HomeMy WebLinkAboutF&H Building Conditional Use Permit.pdf
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: F&H Building Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness
Application (#Z-10008)
MEETING DATE: March 8, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission approve the F&H Building Conditional
Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness application, #Z-10008, with the recommended
conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND: The property owners Ralph Ferraro and Mike Hope, and their representative
Locati Architects, submitted a Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness
application to the Department of Planning & Community Development. The proposal is for a
two-story building with the option of a third story. The three-story design is dependent on
whether or not the property owner is able to receive a portion of the federal appropriations
awarded to the City of Bozeman for the rebuilding of the explosion site. This will be determined
by the City Commission at a future date. At this time, the property owner is seeking approval for
both height options through the current site plan application. Planning Staff encouraged the
property owner to proceed in this manner in respect to their proposed construction schedule.
The Conditional Use Permit is the type of site plan application required by the City of Bozeman
because the proposal includes the sales of alcohol for on-premise consumption at a new property,
219 East Main Street, previously the Montana Trails Gallery site. The property that previously
contained the Rockin R Bar, Boodles restaurant and Pickle Barrel restaurant was already
operating under an approved Montana state alcohol license. The property owners plan to amend
their state alcohol license to include the added property. It should be noted that the state license
may allow the establishment of gaming on the property. The Certificate of Appropriateness is
required because of the project site’s location within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District.
The Department of Planning and Community Development, the Development Review
Committee (DRC), the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Historic Preservation Advisory
1
145
2
Board (HPAB) reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness
application. The application is found to be in general compliance with the adopted Bozeman
Community Plan and Title 18, BMC and conditional approval of the proposal is recommended to
the City Commission with the conditions and code provisions outlined in this staff report. The
recommended conditions begin on page 3 of this staff report. The recommended code provisions
can be found beginning on page 10 of this staff report.
At their February 16, 2010 public hearing, the City Commission reclaimed to itself the final
approval of the F&H Building Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness
application, per Section 18.64.010 C.1 of the BMC. They set a public hearing date of March 8,
2010 for the application.
The property owners and representative made a formal request to the Department of Planning to
have this site plan application be reviewed under Title 18, BMC as adopted by Ordinance #1769
on January 30, 2010. They were required to make this request because they submitted their
application on January 26, 2010.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The standard application fee was received for the Conditional Use Permit
and Certificate of Appropriateness project and was added to the Department of Planning’s
application fee revenue.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: Staff Report
Applicant submittal materials
Applicant/property owner letters
DRB draft minutes - February 24, 2010
HPAB draft minutes - February 25, 2010
DBP public comment
Report compiled on: March 3, 2010
146
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
F&H BUILDING CUP/COA #Z-10008
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
1
Item: A Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness
application to allow the new construction of a two- or three-story
commercial mixed-use building on the property addressed as 209 –
219 East Main Street, which is zoned B-3 (Central Business District)
and located within the Main Street Historic District and
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Property Owners: Ralph Ferraro & Mike Hope (F&H LLC)
2215 Arrow Leaf Hills Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: Locati Architects
1007 East Main Street, Ste. 202
Bozeman, MT 59715
Date: City Commission Public Hearing: Monday, March 8, 2010 at 6:00
p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, Bozeman City Hall, 121
North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The F&H Building project site encompasses two of the four properties destroyed by the March 5, 2009
gas line explosion that occurred in Bozeman’s downtown. The businesses that were previously located
at this location included the Rockin R Bar, Boodles restaurant, Pickle Barrel restaurant, and Montana
Trails Gallery. The properties are addressed as 209 – 219 East Main Street and are legally described as
the East 2.5 feet of Lot 2, all of Lots 3, 4 and 5, and the West 11.5 feet of Lot 6, Block D, Original
Townsite, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.
The project site covers approximately 14,700 square feet in lot area. It is zoned as B-3 (Central
Business District) and located within both the Main Street Historic District and the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District. Please see the applicant’s “Existing Site Conditions” and “Vicinity Map
Details” drawings for more information about the project location. Also, see a zoning map on the
following page.
147
PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND
The property owners Ralph Ferraro and Mike Hope, and their representative Locati Architects,
submitted a Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness application to the Department of
Planning & Community Development. The proposal is for a two-story building with the option of a
third story. The three-story design is dependent on whether or not the property owner is able to receive
a portion of the federal appropriations awarded to the City of Bozeman for the rebuilding of the
explosion site. This will be determined by the City Commission at a future date. At this time, the
property owner is seeking approval for both height options through the current site plan application.
Planning Staff encouraged the property owner to proceed in this manner in respect to their proposed
construction schedule.
The Conditional Use Permit is the type of site plan application required by the City of Bozeman because
the proposal includes the sales of alcohol for on-premise consumption at a new property, 219 East Main
Street, previously the Montana Trails Gallery site. The property that previously contained the Rockin R
Bar, Boodles restaurant and Pickle Barrel restaurant was already operating under an approved Montana
state alcohol license. The property owners plan to amend their state alcohol license to include the added
property. It should be noted that the state license may allow the establishment of gaming on the
property. The Certificate of Appropriateness is required because of the project site’s location within the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
The site plan application was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) for three weeks
in February 2010. The committee recommended approval of the project to the City Commission, as
conditioned by Staff, on February 24th. The third-story option exceeds 30,000 square feet of commercial
space. This threshold triggered the involvement of the Design Review Board (DRB) in the project
review. The DRB reviewed the application on February 24th and recommended approval of the project
to the City Commission with two added conditions dealing with the proposed building design. The
added conditions are #17 and #18 in the recommended conditions of approval and may be found on page
4 of this staff report. The Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) reviewed the application on
February 25th and stated overall support and provided some general comments to Planning Staff on the
proposal. Please see the attached draft minutes of the DRB and HPAB for details on their review.
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
2
148
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
3
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Planning and Community Development, the Development Review Committee
(DRC), the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB)
reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness application. The application is
found to be in general compliance with the adopted Bozeman Community Plan and Title 18, BMC and
conditional approval of the proposal is recommended to the City Commission with the conditions and
code provisions outlined in this staff report. The recommended conditions are listed below. The
recommended code provisions can be found beginning on page 10 of this staff report.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning
1. The project’s parking calculations shall be revised in the following manner:
a. Show calculations for both the two- and three-story option (unless one option has been
selected prior to a final site plan application submittal),
b. Show all applicable reductions as explained in Chapter 18.46 of the Unified Development
Ordinance,
c. Show the available downtown SID parking spaces as 49.8, rather than 52.8,
d. Do not include on-street parking in the total parking supply, and
e. Cross-referenced with floor plans showing both gross and net square footage calculations.
2. All proposed parking on the site shall abide by the following, and any changes shall be depicted
in the final site plan materials:
a. No parking shall back into the alley right-of-way,
b. Provide the minimum disabled space required, and
c. Provide an ADA-compliant path of travel between the disabled parking space(s) and the
ADA accessible entrance to the building.
3. A separate landscape plan shall be submitted for all proposed landscaping on the site as a part of
the final site plan materials.
4. A Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment Permit application shall be submitted to the City of
Bozeman for all proposed outdoor seating areas in downtown right-of-way affiliated with the
proposed uses and shall receive final approval prior to the establishment of outdoor seating areas
in said right-of-way.
5. A copy of the State Revenue Department liquor license for this establishment shall be submitted
to the Department of Planning & Community Development prior to the sale of alcoholic
beverages for on-site consumption.
6. The applicant shall obtain a City of Bozeman Liquor License and provide the Department of
Planning & Community Development with a copy of the license prior to the sale of alcoholic
beverages for on-site consumption.
7. The right to serve alcohol to patrons is revocable at any time based on substantial complaints
from the public or from the Police Department regarding violations of the City of Bozeman’s
149
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
4
open alcohol container, minor in possession of alcohol, or any other applicable law regarding
consumption and/or procession of alcohol.
8. If any catering with alcoholic beverages occurs, the applicant shall obtain a catering endorsement
from the Department of Revenue, Liquor Division, as well as a City catering license, for each
catered event.
9. Any expansion of this use or facility, or the addition of outdoor seating, is not permitted unless
reviewed and approved as required under the applicable regulations of the Bozeman Municipal
Code.
10. A separate Historic Sign Designation/Certificate of Appropriateness application shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning and approved by the Bozeman City Commission to
allow the historic Rocking R Bar sign to be reestablished on the property.
11. All proposed signage for the building shall be shown on a separate drawing in the final site plan
materials, or should be proposed in a separate Certificate of Appropriateness application and
receive a City of Bozeman sign permit.
12. Scaled drawings of the new construction’s east and west elevations shall be included within the
final site plan materials.
13. All proposed windows of the new construction shall not contain highly reflective or darkly tinted
glass.
14. A color palette and materials board of all new construction materials (windows, doors, brick,
etc.) shall be submitted with the final site plan for final review and approval by Administrative
Design Review Staff. The materials and colors identified on the palette and board shall cross
reference with notes on the scaled drawings.
