Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-09 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:35 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Bill Rea Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Walter Banziger Elissa Zavora Mark Hufstetler Visitors Present Rob Pertzborn Kristen Schelran Susan Riggs Kira Ogle Leighton Hotchhiss PJ Kolnik ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to approve the minutes of October 28, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. American Legion Building Historic Sign COA/ADR #Z-09202 (Bristor) 225 East Main Street * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the reinstallation of the nonconforming sign and to consider its cultural significance for Bozeman. Kristen Schelran and Kira Ogle joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the Board was familiar with the project as they had recently reviewed the modifications to the front façade of the building. She noted the schematic depicted the recently approved façade changes with the proposed sign placement. She stated the request from the applicant was to keep the nonconforming projecting sign, which survived the downtown explosion, due to its cultural significance. She stated the square footage of the sign would be 20 square feet and added that the permissible size within the B-3 zoning designation was 12 square feet. She noted that condition of approval #3 would be reworded to state the “future removal” of the sign. 1 Design Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2009 Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Ms. Ogle stated the DRB had reviewed the project previously and noted the sign would remain as it previously existed and no changes to it would occur other than slight repair and cleaning; she stated the purpose of the request was to seek historic/cultural designation for the sign and be allowed to install. Mr. Rea stated the condition for the light element inside the sign was not complete. Planner Bristor responded the condition was incomplete and was meant to include the language that the sign must conform to in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant had intended to recolor the outer rim of the sign. Ms. Ogle responded they were considering changing the color, but had not decided at this time. Mr. Banziger apologized for his tardiness and asked if the intention was to have two corner stones on the building. Ms. Ogle responded there would be two corner stones; one for 1947 and one for 2010. Chairperson Livingston asked the color of the outer rim on the existing sign. Ms. Ogle responded it was a copper color and added that it used to be a darker brown color but had faded to the copper color as it appeared. Mr. Hufstetler voiced his sincere condolences for the applicant having to go for review before so many boards for the proposal. He stated he was in favor of including the sign on the structure and historically designating it; he suggested retaining the original color of the sign’s exterior metal rim. Mr. Rea stated his only concern was the size of the brackets used to hold the building’s awning in place, though he thought it might be a scaling issue on the depiction. He stated he was glad the sign would be on the front of the building. Ms. Zavora concurred with Mr. Rea regarding the location of the sign. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB member comments. Mr. Banziger stated he thought previous DRB comments had been well addressed with the modifications to the entryway and the proposed location of the sign. MOTION : Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for American Legion Building Historic Sign COA/ADR #Z-09202 with The motion carried 6-0 Staff recommendations. . 2. Gallatin Building Reno. Ph. 2&3 COA/ADR #Z-09218 (Kramer) 44 East Main Street * A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow phase 2 & 3 renovations including; PHASE 2 - storefront modifications, east elevation 2 Design Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2009 modifications above the basement stairs, exterior brick paint removal and new electrical panels on the south façade; and PHASE 3 - opening up blocked-in storefront, addition of three storefront windows, and new streetscape plan. Susan Riggs and Rob Pertzborn joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for rehabilitation to an existing structure. She stated the DRC had reviewed the proposal earlier in the day and the DRB was reviewing the proposal to provide advice to the Planning Director regarding approval of the project. She stated Staff had identified two concerns; the proposed large windows on the storefront and the loss of transparency on the corner of Black Avenue and Main Street. She stated the transparency of the corner was an element of concern as old photographs depicted the building as historically transparent. Rob Pertzborn stated the new owner had been monitoring the building and had noticed that it was in need of repair. He stated the design was intended to provide maximum flexibility and they had decided to focus on the rehabilitation in phases; he noted an elevator was planned but would not be installed at this time. He stated phase one of the repairs would take place upstairs and would meet ADA requirements. He noted what would occur in phase 2 of the rehabilitation and added that