HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB-042413 MinDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:30 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
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson
Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Mel Howe
Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager
Mark Hufstetler
Courtney Kramer, Planner I/Historic
Preservation
Scott Bechtle
Sally Thomas, Administrative Assistant II
Cristina Coddington
Lori Garden
Bill Rea
Visitors Present:
Cory Lawrence, Etha
Kelly
Lawrence, Etha
Kyle Dornberger, Venue Design
Laura Dornberger, Locati
Jeremy D. Bork, Sand Companies
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved,
and Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of April 10, 2013 as presented. The motion carried 7-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Country Inn & Suites SP/COA #Z-13065 (Skelton)
5997 East Valley Center Road
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of 79 unit hotel with associated parking and related site
improvements.
Senior Planner Skelton introduced the Country Inn application and noted it has as undergone informal review with the Bozeman Economic team for the City, which recommended
substantial changes. It is located north of Outback Steakhouse (I 90 and East and West Frontage Road). Site is undeveloped. Storm drainage swale starts at Outback and continues
through My Place to the north. Proposed storm drain pipe where leaves the Outback needs to be addressed. Staff recommends that with the Country Inn project that improvements to the
swale will be necessary. Recommends landscape features along the east portion of the lot than may need substantial grade work. The project wants its own in/out access; however Montana
Department of Transportation (MDOT) may not approve it and the access may have to be shared with the existing access easement to the north and south. He discussed the midpoint pedestrian
and the need for a 7’ wide sidewalk. Building sits off streetscape because of the existing infrastructure; as a result, a
stronger emphasis is needed with the pedestrian egress and an enhanced palette of materials, landscape, surface treatment. Recommend carry the landscape theme through to primary entrance.
Second pedestrian entrance on east side. Ordinance does not allow sidewalks in the side yard setback unless shared with the adjoining property (Outback Steakhouse). Outback doesn’t
show much interest in sharing. Removal of sidewalk will provide good landscape buffer. Site lighting is limited, and will need to provide a parking lot lighting plan to confirm location,
height standards, and shoebox fixtures. Pedestrian lighting off shared use path is recommended. Building design primary entrance covered entryway meets intent of design objective
plans in concert with regional architecture. Stone veneer, horizontal cement panel, flat concrete panels with stucco veneer are also part of the materials plaette. Good vertical/horizontal
expression with the use of materials. Where the architectural features fall short is along the east elevation and is recommending the same vertical features be provided on the east
elevation as the west facade. Swimming facility that extends beyond the east façade provides a good offset for the building, need to make sure the east façade offers similar features
as that of the west facade. Pitched roofs provide a good solution with the massing and scale of the project. The project is allowed to exceed the maximum building height of 44 feet
if in compliance with entrance I90 corridor due to is location within the Regional Commercial and Services land use designation. He noted that fenestration treatment should be improved
with slightly recessed windows, mullions or exaggerates the windows with sill, header or trim. Need to confirm if the vinyl windows are operable. Staff is recommending that the applicant
enclose the entire first level with stone veneer to provide a greater emphasis at the street level and placement of the building. He noted that staff is recommending 12 conditions of
approval for DRC consideration.
Mr. Jeremy Bork, architect for Sand Companies, representing the applicant noted that developer owns or manages 23 hotels, and currently 3 under construction.
He noted that they build, design, and manage the hotels, and are eager to be responsive. Elevations have been changed to comply with vertical elements on east elevation. Pathway 6’
away from curb and gutter will respond this week. Sidewalk on south side will be removed as requested, then put one down the middle of parking lot, and want to delete the other one.
Wider driving lane will be addressed this week also. Adding more stone to first floor as requested to accent window ledge. Mullions are okay. Mr. Bork indicated that they are trying
to be good neighbors and provided exhibits to show responses to conditions.
Questions:
Mr. Howe: No questions.
Mr. Hufstetler: Asked about the outside signage. Mr. Bork responded
that most of the signs are on the two ends, front main entrance and a short monument on main road. He indicated there were no pylon signs. The signs on buildings are backlit. First
go-round was guided by franchise design. marketing to the business traveler. Window surfaces will have additional detail. Dividers are okay if City requests them.
Ms. Coddington:
No questions.
