Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21165 The Ives DRB summary comments 09 09 21Page 1 of 6 September 9, 2021 Leslie Maienschein-Cline, Solomon Cordwell Buenz, SCB; leslie.maienschein-cline@scb.com Nolan Sit, SCB; Nolan.sit@scb.com Joseph King, SCB; joseph.king@scb.com Lindsey Von Seggern, SCB; lindsey.vonseggern@scb.com Nicole Stine, SMA; nicoles@architects-sma.com Andy Holloran, Henry Partners, LLC and HomeBase Partners; andy@hbpartners.com RE: 21231; The Henry Condominiums (North Central Block 3.4) Site Plan and 21165; The Ives (North Central Block 4) Site Plan Review by the Bozeman Design Review Board on September 8, 2021. Dear Folks: As you are aware, the City’s Design Review Board (DRB) met yesterday evening to discuss the design of the two above-referenced site plan applications pursuant to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.230.040. Below please find a summary of their comments on each proposed site plan. Please forward these comments to relevant members of your design team. If you wish to discuss their comments with Department staff, please let me know and I can schedule a TEAM meeting with the appropriate staff. If you intend to incorporate some of the DRB suggestions into the project design, please let me know so we can assist you in submitting amendments for our review through the Bozeman Cloud Intake folder. This summary will be sent to the Director along with the staff reports for each project when the public notice period for each project has ended. The Director will take into consideration for his decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the site plan and Departures: All public comment, the DRB recommendations, any design changes by the Applicant in response to DRB recommendations, the staff report containing Code compliance evaluations, and will consider all matters of record presented with the application. The 15-day Public Comment period for The Henry proposal ends September 25, 2021 and when the staff evaluation is complete and presented to the Director, he will make his decision. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 406-582-2285 or your Development Review Coordinator Ross Knapper at 406-582-2968 or at rknapper@bozeman.net. We thank you for your time and presentation at the DRB meeting. You all made a fine presentation and described your proposed project well. Sincerely, Susana Montana, Senior Planner Page 2 of 6 DRB Members present: Lotus Grenier, Troy Scherer recused himself, Brady Ernst, Mark Hufstetler, Allison Bryan, Erin Eisner and Paul East. 21231; The Henry condominium apartment (North Central Block 3.4) Overall, the DRB stated that the Applicant presented a good design of the Site and the buildings providing quality materials for the buildings. Susana Montana, Community Development planner, entered the staff report into the record and then presented a slide show presentation describing the Site, the Applicant’s North Central Master Plan area as context for the proposed development, described the character of the neighborhood, described the proposed development and the requested Departures from the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Mr. John King representing the Applicant presented a slide show describing the design elements of the project, how the design would “fit” into the proposed four block North Central Master Plan elements, and described the reasons and justifications for the requested Departures. The Chair called for public comments and there were none. The Chair asked for a Motion from the Board to begin discussions on the proposal. Board Member Allison Bryan made the Motion from the text of the staff report which was seconded by Paul East. Some DRB expressed concerns and suggestions for the project follow: Departure No. 1. Several Board Members expressed concern with the requested Departure from the Special Residential Block Frontage to reduce the setback from 10-feet to 6-ft. and 3- inches for the Villard/Tracy corner ground floor dwelling unit number 105. They expressed that the mitigation proposed by the Applicant to raise the windows of the Tracy façade for that unit to six feet above grade so a person of that height or lower would not be able to see into the unit; affording the residents therein privacy while still providing natural light. They also propose to install a 5-ft.,11-in.-wide landscaped buffer along the Tracy frontage of Unit 105. Board Members suggested that the Tracy frontage wall should be “pulled back” ten feet to provide more space for a proper setback for not only Unit 105 but for the other two dwelling units accessing from Tracy Avenue. They expressed that the porches and landscaping of the other two dwellings was minimally meeting code (“too tight”, “too small”) and the porches, stoops and landscaping should be larger with more dense vegetation to enhance privacy for those residents; pulling the wall back 10 feet could provide the space to achieve this privacy for those units. Board Members expressed that the proposed mitigation measures of higher Page 3 of 6 windows and landscaping at grade did not meet the Code criteria for a Departure in that the proposed alternative was not attractive and did not provide the privacy required of a ground floor dwelling unit [BMC 38.510.030.J]. Departure No. 2. There was discussion about the request to reduce the Tracy Avenue setback for the building entrance from 10-feet to 7 ft.,1-in. The building entrance is next to the proposed “Beall Alley” which, in the short term, would be only about 13-feet from the existing Medical Arts building south wing. This would remain a narrow pathway until a much later phase of the North Central Master Plan were built. However, the 7-ft. setback was to the stair landing for the entrance and the door was setback another 5 feet. Although Board Members would prefer that the Tracy frontage wall be setback 10-ft. from the property line, they are generally in support of this Departure request to allow the 7-ft. setback instead of 10 ft. for the Tracy Avenue building entrance. Building Design. Overall, the Board Members liked the proposed materials but were concerned with some of the materials’ placement on the façade. There was discussion about the black metal siding material for the ground floor façade being too dark and “unfriendly” to the adjacent single-family home neighborhood to the east and north. The ground floor height of 15-feet is too tall with the black metal “skin” and appears out of scale with the nearby single- story houses. It was suggested that bringing down the first