Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - MAY 9, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Kim Walker John DeHaas Mara-Gai Katz Staff Present: Therese Berger Patrick Morris Derek Strahn Dave Skelton Lamette Windemaker Debbie Arkell Visitors Present: Joe Frost Jim Dolan Sue Leglaud Larry Hauser Roger Berna Roy Reijgers, Applicant Joe Frost, H.R.D.C. Craig Mcvicker Tom Stonecipher John Preston Paul Ellis Consent Agenda 1. Montana Travel Z-9506 Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for landscaping in lieu of parking request. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. Informal Review 1. Sculpture Park Derek Strahn stated that the park would be located on the north est corner of Willson School property directly across from the Gallatin County Courthouse. He then read his memo. Cliff Chisholm questioned the location and confirmed with Derek Strahn that it is not near the walkway. Derek Strahn stated that it is 25, setback from the front and 85' from the corner of 3rd and Main. Cliff Chisholm wondered if that set back is too much. Jim Dolan stated it is enough height on the mound it will be seen. Cliff Chisholm questioned where the dryvit will be. Jim Dolan stated that it is part of the finish of the sculpture using a buffalo plaid coat that cannot get out of the steel product. Cliff Chisholm confirmed that the artist has used this technique before with good results . Jim Dolan stated the sculpture has expandable steel skin inside, is fairly durable, and is actually an STO product with nice texture. Kim Walker comments that it' s wonderful that someone wants to donate it . She complimented the local person for wanting to do this for beautification. Derek Strahn stated that the Beautification Board hopes this trend will continue of donations with the quality and a broader range over various locations . Cliff Chisholm said he encourages the Beautification Board to pursue this and thanked the people who are making this possible. John DeHaas confirmed the projected unveiling date as June 2nd. He stated that the Story Mansion was on that block, and thinks something is needed in that area. 2 . Larry Hauser Planner Skelton reviewed the proposal stating there will be difficulty meeting the guidelines . He reviewed the original proposal where the applicant tried to strive to maintain a response to entryway corridor guideline with metal siding, roof with vinyl siding and dryvit along the front or east elevation. Larry Hauser remarked that he didn' t want to duplicate the first building and make two buildings look the same. Cliff Chisholm stated that a key turning point was when a professional designer was involved. He asked if Larry Hauser was dissatisfied with the original project . Larry Hauser stated a professional designer gave additional costs to the project of 6 , 200 square feet . He stated that the proposed project is 8, 000 square feet with the north face of the setback facing the entryways and that he wanted to dress it up with vinyl siding above the inset to break up the view. Cliff Chisholm stated that the design work added around $5 per square foot . Planner Skelton asked what the building would be used for. Larry Hauser stated Big Sky Gun Racks would be in one half and the other half is not leased yet. John DeHaas recalled from the original proposal that the work area lacked windows . Planner Skelton pointed out that the key items needed to respond is a form that is not boxy and that has some emphasis on the entrance. Cliff Chisholm confirmed with the applicant that the outside dimensions are 104, X 801 . Kim Walker stated that she thinks it would be helpful to have professional drawings on the elevations and feels that the buildings don' t mix very well as well as she has a problem with the pitch of the roof . Larry Hauser noted that D&R Binding has a hip roof with very low pitch. Lanette Windemaker stated that it is right on Shawnee Way with the north east being the front of the building. Kim Walker noted it was difficult to tell whether the doorways are inset or recessed or what the doors are going to be like, color or dryvit, or the width of the vinyl . She stated that she thinks the roof line is one of the things that make a nice building. Mara-Gai Katz said that some think what worked well in the existing building could be used to emphasize the new building and could maintain the pitch to make the forms compatible, like the windows used in the original may be able to be used and to use those elements that will make it less stark. Cliff Chisholm confirmed a 4 : 12 pitch roof is between the two buildings with the new at 3 : 12 . He asked if all the windows in the front would be operable. Larry Hauser replied the windows in the north section of the building would be sliders and that he has talked about going with fixed panels . Cliff Chisholm stated he felt perhaps the building doesn' t need to be as decorative and felt it could be simpler and that it is not overly large to take the simple shape that it has . He said he thought it would help to have somewhat steeper roof pitch and that instead of vinyl, dryvit and metal maybe there should be just one siding material . Mara-Gai Katz stated the exiting building appears to have two forms, with the one building may want to have just a single material . Larry Hauser stated that the offices will be in the front and the warehouse will be in the rear. Kim Walker said she would like to see the front spruced up. Cliff Chisholm said he didn' t see the need to break up the building into two shapes and feels that something needs to be done to the entrance. He said the door area is recessed in to break the front up plus to protect the doorways . Cliff Chisholm confirmed