Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-12 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2012 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Rea called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:38 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 Cristina Coddington Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mark Hufstetler Lori Garden Visitors Present Jim Ullman ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Ms. Coddington seconded, to approve the minutes of September 26, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Bozeman Gateway Building S Informal #I-12026 (Krueger) 861 South 29th Avenue * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a new commercial building with associated parking and related site improvements. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea noted that Ms. Garden was a full-fledged voting member as she had met the requirement for observance of two meetings prior to being an active member. Jim Ullman joined the DRB. He noted the applicant was planning on building the parking lot to the west with development of the site as well as completing the connection to Harmon Stream Boulevard. He stated the building proposed a lot of steel and a lot of glass and added they had not submitted a landscaping plan but it would be submitted with the Site Plan and would include buffering of the parking area. He stated the portion of open space south of the trail would also be completed with the approval of the site plan; he noted the trash enclosure would be shared while increasing the frequency of trash pick-up. He noted the ADA parking would be included on the east site in addition to the ADA parking that had already been proposed. He stated there would be a slight difference in elevation and the sidewalk would include steps to accommodate the difference in grade. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea thanked the applicant for bringing the project forward through Informal review prior to a formal submittal. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting Staff’s concerns were with regard to the proposed elevations and presentation to the street with the proposed materials palette; Staff didn’t have the benefit of a landscape plan to review but were supportive of the overall hardscape plan as proposed. He noted Staff found the application to be in keeping with the review criteria and noted Staff saw the site as an opportunity to do something different considering the trail connection to the lifestyle center and the outdoor amenities. He noted parking lot screening should match what was approved for the City Brew/Qdoba site and added Staff was happy to report they had a good Informal application that conformed to the anticipated Bozeman Gateway project. Mr. Hufstetler stated he found the overall architecture of the proposed building intriguing and asked if the architecture would change substantially with the tenant. Mr. Ullman responded that he did not think the overall fenestration would be changed, but signage would be dependent upon the tenant. Planner Krueger responded the tenants or number of them would not be restricted; the design could accommodate a wide range of uses or a singular tenant. Mr. Hufstetler asked for clarification of the lighting for the enigmatic spherical corner proposed. Mr. Ullman responded that he thought the owner would try to highlight the feature and bring attention to the structure but he did not know the details of the lighting that would be proposed. Mr. Hufstetler stated one criticism would be an open plaza area on the east with a constrained, less inviting plaza area on the west; he wondered if the applicant had considered the west side plaza area. Mr. Ullman responded he did not know for sure what was planned for the west plaza area. Ms. Coddington asked where deliveries would be brought in. Mr. Ullman responded he was uncertain where deliveries, and the rest of the utilities, would be located and added they had not planned that yet; he added they were thinking of incorporating those features into the building. Ms. Garden asked if the outdoor seating area would be included in the restaurant. Mr. Ullman responded he was not certain how much outdoor seating would be available. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked what feature was included on the north facade. Mr. Ullman responded it was proposed as glass. Chairperson Pro Tem clarified that the internal layout would be determined by the tenant. Mr. Ullman responded the only thing he had seen was a division of the tenants into four spaces and noted the locations of electrical panels, meters and such within the center of the structure. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked if the proposed view from Huffine Lane would be centered, higher, or lower than the view that was presented in the rendering. Mr. Ullman responded it would be at least six feet higher than the view from Huffine Lane. Planner Krueger added the trail would still be below the view from Huffine Lane; he added it was the same as the view of City Brew would be. Mr. Hufstetler stated that overall it would be a pretty cool building with a lot of good things going for it with a relatively low number of things that were less than cool. He stated he thought it would fit in well with the City Brew building next door but he had some concerns: the relationship to the building with regard to outdoor use spaces was one concern and he encouraged the applicant to examine that interaction; the east elevation of the building was far superior to the proposed west elevation and noted it seemed cave-like with two very different visuals that were not fully compatible; and the elevation facing Huffine Lane needed to be considered as he thought if they treated both corners a little more powerfully it would give more of a visual punch to people coming down Huffine Lane. He stated the fenestration pattern and lighting that accompanied it did stay in keeping with the proposed architecture from the 1960’s and suggested the applicant keep in mind how the building would look after dark and its interaction with the horizontal and vertical impacts of the lighting. He noted he was not sure how he would light the spherical feature, but encouraged some sort of integral lighting to pull the eye toward the feature. Ms. Coddington stated she thought the proposal would be a very strong project, she thought it stayed in character with the overall development, and she liked the integration of the planter/seating areas as proposed. She stated the back end access for shipments was of a concern, but it would depend on how they would tie into Huffine Lane. She noted the orientation was of concern and trees could be included to buffer the view from Huffine Lane. She stated she concurred with Mr. Hufstetler’s comments. Ms. Garden stated she was concerned that the northwest corner entrance would be kind of a nice area to have a restaurant and suggested rooftop seating could be included; driving down Huffine Lane it would make the development a little more substantial. She suggested adding more glass or other fenestration to the proposed northwest element. She stated the entrance to the proposed retail element seemed tight and suggested the applicant consider that it was proposed as a little tight. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea asked for clarification of the “north road” and whether or not it would be paved. Mr. Ullman responded the road would simply be paved until the parking lot was completed and then the road would be completed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated he thought it would be a great building; he liked the two tower approach and thought it had been intentional. He stated he appreciated the fact that this was the first building someone could inhabit without having to buy the structure. He stated the north facade of the building was the public face and was the one he would be most respectful to. He suggested the back of the house was tricky and he always thought of Main Street service entrances; he suggested that could work on the south elevation that could include a service entrance that would work fine though the vehicles themselves would need to be accommodated. He stated the west side was different in the Engineering drawings than in the architectural drawings and suggested shading and protecting the west side from element’s exposure in opposition to Mr. Hufstetler’s comments; he noted opposition to Mr. Hufstetler’s comments was rare. He suggested taking the sphere feature to the outside of the building and breaking it right through the roof; playing it up a little bit. He stated he would also like to see more overhang on the tower elements as they seemed awkward to him. He stated he was concerned the trash enclosure was too small but he liked the idea of intermingling them. He reiterated that he appreciated the applicant bringing the proposed forward through Informal review. Ms. Garden asked the DRB if they thought the spherical feature should be relocated. Mr. Hufstetler responded it would be in conflict with the other proposed features if it were relocated; he thought it would be cool to have the north elevation arced slightly. Chairperson Pro Tem Rea stated he had automatically considered it like the REI climbing feature and noted there was the potential for a mezzanine level; if there was a precedent for breaking up the fenestration he would always like to see second stories. Mr. Ullman stated Chairperson Pro Tem Rea was accurate in that the Engineering drawings did not accurately depict the plaza area. 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 6:20 p.m. Bill Rea, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board