Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-15 DRB MinutesThis 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 4 MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 121 NORTH ROUSE AVENUE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 08, 2015 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. 05:30:50 PM CALL TO ORDER ITEM 2. 05:31:00 PM 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. ITEM 3. 05:31:12 PM PROJECT REVIEW 1. Rocky Mountain Credit Union Informal Application I15011 (Rogers) South of Durston Road, East and West of Laurel Parkway extension An Informal Review Application for advice and comment of the construction of a new 5,500 sq.ft. financial institution branch office and drive through with associated parking and related site improvements. 05:31:34 PM Tom Rogers, Community Development, presented proposed application. Expressed important to consider that this was in the Sacoccia-Lowe’s Planned Unit Development, noted that Board had recently considered another proposal immediately adjacent. Reviewed relevant design guidelines, discussed site plans. Staff proposes no formal recommendation. 05:39:42 PM Mark Algard, Momentum, presented for applicant, joined by Ed Stofko, CEO of Rocky Mountain Credit Union. Expressed that they were trying to get on the right path to an acceptable design, had been working to overcome challenge of putting enough glass on the north side and maximize street presence. Discussed responses to previous recommendations. 05:42:41 PM Bill Rea requested tour of building relative to black-and-white handouts that do not well distinguish glass— Mark Algard described material features relative to handouts. 05:45:56 PM Lessa Racow asked whether row of trees in handouts represents signage—Mark Algard confirmed. Expressed that there were good opportunities to incorporate landscape architecture, that building had interesting features but would leave finer architectural points to other Board Members. 05:47:49 PM Mark Hufstetler asked about the update to the canopy design—Mark Algard distributed his notes on these to the Board Members. Mark Hufstetler assumed that the PUD’s preference was for the building to be located on the northwest corner of the lot and that this made it the only appropriate location—Tom Rogers confirmed, referencing PUD guidelines. Mark Hufstetler asked whether concern had been expressed regarding the number of vehicles that this configuration would accommodate –Tom Rogers confirmed, indicated enforcement of zero-parking/stalling in pedestrian walkways might be difficult at busy times, awaiting further information on through bays which will be part of future review. Mark Hufstetler assumed that the driver’s side of each vehicle would need to be located nearest the building—Mark Algard confirmed, indicated a traffic study would provide additional information. Mark Hufstetler confirmed that this project was independent of the project discussed a few weeks ago—Tom Rogers indicated projects were independent but that shared parking will be reviewed by Staff regardless. Mark Hufstetler asked whether vehicle connectivity of two lots established at time of first project approval or through another process—Tom Rogers indicated that the first approved project would be able to dictate how connectivity would work. 05:52:15 PM Melvin Howe observed that the tree panel on one of the images provided and that on a new image the Rocky Mountain signage appears, that the original looked better. 05:54:28 PM Melvin Howe commented that building is involved and looks nice. 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 4 05:54:48 PM Lessa Racow commented that she likes the materials and general form, that the building will look nice with landscaping. 05:55:28 PM Mark Hufstetler commented that he liked the building’s architecture, but that he disagreed with the two most recent alterations—preferred original drive-through canopy, preferred the bright-colored roof. Expressed that the City often emphasizes earth-tones but that the spot of color would be nice. Noted that site was constrained, expressed concern for distance between entry to property and drive-through windows, that if bays are occupied entering vehicles may need to stop abruptly, felt that if the City would consider moving the building and allowing alternative landscaping around corner it would improve the traffic situation. Encouraged a better integration between this lot and the lot to the south in light of shared use to make the delineation softer and help people understand that the lot is shared. 05:59:36 PM Walter Banziger agreed with Mark’s comments about original design, drive-through concept, roof, and landscaping. Agreed with Staff comments about maintaining presence towards both Baxter and Semental. 06:02:51 PM Chris noted that the PUD is clear that the color should mimic downtown or the mountains, contrary to expressed wishes of Mark Hufstetler. Expressed that a reduction in impact to traffic may result in visual of a sea of parking. 