HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice-Chairperson Jim Raznoff called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Bill Hanson Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner
Jim Raznoff Carol Schott, Recording Secretary
Dawn Smith
Nichole Wills
Dan Glenn
Visitors Present
Gerald Gaston
Glen Rickett
Gerry Williams
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12 AND 19, 2002
Vice Chairperson Raznoff called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 12 and 19, 2002. Discussion followed on the arrangement of the agenda/minutes for February 19,
2002. It was determined that Home Depot was discussed in the order of the agenda and the minutes should reflect the same. Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to approve both sets
of minutes including the modifications to the February 12, 2002 minutes. The motion carried unanimously.
ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW
State of Montana Office Building Informal #I-02008 – (Skelton)
Baxter Lane, Simmental Drive, and Future Boot Hill Court Road
An Informal Application for advice and comment on a 15,400+ sf office complex located in the I-90 Entryway Overlay District.
Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the Staff memo and indicated the location of the site.
Gerald Gaston, Gaston Engineering and Surveying and applicant’s engineer, noted the infrastructure is located in Simmental Way. Glen Ricketts, the applicant’s architect, and Gary Williams,
representing DNRC, which is the land owner, were introduced. Mr. Rickett noted the land will remain under the ownership of DNRC. He stated future infrastructure to be installed would
serve all eight lots. He noted that state agencies will lease the spaces in the structure.
Ms. Wills asked if Staff has any inclination as to how the other lots are laid out. Planner Caroline stated yes, the Lewis and Clark Subdivision has received preliminary plat approval
and noted today’s review is on the one large, individual lot. She explained the possible shared accesses and shared or eliminated parking. Mr. Gaston noted Boothill Court will be constructed
to a full city standard. Ms. Wills commented on the use of E.F.I.S., stating it doesn’t wear well in this climate. Mr. Rickett explained the cost per square foot and the proposed rental
fees. He noted they have preferred durability, however, the cost of an all brick structure wasn’t feasible. He noted 100% of the tenants will be State agencies. Ms. Wills asked for
more articulation around the doors and windows. Mr. Rickett noted even though they are under cost restraints, design elements can be changed. He noted they are looking at a Dryvit-mesh
for the exterior; however, they hadn’t explored CMU block. He noted they drove around town today to investigate the themes in use in Bozeman and found many examples of E.F.I.S.
Mr. Hanson stated that E.F.I.S. is usable on office buildings; however, the detailing needs enhancement. He noted all mechanical equipment is required to be screened. He suggested
integrating segments of the roof element to screen, hide, or enclose the mechanical equipment. He stated he appreciated the articulation of the entryways. He suggested extending the
brick up halfway to emphasize the entryways. He asked if the north access island was to benefit the site. He suggested removing it and a two-way egress installed. He noted human
movement needs to be added to connect this property with the adjoining properties. He commented on the lack of a dumpster, and the inclusion of a hammerhead, for which he recommended
including a turn-around stall for vehicles. He noted the building is doing what it is supposed to do. He suggested detailing which could be added.
Mr. Glenn stated that what the State would set a precedent for other construction in the area. He noted the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan is moving away from the suburbanization of the
area. He stated the walk-ability of a project is encouraged. He stated the State was setting a poor example in the location of their office complex as the only option for the workers
was to go out for lunches or supplies. He suggested making the site more pedestrian friendly, thereby allowing someone to walk to the adjoining properties. He suggested moving the
building to the front of the lot with parking located behind it. He stated a second issue was energy costs. He noted the layout doesn’t offer any daylight for the work spaces. He
noted a third issue was the lack of local character or expression of Bozeman. He suggested articulating the entrances more. Mr. Glenn suggested berming to screen the parking areas.
Mr. Rickett noted he appreciated Mr. Glenn’s comments about the pedestrian friendly atmosphere and the use of the property. Mr. Hanson explained the rationale behind the suggestions.
Mr. Hanson asked if the State had considered a two-story building to better use the land. Mr. Rickett stated he didn’t think it had been considered, because the State has lots of land
in the area and wanted a single-story structure. He noted this project is not a real estate transaction; however, the other lots will be.
Ms. Smith stated the applicants have an advantage in being from Colorado. She suggested
following the development ideals from Colorado and applying them here. She noted E.F.I.S. was generally okay; however, since this is a one-story structure, perhaps they could use different
materials to break up the length of the building. She suggested raising the wall, creating a parapet to screen the mechanical equipment, a few feet to gain diversity along the ridgeline.
Discussion followed on sidewalk and pedestrian connectivity in the area, with Ms. Smith suggesting possible connections. She suggested incorporating of the Bridger Mountains in the
architectural design of the building.
Vice Chairperson Raznoff concurred with comments that the use of E.F.I.S. is acceptable; however, he stated he felt brick and CMU is better. He noted the idea of a second story was
worth considering. He concurred that the lot should have connectivity with the rest of the subdivision and is achievable. He suggested elevating the central roof feature and including
clarestory windows to provide lighting in the central area. He stated the screening of rooftop mechanical equipment is crucial. He asked how stormwater would be handled. Mr. Gaston
noted the grading and drainage plans would be included in the formal submittal. Vice Chairperson Raznoff stated he had no problem with the proposed location of the structure.
ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Jim Raznoff, Vice Chairperson
Design Review Board