15. Under no circumstances shall a building permit be issued prior to final site plan approval.
16. That the applicant upon submitting the final site plan for approval by the Planning Director and
prior to issuance of a building permit, will also submit a written narrative outlining how each of
the conditions of approval and code provisions have been satisfied.
17. The materials on the primary front façade shall be more visually unified, either through color or
through similarity of material type.
18. The windows on the upper west side of the front façade shall not intrude vertically into the
horizontal second story space of the adjacent building (a.k.a. Montgomery Ward building) to the
west.
Engineering
19. The applicant will confirm that all water, sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure to the building is
undamaged and operational. This includes but is not limited to sewer cleanout, curb stops, back
flow preventers, and the service lines themselves.
150
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
5
20. Please provide sizing details and/or calculations verifying the sizing of the propose 12” storm
sewer line running to the north and entering the storm sewer main in the alley.
21. Any storm water that comes into contact with the proposed parking lot shall at a minimum be
pretreated in a sand/oil before entering into the public storm sewer.
22. Any sidewalk panels, curb/gutter, or other public infrastructure that is damaged during
construction shall be replaced prior to occupancy.
23. Fire line will need to re-pressure tested to ensure integrity of the pipe. The fire line OS&Y valve
will need to be replaced prior to the pressure test per manufacturer suggestion due to heat and
cold stresses. The applicant shall work with the City of Bozeman Water/Sewer Department to
verify all water, fire, and sewer service infrastructure is adequate.
24. Any unused water service lines shall be properly abandoned at the main.
25. The two proposed chases shown draining the runoff from the awnings shall be removed from the
site plan. The applicant is encouraged to work with the City of Bozeman Streets and
Engineering Departments to find a solution to remove runoff from the awnings that will not
create trip or ice hazards in inclement weather.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned B-3 (Central Business District). The intent of the B-3 zoning district is to
provide a central area for the community’s business, government service and cultural activities.
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Alley and vacant building, zoned B-3;
South: Commercial use (retail, office), zoned B-3;
East: Vacant site, zoned B-3;
West: Commercial use (partially occupied as retail), zoned B-3.
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The property is designated as “Community Core” in the Bozeman Community Plan. The traditional
core of Bozeman is the historic downtown. This area has an extensive mutually supportive diversity of
uses, a strong pedestrian and multi-modal transportation network, and a rich architectural character.
Essential government services, places of public assembly, and open spaces provide the civic and social
core of town. Residential development on upper floors is well established. New residential uses should
be high density. The area along Main Street should be preserved as a place for high pedestrian activity
uses, with strong pedestrian connectivity to other uses on nearby streets. Users are drawn from the
entire planning area and beyond. The intensity of development is high with a Floor Area Ratio well
over 1. Future development should continue to be intense while providing areas of transition to adjacent
areas and preserving the historic character of Main Street.
This particular area of “Community Core” resides in the historic core of Bozeman. It is important to
note the goals and objectives related to the historic core as stated in Chapter 5 of the Bozeman
Community Plan and keep them in perspective for this proposal:
151
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
6
Goal HP-1: Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to the
community’s identity, history and quality of life.
• Objective HP-1.3: Provide clear and concise City standards and requirements to ensure
protection of historic resources.
• Objective HP-1.4: Establish and encourage partnerships between preservation-related
community groups and stakeholders to protect historically and culturally significant
resources in a coordinated and cooperative manner.
• Objective HP-1.5: Provide financial incentives to encourage property owners to
appropriately rehabilitate historic resources in the City.
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
At their February 16, 2010 public hearing, the City Commission reclaimed to itself the final approval of
the F&H Building Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness application, per Section
18.64.010 C.1 of the BMC. They set a public hearing date of March 8, 2010 for the application.
The property owners and representative made a formal request to the Department of Planning to have
this site plan application be reviewed under Title 18, BMC as adopted by Ordinance #1769 on January
30, 2010. They were required to make this request because they submitted their application on January
26, 2010.
Planning Staff produced findings for this application by reviewing the applicable criteria in the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO). The review criteria and Staff findings are included below.
SECTION 18.28.050, “STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS”
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be
in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships,
Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department
of Planning).
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are the most relevant to the proposed
infill construction. In particular, Standard #9 relevant as it states the following: “New additions,
exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and
spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from
the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion,
and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.”
The new construction is planned to stay within the lot boundaries of the previously existing
buildings. The new construction will be differentiated from historic architecture because of the
use of current building materials and the contemporary interpretation of traditional design
features. The new construction, with the recommended conditions of approval, is found to be
compatible in size, scale, proportion, and massing for the Main Street Historic District.
152
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
7
With the design analysis below, Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff finds the proposal
as conforming to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or
properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following:
Please note: The F&H Building application includes a two- and three-story version of their
proposal. The overall architectural style and character of both versions are generally the same.
When necessary, the architectural appearance comments are specified to the two- or three-story
option. Otherwise, the comments speak to both options.
1. Height;
The building height of the two-story version reaches 40 feet at its highest point and the
building height of the three-story version reaches 49 feet at its highest point. Both
heights fall within the allowable building heights for the B-3 core area (55 feet). Overall,
ADR Staff and the DRB found the total height of both options as appropriate for the
Main Street historic core.
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
The proposed design uses a traditional and symmetrical placement of windows. The
large surface areas of glass at the storefront level are appropriately divided into smaller
panes. The window divisions on all floor levels relate to each other, which creates a
unified design. The lower storefront windows are distinguished from the upper floor
windows by including a traditional transom detail. Highly reflective or darkly tinted
glass is inappropriate for building facades fronting Main Street and is not permitted with
this proposal (Condition #13 on page 4 of this staff report).
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
Traditional spacing patterns created by the repetition of uniform building widths are one
of the attractive features of the historic Main Street corridor. The new construction does
an excellent job in creating traditional spacing patterns through their design elements.
The entire building exceeds the traditional façade width of 50 feet, but does not appear to
do so because of the change in design features to suggest a composition of smaller, more
traditional building widths. The combined use of recessed entries, vertical columns and
large storefront windows contributes to the visual continuity of the Main Street Historic
District
4. Roof shape;
Rectangular forms and flat roof lines are proposed for the new building, which are found
as appropriate for the historic Main Street corridor.
153
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
8
5. Scale;
Façade heights of new buildings should fall within the established range of the block.
Floor-to-floor heights should appear similar to those of historic buildings in the area.
Overall, ADR Staff and the Design Review Board find the two-story version as an
appropriate mass and size for the historic streetscape. The proposed floor-to-floor
heights of the two-story option are found to be similar to the ranges seen in the historic
corridor.
Some slight concern was expressed by both ADR Staff and the DRB in regards to the
third-story mass and size. The concern was not related to the proposed height of the
third-story option. Rather, the concern was related to the front façade’s vertical
placement of the third floor windows and their relationship with the horizontal height of
the neighboring Montgomery Building to the west. Condition #18 (on page 4 of this staff
report) is recommended because of this specific concern. The concern of the third-story
mass and size was also specific to the contrasting materials proposed for the upper floor
levels.
6. Directional expression;
The new construction is proposing a front and rear entrances to the building. ADR Staff
finds this design approach as appropriate because pedestrian traffic is expected to occur
both on Main Street and the rear alley (following all repairs and cleanup from the
explosion devastation). The directional expression of the building design appropriately
proposes detailed storefront entrances on the front elevation and a less detailed building
facade on the rear elevation.
7. Architectural details;
The new construction does an excellent job in creating a general alignment of horizontal
features. The design uses lintels, awnings, transom windows, cast stone stills, belt
course, and roof copings to express the horizontal alignment. The distinction in floor
heights between street levels and upper levels occurs through the detailing, materials and
fenestration proposed. Both the two-story and three-story versions visually incorporate a
traditional building composition of a base, middle and cap. The proposed metal
canopies/awnings are mounted with appropriate brackets and chains.
8. Concealment of nonperiod appurtenances;
Screening details of all proposed mechanical equipment will be required with the final
site plan submittal.
9. Material and color schemes.
Some slight concern was expressed by both ADR Staff and the DRB in regards to the
third-story mass and size. The concern of the third-story mass and size was partially due
to the contrasting materials proposed for the upper floor levels. Condition #17 (on page 4
of this staff report) is recommended because of this specific concern. With the final site
plan submittal, the applicant is required to submit a detailed color palette and materials
154
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
9
board for final review by ADR Staff (Condition #14 on page 4 of this staff report).
C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to
existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not
destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and
when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the
surrounding structures.
The architectural design appearance comments listed above address the new design’s
compatibility with the historic Main Street corridor.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by
the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are
hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or
innovative design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority
shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding
structures.
The Introduction, Chapters 2, 4 and 5, and the Appendix of the Design Guidelines for Historic
Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District all apply to this project, as the
project is deemed as “new infill and construction” in the Main Street Historic District. ADR
Staff performed an evaluation of the applicant’s proposal following the recommended guidelines
and offers the architectural appearance design comments listed above.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
Based on the requirements outlined in Chapters 18.28 and 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, ADR Staff has provided comments in this report to comply with the
“Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria.”