06:03:58 PM Mark Hufstetler restated that he would like to see more flair in terms of color, that overall the building complies well with those guidelines but that the City should encourage distinctions that promote quality design. In terms of parking, clarified that he was not seeking a reduction in parking but advocating consideration of alternative arrangements to make the parking more visually accessible and helping them to understand that they can park anywhere in the PUD. 06:06:01 PM Bill Rea expressed appreciation for the anchoring of the corner, would like to see more connectivity to the sidewalk on Baxter, sees an opportunity on east entrance to have a northeastern plaza to promote pedestrian feel. Disagreed with Mark Hufstetler on drive-through stacking, did not anticipate heavy enough volume for concern. Agreed with other Board Members on color palette, noted he promotes a liberal interpretation. Felt that the new alterations gave too residential a feel, noted color palette example in Staff report as good example, reiterated that first design was superior. 06:09:35 PM Walter Banziger indicated he wasn’t advocating a reduction of parking—Chris clarified that he was seeking not to minimize the visual impact of parking, that this would create sea of parking feel. Walter Banziger indicated that grass strips and landscaping can provide separation of various aisles. 06:10:57 PM Lessa Racow suggested turning parking 90 degrees to create feeling of contiguous use, provided sketch to applicant. 06:12:29 PM Mark Algard indicated developer was proceeding under the assumption that the hotel location has been fixed, agreed that sketch made sense, will discuss with Phil. 06:13:06 PM Mark Hufstetler felt that the parking issue could be improved if building were moved a couple of feet to the north to provide landscaping opportunity just south of drive-through. Noted that hotel property was probably the primary developer such that the hotel guests know they can use the banking side of the lot at night but not the reverse, would like to resolve this discrepancy. 06:14:06 PM Mark Algard agreed that moving the building north would be a good idea but that would require flexibility from Staff. Expressed that parking was more than ample during daytime on bank side of lot, not concerned that hotel would be deriving more advantage from shared lot than bank. 06:15:57 PM Bill Rea asked Tom Rogers about moving the building somewhat north, discussed precedent of Goodwill and Fuel, felt that the need was greater in this instance even in contradiction of PUD—Walter Banziger agreed. 06:16:37 PM Tom Rogers was prepared to provide additional procedural requirements as to what that might take but felt it was outside the scope of tonight’s discussion, indicated that a solution was always possible but that the amount of effort involved may deter the applicant. 06:17:42 PM Bill Rea felt it was important to consider the problem in light of the Baxter corridor, that plans by themselves lack context. 06:18:29 PM Walter Banziger appreciated the package that Staff presented to the Board. 06:18:48 PM Mark Hufstetler agreed, reiterated his appreciation for building architecture, especially the original version. 2. 06:19:39 PM The Element MODS to Final Plan Application Z15080 (Krueger) 25 East Mendenhall Street Modifications to an approved final plan for the construction of a 104 room, 5 story Element hotel, with a commercial tenant space, associated parking, and related site improvements. 06:20:33 PM Brian Krueger, Community Development, presented application and asked for Board’s input. Noted that changes were proposed prior to completion of hotel although construction had already begun, that proposed changes were substantial. No formal recommendation, Community Development is just looking for input. 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 4 06:31:45 PM Andy Halloran with Rob Pertsborn presented for applicant. Noted that proposed minor changes took into account how building would be utilized and were positive. 06:36:19 PM Mel Howe felt that the new illustrations looked good, felt that the extra brick made for a stronger appearance, that the building would do good downtown. 06:37:02 PM Lessa Racow asked why the screen wall was added to alleyway—Andy Halloran described enclosing the pool to make it more spacious and usable, wanted to create a demarcation between alley/trash enclosure/grease trap and guest area. 06:38:31 PM Walter Banziger asked why the architectural changes were made at the main elevations—Andy Halloran expressed that perforated metal originally proposed provided a weaker face than the new brick. Walter Banziger asked for two slides to be toggled for review—Andy Halloran complied. 06:40:00 PM Mark Hufstetler asked whether the green arc in a circle was branding—Andy Halloran confirmed that it was brand standard signage. Mark Hufstetler felt that the proposed changes had already been implemented in construction, wondered why the Board was looking at the changes now—Brian Krueger felt this was a good question, that there are gaps in between inspections, that building permit sets would have to be updated, that lots of changes are made but that code is explicit and applicant is bound by a final site plan. Mark Hufstetler asked whether if the Planning Director chose to uphold the original design it would be mandatory but that hasn’t impeded instruction by the developer—Brian Krueger agreed but noted that the Director’s decision could be appealed. 