Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-10 Design Review Board Minutes 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 nd Mr. Wall stated on page 4, bottom paragraph, the 2 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. th Mr. Rea stated on page 6 in the 4 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, The motion carried 5-0. 2010 as amended. 1 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 2 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. 3 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 4 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. 5 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 The that all recommended conditions for the proposal be shown on the Final Site Plan submittal. 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. 6 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 7 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. 8 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 th would no longer be pertinent. He stated the proposal was within the North 19 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 9 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 th 19 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. 10 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 11 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 12 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. 13 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 The motion carried 5-0 of the DRB. . 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 14 Design Review Board Minutes – February 24, 2010