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