Mr. Rea: Asked if the property to the south is owned by Outback and if it isn’t a separate parcel. Parcel to north has leftover piece, but Senior Planner Skelton said
unknown plans for that parcel at this time. He asked if the access easement is presently in place. Senior Planner Skelton:
Country Suites indicated their desire for their own egress/ingress, but if MDOT doesn’t allow own access they must share the existing access easement with Outback and My Place. Mr. Rea
discussed the north and south elevations contain two different materials, lap siding more focal point, and warm-colored stone in a slightly different plane.
Mr. Bechtle: No questions.
Ms.
Gardner: No questions.
Comments and Discussion:
Mr. Howe: No comments.
Mr. Hufstetler: Not too bad a project. Noted the wall of multistory motels blocking I90 from community.
Nice architecture variation. Maybe add more emphasis on eaves. Would like to see alternating window treatments/details. Encourages adding divided lights in some or all or the windows.
Porte cochere not architecturally distinct. MDOT's decision may make City reconsider landscaping. Senior Planner Skelton responded quality of the landscape features over quantity is
key regarding entrance points from East Valley Center Road.
Ms. Coddington: Agrees with staff recommendations. Can humanize the pedestrian level, encourage landscape buffer where
swale is.
Mr. Rea: Strongly encourages Country Inn to liberally interpret color design guidelines. Avoid brown. City needs to address a plethora of brown buildings in Bozeman. First
scheme had charcoal grey and white. Needs to change in the design guidelines. they will provide three aspects of that elevation. North and South elevation are pretty barren, horizontal
ledges or banning would be appreciated (not a condition).
Mr. Bechtle: Wants more detail in windows. He doesn’t have a problem with contemporary with charcoals, but is fine with
present brown. Should read as one piece. Location on site. Big parking lot between bldg and interstate. Not much to do about that.
Ms. Gardner: Likes dark brown. Good job in
addition of materials.
Chairman Pentecost: Changes in materials are a positive change. Supports present color scheme.
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward
a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Country Inn & Suites SP/COA #Z-13065 with Staff conditions as outlined in the Staff report. The motion carried 7-0. Informal
condition application a distinctive color scheme that remains compatible with City ordinances.
Senior Planner Skelton: Recommends for treatment of the swale. Asking for comment on
landscaping continuous with My Place. Extension of draining swale from My Place. Swale can be a landscaping element.
Motion carried 7 - 0.
2. Armory Hotel CUP/COA/DEV #Z-13064 (Krueger)
24 West Mendenhall Street
* A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the adaptive
re-use of the existing structure for an 102-room, eight-story hotel that includes a conference area, restaurants, and on premise consumption of alcohol with related site improvements.
Development
Review Manager Krueger: DRB saw it as Informal. Response from the DRC and DRB. Building proposed to 8 stories. 107 feet now. Deviation required for height (max 70 feet). Staff supports
deviation. Historic lighting to be retained. Entrance canopy covers to extend beyond the property line into the right of way. Conditional use permit for alcohol. Specific criteria.
COA is design portion, Will go to the City commission. Needs a formal recommendation tonight. Recommending approval.
Planner Kramer: Standards. Color renderings. Original design
set exists today. Substantial change in building scale. Criteria for deviations. Color materials palette is substantial. Rain screen material and plaster. Glare is concern with a
building of this size. Roof deck seems out of scale.
Kyle Dornberger. Brought parapet up 24 inches and attached the railing on top of that. Art Deco is very horizontal, railing
is consistent with the style. Deck is 200 lb. per sq. ft. and will bea waterproof deck. There will be structural steel supports. Chevron design. Bill: Large interstitial space.
Wants pool area flush with decking.
Planner Kramer: Structural steel finish color is black anodized? Same as material across the back? Staff has questions regarding window framing
color and the depth of the window mounting location in the existing openings.
Mr. Lawrence: Informal process was very helpful. Excited about doing this project for Bozeman. Parking
agreement soon to be done to meet code requirements. Couldn’t make rooftop restaurant work have tried to make work: needed the rooms. Couldn’t get another elevator to rooftop, or
how to manage the existing two elevators. Excellent partner La Tour restaurants says more of the time the rooftop restaurant might be a financial hindrance. Eighth floor: proportionality--still
not there yet. Are at low end of range, less rooms are better, resizing the floor heights. It’s a family business and has strong ties to Bozeman. Martel Construction is a great partner.
La Tour Hotels & Resorts as partner is officially on board. Excellent feedback and guidance from that experienced group.
Mr. Dornberger : He outlined the materials palette.Taupe limestone.
