Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-10 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:40 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 David Skelton, Senior Planner Walter Banziger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Elissa Zavora Mark Hufstetler Randy Wall Visitors Present Carson Taylor Kira Ogle ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2009 MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of December 2, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. American Legion Windows/Awnings Mods to FSP #Z-09085B (Bristor) 225 East Main Street * A request for modification of an approved Final Site Plan to allow raising of the windows and removal of awnings on the south elevation, the removal of the awnings and the addition of a shed roof over the ramp on the north elevation. Kira Ogle joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting this was the second Modification Application to be reviewed by the DRB and explained what was being built should be abiding by the most current set of approved plans. She noted which items were proposed to be removed and that the front windows were decreased in size, as well as changes in façade design. Ms. Ogle clarified that the size of the windows on the front would not be decreased, but rather the windows would be raised 11 inches in height. Planner Bristor stated Staff felt that the loss of the awnings on the front elevation would not be inappropriate. She stated Staff’s concern was the increase of the mid-cornice belt which would affect the separation between floors and the view from Main Street. She stated Staff did not support exterior modifications due to floor plan issues and their main concern was the reason for the request to modify the cornice. She stated the first condition of approval was no longer applicable as it was pertinent to a decrease in window size that Ms. Ogle had clarified was not being proposed; she added it should be reworded to reflect the proposal (windows being raised). She stated Staff 1 Design Review Board Minutes – February 10, 2010 recommended the split face block detail remain. She added Staff had identified a new condition of approval addressing tinted windows. Ms. Ogle asked if the condition would affect their previous approval as the windows had always been depicted as bronze tinted. Planner Bristor responded Staff would not be flexible on the tint for the windows. She stated the Legion had asked for Federal appropriations to rebuild and it was likely they would have to cease construction in order to procure those funds. She stated Staff’s main concern was that the glazing needed to be non-tinted. Ms. Ogle responded the windows would be transparent and would reduce the solar gain. Planner Bristor responded she thought the proposed windows would be fine and they would take a look at them at a later date. Mr. Banziger suggested the windows be allowed solar tinting as opposed to privacy tinting. Planner Bristor concurred. Ms. Ogle stated the modifications described by Planner Bristor were accurate with the exception of the front windows not being resized just relocated. She stated the raising of the windows had been proposed due to safety reasons (children falling out) and she did not feel the change would make the building out of proportion. She stated the proposed changes to the rear of the structure were due to safety issues with regard to insurance coverage as well and noted the shed roof over the ramp would make it safer and less likely to be slippery. Mr. Rea stated the raising of the windows 11 inches would mean the distance was less than the code required anyway; it would be a Building Code issue. Mr. Banziger stated that as he looked as the renderings, the floor line and parapet looked the same, but the window size appeared to be decreased when overlaid. Ms. Ogle responded the renderings were views from two different elevations; she noted which rendering was the correct rendering of the parapet. Mr. Wall added that the upper banding was modified due to the change to the cornice. Mr. Hufstetler joined the DRB. Chairperson Livingston asked for clarification of which elevations would be the constructed set. Ms. Ogle responded the plan sets were the official elevations. Chairperson Livingston asked if Staff had concerns with the removal of the awnings. Planner Bristor responded that Staff did not find the removal of the awnings to be inappropriate. Mr. Rea asked if the window transparency was primarily recommended for the main level. Planner Bristor responded Mr. Rea was correct. Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with Staff comments regarding the tinting and added that he was alright with solar tinting as opposed to privacy tinting. He stated he preferred the previously approved elevation as it appeared more proportionate. He stated he had no objections to the loss of the window on the rear of the structure and the coursing of the brick seemed appropriate. He asked Staff’s opinion on the banding for the mid cornice width. Planner Bristor responded increasing the mid cornice width or raising the second floor windows was not supported by Staff. 