06:42:49 PM Chris noted that the minor changes could be approved administratively but was concerned about the precedent of permitting last-minute changes without discussion when so much was on the line. Felt that the color had been drawn from the building by changes, wondered why this was done. 06:44:23 PM Rob Pertsborn, Intrinsic Architecture, described moving parts around like a puzzle, including changes made to accommodate building codes in response to other changes; described hotel features and purposes, removing green from awning for being too ostentatious. Andy Halloran felt that some changes were made due to evolving brand and ownership, that in response to these changes the designs were made more conservative. 06:48:13 PM Bill Rea asked whether Element sign on vertical reader had gotten larger—Rob Pertsborn indicated that they had been encouraged to consider larger set of blade designs, that smaller vertical signs look silly. 06:49:36 PM Walter Banziger asked whether Element signage across front of building would be illuminated—Rob Pertsborn indicated internal LED lights would light up sign. Walter Banziger wondered how this would affect occupants— Andy Halloran indicated back of sign would be dark. 06:50:33 PM Andy Halloran apologized for the process, expressed that with the small incremental changes they did not think to revisit the formal process, accepted blame for late notice. 06:51:30 PM Mark Hufstetler struggled to think of something positive to say, recalled that when the building was previously before the Board that he’d expressed it was a building that belonged along the interstate and expressed that he felt it even more strongly now. Believed that design changes had turned a mediocre building into an extraordinary disappointment, resulting in loss of architectural detail for pedestrians and distant viewers. Concerned about the process, that they are being asked to comment on a building that has already been built outside of the specifications they had approved, felt that “disingenuous” may be the kindest word he could apply to how the process was followed. Felt that color contrast made for a more effective design with classical elements and that this had been eliminated. Expressed that cornice had been made softer and less prominent and that this could still be salvaged from the original design. Believed that the portal replacing the architectural element that broke up the east-west façade was totally unsuccessful, does not look integral to the building, not respectful of the architecture of downtown Bozeman as a whole. Expressed that north façade was as utilitarian as could be but this had not been considered at start of process, there is still a little bit of an outdoor element that is essentially being rendered pointless by the rest of the design. Disappointed by asphalt entryway, would like landscaping restored. 06:56:00 PM Lessa Racow noted that she had not been involved in original review of hotel. Felt okay with additional brick but agreed with Mark about the concrete footer, expressed reservations about color changes. Agreed with pool expansion but took issue with security wall around patio, felt that CMU made hotel feel closed-off and unfriendly and that plants and landscaping would achieve a more welcoming result. Expressed that asphalt drive was very disappointing, very generic. 06:59:23 PM Mel Howe reiterated that building was essentially attractive but agreed with comments of other Board Members regarding lack of color, asphalt drive. 07:00:07 PM Walter Banziger noted that he had missed the meeting where hotel had originally been reviewed. Discussed features he considered okay: pool expansion, change to brick from concrete, simplification of entry and dropoff. Discussed little details he would recommend restoring: pavers and landscaping instead of asphalt drive, adding color to building, elevations, additional fenestration. Reiterated that major changes were good but that small details were important offsets. 07:04:32 PM Bill Rea found receipt of application while construction was underway to be interesting. Expressed support for pool expansion, that front drive-through has attained greater flow, larger blade sign. In terms of recommendations to 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 4 Community Development, felt that their recommendations had already been made and that these changes feel almost criminal. Suggested withholding CO or red-tagging project, encouraged Director of Community Development to take a very firm stand in light of the precedent it would set—if the issue is ignorance this would provide a strong lesson, and if the issue is criminality then it is outside the purview of the Board. Agreed with everything Mark Hufstetler said, opposed to changes to cornice and portal, expressed hopes that if nothing else gets fixed the VTAC covers would be. Expressed strong opposition to changes and hoped that this strong opposition would be strongly conveyed to the Director of Community Development and to the City Commission. Expressed that he felt manipulated and strong-armed, proposed red-tagging construction until the process was followed appropriately. 07:08:40 PM Chris wanted to update Board on Cattail development, described that it had been approved last night by a 3-2 vote. ITEM 4. 07:09:32 PM 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).