They are making a custom color. Sample presented for texture, not color. Will compliment the color of the armory. Metal inlay black screen behind the perforated panel. Twist on
window wells on the existing structure. Bronze plaques and marquis were originally there, but don’t know the original color. Will be toned down from color on rendering. The height
is accurate. Was 7 floors, but now is 8 be reproportioning ceiling height.
Questions:
Mr. Bechtle : Replacing with new windows: yes. Planting in actual deck area also in modular containers.
Bill: Work on Willson between Babcock and main is part of this
project? No. Clarified materials. Few upgrades, chevrons. Obtained a model and overlaid.
Ms. Coddington: Exterior courtyard is publicly accessible? Third floor terrace is focused
on hotel guests but offers public access. Little courtyard is part of the restaurant. Champagne metallic screen walls. Moved HRV to rooftop. Using same screen wall in several places.
Mechanicals extend all the way down. Can lower the south screen wall 4-5’. Swimming pool is on upper third balcony.
Mr. Hufstetler: Windows: materials are same for the floors.
Not using a historical glass materials. Energy code specs must be used. How hard to look in? Least reflective as possible. Same glazing throughout the building and light patterns.
Double casement with an awning top. Courtney: Depth of window in the wall? Keeping the setting as is presently. Tower not recessed not quite as much. Horizontal course blow 8th
floor same material as in the vertical element. A brushed stainless material lighter than pewter a bit less reflective. Chevrons are less reflective on all four facades of the building.
East side facade is only side without the trellis structure. Doesn’t seem high enough. Eighth floor looks at bottom of sign structure of Baxter.
Mr. Howe: Armory structure seems
more gray in the renderings. Soda blasted east side of wall and it has gray appearance underneath the current yellowed finish.
Mr. Bechtel: Parking agreement allows up to 100 spaces.
Meeting room is 400, banquets are low 300s, meeting rooms and flexible spaces up top. Restaurant = 300 interior and some exterior. Could have nearly 1,000 people. Scott says parking
seems light.
Planner Kramer: Window framing color to match historic color (a very dark gray)? Yes.
Ms. Garden: East elevation-break up the glass blocks.
Chairman Pentecost:
Will miss second-floor restaurant. Glazing the windows is transparent? Third level terrace use?; drink service seasonal wet bar.
Discussion:
Mr. Howe: none.
Mr. Hufstetler:
Overall gorgeous proposal. Likes the charcoal color for the tower. Doesn’t need to include staff recommendation #2. Would strongly like to see window glass with same amount of transparency
as original but still meets current energy requirements. Not needed in the tower. Would like to see the transition articulated more carefully on east and west facades. Especially the
east facade. Doesn’t like the top floor (not Art Deco). Needs to be cleaner and stronger. Trellis structure on west elevation lessens the design quality. Make it more powerful and
vertical.
Ms. Coddington: Pleased overall. Daylight analysis was helpful. Remove trelliswork. Likes central awing better. Agree with Mr. Hufstetler to make lower windows transparent. Upper
tower windows seem choppy. Bronze features should be more copper color. More interest at the very top. East/west facade transition does look choppy.
Mr. Rea: Liked Mr. Hufstetler’s
comments about a more Art Deco top. Color palette is great. Could strike condition #2. Agree with #3. #4 is okay. Concerned with mass of roof deck, itshould be reduced visually.
Doesn’t think the vegetation will ever look like that. Thinks project is great. Illustrations don’t do the project justice as much as the renderings. Good place for a tall building.
Great design team.
Mr. Bechtle: Support the height. Tower shouldn’t mimic the Armory, should reflect contemporary reuse. He likes the present cap. Main entrance canopy seems insubstantial
and needs more weighted support Either more depth for planting or nothing at third level terrace.. Make landscaping where people can interact with it. Color on deck landscape, textures
to warm it up a bit. West elevation comment good. Parking seems too light for traffic. Jazz up top treatment.
Ms. Garden: Top level feels squished. Chevrons are a bit overkill.
Awnings seem weak. Make less red.
Chairman Pentecost: Will experience the hotel from a distance, but walking down the street will experience the Armory and not the addition. Make
sure the landscaping will work on the terrace.. Also would have liked to see a more contemporary tower. Open up the north side. Put landscaping on top. He fully supports the project.
MOTION:
Mr. Rea moved, and Mr. Scott seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Armory Hotel CUP/COA/DEV #Z 13064 with Staff conditions 1, 3 and 4 as
outlined in the Staff report. The motion carried all.
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 8:00 p.m.
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board