SECTION 18.34.090 “SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA”
In considering applications for a Conditional Use Permit, the City Commission/Board of Adjustment,
Development Review Committee (DRC), ADR Staff, and when appropriate, the Design Review Board
and other City advisory boards, shall review the application against the site plan review requirements of
Section 18.34.090 of the BMC as follows:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy;
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including
the “Community Core” land use designation.
2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations;
The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically
listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the
lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The following code
provisions must be addressed prior to final site plan approval:
155
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
10
Planning
a. Section 18.34.100, “Board of Adjustment Consideration and Findings for Conditional
Use Permits,” the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the
fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit
procedure.
b. Section 18.34.100, all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the
land use, shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, shall
be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in
writing, and shall be recorded as such with the County Clerk and Recorder’s Office by the
property owner prior to the issuance of any building permits, final site plan approval or
commencement of the conditional use.
c. Section 18.34.130 requires that the final site plan shall contain the materials required in
18.78.080 and 18.78.090. Specifically the final site plan shall show all utilities and utility
rights-of-way or easements: (1) Electric; (2) Natural Gas; (3) Telephone, cable TV, and
similar services; (4)Water; and (5) Sewer (sanitary, treated effluent and storm).
d. Section 18.34.130, “Final Site Plan,” no later than six months after the date of approval of a
preliminary site plan or master site plan, the applicant shall submit to the Department of
Planning seven (7) copies of final site plan materials. The final site plan shall contain all of
the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the Department of Planning.
e. Section 18.34.130, a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be
obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until
the final site plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall
be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the final site plan, including excavation and
footing preparation, but NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING
PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
f. Section 18.34.130, upon submitting the final site plan for approval by the Planning Director,
and prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall also submit a written narrative
outlining how each of the above conditions of approval and code provisions have been
satisfied or met.
g. Section 18.38.050.F, “Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment,” all mechanical
equipment shall be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the roof form
and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials.
h. Section 18.42.150, “Lighting,” all proposed site and building lighting shall comply with said
section requirements.
i. Section 18.42.150.D.7 specifies the requirements for site and building mounted lighting.
Typical lighting “cutsheets” and lighting locations including building mounted lighting
locations on the building elevations shall be provided with the final site plan. A photometric
lighting plan shall be submitted to confirm conformance with 18.42.150.D.7.e. The final site
plan shall also include a plan for security lighting only and conformance with
18.42.150.D.7.c.
156
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
11
j. Section 18.42.170, “Trash and Garbage Enclosures,” a permanent enclosure for temporary
storage of garbage, refuse, and other solid waste shall be provided for every use, other than
single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned townhouse or condominium units,
unless other arrangements are made. A narrative detail as to the garbage receptacle
arrangements shall be provided with the final site plan submittal.
k. Section 18.42.170, the size of the trash receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use and
approved by the City Sanitation Department. Accommodations for recyclables must also be
considered. All receptacles shall be located inside of an approved trash enclosure. A copy of
the site plan, indicating the location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and
enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City
Sanitation Division (phone: 586-3258) prior to final site plan approval.
l. Chapter 18.46, “Parking,” all proposed parking affiliated with the project, both on- and off-
site, shall comply with said chapter requirements.
m. Section 18.46.040.D, “Disabled Parking Spaces,” all proposed parking shall supply the
minimum required number of accessible parking spaces.
n. Section 18.52.060, “Signs Permitted Upon the Issuance of a Sign Permit,” any signage
associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the requirements
of this section.
o. Section 18.52.070, “Comprehensive Sign Plan,” a comprehensive sign plan shall be
submitted for all commercial, office, industrial and civic uses consisting of two or more
tenant or occupant spaces on a lot or two or more lots subject to a common development
permit or plan.
p. Section 18.64.100, “Building Permit Requirements,” a Building Permit must be obtained
prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building
Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved.
q. Section 18.64.110, “Permit Issuance,” states that no permit or license shall be issued unless
the use, arrangement and construction have been set forth in such approved plans and
applications.
Engineering
r. The Final Site Plan shall be adequately dimensioned. A complete legend of all line types
used shall also be provided.
s. Sewer and water services shall be shown on the FSP and approved by the Water/Sewer
Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the
applicant. All trees and private utilities must be at least 10 feet from any public utilities or
service lines.
t. Plans and Specifications for any fire service line must be prepared in accordance with the
City's Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer (PE), and be provided to and
157
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
12
approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the fire service or fire
protection system. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for
construction inspection, post-construction certification, and preparation of mylar record
drawings.
u. The location of existing water and sewer mains shall be properly depicted, as well as nearby
fire hydrants.
v. Adequate snow storage area must be designated outside the sight triangles, but on the subject
property (unless a snow storage easement is obtained for a location off the property and filed
with the County Clerk and Recorder's office).
w. A grease interceptor conforming to the latest adopted edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code
shall be installed with any development responsible for food preparation. In accordance with
Municipal Code, on-site maintenance and interceptor service records shall be kept on a
regular basis and made available to the City upon request.
x. The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy
equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the
Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site
developments, or with the infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility
of the applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes.
y. All construction activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2 of the Unified
Development Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is
dragged to adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this
section at any time during the construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are
required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs
associated with the work if it becomes necessary for the City to correct any problems that are
identified.
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations;
All other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations must be followed. All conditions for a
Conditional Use Permit must be met prior to final approval.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property;
A standing building, historically known as the Montgomery Ward Building, is adjacent to the
property on the west perimeter. A vacant building site is adjacent to the property on the east
perimeter and separates this property from the American Legion building site.
The F&H Building proposal shows the new construction running the entire width of the property,
which is approximately 98 feet. The new construction does not run the entire depth of the
property. A small parking area, trash collection area, and landscaping are proposed in the rear of
the new construction. Parking and trash collection in the rear would be accessed by the existing
rear alley.
158
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
13
itions;
e application receives a substantial reduction to its required parking due to the B-3 zoning
n
F&H Bu ng Parking Requirements
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking cond
Th
district reductions approved in the recent UDO amendments (approved by Ordinance #1769 o
January 30, 2010). Prior to reductions, the proposed two-story mixed-use building requires 85.8
parking spaces. After reductions are applied, the requirement drops approximately 60 percent to
27.21 spaces. The project site has 49.8 spaces available for its use as shown in the Downtown
Parking SID 565. See the specific parking calculations below.
ildi
Main Level
Net Square
Footage Parking Rate Required Stalls
Indoor Serving Area SF Restaurant ‐1,686.37 1 space:50 SF 33.73 spaces
Restaurant ‐ Outdoor Serving Area 218.13 SF 1 space:100 SF 2.18 spaces
Rockin R Bar Indoor Serving Area 1,102.41 SF 1 space:50 SF 22.05 spaces
Rockin R Bar Outdoor Serving Area 140.58 SF 1 space:100 SF 1.41 spaces
Upper Level(s)
Office Space (two‐story option) 6,395.78 SF 1 space: 250 SF 26.43 spaces
85.8 spaces
Office Space (third‐story option) 10,587.78 SF 1 space: 250 SF 42.35 spaces
101.72 total
Allowable Parking Reductions per Section 18.46.040, UDO
> *The first 3,000 gross square feet of a non‐residential building within the B‐3 district is not required to provide parking.
cent reduction
eduction
t): 10 percent reduction
eduction
> 75 percent total reduction to restaurant/bar required parking.
Restaurant/Bar Use: 50 percent reduction
Transit Availability (within 800 feet): 10 per
Structured Parking Proximity (within 800 feet): 15 percent r
> 45 percent total reduction to office required parking.
Office Use: 20 percent reduction
Transit Availability (within 800 fee
Structured Parking Proximity (within 800 feet): 15 percent r
F&H Building Parking Requirements w/ Reductions
Main Level
are Net Squ
Footage Parking Rate
Net Required
Stalls
6.56 spRestaurant ‐ Indoor Serving Area aces 328 SF* 1 space:50 SF
Restaurant ‐ Outdoor Serving Area 218.13 SF 1 space:100 SF 2.18 spaces
Rockin R Bar Indoor Serving Area 1,102.41 SF 1 space:50 SF 22.05 spaces
Rockin R Bar Outdoor Serving Area 140.58 SF 1 space:100 SF 1.41 spaces
32.2 spaces x 0.25 = 8.05 spaces
ontinued on following page)
(c
159
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
14
pper Level(s)U
o‐story option) 6,395.78 SF 1 space: 250 SF 26.43 spaces x 0.55 = 14.54 spaces Office Space (tw
22.59 total
Office Space (three‐story option) 10,587.78 SF 1 space: 250 SF 42.35 spaces x 0.55 = 23.29 spaces
31.34 total
Available Parking Spaces
49.8 spaces ‐22.59 (two) 27.21 remaining available spaces Downtown SID
‐31.34 (three) 18.46 remaining available spaces
he third-story option does not have a defined occupancy load at this time, but is proposed as
g
.81
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress;
he new construction is proposing front and rear entrances. ADR Staff finds this design
t and
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use,
o landscaping is required because of the project’s location in the core area of the B-3 zoning
d
8. Open space;
No open space is required or proposed with this application because it does not include a
9. Building location and height;
The building height of the two-story version reaches 40 feet at its highest point and the building
T
office use. To ensure that a parking shortage doesn’t occur with the third-story option, Plannin
Staff calculated the parking demand by using the UDO calculation of floor area, which is 85
percent of the gross square footage. The total parking demand for the three-story option is 31
spaces. The number of spaces available through the downtown SID is 49.8 spaces. Therefore,
the SID covers the building’s parking demand for both the two- and three-story options.
