry being proposed.
Mr. Sandholm stated the color renderings depicted the areas of corrugated metal with red metal on the tower ends. Chairperson Livingston asked where the towers were as he did not see
them depicted on the site plan. Mr. Sandholm described that it would actually be an “inverted tower” feature, not really a tower, and directed Chairperson Livingston to those locations
on the site plan.
Mr. Batcheller asked if the proposed stamped crosswalk was at an odd angle and had the applicant thought about switching the locations of the landscaping bed and the crosswalk. Mr.
Sanholm responded that it had originally been located elsewhere, but Morrison-Maierle had instituted a larger seating area on their site and the proposed crosswalk would provide for
that area.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if on elevation 3.1, the square siding called a horizontal wood or metal was correct. Mr. Sandholm responded it was incorrect, it would be corrugated
metal, and would be updated on the final submittal.
Chairperson Livingston asked where the applicant would be putting the trash enclosure. Mr. Krueger suggested placing the enclosure further within the site as there were available areas
within the designated parking areas and the parking requirements would still be met.
Per Chairperson Livingston, Ms. Zavora had asked via e-mail if they had contacted a professional landscape architect. Mr. Sanholm responded that they had contacted a professional and
that Dan La France from Ms. Zavora’s business, Sweetpea Landscaping, had been working on the project.
Chairperson Livingston asked where the mechanical equipment would be located. Mr. Sandholm responded it would be located on the flat roof almost directly above the entrance.
Chairperson Livingston stated that at an obscure angle someone might be able to see those units and asked where the space for the condenser units would be located. Mr. Sandholm responded
the condenser units would be behind the metal parapet. Chairperson Livingston asked the color of the steel accents. Mr. Sanholm responded they would be a black looking color (metal
A on the material sample). Chairperson Livingston asked how far the projecting roof went back. Mr. Sandholm explained. Chairperson Livingston asked the color of the proposed glass.
Mr. Sandholm responded it would be clear.
INFORMAL RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Batcheller recommended, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Sandholm/Bidegaray SP/COA
#Z-06234. The recommendation died.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that he was disappointed the Bozeman Gateway Architectural Design Committee made the applicant remove the proposed shed roof.
Mr. Batcheller stated he thought the revisions were spot on and he liked the proposal.
Chairperson Livingston read Ms. Zavora’s comments regarding the landscaping and noted the applicant should provide landscaping around the transformer on the Garfield Street side.
Chairperson Livingston stated he appreciated the way Morrison-Maierle and Mr. Sandholm had found a way to make the entryway to the parking lot, something that looked horrendous, look
a lot better. He stated it would be nice to have a terminus at the location where this site met Morrison-Maierle’s site for public safety reasons. He stated he agreed with Ms. Zavora’s
comments regarding landscaping around the transformer. He stated he appreciated the applicant’s efforts in working with Bozeman Gateway and the material quality was in keeping with
what the DRB had seen so far. He suggested lacquering and varnishing the proposed wood to keep it in good shape. He stated the proportion of the brick panel above the entry was too
long and thin and added that it was like “what brick wouldn’t do”.
INFORMAL RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Batcheller moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Sandholm/Bidegaray SP/COA #Z-06234 with the striking
of Staff condition #1, Staff conditions #2-#9, the addition of condition number #9 to state that the applicant shall move the location of the trash enclosure to the west into two unused
parking spaces to allow only five feet of encroachment into the 30 foot public access easement, and the addition of condition #10 to provide landscaping at the utility transformer, preferably
on the Garfield Street side. The recommendation carried 3-0.
4. Burgard Building Preliminary SP/COA, #Z-06217 (Knight)
Osterman Drive
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 34,000-square-foot office/light manufacturing building on lot at southwest edge of Osterman
Drive cul-de-sac, zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) District.
