Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB-021313.MinDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 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 Mel Howe Steve Worthington, Interim Community Dev. Dir. Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Mark Hufstetler Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Cristina Coddington Lori Garden Scott Bechtle Visitors Present Cyndy Andrus Brit Fontenot Laura Dornberger Cory Lawrence Brian Brothers Kyle Dornberger ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2013 MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of January 23, 2013 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Armory Hotel INF #I-13003 (Krueger) 24 West Mendenhall Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the adaptive re-use of the existing structure for an 84 room, seven story hotel that includes a conference area, restaurants, and on premise consumption of alcohol with related site improvements. Laura Dornberger, Cory Lawrence, Brian Brothers, Kyle Dornberger, and Assistant Planner Courtney Kramer joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff memo noting the location of the property was half a block of Main Street and was not located within the Main Street Historic District though it was located within the Central Business District B-3 zoning district. He noted the proposal was for five floors of hotel use with 84 rooms and associated uses. He noted a review process had been identified and been viewed from a straight forward site planning process and zoning analysis which had been provided to the applicant. He noted it would be straightforward as there would be less parking, less street accesses, no wetlands, etc. the site was very clean while the foot print and impact on adjacent properties would be fairly minimal. He noted Staff had identified and outlined the necessary deviations that would be required to approve the project; one significant deviation was to the maximum height proposed to be 70 feet. Planner Kramer noted the distinction between a Deviation and a Variance request was that the Variance request included the necessity for the applicant to prove a hardship of some nature. Planner Krueger noted that Planner Kramer had provided much of the specific analysis of the review criteria and reiterated the distinction between a Deviation and Variance request. Planner Krueger noted that there were covered entrances that were more urban in design being proposed at primary entrances that would also act as the valet system that would be used to provide for the offsite parking. Scott Bechtle joined the DRB. Planner Krueger noted the encroachments of the proposed awnings into the public right of way would be addressed with the property owner. He noted one concern that was fairly minor was the historic lighting fixtures that were not full cutoff and would be called out as a Deviation during the formal review process. He noted that even if the applicant had not asked for any deviations, the same review criteria would be used just looked at more closely. He noted the bulk of the analysis were the base Certificate of Appropriateness criteria while the remainder were the criteria for review of the Deviation requests. He noted Staff had not yet responded to the review criteria in their entirety as it was often the case that the information necessary for those responses was not included in the Informal Review submittal requirements. Planner Krueger stated his intention was not to go through each criterion separately and would address specific criteria as necessary and asked Planner Kramer for her comments. Planner Kramer responded that she would normally look to the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation, but this structure was of the Art Deco style; she had used the Secretary of State Standards for Historic Rehabilitation instead and had included those comments in her recommendation. She noted that the massing of the historic structure would be significantly changed and noted her concern was how the changes would fit into historic rehabilitation standards. Planner Kramer noted that although it would be hugely expensive and unlikely, it would be possible to restore the structure to its original historic condition after the proposed project had been constructed. She noted she would be happy to answer questions or provide more information. Planner Krueger noted that the context of the building was in question with the adaptive re-use of a historic structure; he added it was fairly easy to look at old and new construction but it was difficult to combine those parts and to present the context to the City Commission for consideration. He noted there were tools that could be used to help review bodies to analyze the project; 3-D models could be utilized and Staff was suggesting use of some of those tools with their formal application. He stated that height and context with regard to impact on the streetscape could be told in different forms; it might not be seen from half a block away as the streets had different grades and elevations, but will be seen from many aspects. He stated there had been some thought put into the exhibit and the inclusion of the Baxter Hotel was accurate as it showed the grade change; he suggested a view from north of the Courthouse from the City parking garage back to the Baxter Hotel to provide context. He stated it could be as simple as posting four balloons on the corner of the building and it would give the community a good grasp of the context. Mr. Dornberger added that they would be more than happy to provide perspectives from specific vantage points around the City. Mr. Lawrence stated he had owned a company called Off The Beaten Path for the past ten years and had brought many people into the Bozeman area. He stated he had noticed a disparity in the options for lodging in town so people were unable to connect to the Bozeman area. He stated that Bozeman had been one of the worst lodging disparities; he added he did not want to build one of those franchise hotels. He noted it