T
approach as appropriate because pedestrian traffic is expected to occur both on Main Stree
the rear alley (following all repairs and cleanup from the explosion devastation). The directional
expression of the building design appropriately proposes detailed storefront entrances on the
front elevation and a less detailed building facade on the rear elevation.
open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural
vegetation;
N
district. If landscaping is proposed on the property, a separate landscape plan must be submitte
as a part of the final site plan materials (Condition # 3 on page 3 of this staff report).
residential component.
height of the three-story version reaches 49 feet at its highest point. Both heights fall within the
allowable building heights for the B-3 core area (55 feet). Overall, ADR Staff and the DRB
found the total height of both options as appropriate for the Main Street historic core.
160
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
15
10. Setbacks;
The proposal includes zero yard setbacks, which are permissible and appropriate for the dense
11.ighting;
As required by code provisions (which begin on page 10 of this staff report), all lighting shall be
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities;
The Engineering recommended conditions of approval (beginning on page 4 of this staff report)
urb
13.ite surface drainage;
s conditioned by the Engineering Department, any storm water that comes into contact with the
14. Loading and unloading areas;
The automobile loading and unloading areas will be occurring to the rear of the building, which
15.rading;
ll proposed demolition and grading plans are reviewed by Planning, Engineering and Building
16.ignage;
No new signage is officially proposed at this time. Any new signage requires a Certificate of
icate of
17.creening;
All mechanical equipment shall be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the
commercial area.
L
full cut-off in design and the lighting fixture designs shall be shown in the final site plan
submittal.
require the applicant to confirm that all water, sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure to the
building is undamaged and operational. This includes but is not limited to sewer cleanout, c
stops, back flow preventers, and the service lines themselves.
S
A
proposed parking lot shall at a minimum be pretreated in a sand/oil before entering into the
public storm sewer (Condition #21 on page 5 of this staff report).
Staff finds as appropriate.
G
A
Department Staff at time of final site plan submittal, to ensure the construction site is confined to
its property lines.
S
Appropriateness application and sign permit that must be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Planning prior to installation. A separate Historic Sign Designation/Certif
Appropriateness application shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and approved by
the Bozeman City Commission to allow the historic Rocking R Bar sign to be reestablished on
the property.
S
roof form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant
materials.
161
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
16
18.strict provisions;
The project was reviewed under the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Standards, as required
19.ther related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties;
The application was publicly noticed in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle paper, on the City of
f
s of the writing of this staff report, one letter of public comment has been received by the
man
.
ny comments received after the date of this staff report will be distributed to the City
0. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other
. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration
which the
hat the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of
SECTION 18.34.100 “CITY COMMISISON/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONSIDERATION AND
Overlay di
for all projects within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. These standards are
reviewed beginning on page 6 of this staff report. The Design Review Board (DRB) and
Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) also reviewed the application and provided
comments and recommendations for the City Commission’s consideration.
O
Bozeman web notices, posted on-site and sent to adjoining property owners within 200 feet o
the subject property.
A
Department of Planning and Community Development in response to the noticing for this
project. The letter was sent by Chris Naumann, Executive Director of the Downtown Boze
Partnership, and states support of the project. The public comment is attached to this staff report
A
Commission at the public hearing.
2
means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either:
a
or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming;
b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to
City is a party so t
the development to become nonconforming.
Not applicable.
FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS”
sion shall, in approving a Conditional Use
ermit, find favorably as follows:
sed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such
se, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate
n at a new property, 219
ast Main Street, previously the Montana Trails Gallery site. The property that previously
of
e is
In addition to the review criteria below, the City Commis
P
1. That the site for the propo
u
to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity.
The proposal includes the sales of alcohol for on-premise consumptio
E
contained the Rockin R Bar, Boodles restaurant and Pickle Barrel restaurant was already
operating under an approved Montana state alcohol license. Staff finds the small expansion
serving area as appropriate for the downtown commercial area. Further, Staff finds the sit
adequate in size and topography to accommodate sales of alcohol for on-premise consumption
162
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
17
ermit application shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bozeman prior to the
e submitted
the Department of Planning & Community Development prior to the sale of alcoholic
of the
n
2. have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property.
ersons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof.
Department of Planning and Community Development in response to the noticing for this
an
report.
3. ry to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited
s;
through the review process, recommended project conditions that are
included to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Please see the recommended
CONC
To establish sidewalk seating in the front of the building, a Downtown Sidewalk Encroachment
P
establishment of outdoor seating area in the sidewalk right-of-way (Condition #4 on page 3 of
this staff report). At the time of this report, there is an ongoing policy discussion about the
classifications of encroachments in the downtown area. Any request for outdoor seating areas
will be subject to the applicable standards of the program at the time of the request.
A copy of the State Revenue Department liquor license for this establishment shall b
to
beverages for on-site consumption. The applicant shall also obtain a City of Bozeman Liquor
License and provide the Department of Planning & Community Development with a copy
license prior to the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption (Conditions #5 and #6 o
page 3 of this staff report).
That the proposed use will
P
As of the writing of this staff report, one letter of public comment has been received by the
project. The letter was sent by Chris Naumann, Executive Director of the Downtown Bozem
Partnership, and states support of the project. The public comment is attached to this staff
With the inclusion of all the recommended conditions of approval (beginning on page 3 of this
staff report), staff finds that the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon abutting
properties unless evidence presented at the public hearing proves otherwise.
That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessa
to: regulation of use; special yards, spaces and buffers; special fences, solid fences and
walls; surfacing of parking areas; requiring street, service road or alley dedications and
improvements or appropriate bonds; regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egres
regulation of signs; requiring maintenance of the grounds; regulation of noise, vibrations
and odors; regulation of hours for certain activities; time period within which the proposed
use shall be developed; duration of use; requiring the dedication of access rights; other
such conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and
efficient manner.
Staff has identified,
conditions of approval beginning on page 3 of this staff report.
LUSION
Review Committee (DRC), Design Review Board (DRB), and Historic Preservation
dvisory Board (HPAB) reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness
the
The Development
A
application to allow the new construction of a two- or three-story commercial mixed-use building on the
property addressed as 209 – 219 East Main Street. As a result, the boards and committees find that
application is in general compliance with the adopted Bozeman Community Plan and the City of
Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance and recommend to the City Commission approval of said
163
#Z-10008 F&H Building CUP/COA Staff Report
18
tal materials
Applicant/property owner letters
, 2010
, 2010
C: ope, 2215 Arrow Leaf Hills Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715
Locati Architects, 1007 East Main Street, Ste. 202, Bozeman, MT 59715
application with the conditions and code provisions outlined in this report. The recommended
conditions begin on page 3 of this staff report. The recommended code provisions can be found
beginning on page 10 of this staff report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the
Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, which are applicable to this project, prior to the
commencement of use.
Encl: Applicant submit
DRB draft minutes - February 24
HPAB draft minutes - February 25
DBP public comment
C Ralph Ferraro & Mike H
164
165
166
1
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010
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 David Skelton, Senior Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Randy Wall
Mark Hufstetler
Visitors Present
Mitch Bradley
Steve Locati
Cecilia Vaniman
Jeff MacPherson
Jeff Good
Jeff Krauss
Eugene Graf
Carson Taylor
David Jarrett
Randy Twist
Mike Hope
Andrew Maltzen
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2010
Mr. Wall stated on page 4, bottom paragraph, the 2nd sentence should include the language “tens
of thousands of square feet”. He stated at the top of page 6 “predicating” should be stricken and
the language “by setting the precedent of Kohls as a lifestyle center” should be included.
Mr. Rea stated on page 6 in the 4th paragraph “it was the DRB’s charge” should be stricken and
the language “the DRB could help protect the developer”.
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Wall seconded, to approve the minutes of February 10,
2010 as amended. The motion carried 5-0.
167
2
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
Chairperson Livingston stated Item 3 would be held after Project Review.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. F&H Building CUP/COA #Z-10008 (Bristor)
209-219 East Main Street
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness
Application to allow new construction of the F&H Building (Rocking R
Bar), expansion of a liquor license, and related site improvements.
Steve Locati and Cecilia Vaniman joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented
the Staff Report noting the request was for two of the four properties destroyed by the March 5,
2009 explosion. She noted the project site was ~14,700 sq. ft. in area. She stated the zoning of
the property was B-3 and was now owned by one owner instead of two. She stated the new
construction would not encompass the entire depth of the lot and parking, landscaping, or a
loading area would be on the rear section of the lot. She stated two options were being proposed
and Staff was asking for comments from the DRB for both options as there may be an
opportunity to receive federal funding which would allow the third story option. She stated both
proposed heights fell into the allowable 55 feet per the requirements of the UDO. She stated
Staff was overall supportive of the proposal and most of the design guideline comments were
positive. She stated two items had been highlighted for discussion purposes; the appropriateness
of the proposed floor to floor height of the new construction (Staff had recognized that new
construction methods would require higher floor to ceiling heights) and the proposed recessed
storefront windows. She added that historically doors and entryways were the recessed
architectural features. She stated the City Commission had reclaimed jurisdiction of the proposal
and would be the final approval authority.