2 Design Review Board Minutes – February 10, 2010 Mr. Banziger concurred with Staff. Mr. Rea stated he supported the removal of the awnings and thought the second floor will get baked from the solar gain through those four windows. He stated he was supportive of the raising of the windows, but he would like to see a more significant parapet; a 7-10 course parapet or a color change would help reduce the visibility of the width. He stated he supported Staff conditions 2, 3, and 5, but was ambivalent about condition 4. Ms. Zavora stated she concurred with Staff, but it was difficult to understand the change through the renderings. She stated she was concerned with the street view of the windows but would not support the proposed relocation if it were due to simply having to place furniture in that location. She stated she was supportive of the removal of the awnings. Ms. Ogle stated the reason the windows were proposed to be removed from the rear doors was to prevent break-ins in the alleyway. Mr. Wall stated he was supportive of Staff conditions 1, 2, and 4, with modifications to condition #5 to include the language “all window glazing proposed for the front facade of the building, at street level, be transparent”. He stated he was supportive of the removal of the awnings. Mr. Hufstetler stated he concurred with Mr. Wall that the removal of the awnings would be appropriate. He suggested altering the brick patterns to give the façade more of a horizontal image than a vertical one. He stated he was in agreement with Staff conditions of approval. Chairperson Livingston stated, in general, the most critical was Staff condition #1. He stated raising the height of the windows changed the proportion of the building. He stated it was critical to respect some lines; downtown had similar heights of first and second stories. He stated he preferred the proportions of the previously approved renderings as it was more historically appropriate. He stated he agreed with Mr. Wall and Mr. Hufstetler that the awnings should be removed. He stated he agreed with Staff conditions of approval as stated, including the modification to condition of approval #1. He suggested the four foot expanse of sandstone containing the signage could be moved up a little higher to create a new proportion at the parapet level; he thought there was a lot of brick that needed to have something done with it. Mr. Banziger concurred with Chairperson Livingston and added that less brick at the parapet would correct the proportion issue. MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to modify condition of approval #1 to state “the request to raise the windows 11 inches on the front elevation be denied”. Mr. Hufstetler asked for clarification of the window relocation. Planner Bristor explained. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to add condition of approval #6 that the parapet shall be enhanced with more corbelling and brick adornment that would more appropriately reflect the character of Main Street facades. The motion carried 6-0. 3 Design Review Board Minutes – February 10, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Wall moved to approve American Legion Windows/Awnings Mods to FSP #Z- 09085B with Staff conditions as modified by the DRB. Planner Bristor stated she had thought the Board concurred that condition #3 would need to be modified. Mr. Wall withdrew his motion. MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to revise condition #3 to state “all window glazing proposed for the front and rear elevations of the building, at street level, shall be transparent in design”. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Hufstetler expressed concern over the possibility of seeing reflective or tinted windows on the second floor of the structure due to the wording of the motion; he suggested the removal of the language “at street level”. Mr. Wall concurred. AMENDED MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to revise condition #3 to state “all window glazing proposed for the front and rear elevations of the building shall be transparent in design”. The amended motion carried 6-0. MOTION : Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for American Legion Windows/Awnings Mods to FSP #Z-09085B with Staff conditions of approval as amended by the Board. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Bozeman Gateway Mods to Development Manual (Skelton) Southeast of the intersection of Huffine Lane & Fowler Avenue * A request to modify the approved Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Major Subdivision. Chairperson Livingston noted the attendance of City Commissioner Carson Taylor and introduced him to the Board. Mr. Taylor stated his intention was to come to the meetings a few times, but he would not be able to attend all of the meetings he had been assigned to. He stated he would observe and meet with the DRB at a later date. Chairperson Livingston stated if he would like to address the Board the best way would be to be included on a future agenda after the regular items. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the DRB with the revised Bozeman Gateway PUD Development Manual. He stated the project had been silent for awhile, but activity had increased lately. He stated Mr. Mitchell had given the Planning Office 15 copies of the document to provide a guide for future proposal reviews within the subdivision. He stated revisions of the master plan over time had been anticipated by Staff and suggested the Board review the document prior to considering any future development proposals. He stated Mr. Mitchell has put a lot of effort and time up front with his anchor tenant with the Rosauers construction; though it likely made him realize the project would be expensive. Planner Skelton stated the big box retail commercial stores had not originally been planned for in the development even though tens of thousands of square feet of commercial development was anticipated, but discussions had taken place between Staff, Mitchell Development, and Kohls regarding major modifications to the PUD. He stated an Informal Application is anticipated for the review of the Kohls department store and would come before the DRB at that time, but was 4 Design Review Board Minutes – February 10, 2010 not prepared to discuss any proposals in detail at this time. He stated there were three different use types with the development and explained those one of the use types was the lifestyle center being defined by two watercourses. He stated discussions on the department store indicated that it would not be oriented towards the lifestyle center and instead would face onto Huffine Lane, which contradicted the intent of