that the vertical elements are posts to support the roof . Kim Walker feels that recessing further eliminates an actual front from the building, whereas what is done on the first building is more in line with what the entryway corridor guideline encourage. She also confirmed that all the other glass is fixed glass on the remaining building. She stated that she is not sure there is enough for ventilation or for lighting. Larry Hauser stated that it can be changed to have more operable window. Mara-Gai Katz asked if the applicant feels that a minor amount of glazing would seem sufficient. Larry Hauser stated that the two windows on each side of the warehouse will be very bright as they are 4' X 8' where these windows are 4' X 21 . Mara-Gai Katz suggested that he might want to look at more light coming in there. Larry Hauser showed photos of the existing windows . Kim Walker likes the combination of dryvit and metal . Cliff Chisholm stated that the front elevation looks to have a door on the left hand side. Larry Hauser stated that it is the primary entrance to the shop. He said there would be another door to an office but not another two main door. Cliff Chisholm said it will lend some confusion to the front entrance and felt recessing the door might create the effect of a protected entry, or maybe a roof that projects out that make it clear exactly where the front doors are. Cliff Chisholm suggested over the entrance are a canopy or gable that makes it clear on the long facade that this is the entry. Kim Walker stated that would mean a change in the roof pitch. Cliff Chisholm said having three materials is too complex that the color needs to limited to two materials . The applicant asked about going part of the way on the roof with 3 : 12 pitch and the balance at 4 : 12 pitch. Cliff Chisholm stated they may have to go from 3 : 12 pitch to 5 : 12 pitch. Mara-Gai Katz stated it would also give a place to locate the entry. He said that either a shed or a hip roof would work. Planner Skelton suggested delineation of plans would be better with no deviations would work at DRB and DRC. Project Review 1. Berna Z-9543 Planner Windemaker stated the applicant is making process, but that some of the conditions would still stand. She said it appears that metal siding would be placed over the existing rock walls and wood on the mansard roof will be changing to metal as well . Cliff Chisholm confirmed that the addition on the left of the south elevation will match the rest of the building. Planner Windemaker said it looks like the applicant is residing the rest of the building. She confirmed that with Roger Berna and he replied they are taking the rock off and probably going with dryvitt and metal siding. Cliff Chisholm noted that the building has a fake mansard. Roger Berna said they are taking the shingles off and making it straight. He also confirmed that they will probably use dryvitt on the parapet . Kim Walker asked if this is something that Exxon wants to improve. Roger Berna said they have to have the Exxon image, with the colors beige and red. He noted that the shaded part is red and the main portion will be metal . John DeHaas confirmed that there is going to be a sub shop and food store. Roger Berna confirmed that the sub shop will be through the Champion Foods . John DeHaas asked if there will be cooking done on the premises . Roger Berna stated that it will be all cold food, no cooking. Cliff Chisholm asked if the Exxon Corp. provides the standard details on how to do the face of the building. Berna said there is a set of guidelines that have to meet the image. Cliff Chisholm asked how the applicant would provide a drawing for the contractor to build from. Roger Berna indicated that the panels are pre-made and only have to be assembled. Planner Windemaker stated the applicant will have to get sign permits for the signs . Kim Walker stated that she feels condition #7 is imperative. Cliff Chisholm stated that once again he is concerned regarding the quality of the submittal materials and having to interrogate the applicant regarding what the building will look like and if the applicant understands what they have been told and what the improvements will have to be. Mara-Gai Katz stated she shares the concern regarding the status of the drawings . Cliff Chisholm moved to approve the application with the staff conditions . There was no second. Kim Walker moved to approve with staff conditions as well as the addition of a door in the sub shop portion of the addition on the outside to be approved by staff . There was no second. John DeHaas stated that it just shows the applicant is lacking complete drawings . Mara-Gai Katz moved to approve with staff conditions, seconded by Kim Walker. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Reijgers COA Z-9552 Planner Morris reviewed the proposal and explained that the subject additions have been under construction for some time and are now subject to Certificate of Appropriateness approval . Cliff Chisholm confirmed with Planner Morris that the additions predate the COA process and that the DRB is only reviewing the window treatment and siding. Mara-Gai Katz questioned the Historic Preservation Officer' s recommendation to maintain the chimney. Joe Frost responded that one of the chimneys will not be used and can be retained as a false chimney and the other is in such bad condition that it will be removed. Cliff Chisholm requested clarification of the siding materials . Planner Morris indicated that the applicant proposes to replace the asbestos siding with drop lap color lock siding. Roy Reijgers explained that the original siding is ship lap under the asbestos siding. Joe Frost added that they are looking into obtaining 3" - 4" vinyl siding with a lifetime guarantee at a local lumberyard. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he feels "colorlock" siding is more substantial and staying than a vinyl siding. Joe Frost justified that the smaller scale vinyl siding is more reminiscent of the width of siding prevalent on the older houses . Cliff Chisholm responded that the colorlock siding can be split to achieve a 3" exposure. Kim Walker confirmed that the elevation drawing shows the proposed windows . Roy Reijgers interjected that the intent of the double hung windows is to maintain the historic nature of the structure. MOTION - Kim Walker moved to approve the project as proposed with staff conditions #1 and #2 . There being no second to the motion, it died. Planner Morris commented that staff has recommended that the original corner window remain as is because it is an authentic feature of the structure. Roy Reijgers explained that, as is, the window is senseless and does not mesh with the design of the dining room. Joe Frost added that, prior to the addition, the window was a functional corner window. Cliff Chisholm questioned whether the divided lights windows are to be snap in grills or an authentic. John DeHaas commented that he objects to the snap-in style of divided light windows and feels the panes should be permanent. Derek Strahn, Historic Preservation Office, noted that authentic divided light windows would not necessarily improve or match those of the original structure. He continued that the important issue is maintaining the double hung features of the windows . Cliff Chisholm asked Derek Strahn why he suggested leaving the 1/2 corner window in place rather than embrace the proposed changes , adding that not much is left of the original structure and he feels it unnecessary to preserve a feature that has already been significantly altered. Derek Strahn responded that he doesn' t feel that the corner window is that large of a concern. He continued, that the main concern would be to preserve some of the original openings with the sash treatment. MOTION - Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Mara-Gai Katz, to accept the project as proposed with the use of masonite lap siding and the use of double hung windows which do not necessarily contain divided light patterns . Roy Reijger confirmed with Cliff Chisholm that he would have a problem with the use of vinyl siding. Roy Reijger appealed that the vinyl siding would have a lifetime guarantee and would match the original ship lap siding. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 3 . Hausmann/Preston COA Z-9548 Planner Morris reviewed the proposal and the staff report. He indicated that the applicant has agreed to the conditions and is ready to move forward with the project with the staff recommendations . John DeHaas confirmed with John Preston that he has no objections to the staff recommendations . John DeHaas moved, seconded by Kim walker, to approve the proposal with conditions set forth by staff . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 4. Blackwood II Z-9523 Planner Morris reviewed the project and distributed several letters in support of and in opposition to the project. Cliff Chisholm commented that the DRB should try to resolve at least the historical issue of the project today as one member of the Board would be leaving, eliminating the quorum. Planner Morris noted that the applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Office which indicates that the they would be willing to provide $10, 000 towards the relocation of the existing Silent Knight building to see the subject project go forward. Planner Morris reviewed the conditions recommended by staff . He explained that, if the structure is to be demolished, a full historical documentation of the structure would be coordinated by the Historic Preservation Office. Derek Strahn, Historic Preservation Officer, remarked that it is rare to consider the demolition of a historically registered building. He noted that, if the applicant agrees to the recommended condition #2, the existing structure would not have to be incorporated into the new proposal and would either be relocated or demolished. Derek Strahn commented that he feels relocation of the structure is a far more appropriate alternative as it is an individually listed landmark on the "Historic Register" and the only example of Streamline Moderne gas station architecture in Bozeman. He indicated that the demolition of such a unique structure would not only impact the diversity of Bozeman, but could set a dangerous precedent in regards to other individually listed landmarks on the register. Derek Strahn reviewed the Historic Preservation Officer' s comments contained in the staff report (on file at the City-County Planning office) and noted that the project would better comply with the zoning Ordinance if attempts were made to reuse or incorporate the existing building. He urged the Board to consider the historic significance of the subject building and the recommended conditions of approval . Mara-Gai Katz voiced a preference that the building be relocated at the developer' s expense if the project is to move forward. Kim Walker agreed and added that the structure should remain intact somewhere. John DeHaas commented that he feels the demolition of a historic building is inappropriate considering the design of the proposed structure to take its place. He voiced concern that the Silent Knight building might be moved to an inappropriate site or stored and eventually deteriorate. Cliff Chisholm questioned the status of discussions so far in regards to relocating the building. Planner Morris remarked that there have been conversations with the