Mr. Locati stated Planner Bristor had done a fairly good job summarizing the project to the
Board. He stated the uniqueness of the application was that they were seeking approval of both
proposed design options. He stated they were trying to make the spaces more in keeping with
the standards of today and attempting to enhance the downtown area. He stated he had observed
successful businesses and their presentation to the street and he had attempted to avoid a large,
flat façade.
Mr. Wall clarified the maximum building height of 55 feet. Planner Bristor responded the
maximum height was 55 feet in the B-3 core area.
Mr. Hufstetler asked the applicant to speak to the philosophy of using two contrasting building
materials and window designs, particularly on the upper levels. Mr. Locati responded that he
would use the word “complementing” as opposed to “contrasting” and the concept had been to
accentuate the definition between smaller, historic fronts and bring interest to the building. He
stated the two forms for windows played against each other and added an eclectic mix to the
structure. Mr. Hufstetler asked the material to be used for the window framing at street level.
Mr. Locati responded it would likely be aluminum clad in a bronze or dark color. Mr. Hufstetler
168
3
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
asked what the view from Mendenhall Street would be. Mr. Locati responded that a lot of the
structures along Main Street were an open view from Mendenhall Street, but he thought the
majority of the north façade would be blocked by other buildings. He stated the concept of the
proposed rear sign had been to look historic since the R Bar had been in business since the
1940’s; he added not as much money would be spent on the rear façade, but it would still present
a nice entrance for the tenants. Ms. Vaniman added that the signage was not part of the current
application and would be submitted for review and approval at a later date, including the historic
sign designation of the original R Bar sign.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Bristor the status of the federal money available.
Planner Bristor responded Staff was reviewing the federal requirements, but would need further
details about the new construction on the site prior to those funds availability. Vice Chairperson
Pentecost asked what measures had been taken toward green building or conservation efforts.
Mr. Locati responded the electrical standards would be per the 2009 Energy Code and LEED
Certification had been investigated, though they had decided not to take that route.
Chairperson Livingston asked Mr. Locati what the anticipated material would be on the east and
west facades where they meet the rear facade. Mr. Locati responded the material on the east side
would be the Ariscraft material for 4-8 feet and transition to a colored CMU complementary to
the Ariscraft material; he added the west side would be the same materials, but there would be an
adjacent building so the Ariscraft would not be carried as far on the south facade.
Mr. Wall asked for clarification of how the building maintained cohesiveness with the Main
Street Historic District as he was struggling with the floor to floor separation; he directed the
applicant to a rendering of the proposed structure next to the Baxter Hotel and noted the second
floor would appear higher than the surrounding building’s floor elevation. Mr. Locati stated the
100 plus year old buildings had a height variance from newly constructed buildings. He added
they had measured the distance and were equal to or below than the existing downtown main
level spaces. He stated there were at least six historical buildings that measured the same height
from floor to ceiling as their proposal and added that, at the time, there were different standards
for those types of construction; the proposed ceiling heights of greater than eight feet had been
proposed to help provide incentives to possible tenants on the upper floors. He stated much of
the newer construction downtown was within inches of the proposed floor to floor separation and
the taller the windows, the better the light. Mr. Wall stated the proposed third floor seemed
massive when compared to the rug gallery. Mr. Locati responded that the block as a whole
contained some of the smaller and some of the larger buildings and the feel and design of the
streetscape would be helped by the proposed design.
Mr. Rea stated he was generally supportive of the application and it was tough not to compare
the two story to the three story proposal, so he would. He stated he preferred the three story
main level, but the two story second level proposal. He stated he was fine with the rear of the
structure and encouraged the applicant to look at the sign on the side of the BG grain elevator
(north of Montana Aleworks) as he thought something like that would be appropriate.
169
4
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
Mr. Wall stated he would like to revisit the American Legion review as the DRB discussion for
that project had impressed him with regard to the proportionality of structures within a historic
district. He stated he liked a lot of the things about the building as proposed, but was concerned
with the massiveness and floor levels. He stated he appreciated the applicant’s concerns that the
upper levels be lit, but that was a concern of someone inside.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he would like to begin with an overwriting comment; a strong
commendation that the structure would be a tremendous asset if it went as planned. He stated he
was most interested with the street façade and believed the applicant had provided architectural
interest for the people passing by. He stated overall he was pleased with the proposal and he
hoped it went forward as planned. He stated he liked the two story proposal a lot and was
supportive of the historic sign being placed on the building. He stated he was not concerned
about the overall height of the building, though he knows engineering requirements have
changed over time. He stated he was concerned how the upper floor would interact with the
Montgomery Ward building to the west and suggested a different treatment of the window
designs on the west side of the new building as it was equal to the height of the other building‘s
roof. He stated the other windows on the front façade were not issues in his mind, but the west
side ones are a concern. He confessed that the proposed material distinctions were too sharp; it
wasn’t as much an issue in the two story proposal, but became more of an appropriateness issue
with the three story proposal. Mr. Locati asked if it was a color concern or a material concern.
Mr. Hufstetler responded it was both. Less contrast would make him less concerned with the
proposal.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with many of Mr. Hufstetler’s comments and added
that the massing of the two story building was emphasized by the use of materials and colors.
He stated he had at one time had an office above the Powderhorn and suggested further
consideration of the window design due to solar gain, etc. He stated he liked the building
articulation at the lower level and preferred the two story proposal in that regard.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with a lot of Mr. Hufstetler’s comments as well and he
was happy to see the project. He stated there were a few things that concerned him. He stated he
agreed with Mr. Wall that the buildings should be designed with the façade in mind and a sense
of proportion. He stated he thought the issue of floor to floor heights, at least the first floor,
would be critical in a sense of how the proportions are seen within the context of the downtown
fabric. He stated he thought that the submittal did not tell the whole story and he thought the
renderings were out of proportion; he stated he wished he could have seen a streetscape with the
line drawings.
Mr. Locati presented the Board with an expanded colored schematic streetscape; he apologized
for not including them in DRB packets as the drawing had been done after the proposal had been
submitted.
Chairperson Livingston stated he was not as concerned with the proposed height as he was with
170
5
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
the band. He stated he agreed with Mr. Hufstetler regarding the contrast between the two
materials; he thought it would be out of context with the rest of downtown. He stated he did not
find the collage affect of materials appropriate as it did not exist on Main Street. He stated he
was wondering if the building were proposed as brick, would it feel more unified compared to
the neighboring structures. He stated he thought the Arriscraft stone piece of the JLF building
helped it immensely with regard to its presentation to Bozeman Avenue. He stated the
sophistication of historic buildings on Main Street was not being matched with the proposal as it
seemed more cartoon like. He stated he would love to see what the project would look like if
proposed all in brick. He stated that the historic photos of the south side of Main Street
contained the most massive canopies ever to help with the blistering heat in the days when there
wasn’t any air conditioning. He stated there was only a certain amount of window coating
before the glazing turned into a mirror and suggested some type of shading device. Mr. Locati
responded awnings had been included on the main level. Chairperson Livingston suggested they
should also be included on subsequent levels. Mr. Locati asked if the arched windows were an
issue. Chairperson Livingston responded the arch was a part of it, and that there was already a
lot going on with the facades with regard to other detailing.
Mr. Wall stated he appreciated previous Board member comments, but what he was really
struggling with was the transition of the building design from two to three stories. He stated the
three story building would become so much busier with so much going on and he preferred the
two story version. He added he did not think he could support the three story proposal.
Mr. Locati clarified that Chairperson Livingston’s comments were primarily with regard to the
proposed material and he thought if those issues were addressed, the rest of the Board seemed
fine with the three story proposal. Mr. Wall asked for clarification of the urgency for procuring
the federal funds. Mr. Locati explained the procurement of the federal funds would need to be
applied for in a timely manner and some site planning would need to be done prior to
application. Planner Bristor added that Staff had asked for timely review of the proposal to assist
in the procurement of those funds.
Mr. Hufstetler stated Chairperson Livingston had addressed his concerns.
Mr. Wall stated he hated to be put into a position to be forced into a decision due to money
issues as the site was within the Main Street Historic District and was a critical location for the
City. Mr. Locati agreed with Mr. Wall and stated money issues were only a part of the driving
force.
Mr. Hope stated it angered him off when Mr. Wall addressed financial constraints. He stated
part of the reason for the proposal’s expedition was to get the building constructed so they could
get their income back. He added that after the explosion, one of his options was to file for
bankruptcy. He stated the proposal was in keeping with the Downtown Plan and he wanted their
incomes and lives back together. He stated his concern with historic downtown Bozeman was
more than anyone else’s as he was gambling with his livelihood to rebuild a structure downtown.
