HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-14 Design Review Board MinutesAGENDA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM,
ALFRED STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 5:30 P.M.
Board Members: Michael Pentecost, Chair - absent Bill Rea, Vice Chair
Lessa Racow
Walt Banziger
Mark Hufstetler
Mel Howe Lori Garden
Staff Present:
Brian Krueger, Planner Valerie Sutton, Planner David Fine – Economic Development Specialist
Commission Liaison:
Chris Mehl – absent
Members of the Public: Doug Riley - CTA
Jimmy Talarico - CTA
Maximillian Anthon – CTA Andy Holloran - Homebase
:03 seconds
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT
• Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Development Review Committee,
not on this agenda. Three minute time limit per speaker.
• Individual items will have a public comment period at the end of Committee discussion.
:08 secs ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2014 Motion and second to approve minutes. Motion carries unanimously.
:39 secs
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW The Mendenhall Mixed Use Site Plan/COA/Variance Application Z14275 (Krueger/Johnson) 5 West Mendenhall Street
A Site Plan/COA/Variance Application for the proposed construction of a new, 5-story mixed use building with underground parking, related site improvements, and a Zoning Variance to allow
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 1 of 8
reduced size parking spaces and circulation within the underground parking structure.
:59 seconds
Planner Krueger asked for a roll call of members of the board and public.
1:44 min
Mr. Doug Riley, CTA Architects stated, for full disclosure and for the record, that he resigned his
position with the City a few months ago and that, while employed with Community Development, he was not assigned to this project and had no responsibility over it and was not aware of it until he started working for CTA in August.
2:46 min
Planner Krueger presented his staff report to the Design Review Board members. He apologized to
the Board members and to the Applicant for the late staff report stating the Department of Community Development began a process to put in place a Professional Services Contract for
Design Review, getting comments and incorporating them into the staff report. The contractor, who
had accepted the job, declined the job late on Friday (September 19th, 2014). Planner Krueger
hurried to put the staff report together in a short amount of time. He apologized for the minor errors in the staff report and asked people to please overlook them as they are not part of regular practice. He then presented the staff report.
10:55 min
Planner Krueger stated that the overall project, from a generalized zoning review, is in conformance
with code standards, but from a design review perspective, it does not comply with the COA criteria or the design guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Staff does not
recommend approval of the project at this time. Staff has identified enough issues with the design of
the building that they are not proposing any conditions that would address a specific design
guideline. The designer of the building should look at the design guidelines and address the areas not in compliance.
Staff, as one body, does analysis and makes recommendations. The Design Review Board is the
official body which makes a recommendation on the project regarding conformance to the design
guidelines to approve or deny the project. Due to the variance request, this project will go before the
City Commission in October. The Commission will make the final decision and will rely heavily on the recommendation by the Design Review Board.
The Staff review findings in the report noted the primary issues regarding the building itself: 1) the
overall plane of the façade of the building goes from the street level to seventy feet high without significant offset or building articulation; 2) the ground floor storefront windows and the window openings on the upper stories are not consistent with the typical downtown streetscape pattern; 3) the
building is not divided into typical building modules that would reduce the mass, size and scale of
the building; and 4) the quality and permanance of the proposed building materials.
37:05 min Planner Krueger finished his presentation.
37:33 min
Vice Chair Rea opened for the Applicant presentation.
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 2 of 8
Mr. Andy Holloran spoke to the concept of the building. He stated they are attempting to continue
with the palettes and designs of Block M and the Element Hotel to keep them in the same family. He
noted the cost and economics of the project.
They have studied projects in Boulder, CO, Portland, OR and Seattle, WA and would put this project
against any of those. He spoke to balconies providing an outdoor living experience, a place of
refuge, but also a way for water to penetrate the building.
He didn’t understand the comment about window glazing. Planner Krueger stated there isn’t enough level of detail on that design element.
Mr. Jimmy Telarico stated that CTA’s goal is to provide their client as much interior flexibility as
possible so they are not limited as to who the tenants are. The building will not have a scratch coat.
The EFIS sheen is smooth. The space on the south side of the building has been changed in a new rendering. They have tried to keep materials consistent with the downtown area concrete and
masonry.
54:32 min Vice Chair Rea opened for questions of the Applicant.