had been difficult to find a site with a connector point with the community; even though he knew little of the Armory, he was interested in the building due to the corner stone and that he noted the substantial spans of the existing structure could be used. He noted the original architect was Fred Willson, which had added more intrigue to the building; he added the building had history and integrity which inspired them to come to the conclusion that they could salvage the structure and in fact, because of his doing, they had to keep it to embrace its history. He stated they wanted to deliver an experience and something the community would be proud of as a beautiful community space though it would not be without its challenges. He stated they owned it and they had a design thought they felt would work. He stated the real driving force was that Bozeman needed a better reflection of Bozeman within the heart of the City. He asserted his team had a tremendous level of focus to pull the project off. Mr. Brothers stated this project had the best concept and business plan involved to be successful which was why he was involved; he added he thought it would be a great asset to Bozeman. Mr. Dornberger stated he had gotten involved and it had been proven that it would be a feasible project. He stated it seemed like the required 25 foot setback with recessed balconies were historically appropriate and natural characteristics that could be utilized. He noted to provide the proposed hotel rooms, the gymnasium/ballroom roof would need to be modified and only one floor of the original armory would need to be penetrated. He noted they had kept reworking the proposal until their hotel affiliate was agreeable to the design which had resulted in the current proposal; they had tried to emulate the Art Deco, Fred Willson style. He noted the uses of new materials were included in Art Deco which would need to be interpreted. Mr. Lawrence added there was and still is a lot of focus on the Fred Willson style and they had used the analogy “What would Fred Willson do?” Ms. Dornberger stated she concurred with previous applicant comments and added they would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Howe stated he had no questions. Ms. Garden stated she found the project very exciting and she was glad to open the binder; she noted she had no questions but did have comments. Vice Chairperson Rea asked the height of the top of the Baxter Hotel sign. Mr. Lawrence responded it was 109’ or 110’ feet to the top of the sign. Vice Chairperson Rea asked why the applicant had not requested a height of 112’. Mr. Lawrence responded that the affiliate had indicated they would be impaired with regard to proportionality another floor would get them to the required amount. Vice Chairperson Rea asked the ideal number of floors if height were not an issue. Mr. Lawrence responded that, not speaking to the space, but to the proportionality would be ideal at 10 floors so the meeting/conference areas were proportionate to the number of rooms. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the windows would be replaced. Mr. Lawrence responded the proposal was to provide new windows for efficiency and the lead content of the old windows. Mr. Bechtle added there was lead based paint in the windows and the glazing compound and asbestos had been included in the roofing; the consultant had indicated the windows were not in a state that could be renovated without significant expense. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if Condoleeza Rice came to town if she would stay there. Mr. Lawrence responded she wouldn’t stay anywhere else. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the parking to the west would be part of the project or would continue to be owned by the City. Planner Krueger clarified that the parking lot was owned by the City, but he thought the Downtown Bozeman Partnership was reviewing the parking lots downtown to update them and it would not be constructed as part of the project but was showing how efficiently the lot could be used. Mr. Lawrence stated the parking lot had been included to show that the number of spaces could be maintained and to create a landscape buffer on the west side to clean it up and beautify it. Mr. Hufstetler clarified that the original footprint was being maintained almost exactly. Mr. Dornberger responded that there would be removal of the tower and inclusion of a stairway, but the primary building footprint would be maintained. Mr. Hufstetler asked for a rough idea in terms of a volume of the building’s interior compared to the Baxter Hotel’s volume. Mr. Lawrence responded that he thought it was pretty comparable, but he was not sure; the number of floors would be the same. Planner Krueger responded the depth of the building would be greater than the Baxter Hotel. Mr. Hufstetler asked what materials would be used and asked if there would be a lot of structural steel. Mr. Dornberger responded they had not decided on materials, but were intending to incorporate the structural steel into the pallet on the south elevation. Mr. Lawrence added they had kicked around the materials of the existing building and how to maintain the look while giving the structure a longer life; he noted there were a lot of samples being reviewed. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant intended to do any studies with regard to emission of light during the hours of darkness and shadows cast by the structure during the winter. Mr. Dornberger responded they were already doing the shadow studies for the north side of the building and would later use a 3D model to develop a lighting plan with calculations and modeling to show the light output. Mr. Bechtle asked the approach the applicant was taking with regard to the Parking Commission and the number of parking spaces. Mr. Lawrence responded that the parking requirements would be located within the Bridger Park Garage via long term lease; there was additional work necessary to clear the agreement through the Federal Transportation Administration. He noted their terms were not different than any of the existing rules and pricing models; the designation of a loading zone in front of the structure was being reviewed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Bechtle asked if the bus stop would still be located on the opposite side of the street or on the south side with the hotel. Mr. Lawrence responded the FTA had indicated they would prefer to see the bus stop remain located on the north side of the street. Mr. Bechtle asked if they were seeking any type of LEED certification. Mr. Dornberger responded they would take every aspect of the LEED and historic standards if they fit, but they were not seeking specific certification. Mr. Lawrence added they were considering all the conservation options available to them. Ms. Dornberger added that efficient lighting was also being considered. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the structure of the existing armory would hold ten floors, which would be three additional from the seven proposed. Mr. Lawrence responded it would hold an additional three floors but occupancy would become a question with regard to the increase in inventory. He noted it was difficult for the best hotels to consider a property with less than a hundred rooms though Bozeman did pretty well. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the 7th floor would be open to the public. Mr. Lawrence responded that if the 7th floor was a restaurant, it would be open to the public per the current design though they were considering a modification. Mr. Bechtle asked if the ratio of people to rooms was showing the need for more stories would the applicant bring back the additional three stories. Mr. Lawrence responded it would take them to ten stories with the top one being the restaurant to achieve parity. Mr. Bechtle asked if the applicant had discussed the competition between existing restaurants when placing their project downtown with the Downtown Business Association. Mr. Lawrence responded they had been in discussions and there had been some property owners they had been unable to connect with though most thought it would be a good inclusion in the downtown area. Mr. Bechtle suggested he was not opposed to the additional height especially if the entity interested was intending more rooms. He stated if Fred Willson was here he would not use the character of the Armory as a hospitality hotel though he would not suggest being stark in their approach. He suggested the applicant consider how the building would fit with the context of the buildings around it; it was a high rise and not anything else. He stated parking was always an issue downtown and there was always a fear that it was taking away from downtown instead of adding to it. He stated he thought it was a great project heading in a great direction once the battles of constructing a downtown building were completed. Mr. Hufstetler stated he had comments in two different areas. He stated he was really excited about what the applicant intended and he thought the current proposal was higher quality and had a better chance of succeeding than the others he had seen. He stated he as a little befuddled by the memo from City Staff with regard to the historic preservation of the building as the building would no longer be eligible for registration on the National Register of Historic Places; the Secretary of Interior standards were not necessarily applicable to the project and he suggested the paragraph regarding the differentiation from old to new should be thrown out. He suggested Art Deco standards be applied to the new building as separation would be evident due to the setback. He suggested masonry in the primary element of the building as it would be visible in a lot of areas of town in the context of the towns historic district; he suggested his only concern was the project being a visual distraction to the historic district and suggested a powerful Art Deco character without being distracting. He suggested the windows would play an integral factor in the facades. Planner Kramer asked what type of masonry Mr. Hufstetler was suggesting. Mr. Hufstetler suggested something that would not glow in the dark after sunset and the material used for the Courthouse would be appropriate; he added the proposed vertical elements of the tower were appropriate. He suggested areas where glass block had been originally should be maintained and encouraged them to keep the secondary bar entrance opening subtle so it would not detract from the primary entrance. He stated he was okay with the proposed building height and would be concerned with additional height; the detailing of the tower would be important. He noted it would be important to do a shadow study for the site. He stated he thought the applicant had done a good job of identifying the historic qualities of the building that would need to be preserved and they had an understanding of the key elements needing preserved; he noted that, honestly, it was not Fred Willson’s best designed building and Art Deco was not really indigenous architecture. Mr. Lawrence responded that because of Mr. Willson, largely the architecture had become indigenous. Ms. Coddington stated there were a lot of positive things about the project including the economic benefits. She noted the City encourage bringing hotels downtown by creating jobs and bringing visitors to downtown. She stated she liked the valet solution to the parking issues and bringing visitors welcomed them to the heart of Bozeman. She stated preserving the history of Bozeman leant itself to their City. She stated she appreciated the applicant’s effort to complete the studies and encouraged them to encourage the results in their formal submittal. She stated she had no real problem with the proposed height, but she would like to see 3D models included for a perspective point of view. She encouraged the applicant to pursue conservation efforts and LEED accreditation where possible as it would set an example. She thought the project would be a good addition to the downtown nightlife. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he was one of the people dumb enough to try the balloon measurement and it had not worked due to wind currents. He stated his only problem with the building height was that it was not proposed tall enough for the downtown area. He suggested at every opportunity density and heights should be increased. He noted the Baxter Hotel had been demarcated as the maximum height that should not be built above and suggested he would be fine with a taller structure. He stated the site in particular would cast a solar shadow that would be minimal due to the setback of the structure; it was really only a short period of time in the winter that it was an issue and it would be dark anyway. He urged the City Commission to support greater height. He stated he was supportive of the proposed awnings and canopies and noted he was pro dark sky though he was supportive of the historic lighting as proposed as the bulbs could be modified. He encouraged them to redo the sign rendering as it appeared to be backlit, boxed when it wasn’t proposed as such; he encouraged backlit neon. He stated his greatest nightmare would be like the Bon Ton Mill Building that included an EIFS covering and suggested that, in his opinion, the application of EIFS had destroyed that structure. He stated he had no problem with the building not being included on the National Register of Historic places rather than lose the building entirely. He stated he saw no reason to save the bowstring arch roof and suggested he would rather see an elegant silhouette. He stated he was concerned about the 7th floor and the west exposure to the sun; he suggested reversing the layout of the restaurant and upper level rooms. He encouraged the applicant to be subtle and not louder than the original Art Deco design of the building; even Miami Beach Art Deco was stripped down aside from the colors used and he did not think they had to do to much more. He stated he loved the project and was happy the applicant was doing it; he noted it was the 4th or 5th time they’d reviewed a project for the site and he was fully supportive of the proposal as presented. Ms. Garden stated she was supportive of the proposal and the proposed height and noted she was from Florida and liked the Art Deco design. She asked if there would be a separate elevator that would serve the restaurant. Mr. Lawrence responded there would be two elevators, one on each side. Ms. Garden asked if having only two elevators would be a problem. Mr. Lawrence responded it would not. Ms. Garden suggested a bronze glass could be incorporated into the historic lights if it was possible. Mr. Howe commended the applicants on doing a first rate job on their submittal. He stated the height at seven or ten floors would not bother him. He stated the windows on the first floor should be maintained to keep the image of the original design. He stated he thought it was a nice idea to think about what Fred Willson would do and they had expanded on what Fred had intended. He said he was excited to see so they should get going. Chairperson Pentecost stated a lot of subjects had been covered and he agreed with Mr. Bechtle and Vice Chairperson Rea’s opinion with regard to the additional height and encouraged the applicant to go with 10 stories if their affiliates wanted it; he would support the request and thought Bozeman should not have a glass roof on the height issue. He stated the hotel would become a place that was special and suggested closing off the 7th floor would turn its back on Bozeman and the patrons of the hotel; he suggested public space be included on the 7th floor and suggested the restaurant be included as a critical and key element that he would hate to see removed. He stated he appreciated that the applicant had included a ballroom as Bozeman was short of larger gathering spaces. He stated he was uncertain he agreed with previous comments regarding the materials; he suggested there were exciting new and more durable materials that could be included if it was done respectfully. He stated he was not as concerned with the dark sky issue with regard to the proposed lighting. He noted the Kenyon Noble building was one block away and was also a Fred Willson building. Mr. Hufstetler stated he was ambivalent about the roof although he would be able to see it from Pete’s Hill and he thought an interesting roof treatment could be included that would be visual from the street. He noted he was not tied to the barrel roof, but the building was not designed to be a monumental space. He stated he agreed with the notion that limestone did not need to be included on the tower, but needed to be respectful to adjacent buildings. He noted too much more height would leave a view of the Baxter Hotel sign from the rooms and it may be difficult to get turned off. Ms. Coddington added that she thought it would be a good opportunity to anchor the corner to the downtown area. She noted it was sort of disappointing that the dorms were the tallest buildings in the City. She stated she agreed with Mr. Hufstetler regarding separation of the new construction from the old. She added that if the applicant used the site studies and successful areas of context, it would help them. Vice Chairperson Rea stated that just visually, it seemed the building should be taller. He stated the one best spot for a tall building was the parking lot next to the site while the site itself was the next best spot. He suggested limiting the material palette but using a quality material; that combined with articulation of the surfaces would be the answer. He suggested being careful with the dark sky requirements. Chairperson Pentecost called for public comment. Cyndy Andrus thanked the DRB for their efforts and their thoughtful comments with regard to the proposal. She stated it was great to see the citizens involved and expressed her gratitude. No further public comment was forthcoming. 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.} No public comment was forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board