171
6
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
He stated a continuance of the proposal was a concern to him as it would affect his livelihood.
Chairperson Livingston stated he had expected the building to be proposed taller due to rumors
he had heard.
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for F&H Building CUP/COA #Z-10008 with the following
conditions; 1) the materials on the primary façade be more visually unified, and 2) that the
articulation between the proposed building and the Montgomery Ward building be redesigned to
provide compatibility between the structures.
Mr. Rea stated he did not support the motion as he did not think the transition between buildings
was a big issue, but he agreed with the first part of the motion. Mr. Hufstetler responded he
thought the transition would be handled with the first part of the motion regarding amendment to
the proposed materials. Mr. Locati stated the material contrast seemed to make the building
jump out at you.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to amend the second part of
the motion to include the language “that the windows on the upper west side of the front façade
not intrude vertically into the horizontal second story of the Montgomery Ward building”, and
that all recommended conditions for the proposal be shown on the Final Site Plan submittal. The
motion carried 5-0.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for F&H Building CUP/COA #Z-10008 with the following
conditions; 1) the materials on the primary façade be more visually unified, 2) that the windows
on the upper west side of the front façade not intrude vertically into the horizontal second story
of the Montgomery Ward building, and 3) that all recommended conditions for the proposal be
shown on the Final Site Plan submittal.
Mr. Wall stated he did not want to seem insensitive to the applicant, but his dedication was to the
City of Bozeman and the high quality of standards and design. He stated he had no intention of
offending Mr. Hope in any way. Chairperson Livingston added that Mr. Hope’s commitment to
doing a quality building downtown had been reflected in the Board’s comments.
The motion carried 4-0 with Mr. Wall abstaining.
2. Heeb’s Grocery Sign COA/DEV #Z-10005 (Bristor)
544 East Main Street
* A Certificate of Appropriateness with a Deviation Application to allow the
existing sign to be modified and to remain within the 15 foot required
setback.
172
7
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
Mitch Bradley joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report
noting the sign issue had needed to be addressed with the previous application’s approval; the
nonconforming signage would need to either be removed or come into conformance. She stated
the original proposal was for a smaller free standing monument style sign; now it was the desire
of the applicant to keep the pole style sign, but lower it to the maximum 13 feet in height. A
remaining deviation was to allow the pole to remain in the required 15 foot setback. She stated
Staff was supportive of the Deviation request and it was a site specific case as the sign had been
in existence for 30 years. She stated the intent of Staff was not to set a precedent for allowing
pole signs in the downtown area. She stated the main concern was the galvanized covering
proposed for the poles and the sign should coordinate with the building design; she added Staff
was waiting for clarification of Galvaneal material and had assumed it would be a galvanized
material.
Mr. Bradley stated the reader board had been removed and the sign currently looked
disproportionate. He stated Tire Rama was currently erecting a new building making visibility
of the sign difficult from that side and he thought the sign would be improved by putting the
covering around the poles.
Mr. Rea asked why a historic sign designation had not been pursued. Planner Bristor responded
the Federal standard was fifty years of age, though the Historic Preservation Advisory Board had
discussed the option. She added that the “cultural significance” of the sign would likely be
difficult to support. Mr. Rea asked the reason for the height. Mr. Bradley responded the height
request was so the sign would be visible above the trees. Mr. Rea asked the deal with the reader
board. Planner Bristor responded the reader board was discouraged under the ordinance.
Mr. Hufstetler asked how the 13 foot height had been reached. Planner Bristor responded 13 feet
was the maximum allowable height for the zoning designation but the real issue was the
deviation to encroach into the required 15 foot yard setback. Chairperson Livingston asked what
color the Galvaneal material would be or if it was colored. Mr. Bradley responded he would be
amenable to matching the galvanized color to the color on the structure. Chairperson Livingston
asked if the structure of the sign was where the height would be measured or would the nubs at
the top be the height measurement. Planner Bristor responded it was the structural aspects of the
sign and would include the pole nubs at the top.
Carson Taylor joined the DRB. He stated the question of what would be done with signs was
broader than this proposal though it was in an investigatory stage. He stated incentives to make
approvals easier were in the process at the Commission level.
Mr. Wall asked if the nonconforming uses in the code were hard and fast regulations or if there
was a method in place to allow the use as long as it was continuous and uninterrupted. Planner
Bristor responded the code differentiated between nonconforming uses and nonconforming
structures and she would not be able to summarize the chapter this evening. She further
explained the code was specific with regard to use and structure nonconformities; she cited the
173
8
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
lighting was reviewed for conformance with the current ordinance as was the sign. She added
the alteration to the building triggered conformance for all of the signage on the site.
Mayor Krauss added that signs were amortized over a long time so if they were very expensive
they could keep them for a very long time; the City had gone through four iterations of when a
sign must be modified to meet current requirements. He cited the Lewis & Clark Motel sign and
stated the City would prefer to see it removed.
Mr. Hufstetler stated the Lewis & Clark sign should not be removed. He stated he strongly
supported the proposal to keep the sign and he would like it more if the poles were retained
instead of adding the Galvaneal enclosure. He stated if he were the sign king he would allow the
sign to be taller and added that the proposed sign would be more visually prominent than the sign
before. He stated he did not even get upset about the reader boards. He suggested the sign have
a little more height and the poles be retained without the Galvaneal enclosure.
Mr. Rea stated he liked the height the sign was at currently and he liked the reader board; it gave
the sign character. He encouraged Staff to look at a cultural designation. Mr. Hufstetler added it
would not be out of place for the culturally significant designation to be approved for the sign.
Mr. Rea stated some of the sign standards for the City of Bozeman might be relaxed and he did
not think they were making the downtown aesthetic better with the proposal. He suggested the
sign remain as it is or at least work more closely with the existing design.
Mr. Wall stated he thought the proposed sign and pole covers were strip-mallish and seemed
boring and not extraordinary. He stated he liked the original sign better and he would like to see
an element of that retained. He stated he would like to see the reader board included as well.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Wall in some respects. He stated he
believed the sign proposed looked like a sign company designed it when an architect should
probably have designed it. He stated the sign company could have done something better.
Chairperson Livingston stated he liked the Heeb’s sign and was notified by Staff that the existing
sign height would require a Deviation that had not been requested through the current
application. Mr. Bradley suggested he preferred the covers be left off and the sign shortened to
13 feet. Chairperson Livingston stated there was something about the design of the sign that
made it unique. He stated he would like to see the sign shortened in its entirety and suggested
the poles be cut off to match the 13 foot height. He suggested the pole enclosures not be
included. Planner Bristor mentioned painting of the poles could be allowed. Chairperson
Livingston concurred. Mr. Bradley agreed that painting could be done and it would be cheaper
for him.
Mr. Wall stated his motion, if the project weren’t for informal advice and comment, would be to
retain the existing sign and put the reader board back on.
174
9
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
Mr. Hufstetler concurred that the reader board should be included and the sign maintained; he
asked Mr. Bradley his preference. Mr. Bradley responded he did not think the reader board
would be approved and he would be amenable to shortening the sign and painting the poles
black.
The Board concurred that their recommendation to the City Commission was that the sign should
be shortened to 13 feet and the poles should be painted black.
3. Gallatin Center Lot 11-Best Buy SP/COA #Z-10016 (Skelton)
Northeast of the intersection of Cattail Street & Max Avenue
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the
construction of one 36,000 sq. ft. structure and one 10,000 sq. ft. structure
with related site improvements.
Andrew Maltzen, Randy Twist, Jeff Good, Dave Jarrett, Eugene Graf, and Chris Budeski joined
the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the site had received
Site Plan approval in 2006 for the same lot with four buildings proposed for the site; he added
there had been a Deviation request for more that 125% of the allowable parking at that time that
would no longer be pertinent. He stated the proposal was within the North 19th Avenue
Entryway Overlay District and many of the issues had already been addressed with the original
Site Plan review. He stated the kiosk was not a part of the current proposal and the green space
and open space requirements had been met with the PUD approval. He stated the building
design would be the key issue and it would be difficult to fine tune what they were proposing.
He suggested the west and south elevations were where the discussion should be focused as it
was one of the few buildings with a southern exposure. He directed the DRB to the treatment of
the Ross building and its articulation; he added the current proposal had attempted to mimic that
articulation. He stated Staff was supportive of the west elevation but had concerns with the
south elevation and its exposure to the stream. He stated the southern exposure needed to be
enhanced to improve the street level interest and human scale. He stated there had been some
discussion regarding a raised crosswalk which would create possible issues with drainage for the
site; he suggested scored or pigmented concrete. He reiterated Staff conditions of approval. He
stated along the south façade Staff had recommended seating areas where there would be more
pedestrian activity. He stated condition of approval #4 would have the last sentence stricken as
the crosswalk had been addressed with scored or pigmented concrete. He stated condition #5
could be stricken as the applicant verified that use of a Dryvit was limited to treatment under the
main entrance and not along the facades of the building. He stated Best Buy would need to work
with Staff regarding the design of their signage prior to Final Site Plan approval and a
comprehensive signage plan would need to be included. He added the layout of the site had been
predetermined through the PUD approval. He stated no public comment had been received for
the proposal.