Chris Budeski, Tomas Bitnar, and Chris Burgard joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Martin Knight presented the Staff Report noting the proposal fulfilled all zoning requirements outside
of those called out in the Staff report. He stated the billboard would need to be removed and Staff would need to see examples of the proposed glass to be used as there may be glaring
issues. He
stated the west elevation of the building contained large lettering and Staff had decided that, if it was incorporated into the structure, it would be supportable as it would be a modern
day example of a historical feature.
Mr. Budeski stated the proposal was a Leed Certified building with a light concrete sidewalk to prevent the gathering of heat. He stated the storm-water drainage pond would be intermittently
filled with runoff from the roof and potentially the landscaped areas. He stated infiltration chambers would be placed under the parking stalls to keep the storm water on the site.
He stated the landscaping had been placed to provide shading to the parking stalls and a buffer to the street and there would be designated carpooling and alternative vehicle parking
designations.
Mr. Bitnar stated that in order to get the Platinum building designation the applicant would need to meet the 50 point requirement. He stated there would be a south facing, double façade
that would be guaranteed. He stated the glass used would not be reflective, the interior corridors would be seen from the outside of the structure, and the structure could only handle
10 decibels. He stated both staircases would be visibly exposed from the outside of the structure and there would be French type doors on the north elevation of the structure with the
east elevation containing an atrium with an exposed elevator and stairs. He stated the landscaping would be instituted as part of the heating and cooling systems of the structure.
He stated there would be a water feature which would retain water as an element of their green building. He stated the applicant had instituted a lot of wood features to stay in keeping
with Montana and there would be grass and solar energy on the roof. He stated there would be a bicycle room, showering areas, and bicycle racks on each floor. He stated the lettering
would be integrated as part of the façade and all mechanical equipment would be hidden behind screening.
Mr. Burgard stated that his best decision was hiring a great team to work on his project. He stated he thought the structure would become the norm over time as conscientious green buildings
would be the way for development in the area to go. Mr. Bitnar added that he was pleased that he had found a project like this in the private sector and stated his client was very intelligent
for going to the green building conferences. Mr. Burgard stated that the more he studied the design of the green buildings, the more he realized there was no reason not to build these
types of structures. He stated there would be three cooling systems in case one did not respond as well as it should.
Mr. Budeski stated he would like to address one of Staff’s conditions; that the applicant had removed one parking stall to accommodate a larger plaza area.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if Mr. Bitnar would discuss the double wall on the south side of the structure, asking the location of an interior wall and if it would have windows.
Mr. Bitnar explained that it would be the atrium and work the best for the circulation of air. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Knight how the use of the windows on the south
facing façade wouldn’t be a problem and how it would affect Staff condition #3. Mr. Knight responded that Staff had determined that glaring might be a problem and would need evidence
from the applicant that it wouldn’t be. Mr. Bitnar responded that distance between the lighting fixtures, the corridors, and the windows would cause there to be a filter so that glare
would not be a problem. Mr. Bitnar added that the applicant was considering having educational classes for the construction of green buildings in the proposed lobby.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the applicant would get Leed Points for using the runoff. Mr. Budeski responded they would get points as they could not use private water (such as a
well) or they would be docked points. Chairperson Livingston suggested solar mounting a pump with power for the irrigation coming off of the solar panel to take stored water from a
cistern. Mr. Budeski responded that he wouldn’t be able to use a cistern as the storage area would need to be too large and, if left to sit for any length of time, would begin to stink.
Chairperson Livingston asked where the outdoor pedestrian area was. Mr. Budeski showed the DRB the proposed plaza area on the site plan. Chairperson Livingston stated the atrium requirements
in the International Building Code were kind of a nasty thing and asked if the applicant had checked with the Building Department to see if it would be problematic to have an atrium
with egress in those areas. Mr. Bitnar responded they had spoken to the Building Department and the proposed atrium had been approved. Chairperson Livingston added that his concern
lied with the project’s approval and subsequent disapproval at the Building Permit stage, causing the proposal to lose many of its attributes. Mr. Bitnar responded there were already
tenants arranged for the building and the proposal had been designed with their requests in mind. Chairperson Livingston asked if the parking calculation had included the reserved spots
for the smart vehicles. Mr. Budeski responded the reserved spots were part of the calculation.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Knight if item J of the Design Objectives Plan specifically stated muted colors and earth tones would be used. Mr. Bitnar responded that the
item had been addressed with the use of brown for the columns and wood exposure wherever possible; he added that silver panels would be instituted leaving the wood as the major element
to the facades. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant would like to use color. Mr. Bitnar responded there might be light green showing, but was content with the colors
as they were proposed.