Mr. Huffstetler asked how high is the Baxter Hotel? Planner Krueger stated he thinks it is the 80’s
(ft high). Mr. Huffstetler asked if there are any guidelines for driveways in terms of sight lines?
Planner Krueger stated that is an element that the Engineering Division looks at and, no, we don’t
have mirror requirements, etc. The north south drive access would be signed as one-way access with seven feet of setback.
Mr. Huffstetler wondered if there are any renderings of the building showing how it might respond
to light and shadow, especially considering the material palette and size of the building? He thinks it might glow in the light. Also, how much of a shadow would this building cast on the buildings to the north? The applicant replied they haven’t studied it. Planner Krueger stated it is not typically
required for applications and no zoning standards exist for shadowing. B-3 zoning is intended for
intensification.
Mr. Huffstetler asked if the intention of the outdoor space on the north side is just for use by the building occupants or can the public use it also? Mr. Holloran stated in a perfect world, it would be
used by public/private use (restaurants, etc).
He asked if the color palette is similar to the Element Hotel? Mr. Holloran responded that the Element will have similar brick, etc to Block M, but darker in color.
Mr. Howe had no questions.
Ms. Racow asked if the parking is only for building tenants? The applicant responded that each
residential tenant will have one space in the parking garage under the building and the remaining parking will be dedicated to employees. Guests and visitors will park in the parking garage and there
are spaces in the adjacent parking lot as well as on-street parking. Will dogs be allowed? The
applicant responded yes.
Mr. Banzinger asked about setbacks on the corner of Tracy/Mendenhall. Planner Krueger stated the
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 3 of 8
footprint of the building conforms to setbacks. There is a sight vision triangle encroachment at Tracy
and Mendenhall that the City Engineer has the authority to modify due to the one-way street
configuration. Mr. Banzinger then asked if staff ok with the overall plan? Planner Krueger stated
yes, the site plan of the building is generally supportable, it’s the design of the building that is of concern.
Ms. Garden She wanted to know where the bike storage is and the applicant responded that it’s
located on the south and north sides as well as in the underground parking structure. Vice Chair Rea asked about the lease in the Parking Garage and if the spaces are designated or do
they park anywhere? The Etha and the Element Hotels and Block M have leased spaces as well.
Planner Krueger did not know the answer. Mr. Holloran answered that the Etha’s leased spaces are
in the basement. The Element Hotel has 60 undesignated spaces and this project had 50 undesignated
spaces.
Vice Chair Rea asked if the Garage was designed for an addition and is there a threshold which will
trigger that? At what point does the City have to step up? Planner Krueger stated he did not know the
answer. It’s based on how it is managed by the Parking Commission. Mr. Krueger suggested following up with Scott Lee, the City Parking Manager about how the parking garage is managed.
Vice Chair Rea asked how would the City feel about entering and exiting on Mendenhall vs. the
alley? Planner Krueger stated that is generally an Engineering issue. He stated that at some point in
the future, there would be concerns about conflicts with the queuing distance for the intersection
because the Tracy and Mendenhall intersection will likely be signalized at some point in the future.
Vice Chair Rea asked about Block M from staff’s point of view regarding materials, are they
substantially different from what was first proposed? Planner Krueger did not believe so.
1:15:56 min Vice Chair Rea called for a motion and second.
Mel Howe made the motion:
“I move to recommend approval of the Mendenhall Mixed Use Preliminary Site Plan & Certificate of Appropriateness and Zoning Variance application subject to all applicable code
provisions.”
No second.
01:18:46 hrs Vice Chair Rea asked Mr. Howe if he would like to withdraw his motion. He agreed. Vice Chair Rea
opened for comments around the table since there was no second on the motion.
Mr. Huffstetler contained his comments to two broad areas: 1) the architecture of the building itself
and how it interfaces with surrounding buildings and 2) the design of the building. He is not comfortable with the design of the building. It doesn’t meet the criteria he will list. He agrees with
Planner Krueger. He believes it is alright to have modern architecture in an historic area, but believes
it is not quality architecture that matches the context of the core of downtown. It will be a massive
building that will overshadow much of downtown and that calls for a particularly high standard that
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 4 of 8
reflects the attributes of Bozeman, its geography, streetscapes, heritage, character, and the unique
qualities of downtown. The current plan could be any building in Los Angeles or pretty much
anywhere. It doesn’t reflect Montana architecture or urban architecture of mountain states. It doesn’t
show any understanding of buildings surrounding it. It conflicts with those. The only buildings it does respect are the Element Hotel and the buildings of Block M. Those buildings have some of the
same design faults.
