Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB-011613.MinDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2013 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:37 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 Lori Garden Steve Worthington, Interim Director Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Keri Thorpe, Planner Scott Bechtle Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Mel Howe Mark Hufstetler Visitors Present Chris Budeski Nathan Heller Dan Burgess Chairperson Pentecost introduced Interim Community Development Director Steve Worthington. Chairperson Pentecost noted the minutes would be handled after project review. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Saddle View Apartments SP/COA #Z-12291 (Thorpe) 700 Haggerty Lane * A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of nine 8-plex apartment buildings with 3 storage buildings and 1 exercise/office building on a site previously developed with improvements for the construction of 6 additional 15-plex condominium buildings. Two 15-plex condominium buildings have already been constructed. (Opened and continued from 12/12/12.) Chris Budeski, Dean Burgess, and Mr. Heller joined the DRB. Planner Keri Thorpe presented the revised drawings. Mr. Howe joined the DRB. Mr. Budeski stated there were a couple of things that had changed; the storage buildings had been removed and replaced with a large open space with an open recreational area and the 14 foot retaining wall had been reduced to four feet in height. He stated picnic tables had been included and could be moved anywhere around the area. He noted a two tiered retaining wall had also been included to break up the massing of the building. He noted all the grading worked and everything drained nicely and added the buildings would be sprinkled so fire suppression had been addressed. He noted a pedestrian connection had been included to the bus stop across the street. Mr. Burgess stated more detailing had been added to the facades and they had spoken with the owner as far as the three story elevator service. He noted the entry had been opened up to provide a family friendly appearance. Mr. Hufstetler joined the DRB. Ms. Garden asked if all the buildings would be the same color. Mr. Burgess responded they would all be the same color. Ms. Garden asked if the proposed stone would be included on the old structures or just the new ones. Mr. Budeski responded the stone would only be incorporated on the new structures. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the office was included with the open space area. Mr. Budeski responded the open space area was near the proposed office use. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the storage buildings had an open air walk through area with an opening on the northeast elevation facing the freeway. Mr. Budeski responded Vice Chairperson Rea was correct and they had included an open air walk way. Mr. Bechtle asked if the four foot wall space would be usable. Mr. Budeski responded it would be a step up and would be usable. Mr. Bechtle asked how large the space would be. Mr. Budeski responded it would be roughly fifteen feet of space with a four foot increase in elevation and it would include picnic tables; he added he thought it would be a nice view. Mr. Bechtel apologized if he had offended Mr. Budeski. Mr. Budeski responded that he was not offended and the four foot retaining wall height was intended to break up the massing of the larger retaining wall. Planner Thorpe added that the design guidelines also dictated the design of the retaining wall. Mr. Heller noted all the doors for the storage units were now proposed internally and the buildings had the appearance of all the other proposed structures. The applicant presented a rendering of the views from I-90. Ms. Garden stated she had noticed the bathrooms have no windows and there was an opportunity for one of them to include a window so that the windows were spaced better; she thought the windows were a little small and could be spaced better to allow the bathroom to have a window. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the applicant wanted to discuss the materials being proposed. Mr. Burgess responded that the materials were the same as those used for the buildings that were already constructed and maintained the same palette with the exception of the inclusion of stone on the new structures. Mr. Bechtle stated he thought the building orientation as currently proposed was very smart and added that it was helpful to see some landscape screening. Mr. Heller responded that the owner intended to landscape the site as it was a function of what he does for a living. Mr. Bechtle stated he understood the park area would have landscaping and both locations seemed better than the landscaping originally being proposed for one end of the site. Mr. Hufstetler thanked the applicants for taking the time to address the Board’s comments from the last meeting. He stated he would encourage a reduction in the symmetry that would be heavily evident with no visual distinction from one building to the next. He stated he thought the open space changes were positive though he was still disappointed in the southeast corner of the site. He stated there might be a wind tunnel affect with the walkway corridors being oriented as proposed. Mr. Budeski responded the design had been intentional to keep the pathways clean. Mr. Hufstetler stated he thought people from the highway would only see and notice the roof truss elements that would create a moment of impression that was not present before. He noted he thought the appeal from the highway had been helped with the current proposal. Chairperson Pentecost stated he commended the applicant’s for doing basically no form changes while still articulating the facades with the use of color and materials. He stated he agreed with Mr. Hufstetler that from the interstate the people would see more life and have a sense that it was a big multi-family housing development. He asked if the proposed metal would be Corten. Mr. Budeski responded Chairperson Pentecost was correct. Mr. Howe stated he thought the current proposal was great and asked if the units had been investigated for affordable housing requirements. Mr. Burgess responded the owner would likely look at the existing structures to be used for affordable housing while the new units would be more expensive. Mr. Budeski responded the Dab Dabney was already constructing affordable housing units across the street. Mr. Bechtle asked if the development would be constructed in phases. Mr. Budeski responded there was a phasing plan and they had discussed the option with Staff. Mr. Bechtle clarified that a storage unit building would be built with each phase. Mr. Budeski responded there would be a storage unit building constructed in phases 1 and 2. Vice Chairperson Rea suggested exploring the color palette with regard to the Hardiplank proposed for the structures as it would help to visually break up the site; he suggested a liberal interpretation of the color guidelines. MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Vice Chairperson Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Saddle View Apartments SP/COA #Z-12291 with Staff conditions of approval as outlined in the Staff Report. Chairperson Pentecost stated he concurred with Vice Chairperson Rea regarding the proposed color palette. Mr. Bechtle stated he thought that the applicant being open to a special meeting really helped the review process and it was a win/win situation instead of pushing the project. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Howe abstaining. ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 Vice Chairperson Rea stated that on page 5, just before the motion, there was an incomplete sentence. MOTION: Mr. Bechtle moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to approve the minutes of December 12, 2012 as amended. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Howe abstaining. ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There were no items forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board