phase three would not occur until a tenant had been arranged. He stated there were four structural points and added that the round columns would be maintained. He stated the double façade was proposed to return to the structure though it was uncertain if there would be two tenants. He directed the DRB to elevation plans and explained the corner façade would be evident, but would not be as skinny today as it was previously. He noted the pattern had been repeated throughout the façade and would meet the requirements of ADA accessibility. He stated they had met with the Downtown Bozeman Partnership and were amenable to the inclusion of seating, bike racks, and other exterior improvements. He stated the owner intended to remove the paint and return the building to red brick; he noted they did not know which chemical would be used to remove the paint, but the owner was also considering repainting. He stated the openings along South Black had been included to provide for salvage of bricks for reparation of the damaged areas. Planner Kramer stated that a lot of the sandstone foundation along South Black Avenue had been compromised and asked how it would be stabilized. Mr. Pertzborn responded they had been discussing options with Hicks Engineering and they had suggested reinforcement from the inside; he added the phase three improvements would be hinged on which tenant would occupy the space. Planner Kramer responded that Mr. Naumann from the Downtown Bozeman Partnership had an RFP that might help them decide how to salvage the brick work. Mr. Pertzborn added that they had been working closely with Mr. Naumann and would continue to do so. Mr. Rea asked if tile had been included on one of the elevations. Mr. Pertzborn responded there no tile had been included; just different sizes of bricks. Mr. Hufstetler asked the date of the original construction of the structure. Mr. Pertzborn responded original construction occurred in 1901. Mr. Hufstetler asked when the current façade had been installed. Mr. Pertzborn responded he did not know for sure, but thought it was around 3 Design Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2009 the 1940’s. Mr. Hufstetler noted it was uncertain that the transparent corner had ever had structural elements; he asked if there was a way to provide more conformity between floors using the proposed openings. Mr. Pertzborn responded that it would be difficult due to the current locations of the structural features and the openings while still meeting the ADA requirements. Mr. Hufstetler asked what occupied the upper floor and if the use would remain. Mr. Pertzborn responded offices were on the upper floor and the use would remain the same. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant had investigated maintaining the current façade. Mr. Pertzborn responded they had investigated that option, but did not know if there would be one or two tenants and the design worked better as proposed in case there would be two tenants. Mr. Banziger asked if there was a reason the openings were not continued all the way down the east façade. Mr. Pertzborn responded the design had been driven by the fact that if there was a restaurant use included, the seating would be in front; if retail spaces occurred in the front part of the building, the restaurant would be located in the back. He noted no more openings could be included on the façade as it would be less structurally sound and less monetarily feasible. Ms. Zavora asked if the building were repainted, what color would it be. Mr. Pertzborn suggested he would recommend a brick red colored paint, but did not know the color the owner would choose. Ms. Zavora asked if the reason for repainting was that it was damaging the existing brick. Mr. Pertzborn responded the lead paint was not damaging the brick, but was already chipping off and looked dilapidated. Ms. Zavora asked if trees would be included along the east elevation as depicted. Mr. Pertzborn responded the trees would be installed along with benches and lighting. Mr. Rea asked if the street light would match the other street lights downtown. Mr. Pertzborn responded the light would match existing lighting, but they did not have the schematics at this time. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what the building section was; single or double wythe. Mr. Pertzborn responded it was a triple wythe building section. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how the structure would be made, any kind, of energy efficient. Mr. Pertzborn responded insulation would be included, the old boiler heating system would be replaced, and opening windows would be maintained. Chairperson Livingston asked if the supporting columns were original and why they did not go all the way to the top of the structure. Mr. Pertzborn responded they were original and roof joists would be included to provide more stability. Chairperson Livingston asked which building design would be most similar to what was being proposed. Mr. Pertzborn stated that the question could be loaded and responded it would be basically a typical storefront system; he added the detail on the buildings was located on the top of the structure. Chairperson Livingston stated it was nearly impossible to duplicate the mullions. Mr. Banziger stated he liked the proposed South Black Avenue openings and the installation of bike racks, seating, and trees. He stated he was supportive of the proposed design on the corner of Main Street and Black Avenue. He stated he thought the restoration of the original brick would be best, but if it couldn’t be removed, he was supportive of repainting. 