Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Henry Sorenson, Jr. Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner Jim Raznoff Randy Carpenter Carol Asleson Dawn Smith Visitors Present Gene Mickolio Keith Belden ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2002 AND OCTOBER 22, 2002 Chairperson Sorenson expressed his concern to the Recording Secretary with regard to the format of the DRB minutes. The Recording Secretary directed him in the appropriate direction for resolution to his concerns. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve the minutes of 10/8/02. Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve the minutes of 10/22/02. Motion passed unanimously. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Cowdrey Building MaSP/COA/DEV #Z-02218 (Caroline) 202 West Main Street * A Major Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation to allow the construction a 3-story building with ground floor office/bank space and 2-level residential units above, 4 enclosed parking garages, and related site improvements. Mr. Gene Mickolio joined the DRB. Planner Caroline presented the staff report, noting the project had been scaled down, due to insufficient funds. For this reason, she felt she needed to bring it back to the DRB for review. She noted the exterior materials were essentially the same as in the previous proposal. She stated Staff recommended replacing some of the parking with a pedestrian courtyard. Mr. Mickolio described the project as a main level bank with residential units above. He stated they tried to use the same materials as in the previous plan. Mr. Carpenter asked if the garage was originally located in a different location during prior design attempts. Mr. Mickolio responded it had been relocated; however, with the current plan, landscaping along Grand Avenue is proposed to screen the garages. In response to Ms. Asleson’s question, Mr. Mickolio stated there was indeed a 3 ft. elevation difference between the proposed projects’ garages and the church property to the west. In response to Mr. Howe’s concerns about too little parking, Mr. Mickolio stated the number of parking spaces meets with code requirements. In response to Mr. Raznoff’s concerns about representing a building’s past uses, Planner Caroline stated there was no condition forcing the owners to represent past uses of the building. Planner Caroline noted the conditions for the original project had been approved by City Commission. Ms. Smith questioned the reasoning behind creating a smaller footprint, and there not being two elevations with entrances facing both Main Street and Grand Avenue. Ms. Smith stated there was a “lack of activity” on the new plans in comparison to the original plans. In response to Chairperson Sorenson’s question regarding connectivity to the adjacent lot to the west, Mr. Mickolio stated there was no connection between the parking and the adjoining lot. He noted that the fire exits were conceptual as of yet and the dividing walls on the balconies were for privacy. He stated the owner was opposed to the use of flat roofs so there would be a system of heat cable used to deal with icicles falling to the ground. In response to Chairperson Sorenson asking the DRB members if they had any comments, Mr. Carpenter stated he had were no problems except the east elevation was lacking variation in design. Ms. Asleson concurred that there were problems with the east elevation, and suggested strategically locating the windows within the architecture of the garage doors. She stated there could be accoutrements on the elevations to vary the façade. Mr. Howe stated something should be done with the garage doors to make them relate more to a carriage house. Mr. Raznoff stated he was disappointed with the new proposal compared to the original. He stated the carry-over of materials, however, was not disappointing. He stated the proportions of the garage made the structure awkward. He suggested the architect consider the historical background and incorporate some architectural ideas. Ms. Smith stated she agreed with Planner Caroline’s recommendations. She stated the applicant had down-sized the project substantially. She stated she was disappointed that the ground floor had lost so much character in the amended plans. She stated she would like to see the ground floor elevations designed similarly to what was approved in the original plans. Mr. Mickolio stated the detail appeared less busy in the new plans due to the scale used for the plans. Ms. Smith stated she did not think the north and east elevations were accentuated as much as was in the original plans. She stated the garages seemed odd and she supported Mr. Howe’s suggestion that a carriage house effect would be preferable. Chairperson Sorenson commented it was disappointing that the project was downsized so drastically. He stated he would rather have seen a stronger entryway on the east elevation. He stated the awnings were a great addition. He stated that being true to the historical aspect of the structure meant furthering the stonework upward to accentuate the arches over the windows on the second floor. He stated he liked Staff’s idea of using the excess parking stall(s) for landscaped features. He recommended putting the garage doors on the other side of the building. He recommended some sort of architectural relief to give the structure some interaction with the street. He stated he thought the proportions were better on the new plans. In response to Ms. Smith’s concerns regarding the relief of the building mass for the garages along Grand Avenue, Chairperson Sorenson stated he recommended a section be reserved for landscaping around the building. Planner Caroline summarized that most of the DRB seems to want the elevations to be more conforming to the original plans. She suggested the DRB suggest