developer. Cliff Chisholm inquired about the potential for any government funds in support of the preservation of architecture that could be available to the developer. Derek Strahn indicated that it may be possible to find some preservation funding if the building could be moved to a site which is similar historically to where it is now; however, the task would be difficult to accomplish in only 90 days . He added that the State Preservation Office has indicated that tax credits may be available if the building were moved. Derek Strahn commented that the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is more than willing to help the developer seek potential buyers to facilitate the relocation of the building and would even go so far as to advertise its relocation with Historic Preservation funds . Cliff Chisholm confirmed that 90 days would be a minimum amount of time as recommended for the developer to relocate the structure. Derek Strahn remarked that 90 days would provide an indication of the feasibility of the building' s relocation. Mara-Gai expressed concern regarding the time allotted to relocate the building. Kim Walker remarked that she doesn' t feel 90 days is enough time to find a new site and owner for the building. She suggested that comparison quotes be obtained for the building' s relocation as $41, 800 seems fairly high. Cliff Chisholm remarked that he would recommend all efforts be made to relocate the structure. He said that the he believes the growth of downtown Bozeman is overriding his strong personal feelings to protect the rich history of the town. He added that he feels the building is in the wrong place at the wrong time and, if not relocated within 90 days , the Board would be approving its demolition with the recommended conditions . Kim Walker suggested that the task of relocating the building be accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new structure. MOTION - Kim Walker moved, seconded by John DeHaas, that condition #2 of approval be revised so that the existing building must be moved to a suitable location at the developer' s expense prior to the issuance of a building permit. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. John DeHaas confirmed with Planner Morris that the developer proposes to pay cash in lieu of approximately 2/3 of the required parking spaces . Planner Morris indicated that the Parking Commission has given preliminary approval of that proposition. He added that the Development Review Committee has yet to take action on the project. John DeHaas commented that, upon scaling the drawings the proposed drive between the Blackwood I and II buildings will only be about 24, wide. He voiced concern regarding the distance of the site from the intersection of Main and Rouse and the driveway, and the inherent traffic problems in the design. Planner Morris explained that driveways must be offset from intersections by at least 150' and stated that the Public Services Director as well as the City Engineer would have to approve the project. Kim Walker questioned why the staff report does not adequately address the parking issues . Planner Morris explained that he has separated Design Review Board issues from Development Review Committee issues . Kim Walker asked the purpose of the Parking Commission. Planner Morris explained that the Parking Commission does not operate on City funds, that, over the course of time, it acquires new properties for the long term goal of creating some parking. Kim Walker confirmed that cash in lieu of parking is only an option in the downtown area. Cliff Chisholm noted that the historical pattern of structures fronting the street line does not encourage parking. He remarked that he feels the Blackwood I building at the street line set an important precedent and was viewed as supporting urban infill . Planner Morris commented that staff would be supportive of a smaller building that would require less parking. Planner Morris indicated that the parking issue will be addressed by the DRC, and "no parking" signs will be posted in the trouble areas . Cliff Chisholm briefly addressed the proposed elevations and building massing. He observed that the proposed building seems to be too much of a continuation of the Blackwood I building. He suggested that it be looked at as a separate building in terms of scale and design details. Kim Walker and Mara-Gai Katz agreed. MOTION - Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to continue the review of the proposed structure to May 23 , 1995 . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 5. Speedy Lube Z-9531 Planner Skelton reviewed the project in terms of addressing conditions #3 . Kim Walker and Cliff Chisholm think that the elevation is in line with what was suggested. Cliff Chisholm stated there is a clear avenue to proceed. Paul Ellis stated it would more than double the cost of the work. He said painted cinderblock is not as attractive as dryvitt. Cliff Chisholm recalled that the applicant could do the wall of the addition with one of the two materials, cinderblock or masonry. Kim Walker confirmed that statement. Paul Ellis said that dryvitt wall is only $4 . 50 per square foot. Planner Skelton stated that when the project was first delivered the entryway corridor guidelines were not applied to the building as an exterior building, now he is entertaining the necessity of a new addition with the need to address some of the entryway corridor guidelines with a key issue on the introduction of a new material that does not previously exist. Kim Walker explained that they do not want three types of materials so not to introduce a fourth material . Paul Ellis asked if they can use a fourth. Alternatives were proposed.