4 Design Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2009 Ms. Zavora stated she thought the proposed retail windows would be appropriate. She stated she liked the transparent corner and was supportive of maintaining it. She stated she liked the building painted, though it would need to be repainted and the lead paint would be a concern; she added she did not know what color to paint it though she did not think it should be red, blue, or yellow. She added she liked the tan color. Mr. Rea stated he was supportive of the proposed windows along S. Black Avenue and added that he did not believe the bricked in area as a diagram would do any good. He stated he was torn with regard to the transparent corner feature as it would be a structural issue, though he thought it did bring uniqueness to the corner; he added a masonry corner would be more structurally sound, but his decision would be based on what happened with the rest of the building. He stated he was fine with the repainting of the brick and the current color reminded him of the beige/tan color often seen in brick around Bozeman; he added his concern would be the removal of the lead paint without damaging the brick and suggested not painting the building to replicate the brick color. Mr. Pertzborn asked if Mr. Rea would mind the paint being removed if it wouldn’t damage the brick. Mr. Rea responded he was supportive of the paint removal. Mr. Pertzborn asked if the glass corner made the building unique and different from all of the rest of downtown. Mr. Rea responded he was supportive of both the transparent and proposed corner; he stated Intrinsik had design credibility and he was confident they would provide a good design. He added he was supportive of a brick solution that was non-damaging. He suggested the applicant and owner be cognizant of what was being done across the street from the site as improvements to those properties would affect the structure. He stated he was concerned that the sidewalk was not large enough to provide for amenities. Mr. Pertzborn responded it was the intention that the parking would be used to provide for the amenities. Mr. Hufstetler stated, as a historian, he should be opposed to having all the windows along South Black, but he was not; he suggested the addition of the windows had been proposed in exactly the right way. He stated he thought the paint should be removed without harming the brick as it would help articulate the façade and improve the look of the building; he suggested sparing no expense in the removal of the paint. He stated the architectural detail being contained in the upper parts of structures was not accurate as the architectural features nearer the ground were more easily alterable; he noted there had been really cool architectural features and he liked the look of the 1950’s building. He stated a dozen of the same type of facades as proposed had been incorporated into Main Street. He stated Intrinsik did excellent work and suggested some curved glass or aluminum be installed on the façade. He stated he liked having the transparent corner as it currently appeared and if the applicant wanted to keep the materials, alternative approaches could be investigated. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he pretty much concurred with previous DRB comments. He stated he thought the proposed windows along South Black Avenue would be appropriate. He stated he agreed with Ms. Zavora and Mr. Hufstetler regarding the transparency of the corner and suggested alternative designs be investigated; he noted the uniqueness of the feature and cited how it looked when it was lit up from the inside. He stated he was supportive of returning the façade to the original brick, but if it wasn’t feasible, he was also supportive of repainting. Mr. Pertzborn asked if Mr. Hufstetler knew of any methods by which the paint could be removed to expose the original brick. Mr. Hufstetler stated he knew of some methods, but was not 5 Design Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2009 qualified to offer advice on specific methods. Chairperson Livingston stated he was supportive of the windows proposed along South Black Avenue and would give the building a nice asymmetry. He stated he had not noticed that the building had been painted; he thought removing the concrete block would be a good idea and painting it to resemble brick was an odd thing. He stated he was supportive of attempting to strip the lead paint and was supportive of painting the structure if the lead paint could not be removed without damaging the brick; he suggested the new paint color resemble the color that existed. He stated the glass facades done downtown over the recent years all looked the same and he liked this particular building because it was unique; he stated he was not supportive of the brick corner and suggested the transparency of the corner be maintained. 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 comment forthcoming. ITEM 5.ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 6 Design Review Board Minutes – December 2, 2009