The other issue is urban planning and how a building of this style interacts with its surroundings. It’s important to increase downtown density, but this building inhibits interaction within downtown and between downtown and the resident neighborhoods to the north. This building builds a wall that
isolates downtown from the historic neighborhoods.
Mr. Howe complimented the designers for putting parking within the building. He agrees with Mr.
Huffstetler’s comments, but he kind of likes the building because of its departure from typical downtown design. He is interested in the element on the corner. A restaurant should go in that spot.
The fenestration could be adjusted to make it more pleasing. The colors should be changed.
Ms. Racow agrees with Mr. Huffstetler comments and with staff findings. The building needs to be stepped back after the second floor to help with balconies/patio space and the shadow on the north side of the street. She likes Mel’s comment about the restaurant. She thinks it would be a fantastic
opportunity.
The landscaping appears to have ginkgo bilobas for a street tree on Tracy, which is not an approved
street tree in Bozeman. They don’t grow in this climate. There should be two new trees on Mendenhall. There is no lawn area for dogs. Dogs will use the Scotch moss for a waste area. It
would be better to plant shrubs in that area. There should also be some sort of roof top space, even if
it’s just for the penthouse residents. Utilize it. She likes the new proposed windows.
Mr. Banzinger thanked the Applicant for bringing the design in and giving Board members an opportunity to give their opinions. He strongly supports staff comments. He looks at the presence of
a building, how it sits in a neighborhood, what is its relationship to the neighborhood, how does its
character relate to the neighborhood surrounding. The renderings do not respond to the context of the
neighborhood. It looks like it was just dropped in place or it looks like a residence hall at UCLA, the
University of Washington or MSU. Look at the character of the surrounding area. It should look like a new building, but should have some of the character of the old so it doesn’t look like it was
dropped in to Bozeman from another city.
Open space is very important since it will be a cornerstone for much of the development in that neighborhood, it creates a context for the neighborhood. Balcony vs. common space vs. rooftop – there is a lot of opportunity there. He strongly agrees with staff comments about relief. He feels there
is only an architectural sleight of hand to make it appear like there is relief but there isn’t. Create
some relief with balconies, rooftop space, public space within the building. He noted the State Fund
Building in Helena.
He thinks the windows are repetitive. The third and fourth floor have variations in the size of the
residences which transmits to the outside of the building. Let the building’s inside transmit to the
outside. Tenants won’t come if its vanilla. A building could be built that is inspiring and still
maintain the cost.
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 5 of 8
Ms. Garden had nothing more to add to comments except to incorporate the previously stated
comments to the plan and hopes to have a good project turn great.
Vice Chair Rea substantially agrees with comments made. He feels like this is an informal. He sees significant change from the first design to the current one. He doesn’t know what is happening on
the west or north sides of the building. He would be uncomfortable approving the building at this
point. There is still much work to be done.
For a typical formal recommendation, the Board would see much more information, material boards, context within the city and a more complete view. He argues that the plan is flawed. The north side
patio is a huge, huge mistake both from a public space and lease point of view. It’s not four months
out of the year for sunshine, it’s more like 6 weeks. On the south side, it could be used even in
December. The north side would not be used passed October/November. It’s a waste of space. Use
more of that space for the building itself.
He’s really concerned about the color of this building. He always encourages liberal interpretation of
the color code, but he believes this is one of the darkest, grayest buildings he’s seen. It truly looks
like a Portland building. It’s one of the first post-tension slab multi-story buildings in Bozeman. The Pearl District (in Portland) is famous for those – 90% of structures are done that way. It truly feels like a misplaced Portland building. LEED and energy points did not come up in the application.
He realizes there are some economics concerns here but it looks to him like a cheap building, not
inexpensive, just cheap. It looks cheap in plans and materials. He cringes when he hears EFIS – it’s
the cheap, go-to material. There are other great materials out there that aren’t EFIS. He encourages to use those. The threshold for downtown is higher than that. The hope is that it will one day become
an historic building.
He doesn’t care that they don’t know who the tenants will be from a design point of view. The unique texture and spaces in downtown – Plonk, Blackbird and the Co-Op, are examples of unique or awkward spaces that tenants made work and those types of spaces make downtown work. The
current building looks like a spot for franchise businesses (Subway, Claire’s, Radio Shack,
Starbucks) instead of higher-end tenants. The nature of the building will not draw top end tenants.