Mr. Good stated the design of the two buildings had been approached as similar to those existing
on adjacent sites to provide a cohesive design and he thought the buildings were tied together as
175
10
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
proposed. He stated Best Buy had a strong franchise image that had not been maintained in the
proposal for Bozeman. He stated there would be two strong tenants in the electronics store and
the cosmetic store. He stated more earth tone colors had been proposed and no smooth block
would be used on the south or north elevations. He stated they would like the service corridor
between the buildings to contain split faced block along the site lines of the building. He stated
there had been some discussion of more emphasis and articulation on the entry; he directed the
Board to a rendering of the proposed entryway that included blue tile to flank the walls of the
curtain system to tie it to the Ross structure; he added he felt the emphasis to the entryway would
be achieved through the use of the tile material with the proposed design. He stated the stucco
would only be located on the sofit area of the Best Buy structure and the light fixtures would
match the existing fixtures in the development. He stated the emphasis would be put on the
southwest corner of the Best Buy building to provide for pedestrian amenities.
Mr. Budeski stated that the continuation of the stream concept with the sidewalk had been
incorporated into the proposal. He added that infrastructure and services and already been
installed and it would be nice to finish the lot off.
Mr. Rea asked what the blue material behind the Best Buy sign would be. Mr. Good responded
it would be a deep, dark blue corrugated metal.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the east elevation would have an intense exposure to North
19th Avenue. Planner Skelton responded the east elevation would be shielded by the Bed Bath
and Beyond building.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the banding proposed for the lower portion of the building was
similar to the banding on the Ross building. Mr. Good responded it would be similar.
Chairperson Livingston asked the projection of the architectural features on the front façade that
included trellises. Mr. Good responded those features would project 10-15 feet. Chairperson
Livingston asked if the proposed glazing would be spandrel glass. Mr. Good responded it would
be spandrel glass. Chairperson Livingston asked if the windows would be lit. Mr. Good
responded the windows would not be lit.
Mr. Rea stated he was looking forward to the build out of Lot 12 and the pedestrian connections
to the site the development would bring. He stated he really liked the applicant’s interpretation
of muted colors and he was supportive of the proposal as presented.
Mr. Wall stated that, unlike Kohl’s in the Bozeman Gateway, the proposal was appropriate for
the site and the location.
Mr. Hufstetler stated that overall he was supportive of the proposal and relieved to see that the
proposed sign was not an eyesore like some of the others. He statde his only concern was the
ancillary bays on the façade.
176
11
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he thought what had been done with the drawings was
deceptive as the heavy lap siding look would not be visible; the applicant had presented
something that would never be seen – it would be a CMU building. Mr. Good stated he thought
there was quite a bit of contrast and he could read the banding on the buildings from a distance.
Mr. Budeski added that the parapets would provide some articulation. Vice Chairperson
Pentecost stated he could be led to believe the structure would have texture, but if he looked at
the next building, the new building would not be textured.
Chairperson Livingston stated he would like to see articulation on the buildings. He stated he
was suspect of the 2 inch, pop-out, spandrel glass areas; he wished they could be display
windows or some other feature that was more expressive.
Mr. Maltzen responded that the store had not historically done well at display windows and
would become disconnected from the community. He stated another option used at some of their
buildings was to raise the windows fifteen feet to allow for light.
Mr. Budeski suggested Mr. Maltzen address LEED and conservation requirements. Mr. Maltzen
stated the building would need to apply for LEED certification, but he foresaw a silver rating
with the construction of the building. He stated he was in the process of including seating on the
front of the structures and noted that efficiency parking would be provided on the site as
encouragement to the community to be more efficient. He stated personal transportation might
be included in the store as well. Mayor Krauss added there were several electric vehicles in the
City already and the Public Library had been LEED certified.
Mr. Graf stated his wife was an artist and wanted to include a mural in the development on the
west side toward the north end of the building. He stated it would be framed by the split face
block and would be located on the smooth face block. Planner Skelton stated the mural had not
been submitted for review yet, but could be handled as a minor modification to the site plan so
the Building Permit wouldn’t be held up. He clarified that the mural could not contain business
names/structures and should be culturally significant in nature. Mr. Hufstetler suggested the
mural should be of a permanent nature so that it didn’t look crappy in the future. Chairperson
Livingston stated the side of the Eagles was fading a bit. Mr. Graf responded that his wife had
done murals before and would use a permanent paint.
Mr. Rea stated he was supportive of the idea of spandrel glass at a higher elevation on the front
façade and recommended it not be included on the west façade.
Chairperson Livingston stated he was floored in terms of what Best Buy was doing regarding
day lighting and LEED certification. Mr. Twist added that Best Buy was one of the leaders in
conservation efforts.
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to amend Staff conditions of approval with the
177
12
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
removal of the last sentence of Staff condition #4 and the removal of Staff condition #5 in its
entirety.
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to
the Planning Director for Gallatin Center Lot 11-Best Buy SP/COA #Z-10016 with Staff
conditions as amended.
Mr. Hufstetler asked how the Board would feel about requiring the applicant include windows on
the south elevation, though he would be comfortable recommending approval without the
requirement. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the reason for wanting the windows included.
Mr. Hufstetler responded he liked the idea of light in those areas, but would still recommend
approval of the proposal.
The motion carried 5-0.
4. Hastings Building B Façade Mods to FSP #Z-08244A (Skelton)
1607 West Main Street
* A request for modification to an approved Final Site Plan to allow changes
including landscaping and door colors
Jeff MacPherson joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Memo
noting the proposal was for comment and advice from Board members. He stated most of the
members had the history of the Hastings site and Mr. MacPherson was the new owner of
Building B. He stated a 20% Deviation for signage had been the most recent request by the
applicant. He stated this had been one of the first projects with a double frontage building issue
considered by the City. He stated as part of the granting of additional signage, the DRB and City
Commission had the opportunity to revisit the façade facing Main Street and enhance its
presentation to the street. He stated the presentation of a storefront on to West Main Street
versus the presentation of a utility door and the masonry made it difficult to consider the
requested modification as a minor modification and in-house review by the Planning Office. The
applicant had requested a modification of the City Commission condition to include storefronts
on the south façade; he added the request was for to the Planning Office to consider other
alternatives in lieu of retrofitting the utility doors to a storefront. He stated the applicant was
proposing modifications to the south façade that included door color changes and the installation
of landscaping around the perimeter of the building. He stated that staff has determined that the
modification was deemed as a major modification due to the specificity of the City Commission
condition of approval.
Mr. MacPherson stated he had inherited, though there was an exchange of cash, the
responsibility of modifying the façade. He stated the requirement to include the storefront
appearance and spandrel glass with bronze framing was the issue at hand. He stated there were
178
13
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
perfectly serviceable doors already and security would be a huge issue that would be a deal
breaker with Verizon Wireless. He stated he did not think the storefront requirement would look
as good as what he had proposed with the green doors; he thought he had offered an acceptable
solution.
Planner Skelton stated he had provided Staff recommendations to be considered by the DRB in-
lieu of the storefront doors, although at times there is a tendency at times where landscaping was
relied too heavily upon where it takes too long a period of time for the landscape to reach
maturity. He stated the if the landscape is considered as an alternative to the doors one might
consider the bar being raised with the level of maturity for the landscaping proposed for the site.
Mr. MacPherson stated he had no problem installing more mature trees on the site.
Mr. Wall clarified that, to his recollection, the DRB did not recommend the replacement of the
doors on the south façade with a storefront.
Mr. Rea asked if a deciduous tree could work in one location or if it would block the signage.
Mr. MacPherson responded he had no problem with installing a deciduous tree and whether or
not it blocked the signage would be determined by its growth rate, but the trees would be cut
back along the structure anyway so they wouldn’t block the signage.
Planner Skelton suggested the DRB carefully look at the overall vision of the conditions of
approval; to enhance the presentation of the building façade to the Main Street Entryway
Corridor. He added the modification of a specific condition of approval made the request a
major modification that would be reviewed by the City Commission.
Mr. Wall asked the possibility of getting vegetation along the drive isle. Planner Skelton
responded it had been part of the original approval and would be rolled in with the landscaping
around the perimeter of the building as a condition of approval. Chairperson Livingston asked if
the signage was illuminated. Planner Skelton responded they were internally illuminated signs.
Mr. Rea stated he was glad the site was getting better and though it sounded simple, he could
only imagine the difficulty with the replacement of the utility doors with storefront framing.
Mr. Wall stated he too was glad the site was getting better, but he thought perceiving the back of
the structure as a seating area was a non-starter for him as no one would go behind the building.
He stated he would rather see the money used for the landscaping deficiencies on the site and to
provide a vegetative buffer to mitigate the visual impact of the rear of the building.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he had only unofficially looked at the site in the last few years. He stated it
was an unfortunate building on one of Bozeman’s major streets. He stated it did not have two
primary façades and it would be disingenuous to attempt to make the rear of the structure look
like the front. He stated he agreed with Mr. Wall that the thing to do would be to landscape the
hell out of it; it would be the honest thing to do.