Chairperson Livingston asked the metal to be used on the west face. Mr. Bitnar responded it would be louvers with a deep profile metal that would be silver.
INFORMAL RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Batcheller recommended, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward an informal recommendation of approval for Burgard Building Preliminary SP/COA,
#Z-06217 to the Planning Director with Staff conditions. The recommendation carried 3-0.
Mr. Batcheller stated the trees depicted on the south side of the building on the site plan did not match the trees depicted on the color rendering and suggested the use of deciduous
trees. Mr. Bitnar responded that Poplar trees (deciduous) would be used. Mr. Batcheller stated he loved the project, it was bold, and something needed to draw attention away from the
Montana Life building.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the west wall of the building, if seen in a vacuum, would stun someone and cause them to suggest the applicant add detail though he thought they did
it would not need detail. He stated he supported the direction the applicant had taken the design (green building design) and suggested that most clients claimed not to be able to afford
that design. He stated the location of the project at one entry of town made a bold statement which would say a lot about Bozeman. He added that he would support the use of any color
if the use of such were desirable to the applicant. He stated that due to the five foot grid, carpenters would hate the structure.
Chairperson Livingston read Ms. Zavora’s suggestions regarding perennials or grasses being planted in the plaza area. He stated she had also suggested balcony plantings.
Chairperson Livingston stated he preferred the landscape plan with a more natural tree layout as opposed to the one depicted in a straight line and added that trees out in front would
soften the structure. Mr. Bitnar responded they were creating order in front and chaos would be behind. Chairperson Livingston stated he appreciated the fact that the applicant was
using green technology and being certified under the Leed System; adding that it is the wave of the future though more expensive. He stated it said something of Bozeman and its willingness
toward progress.
1. PT Land/Perkins CUP for PUD #Z-06230 (Windemaker)
Baxter/Oak/11th/15th
* A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with relaxations to allow for development of 18 lots for commercial and open space use on 47.62 acres generally bounded by
Baxter Lane, North 11th Avenue, West Oak Street, and North 15th Avenue with American Federal Savings Bank as the initial phase of the PUD, zoned B-2 (Community Business) District.
Molly Skorpik, Keith Belden, and Ray Johnson joined the DRB. The DRB concurred that due to the lack of quorum and the applicant’s concern regarding the City Commission’s decision on
the proposal without formal recommendation from the DRB, the meeting would be opened and continued.
INFORMAL RECOMMENDATION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost recommended, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to open and continue the project until the next meeting of the DRB on November 8, 2006. The
recommendation carried 3-0.
The DRB concurred that an informal discussion would be permissible at this time.
Planner Windemaker stated the site was within two Entryway Corridors and the requested relaxations were probably beyond the scope of the DRB with the possible exception of relaxation
requests numbers 11 & 12. She stated Staff was in support of relaxation #11 proposing locating the storm water facilities in Zone # 1 of the watercourse setback if they were designed
as a an organic water feature with a natural, curvilinear shape. She added that Staff would also support relaxation #12 as there might be road design issues due to the current location
of the North 15th Avenue right of way. She stated Staff recommended the use of low profile monument signs and added that Staff had no real concerns with the proposal.
Mr. Belden asked if the condition for low profile monument signs included the 13 foot tall example. Planner Windemaker responded that it did not and the five foot tall example was the
low profile example.