lifestyle center design. He stated the challenge would be getting Kohls on as part of the team to implement the master plan for a life style center development. He suggested the applicant should consider the placement of the use in areas designated for convenience centers and outparcels along the perimeter of the development; otherwise it would be necessary to revise their idea to be more in keeping with the lifestyle center. He stated it was the intent of the developer to establish a major anchor tenant at the east end of the lifestyle center that would encourage smaller retail spaces. th Mr. Wall asked why the Kohls wasn’t going up on 19. Planner Skelton responded that the department store has given further consideration to other sites in the community. Ms. Zavora asked why the building couldn’t be located in a different spot on the site. Planner Skelton responded that the lifestyle center would take special care in planning as it was the central feature on the site. Ms. Zavora asked if Staff was concerned that a franchise, big box structure shouldn’t be included on the site. Planner Skelton responded that franchise architecture is highly discouraged within any of the entryway corridors. Chairperson Livingston asked how many of the members were on the Board during the original review of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. The Board responded there had been three members during the original review. Chairperson Livingston stated his primary concern was the franchise architecture and the whole idea of the lifestyle center with regard to building orientation. He added that he thought Planner Skelton’s letter addressed most of the key issues. Mr. Banziger asked Staff and the Board’s position on a mirror image of the lifestyle center. Planner Skelton responded the mirror image might not maintain the visual corridor from Huffine Lane and that area was key to the lifestyle center design. He stated the difficulty was going to be recognizing the difference between the vision for Bozeman Gateway with the lifestyle center as entirely different than Gallatin Center which is located in an area designated for Regional Commercial development. Ms. Zavora suggested that perhaps Kohls would not be the best tenant for the site. Planner Skelton responded that the proposal could be modified to remove Kohls from the area of the lifestyle center and placing it along the perimeter reserved for out parcels and convenience centers and the applicant was considering those options as outlined by Staff. Mr. Hufstetler stated a minimum size existed for pedestrian pathways and if that distance were reduced too much, pedestrians would not want to stay on the path. Mr. Wall stated he had read at the beginning of the Design Guidelines that the intent of the PUD was to avoid a strip designed site; he added Kohls design was the strip designed site. He stated any corporate concessions being made would erode the vision of the development and he would not be supportive of Kohls in the Gateway Subdivision. He stated all of the work and vision that had gone into the development would be removed by the inclusion of a loading dock along the watercourse amenity. He stated he was in California over the weekend and there was a large 5 Design Review Board Minutes – February 10, 2010 parcel in Sacramento that had been sitting for awhile and had recently been fully developed in an absolutely heinous manner. He stated his biggest concern was letting the camels nose into the tent by setting the precedent of Kohls as a lifestyle center; the overuse of the lifestyle center genre would not ever be supported by him – he suggested the structure would be more th appropriate on 19 Avenue. Mr. Hufstetler concurred with Mr. Wall. Chairperson Livingston stated he did not see Kohls going to the extra lengths to be allowed to be included. Planner Skelton stated the whole lifestyle center and pedestrian oriented concept would be the issue. Mr. Rea stated he did not think Kohls was the right sort of demographic for Mitchell Development either. He stated the ideas forwarded by Staff had been good suggestions in that the DRB could help protect the developer from making a mistake. He stated Bozeman did not need Kohls, Kohls needed Bozeman. He stated he would be open to the idea if the applicant brought in a decent proposal. Mr. Wall added that the proposal did not depict the quality of the originally approved development or the intent of the PUD relaxations and design guidelines. Planner Skelton stated that part of the challenge is to realize that the master plan for the development is more than a conceptual plan, but instead a vision for the development that is somewhat binding. The developer did not realize that to incorporate big box retail stores in the PUD that it would need to be approved for major modifications. The Board expressed concerns with regard to major modifications and the existing tenants on the site. Planner Skelton responded those changes to the master plan would be between the developer and the present individual tenants. Mr. Wall added that the community would be involved as well. Chairperson Livingston stated the unfortunate thing was that the vision in the Design Guidelines was good and no one was willing to support because they couldn’t financially commit to the level of quality the development was asking for. He stated he thought the Gateway could be as th successful as or more successful than 19 Ave. Mr. Wall stated a precedent had been set with Roseauers, the bank, and the Morrison-Maierle building and those developments had been put through the ringer. Planner Skelton thanked Commissioner Taylor for his attendance at the evening’s meeting. 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 comment forthcoming. ITEM 6.ADJOURNMENT 6 Design Review Board Minutes – February 10, 2010 There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 7 Design Review Board Minutes – February 10, 2010