Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-11 Design Review Board Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 2011 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost 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 Randy Wall Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Bill Rea Tim McHarg, Planning Director Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Walter Banziger Mark Hufstetler Carson Taylor, Commission Liaison Visitors Present Jesse Sobrepena Marsha Paulson Kevin Dineen Bruce Davidsun Dee Field ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Vice Chairperson Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of November 10, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2011 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Rea moved, Mr. Wall seconded, to approve the minutes of February 23, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Kagy Crossroads/Bioscience Lab Mods to FSP #Z-06206A (Thorpe) th 1765 South 19 Avenue * A request to modify an approved Final Site Plan to allow a second story addition to a previously approved building design and related site improvements. Jesse Sobrepena, Marsh Paulson, Kevin Dineen, and Bruce Davidsun joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe presented the Staff Memo noting the DRB had reviewed the original in 2006 and had approved the project. She stated Staff thought it prudent to bring back before the 14 Page of Design Review Board Minutes – March 23, 2011 Board for their advice and comment. She stated the proposal was a requested modification and would not go through full site plan review. She stated she had noted a couple of items in the Staff Memo for the DRB to discuss if they would like to be involved. She asked if the roof form should be modified if issues with mechanical equipment arose and whether or not the proposed detailing would be appropriate. She clarified that Staff felt the proposal met the guidelines. Mark Hufstetler joined the DRB. Mr. Sobrepena stated he did not have much to add unless the Board had questions. He stated the applicant was attempting to respond to what existed in the area and to complete the project. She stated one owner had expressed concerns regarding the proposed second story. Mr. Davidsun directed the DRB to a rendering of the elevations proposed for the structure; he added the mechanical space would be hidden in the attic and both the intake and exhaust grills would be painted to match the trim and roof colors to help conceal the equipment behind the hipped roof. He stated they were attempting to maintain a 5:12 roof pitch. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Vice Chairperson Rea asked how the new second floor would impact the landscaping points. Planner Thorpe responded the second story would not increase the landscaping required for the site. He stated the Design Objectives Plan had specific language regarding the percentage of EIFS or stucco to be used on the structure and asked if Planner Thorpe had investigated the proposed amount. Planner Thorpe responded she had asked the applicant to provide those calculations. Mr. Sobrepena responded the administrative building would be roughly half EIFS. Planner Thorpe added the requirement had been pertinent to PUD’s in the Entryway Overlay District. Vice Chairperson Rea suggested Staff investigate the DOP so that it met the City established guidelines. He stated the massing perspectives had not included windows and asked what the circular aperture proposed would be. Mr. Sobrepena responded it had been included a space for a clock or something similar, but would likely be the location of the signage. Mr. Wall asked if on the south elevation there would be three signs as depicted. Mr. Sobrepena responded it was yet to be determined, but there would be signage on the parking lot side though he didn’t think there would be signage on the south side. Planner Thorpe responded there was already a Comprehensive Signage Plan which the applicant is required to update for the site and the proposed signage would be covered by the Certificate Of Appropriateness process required with sign permits. Mr. Wall asked how far from Stockman Bank the property line was located. Ms. Paulson responded she thought there was roughly 100 feet separation. Mr. Wall asked the reason for the elimination of the wainscot on one elevation. Mr. Sobrepena responded the owner did not think the cost of putting brick in that location was feasible as the elevation would not be seen. Mr. Wall stated he did not see a landscape plan or topography on the site plan. Mr. Sobrepena responded Staff had required the submission of a landscape plan at a future date. Mr. Wall asked if the building to the north had a 5:12 roof pitch. Mr. Davidsun responded the existing building did have a 4:12 roof pitch that included saddle bags. 24 Page of Design Review Board Minutes – March 23, 2011 Mr. Hufstetler stated there were two different brick patterns delineated on the rendering and asked for clarification. Mr. Davidsun responded the brick pattern was all the same, it just looked different in the rendering. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the medallions around the window would match the existing structures. Mr. Davidsun responded they would match the existing. Mr. Banziger asked if the existing building had brick facing the parking lot. Planner Thorpe responded the brick had been included all the way around the structures. Vice Chairperson Rea stated the section of the Design Objectives Plan allowed stucco as an acceptable material and he had earlier been thinking of the requirements for a PUD. He stated he would prefer to see more brick and less stucco or EIFS due to the large mass of the structure. He th stated he thought the structure would be appropriate for 19 Avenue as far as the massing was concerned. He stated he would like to review the proposal again if issues came up with the mechanical equipment that would require something other than what was proposed. He encouraged Staff to review the landscape proposal and to discourage the use of boulders and encourage the use of a diversity of species. Ms. Paulson responded she had already been speaking with Cashman Nursery. Mr. Wall stated he really liked the Bozeman Broker building and the development as a whole. He stated his concerns were with the proposed brick and roof pitches. He stated he mostly concurred with Vice Chairperson Rea regarding the appropriateness of the proposed structure in th the 19 Avenue corridor. He stated he was less concerned with the roof than with the brick; he thought the brick was well established throughout the development and it would look like something was missing if it were not included on all the buildings. He stated if there was a significant or substantial change to the roof form he would like the DRB to review those changes. Mr. Hufstetler stated he would largely echo Vice Chairperson Rea’s earlier statements. He stated he thought the two story building would add a nice variation to the streetscape but was concerned with the expanse of artificial stucco on the building. He stated the combination of the roof form with the stucco made the structure seem utilitarian and institutional; he suggested the most detail and attention should be paid to the two story structure as it would become the anchor of the site. He suggested increasing the area of brick and had thought the clock concept would be cool. He stated he was less concerned with the secondary elevation including brick but was very concerned that the primary elevations had too little brick. Ms. Paulson responded the architects had also wanted more brick on the facades. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding the institution of more brick on the proposed structure. He stated he felt the massing of the structure would be appropriate for the site. He stated he would like the DRB to review the proposal if the roof form was altered due to mechanical equipment issues. He stated he agreed with Staff that the brick detailing should be maintained and should be carried consistently throughout the development and carried around the entire structure. 34 Page of Design Review Board Minutes – March 23, 2011 Chairperson Pentecost stated he would pretty much echo previous DRC comments; he thought the massing would be appropriate and that there should be more brick included in the proposal. He suggested lap siding could be used to break up the massing and would be less expensive than the brick. Mr. Sobrepena responded he would hate to see lap siding included in the proposal when the rest of the site did not contain that feature. Chairperson Pentecost stated that in the absence of brick, another material could be investigated. Ms. Paulson suggested an alternative to the Dryvit could be investigated. Chairperson Pentecost stated he thought the brick on the south elevation of the administrative building would still be important and would unify the design of the building. He stated he thought the project would be great and it would be good to see something built in that location. Chairperson Pentecost called for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. ITEM 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to re-nominate Chairperson Pentecost as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson Rea as Vice Chairperson. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 6. 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 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board 44 Page of Design Review Board Minutes – March 23, 2011