Planner Windemaker suggested the DRB could institute a condition to allow the board to review the proposals if they met the DRB review criteria. Chairperson Livingston stated that his
concern with the proposal would be that there would be no further review for any other properties on the site; adding that not reviewing a primary piece of land in the Entryway Corridor
was not acceptable for the DRB. He stated the prominence of the projects within that location
would become problematic if not reviewed at the time of development and the DRB was not comfortable giving approval for a project that would allow the applicant to place whatever they
wanted on their land. He stated the projects, including the current bank proposal, should be reviewed if they are to be located within the Entryway Corridor and he considered it the
DRB’s responsibility. He added that he did not particularly like the design of the bank as it was less commercial than he thought the location called for. He asked if the project would
be seen as a single proposal adding that if that were the case, the whole thing would be considered within the Entryway Corridor. Planner Windemaker responded the lots could be individually
reviewed upon Site Plan submittal, but the DRB could not review those lots outside the Entryway Corridors against the Design Objectives Plan. Chairperson Livingston added that he did
not know what aspect of the proposal he was reviewing at this time. Mr. Belden responded that the UDO required contiguous pieces of land be reviewed as a PUD with a set of Design Guidelines;
he added that there was a Plat Application, a PUD Application, and the first Site Plan for the site that would need to be reviewed. Planner Windemaker added that an upcoming UDO edit
would require the applicant to submit at least an initial site plans for the PUD instead of just a master plan.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated there was a series of four meetings done for the Bozeman Gateway PUD and asked why this proposal was supposed to be approved in one meeting. Planner
Windemaker responded that she was uncertain why the Gateway project had been reviewed that many times, but it was not a requirement.
Ms. Skorpik stated the focus of the proposed Design Guidelines was to keep conformity within the development and they had used the Design Objectives Plan in the creation of those guidelines.
She asked if they had seen the uses table included in the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded that he had.
Chairperson Livingston stated the requested relaxations regarding sidewalks on the north side of Baxter Lane was appropriate as sidewalks there were ridiculous as there would be no one
walking there anyway, the lot arrangement and sizes would be perfectly fine, parking requirements would be fine, and he had earlier stated that the “slipperiness” of the proposal was
not meant to be a legal matter but more a confusion as to what the DRB was supposed to be reviewing. Chairperson Livingston stated the DRB would be eliminated from the process and he
did not want to see that happen, and the DRB had been perceived as an obstacle with their intention being to make improvements to proposals.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that the large stone entry on the east elevation was extremely massive and the attempt to lighten it up by poking the wood through was a tentative gesture
to stop, instead of a bold gesture to make it work; he added that his first sense would be uneasiness due to the entry’s massive form, the entrance is not at a pedestrian scale. He
suggested making the roof black to accentuate the detail of the entry and added that the whole area around the site had turned to “brown town”. Mr. Johnson responded the applicant developed
the bank floor plan without elevations and the applicant would be tweaking the elements. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the applicant may be able to accomplish the same sense of
massing with openings carved into the stone. He stated he was confused because the east elevation was different from every other elevation (materials, design, color). Mr. Johnson responded
they had been doing two studies at the same time and Mr. Pentecost was very observant.
Mr. Batcheller stated he agreed with Chairperson Livingston ’s comments regarding the surrounding developments and he saw this property as an anchor for the pedestrian foot traffic as
it seemed the site could contain a couple of structures. He suggested recapturing the commercial feel of the area.
Chairperson Livingston stated there was an awful lot going on in the building and, because it would be set on an angle, there would be a lot of different materials presented to the public.
Mr. Johnson responded that there were two studies being done at the same time and there would be conformity in the final result. Chairperson Livingston stated that he felt the proposal
was a little busy. Mr. Johnson stated the business would be considered in the whole design of the project.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested Planner Windemaker have the applicant bring back color renderings at the next meeting of the DRB if the applicant was amenable to that. Mr. Johnson
stated that CWG Architects would prepare a more cohesive rendering for the proposal.
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 8:45 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board