179
14
Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010
Vice Chairperson Pentecost clarified that the condition of approval required the applicant to go
with a storefront; he suggested adhering to the intention of the condition by getting a full light
door. He stated it worked for him to paint the doors green, but it might not work for the
Commission; he suggested the applicant have a backup plan. He stated he concurred with Mr.
Hufstetler and Mr. Wall regarding the inclusion of landscaping.
Chairperson Livingston stated he remembered when the project first came through for DRB
review; there were great aspirations for the site as a whole and Building B was overlooked in the
overall picture. He stated it used to be a blank, awful looking wall with no landscaping. He
stated he thought the green doorway provided for the condition requirement and provided a
unifying element. He stated if no one used the back side of the building, the landscaping and
painting of the doors would make it about as good as it could get. Planner Skelton asked for
clarification of whether or not the Board concurred that the proposed recommendations were an
option as outlined in Staff’s memorandum. The Board confirmed their concurrence.
ITEM 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to continue the item to the next meeting
of the DRB. The motion carried 5-0.
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
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
180
Historic Preservation Advisory Board at the HRDC –
25 February 2010
Members Present: Courtney Kramer (staff liaison), Commissioner Carson
Taylor (commission liaison) Allyson Bristor, Anne Sherwood, Mark Hufstetler
(chair), Mike Neeley, Richard Brown, Ryan Olson, Jane Klockman, Lora
Dalton, Boone Nolte, Crystal Alegria, Lesley Gilmore -quorum established.
Guests: Dale Martin, Applicant to BHPABs
Steve Locati and Cecilia Vaniman – Locati Architects
I. Call to Order at 6:06pm
II. Minutes from the January meeting were approved. MN made a
motion to approve the minutes. RB seconded. All in favor.
III. Ex Parte Communication
A. There was no ex parte communication.
IV. Introduction of our new board liaison to the city commission –
Commissioner Carson Taylor.
IV. Introduction of Invited Guests: Steve Locati and Cecilia Vaniman,
Locati Architects
A. AB introduced the project proposed for construction on Main Street - F
& M building to replace Rockin R, Boodles and Montana Trails Gallery
B. DRB meeting outlined a few suggestions at last night’s meeting about
the same project.
C. SL discussed proposed project
- 100 feet of street front
- set back to bring more relief and not just one big, flat building
- paid attention to materials for historic appropriateness
- accordian doors stepped back to give more human scale
- emphasis on making it fit the vernacular of Bozeman without
copying any existing structures
D. AB added that owner hopes to replace salvaged R Bar sign
E. AS confirmed that Locati is seeking approval for 2 and 3-story versions
depending on funding.
- Locati confirmed June 1 goal for breaking ground
- AB and CT stated that city will decide where funding will go once
it’s awarded to City of Bozeman
F. RB asked what usage of 2nd and 3rd floors will be. SL said they will be
office spaces, possibly residential on 3rd floor. Residential should be
emphasized according to downtown neighborhood plan added AB.
181
G. RB also asked about cast stone product. SL says it will be same as
used on JLF building.
H. SL discussed sidewalk café style plans for exterior seating.
I. MH asked about detailing on east elevation. SL said it would be
finished CMU. No windows, no detailing, but finished looking til
neighboring building is completed.
J. AS suggested putting “2010” on building for historical purpose. SL
thought it was a good idea.
K. LD asked about brick veneer on façade. SL said he likes the brick
veneer they’ve sourced. Doesn’t think it looks “fake.”
L. RB asked about return bricks. SL said will be addressed in laying of the
masonry.
M. Veneer brick is actually a full brick. CV clarified this fact. Laid by
humans and not machine. Will minimize efforescence on brick façade.
N. LD asked about rear elevation and AS asked about rear access.
VI. MH opened discussion of project
A. Said DRB was very supportive of project last night
- MH likes step back of street façade
- Worries about comparison of elevation of Montgomery Ward and
how fenestration lines up. SL agreed that this should be looked at.
- MH is concerned with mix of materials on façade. Feels like two
different buildings in three-story version.
B. BN is working for Locati now but he claims he has no problems with
the project.
O. MN said building nicely refects architecture of 21st century. Not trying
to be a 19th century building and he appreciates that. Doesn’t have
problem with height.
P. RO is excited about filling the hole and repopening the sidewalk on the
block. Has nothing bad to say about the project. Likes that you don’t
feel like you are walking by a 100 foot building.
Q. RB likes that it is a statement of current architectural trends. Likes the
façade relief. Likes that real materials are going on the surface. Will
feel organic more than severe.
R. LD thinks project is in scale with downtown. Likes the project but
doesn’t like the 3-story version because it looks more like a broken up
streetscape. Feels it is more arbitrary and less cityscape.
S. AS is a big fan of the date on the façade. Likes undulation of
streetscape. Prefers 2-story version.
T. CA reiterates the importance of the date and the details –
craftmanship of materials. Prefers the 3-story version.
U. LG is fan of recessed store fronts. Has no problem with floors matching
up and agrees with AS on importance of undulation. Likes fenestration
patterns.
V. JK says they are creating a very caring building that 100 years from
now we will be proud of. Thinks it will blend in great.
W. MH clarified that alteration of heights does not mean he and DRB don’t
support undulation, but that west window should honor the scale of
the corner building.
182
V. AB introduced Chris Pope and HABS HARE for Osborne Block
building.
A. Comments by next Wed, March 3rd to AB. Will sign off on demo permit
next week. AB handed out cds for board to review.
B. CP said Scott Carpenter did an excellent job recording the building for
posterity.
C. Last chance to comment before record is sent to National Parks
Service.
D. CP said can go online to YPradio.org to listen to the program they were
on last night. Discussion next Tuesday at the Bozeman Library.
E. MH asked AB what aspects of Osborne Building will be salvaged.
VI. Chair’s Report – MH, Chair
A. Introduction of Dale Martin for a seat on the BHPAB.
- DM is interested in serving on the board.
- LG asked why DM is interested in serving on the board.
- DM wants to combine knowledge of history and put it to public
good.
- Teaches history at MSU and has a background in archeology.
Several members of BHBAP and CK took his class.
- DM said CA and MH both encouraged him to apply for the BHPAB.
- JK made a motion to recommend approval of DM’s application to
the board. RB seconded the motion. All in favor.
B. MH discussed speakers and educational opportunities for the BHPAB.
- Asked RO to ask John de Haas to be at HRDC building at 6pm.
- MH asked RB to set up meeting with Bill Grabo for board.
C. MH asked CK about brown highway signs for historic district
designation.
- CK thinks they’ve been approved by Jon Axline. Will confirm.
VII. Planning and Policy Subcommittee:
A. Chair’s report – RB presented.
- CK’s idea to have one big awards ceremony.
- RB mentioned embodied energy and that LEED doesn’t mean
preservation.
- Adaptive reuse incentives.
- List of ideas for commission of projects.
a. MH says we need to focus on sign designation
b. Commisioner Taylor suggested we lobby the
commission a bit. Discussed sign law and registry.
B. CT reminded us it’s important that board does what it cares about
doing. “Understand your passions and desires and adapt to that.”
C. Next meeting is 3/4/10 at 6:30pm at RB’s house.
VIII. Education and Outreach Subcommittee:
A. Chair’s report – JK was updated us on Heritage Trail.
a. Film documentary with Tina Buckingham who made
a teaser to pitch to PBS. Could be a model for all
Montana communities or national towns.
b. Connected with Pioneer Museum and MOR.
c. Walking by or driving map for historic areas of
Bozeman like one from 70s JK showed.
183
d. RO mentioned Bozeman Heritage Trail and county
historic preservation board.
e. JK suggested we have a separate committee to
organize ideas.
f. MH suggested E & O committee to discuss the
Heritage Trail idea at their next meeting and
formalize goals for BHPAB.
g. Next meeting planned for 3/9/10 at 6:30pm at JK’s
house.
IX. Staff Report:
A. CK mentioned need for sign register will come up soon. AB confirmed
that signs are on the commission’s agenda these days. MH asked what
appropriate criteria would be deployed for that.
B. May Graffiti clean up update – Leo Club will not participate due to
liability. As of now no one under city liability policy will be
participating.
C. Professionals seminar at Story Mansion on Saturday at 9am.
D. COA numbers are at 30.
E. MH asked if we could tour depot. Reiterated importance of skilled eye
to be at May clean-up.
X. Meeting was adjourned at 8:27pm.
184
FOR BHPAB members (not to be included with the minutes):
Action Items:
CK check if Jon Axline approved highway signs.
RO reapply to board as a Main Street representative.
AS check vacancies and designations of board on city website. (I did this and
AS could reapply as historic district member which has same expiration as
her at-large position. In fact, I thought I asked Amy to designate me as such
when I reapplied last summer.)
E&O:
- discuss Preservation Days in light of Graffiti issues w/liability
- outline needs for Heritage Trail from BHPAB.
P&P:
- discuss sign strategy for making a registry
- woo commission and prioritize 2010 goals.
185
186