a list of design elements to give the architect so that an agreement can be reached. Chairperson Sorenson noted an alternative to recommending denial; the DRB could make partial recommendation on the project and ask that it be returned to the DRB for further review. Mr. Carpenter stated he wanted to see the plans again if the changes from the original were to be made on anything other than the façade, i.e. relocating garages. Mr. Howe stated the project was an entirely new building with entirely new plans. He asked Planner Caroline if there was a completely new application. Planner Caroline responded that it was a new application. Mr. Howe stated he could only support a partial recommendation to approve. Mr. Raznoff stated he could support approval of the elevation modifications, but he could only support a partial recommendation of the parking lot, garages, and landscaping. Ms. Asleson discussed the possibility of adapting landscape screening to correct the aesthetics of the garage building. She stated she would be willing to do an elevation review instead of a full site plan review. Chairperson Sorenson stated he wanted to review the site plan again due to the interaction of the pedestrian plaza, the parking areas, and proposed garages. He stated he would like to see relief on the structures, but still hold the urban edge of the design. Ms. Smith agreed that the site plan and elevations should be seen again. In response to Chairperson Sorenson, Planner Caroline noted she would rather the DRB did not vote at all and postpone a decision until further review. This would be a more expeditious way of dealing with the issue. Chairperson Sorenson stated there could not be a vote on the project due to the lack of a consensus. B. Bridger Peaks Court Concept PUD #Z-02237 (Caroline) North of Oak Street, east of Bridger Peaks Town Center * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application proposing the construction of a two-building complex which would provide 120 affordable senior housing units, developed in 2 phases. Keith Belden joined the DRB. Planner Caroline presented the staff report. She reminded the applicant and DRB members of the new subdivision regulations for lighting, watercourse setback, plantings, etc. She noted the area lacked any usable open space for the area residents. Mr. Belden distributed reduced photos of existing units, similar to those proposed, in other locations. He noted they plan to use siding in the central floor to break up the elevation. He indicated the pedestrian pathways and how the Missoula building is sited. In response to Ms. Smith’s concerns regarding past Bridger Peaks’ phases, Planner Caroline stated this project was not linked to previous phases of Bridger Peaks, however, there may be a few PUD conditions that do cross over or pertain to this project. Ms. Smith expressed her concern that the B-2 zoning developed as this proposal recommends would become an island within the city and the plan did not have enough usable open space. In response to Ms. Smith, Mr. Belden explained that the location benefits outweighed the downfalls because of the proximity of necessary services, i.e. grocery stores, medical facilities. Chairperson Sorenson stated several Bozeman residents had indicated they would like to have an Independent Living facility. He stated he felt, at first glance, that the structure presented as an example was ugly. He stated the common areas would be better if they had expression. He stated he would like to see relief added by pushing portions of the elevations further back than other portions. He stated the site was awkward and difficult. He suggested more articulation should be considered. Mr. Raznoff asked if the site could be utilized as an apartment complex in the future. Mr. Belden stated the financing of the project made it an obligation to keep the “Independent Living” status of the structure. In response to Mr. Raznoff’s question regarding the number of units, Mr. Belden responded there were 120 units plus the manager unit on site. Mr. Raznoff noted his concern was with the design. He stated more entries to the building should be added. He suggested several multi-unit structures to support the 121 units. He stated the buildings need variation of detail. He emphasized that, with senior housing, less parking is needed due to the smaller number of drivers as residents. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to see more open space or parklands. Planner Caroline noted that the Bridger Peaks PUD Guidelines stated they were only required to have 28% open space, though the proposal does lack any usable open space. In response to Mr. Howe’s questions about whether or not the DRC had reviewed the project, Planner Caroline stated the DRC had already reviewed the proposal twice and the applicant had requested the City Commission review the project. Mr. Howe noted the usable open space was less than desirable. He stated he would support the building being broken into 4 smaller buildings. Ms. Asleson noted she agreed with most of the other DRB member’s suggestions. She stated she would want to see the landscaping on the site plan. She stated she would like to see more usable open space. Mr. Belden responded that, due to the watercourse setbacks, the project was 50% open space. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM At the request of the City Commission, which plans to meet with its advisory groups, the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD will meet with the City Commission on March 10, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. Please plan to attend. ITEM 5. FYI NO DRB MEETING ON DECEMBER 24, 2002 ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m. ______________________________________________ Henry Sorenson, Jr., Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board