The positive side is bringing density to downtown and pushing the height limit. The Etha Hotel broke through the barrier of the Baxter being the tallest building downtown. He is not concerned
about the shadows. Putting parking in the building is great if the groundwater situation in the area
can be solved. He wants to see it again before he gives it his approval.
01:47:18 hrs Vice Chair Rea asked for a motion. Mr. Howe made a motion:
“I would like to move to recommend approval of the Mendenhall Mixed Use Preliminary Site
Plan & Certificate of Appropriateness and Zoning Variance application subject to all applicable
code provisions and subject to consideration of the Planning staff report and the comments of this Design Review Board.”
No second.
The motion did not address what the Design Review Board is tasked to do. Discussion followed
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 6 of 8
regarding the motion. Vice Chair Rea recommended withdrawal of the motion to ask the Applicant
what would be best for them to keep this project moving forward.
Motion withdrawn.
Vice Chair stated the options are:
1. Recommend Approval of the application with the recommended conditions;
2. Recommend Approval of the application with modifications to the recommended conditions;
3. Recommend Denial the application based on the Design Review Board’s findings of non-
compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or
4. Open and continue the review on the application, with specific direction to staff or the
applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items.
Mr. Holloran stated the building is not going to change and he’s very confused about the process. He
would rather sit around the table and talk about how to make it work.
Vice Chair Rea asked Mr. Holloran to stop speaking out of order and asked the Board to vote on the design they have seen as to whether they are going to recommend approval or not to the City
Commission.
Mr. David Fine, Economic Development Specialist for the City, asked to make public comment
about the project. He wanted to say that downtown is very attracted to businesses that work during the day that are not restaurants, bars and shops. Currently, for a larger corporations, there is no space
downtown. From what he is hearing from the downtown business community, the design of this
building is not detracting from tenants desire to be in it. Two very high profile companies in this
community have said that if they don’t find enough office space in the downtown core, they are not
going to be able to grow and might have to leave Bozeman. It’s important to talk about the context in
which decisions take place. Provide the applicants an opportunity to work through the issues at a reasonable cost.
01:59:40 hrs
Vice Chair Rea asked for a motion.
Lessa Racow made a motion:
“I move to recommend approval of the Mendenhall Mixed Use Preliminary Site Plan &
Certificate of Appropriateness and Zoning Variance application subject to all applicable code
provisions and I would like to use the 4th alternative to open and continue the review on the
application with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items.”
Mel Howe seconded the motion.
Planner Krueger said the motion does this without the concurrence of the applicant because
staff needs a recommendation from the Board to meet the City Commission date. Unless the applicant is willing to come back at a future meeting with an alternate design that incorporated
comments, it will be before the Commission on October 8th. That would require a DRB meeting
on Wednesday, Oct 1st, which would not leave staff enough time to analyze it.
Mr. Howe spoke to what the Design Review Board is tasked to do and not do according to City
Code. “The Board shall consider the aesthetics of a proposal.”
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 7 of 8
Mr. Holloran does not want to give false expectation or hope. Fundamentally, right or wrong,
he believes the design has the most appropriate siting, access, setbacks, etc. He would love to
sit down and brainstorm about aesthetics.
Vice Chair Rea stated the project does need to be pushed a little further. Mr. Talarico asked if they could get a list of recommendations that they could address. The short answer is yes, from the staff
report and the minutes from this DRB meeting.
Mr. Holloran stated he believes with more time, they can go in the recommended direction. Mr. Banzinger spoke to how they might approach all the comments, and how to incorporate the
common themes into their design.
02:12:55 hrs Vice Chair Rea called for a vote on the motion to open and continue. The applicant is alright with it.
Mr. Huffstetler stated he believes it is a very appropriate solution. He added that the different
opinions heard at the meeting have common under pinnings with broad philosophies that are quite uniform. Ms. Racow is excited about where the project is going. She believes they are on the right track. She
believes it’s needed in the downtown area.
02:14:45 hrs
Call for vote on motion that is to “open and continue the review on the application with specific
direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items.”
Motion carries unanimously. 02:15:33 hrs
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-3203 (TDD).
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 8 of 8