Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB-031313.MinDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 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 Doug Riley, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Sally Thomas, Administrative Assistant II Cristina Coddington Lori Garden Walter Banziger Visitors Present Jim Ullman ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of February, 2013 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. 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. REVISED FLOOR PLAN TO ALLOW 10,000 SQ. FT. 2ND STORY. Jim Ullman joined the DRB. Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff memo on behalf of Planner Brian Krueger noting that the application had been previously reviewed by the DRB and that Staff was supportive of the proposal with the conditions of approval as outlined in the Staff memo. He added the original conditions of approval remained applicable to the modified proposal. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Mr. Ullman responded that the conditions of approval had remained constant from the original submittal and noted that the building footprint had not been modified but a second story had been included. He stated they were amenable to the conditions as outlined by Staff. Ms. Garden asked what types of uses were being proposed for the site. Mr. Ullman responded the tenants were not known, but reciprocal parking was already in place to include future retail while currently the units were designated as office use. Ms. Garden asked if the second floor had been designed (3D renderings). Mr. Ullman responded it had not yet been designed and they did not have renderings. Ms. Coddington asked for clarification of the zoning the property was located within. Mr. Ullman responded that it was B-2 but also within the initial PUD, there had been residential components, but the possibility was not currently feasible and the development was commercially oriented. Ms. Coddington asked if the residential aspect of the development had been dismissed due to the market, or the economy. Mr. Ullman responded that residential development was not as marketable and was more expensive. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the color and materials palette would be consistent with the original proposal. Mr. Ullman responded it would be consistent. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there would be a decorative cornice feature included. Mr. Ullman responded there would be a cornice feature included. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant had a plan for energy efficient features or LEED certification of any kind. Mr. Ullman responded there were not currently any plans to integrate energy efficiency or LEED certification at this time. Mr. Howe asked for clarification of the steel cylinder proposed. Mr. Ullman responded the feature would be integrated into the interior of the building and was originally a suggestion of the DRB. Mr. Howe stated he liked the “touch” of the proposed materials and colors. Mr. Banziger stated he had not been present for the previous reviews of the proposal and noted he saw nothing that caused him concern with the current proposal. He noted he supported Planner Krueger’s comments and Staff’s recommendations and conditions of approval. Ms. Garden asked what a particular feature on the renderings was depicting. Chairperson Pentecost responded it was a recessed feature on the façade depicted with a light gray color. Ms. Garden asked for clarification of the proposed lighting. Mr. Ullman responded most of the lighting would be backlit. Ms. Garden asked if the colors and materials had been decided upon. Mr. Ullman responded the color and materials had been decided upon and noted which locations would be completed with which materials. He added one section would be spandrel glass, but the rest would be see-through. Ms. Garden responded she thought it looked great. Ms. Coddington asked for confirmation of the spandrel glass location. Mr. Ullman directed Ms. Coddington to the shaded area on the proposed elevations. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there were any updates on the retaining wall design as suggested at the last meeting. Mr. Ullman responded they did not currently have a new design, but the suggestions made by the DRB had been taken to heart to make the wall interesting and coherent. Mr. Hufstetler stated he felt good about adding the extra capacity to the site in addition to the urban feeling the structure would provide. He stated he thought the current design was weaker with the proposed second story design as it was not as urban contemporary as it was before. He noted the impact of the site had been diminished; the architecture of the second story would contrast with the elements of the first floor and original design. He encouraged Mr. Ullman to make the second story more daring. Chairperson Pentecost stated Mr. Hufstetler had indicated the same sense with regard to comments on the current proposal. He stated it seemed like a shortcut had been taken with regard to the architecture on the proposed second story of the structure. He stated he felt the design and energy put into the lower level had not yet been carried through to the proposed upper level; it had lost some of its dynamic. Mr. Ullman responded they were still tweaking the design of the upper floor. He stated the basis of the architecture was still present and he was supportive of the glazing and spandrel glass applications. Ms. Garden added that the main floor east elevation as proposed was beautiful and suggested the second floor could be better integrated into the design. She added she loved the west elevation and the proposed garage doors. Ms. Coddington stated she agreed with Ms. Garden regarding the proposed garage doors and better integration of the second floor. MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Hufstetler seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Bozeman Gateway Building S SP/COA #Z-12316 with Staff conditions as outlined in the Staff report. The motion carried 6-0. 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.} No public comment was forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board