Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB-012313.MinDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 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 Christina Coddington Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Mel Howe Visitors Present Jim Ullman ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2013 Recording Secretary Hastie noted she had gotten the year wrong at the top of the previous minutes. MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Vice Chairperson Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of January 16, 2013 as amended. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Bozeman Gateway Building S SP/COA #Z-12316 (Krueger) 861 South 29th Avenue * A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of a restaurant/retail building with associated parking and related site improvements. Jim Ullman joined the DRB. Mel Howe joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the application was similar to what was reviewed by the DRB during Informal review though changes to the materials and the building itself had been included. He stated Staff was supportive of the original Informal proposal and the site had not been significantly modified. He noted the grading plan for the north side of the building included a six to seven foot elevation drop from the perimeter wall; the assumption being it was a proposed retaining wall with landscaping and was part of the open space area required for the PUD. He noted there was a unique site situation as the retaining wall itself was proposed to spill over into the open space; he noted Staff considered the retaining wall as part of the landscape improvements on the site as long as it was cohesive with the PUD. He noted the Entryway Corridor guidelines were supportable if the wall were tiered, landscaping was incorporated, and natural materials were used per the Design Guidelines and Staff conditions of approval as outlined in the Staff Report. Planner Krueger noted Staff had included a condition to provide more detailed plantings on the site. He noted the primary plantings were installed with construction of buildings while the developer would come back later and include more specialized plantings. He noted the applicant had included materials with the DRB’s packet materials as well as a standard materials palette for Staff review. He stated when tenant improvements were submitted in the future, it would be Staff review and approval and he felt no need to include those provisions. Mr. Ullman stated the applicant was in agreement with the recommended conditions of approval with the exception of the retaining wall provision. He noted it would be a 6’2” high wall and would taper down to 4’1”; there was only eight feet to the edge of the trail and to tier the wall would require a greater encroachment into the open space. He proposed the extension of the wall and integrating it into the building; he suggested materials could be submitted to Staff to be approved with the Final Site Plan submittal. He noted the owner intended to use a nice railing feature along the top of the wall and wanted it to look nice. He noted interesting features and materials would be used for the retaining wall and it would be a better product in the long run while still providing separation from the trail and the swale. He stated it would look strange to tier the wall as it would terminate at an odd spot and suggested decoration and integration of materials would provide a better overall appearance. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the existing wall on the Rosauer’s site had been a tenant improvement or if the developer had installed it. Mr. Ullman responded the grading had been intended to show the landscaping along Fowler Avenue and the grade had not accommodated the view so the grade had been changed and a retaining wall had been included. Vice Chairperson Rea asked for a summary of changes that had been made since the last DRB review. Planner Krueger responded the mechanical area had been more defined with the current application while the exterior of the structure had only minor changes including the tower changes and spandrel glass; this application was better defined than the original. He noted some columns had been shifted as well. Mr. Ullman added that more detailing had been added to the north side and stairs had been included. He noted a balance of integration to the buildings to the north and south had propagated the inclusion of the retaining wall; he added that more ADA accessibility had also been included. He stated a trail had been added on the east side of the site while the stairs were a feature that the property owner liked and stood out. Planner Krueger noted that, if anything, there was more storefront included and more EIFS detailing; the lighting was more detailed and had not really been called out in the Informal submittal. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if there was an opportunity to treat the wall more like the building to include pilaster brick detailing that would carry from the structure to the wall. Planner Krueger responded that had occurred to him as well and was a natural way to approach the design, but it had not been included as a Staff recommendation and there were other options available to the applicant. Mr. Ullman noted that the owner had asked if windows could be included and he had responded that the site was within the 100 year floodplain and windows were not conceivable; he noted the owner wanted to dress up the façade as well and would include detail in the Final Site Plan submittal. Ms. Coddington asked if there was a north elevation drawing showing the retaining wall. Mr. Ullman responded there wasn’t. Ms. Coddington asked for clarification of how the wall would be tiered or terraced. Mr. Ullman responded the top of the wall would be at the same elevation going around the entire building and added that at the worst spot the height would only be eight feet. Ms. Coddington asked what natural stone the applicant had in mind. Mr. Ullman responded they intended to use the rock existing on the site that had been incorporated into the current structures, the bridge, and the other retaining wall. Planner Krueger added that drainage could be handled in alternative ways as well to provide a different approach. Ms. Coddington asked if trees would be incorporated into the area. Mr. Ullman responded that if it was tiered, it would be shrubs instead of trees. Ms. Coddington asked if the difference between the path and the high point of the wall would be two feet. . Mr. Ullman responded it would be a gentle slope of five percent with a difference of ~six feet in height at the highest point. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the grading of the site was preventing the removal of the proposed retaining wall altogether. Planner Krueger responded that in his opinion, there would be significant grading issues if there was not some type of mitigation. Mr. Ullman added that if the grade were raised, they would likely not meet the ADA requirements. Planner Krueger added that the utilities were set at a certain elevation and could become problematic. Mr. Ullman added that Northwestern Energy had already been contacted and would not move their equipment a second time as they had placed the equipment outside their easement originally. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the exterior area at the top of the wall would be sidewalk. Mr. Ullman responded Mr. Hufstetler was correct. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there were any conditions that would indicate how close a building could come to the end of its lot line. Planner Krueger responded there were specific setbacks allowed within the development and in this case allowed for a zero lot line. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the encroachment of the retaining wall would become problematic if it were incorporated into the structure. Planner Krueger responded it would be the due diligence of the property owner and was not likely to become an issue. Mr. Howe asked why the DRB didn’t get to see the proposed color palette. Planner Krueger responded that the applicant had provided an 11X17 of the proposed materials but had not physically brought material examples; he added those materials might change upon Final Site Plan submittal. Mr. Howe noted it was not intended to be a negative comment. He noted Planner Krueger had prepared a good Staff Report and he had no further questions or comments. Vice Chairperson Rea asked the elevation of Main Street; if it was above or below the top of the retaining wall. Mr. Ullman responded it would be roughly one foot below Main Street; only the railing and top portion of the wall would be visible driving down Main Street. Vice Chairperson Rea stated his comments would be regarding his concern with the proposed use of EIFS where he expected to see stone or synthetic stone; he couldn’t imagine EIFS taking place of a dimensional material such as brick or rock. He stated Bank of Bozeman included separate dimensional elements and suggested it be investigated. Mr. Ullman responded that he did not know if the materials for the cornice had been decided upon yet but he thought just the infill panels would be EIFS for highlighting purposes. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he really liked the stairs and he did not really care about the tiered retaining wall issue; he would not mind riding next to it, but he was concerned with maintenance of the area. He stated his biggest concern was with regard to possible graffiti, but it would be the developer’s concern. He stated that overall, he was very pleased with the proposed structure. He noted the north front was the critical façade and he thought it had been proposed nicely. He stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions and liberal interpretation of the requirement for tiers. Ms. Coddington asked if Mr. Ullman was opposed to the retaining wall tiers as outlined in the Staff conditions of approval and if the retaining wall would be the same height the entire length. Mr. Ullman responded he was not opposed to the tier requirement and the wall would not be the same height for its entirety. Ms. Coddington suggested enhancements to the landscaping and open space areas. Mr. Hufstetler stated he agreed with previous DRB comments regarding the proposed structure and added that he thought it would be a cool building. He stated he thought the retaining wall would be problematic because of its visibility and the contrast of materials being used on the surrounding structures. He noted he thought the building would stand out due to great horizontal and vertical lines but thought the asymmetrical wall would conflict especially given that the materials have not been finally determined. He suggested incorporation of the wall into the architecture of the structure and noted he felt very strongly about the subject. He suggested texture could be added that was reflective of the building itself and suggested angled beams be incorporated to make the building more monumental. Chairperson Pentecost stated he had no problem with the wall and he thought it could be vertical and did not have to be covered in stone; he suggested a hand railing system could be integrated with textured concrete like the anchorage for the building that it would be. He noted that the scale would not be inappropriate for an awesome wall in that location; he looked at it as a design opportunity to accentuate and integrate the railing. Mr. Ullman clarified that the railing could be included on the front of the wall and wrapped up to the top of the wall. Mr. Pentecost responded that he would include texture, but he would not want anything fake; he suggested letting it be a foundation as that was its intended purpose. He stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Rea that there could be a graffiti issue, but it was the developer’s responsibility. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he disagreed with Chairperson Pentecost regarding the retaining wall being raw concrete and that, given the nature of the development, the design and materials should be investigated. He stated that if it was thought of more as a raised planter instead of a raised terrace, the maintenance issues would be less and would help hide the rest. Chairperson Pentecost stated the down side to his concrete suggestion was that stone with lots of texture might have less intrigue for those looking to do graffiti. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Rea moved to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Bozeman Gateway Building S SP/COA #Z-12316 with Staff contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Hufstetler suggested he would prefer to see Staff condition of approval #1 modified. The motion died without a second. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Rea moved, Ms. Coddington seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Bozeman Gateway Building S SP/COA #Z-12316 with Staff contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report and the modification of condition of approval #1 to include the language “the retaining wall proposed at the north side of the building shall be tiered to provide a minimum offset of 18 inches, be constructed of materials to convey a scale, texture, and rhythm similar to that of the building’s architecture”. Planner Krueger suggested the intention of the language to provide leeway other than the fact that if they didn’t want to provide a tier to the retaining wall. Mr. Ullman responded that he would prefer the language not include the requirement to tier the proposed wall. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he was concerned that the motion was too specific. Mr. Hufstetler and Ms. Coddington suggested the removal of the word “tier” from the suggested amendment to condition of approval #1. AMENDED MOTION: Vice Chairperson Rea moved, Ms. Coddington seconded, to to forward to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Bozeman Gateway Building S SP/COA #Z-12316 with Staff contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report and the modification of condition of approval #1 to include the language “retaining wall proposed at the north side of the building shall be constructed of materials to convey a scale, texture, and rhythm similar to that of the building’s architecture”. The motion carried 5-0. 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.} Chairperson Rea suggested that he thought the DRB had made a mistake with regard to the orientation of the gas pumps at Town Pump #7 on North 19th Avenue. Mr. Hufstetler agreed and noted that a change in fenestration to the rear façade had been merited, but had not been completed with the construction of the building. Planner Krueger responded that Staff had tried to push the applicant for better treatment of the rear façade, though it had been difficult due to the location of mechanical equipment and the appearance of a storefront; the Director had made the decision that enough fenestration had been included, but the project had not met the thresholds of formal DRB review. Chairperson Pentecost responded he had anticipated transparency in certain areas of the facades and it had never come to pass. Planner Krueger responded another Town Pump was being reviewed at Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane and earlier issues were being considered. He added that it begged the question as to whether or not spandrel store front would have been best. Vice Chairperson Rea noted it also begged the questions as to whether or not the gas pumps should face 19th Avenue. Planner Krueger responded a pedestrian entrance with lights penetrating through the building would have helped the situation. Mr. Hufstetler added that he did not recall the gas canopy looking as awful as it turned out as it didn’t match the building. Chairperson Pentecost suggested the building should have been designed to complement the corner. Vice Chairperson Rea suggested the site could be used as a good example of why presentation to the street was important. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board