floor height may help the building to appear more in scale with the neighborhood. [Staff post-meeting note: the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) guideline for Mass and Scale A.1. recommends a minimum floor-to-floor height of 15-feet. The form and intensity standard for buildings in the B-3 zone requires a 13-foot floor-to-ceiling height for the first floor (Table 38.320.050). The material for the first floor is not regulated except metal siding must be a minimum of 24 gauge thickness (Table 38.530.060).] One Board Member suggested that a “brownstone” first floor material for the façade of the Tracy Avenue dwelling units and their stoops would help to soften the scale of the much taller building in the area and could help correct the appearance of not “neighborliness” of the façade. It was suggested that, rather than dark metal, the ground floor material should be brick. Balconies. There was discussion regarding the privacy provided for project residents at the balconies as well as privacy for residents of the adjacent smaller homes due to the clear-glass balconies. There was concern that residents’ patio furniture and storage of “stuff” would be visible and unattractive to residents of the neighborhood. The Applicant explained that the patios were rather large and were setback from the balcony edge by 8-feet. Susana mentioned that the BMC Code required balconies next to residents to be at least 50% opaque [38.520.030]. Nonetheless, Board Members did not support the glass balcony railings even if they were “frosted” for greater privacy. Page 4 of 6 Landscaping. The Board Members found the 2-ft. landscaping along Tracy Avenue for the two dwelling units with an entrance on Tracy Ave. to be inadequate—too narrow. Members like the courtyard at the southwest corner of the Site. There was concern that the open space would be out of scale and much of the time would be in shade when the other three buildings of the Master Plan were built around it. The rock garden in the common open space would be too small in scale for the space. The rocks should be larger to make the year-round “statement” that the Applicant stated he wanted to achieve. A motion had been made by the DRB to recommend to the Director approval of the proposed site plan and building design including the requested Departures. This motion passed unanimously (5-0) based on the findings presented in the staff report and all information presented by staff and the Applicant’s representatives at the DRB meeting. 21165; The Ives (North Central Block 4) Design Review Board comments of September 8, 2021 Staff planner Susana Montana entered the staff report into the record and then made a slide show presentation of the project explaining the Site, the neighborhood, the location of the Site within the North Central Master Plan proposal; described the project’s various elements and approvals needed: Site plan, Subdivision Exemption for lot aggregation, and a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the parking lot and for the new building. She explained that the residential, retail and parking garage uses for the Site were principal permitted uses and that vehicle and bike parking in excess of that required for the residents and on-site commercial uses could be available for Joint Use per the BMC [38.540.060]. She explained the reason for the building step-back design on its west side due to proximity to residentially-zoned single- story homes abutting the alley to the west [38.320.060.2.b]. She presented slides of the design explaining how staff determined that the scale, mass, solid-to-void ratios and materials positively addressed NCOD criteria and guidelines. Staff described the temporary parking lot that would be provided nearby by the Applicant to mitigate the loss of parking at the Site. Mr. Nolan Sit presented a slide show showing the building design, the design concept and how it is manifest in the building, and presented the various elements of the building. The Chair called for public comment and there was none. Board Questions and Concerns. 1. If the 3rd floor open space patio is to be functioning year-round, how will the Applicant remove snow from the 3rd floor open space? Where would the snow be stored in that area? Page 5 of 6 2. The South side of the building abuts another commercial Site and building. What landscaping would be provided along the Building’s south side? Ms. Lindsey Von Seggern stated the landscaping was 10-feet wide. 3. There was a questions about the number of indoor secure bicycle spaces were to be available to residents of the project. The Applicant responded that there would be 99 indoor secure bike racks for residents and 53 for off-site users. 4. There was a question as to why the 45-degree angles were required for The Ives building and not for The Henry building. Staff explained that the Code required the stepping back from the alley for The Ives building due to the close proximity to single- story homes across the 16-foot wide alley and the homes next to The Henry were separated from the 6-story building by a 60-foot wide Villard Street and a 50-something- foot wide Tracy Avenue [38.320.060.2.b] which provided greater relief from the scale and provided light, air and privacy to neighbors of The Henry. 5. There was a question about the building materials proposed along the west side of the building. The west façade was next to single-story homes which would remain so for decades to come, if not longer, so this view of the building’s west façade is more visible and important to the public. The public view of the east side of the building, facing Willson, would be obscured as soon as the similarly tall buildings of Block 3 (Medical Arts Building) are built. The west façade is more visible to the community but has lesser quality materials. The west side should have the same quality materials as the east façade. 6. For “edge buildings” (tall buildings alongside smaller homes) balconies cause privacy concerns to residents of the smaller homes. 7. What type of material is the white trim on the brick façade? 8. The metal siding of the building “sticks out”. 9. On the Willson façade, the vertical glass area separating the two halves of the building have some sort of internal lighting—what type of lighting would be used? 10. The Villard façade is not presenting “neighborliness” to the smaller single-household homes across the street as is proposed in the “feather/stone” design concept. How can you soften the Villard façade to be friendlier to the homes across the street? Also, there is not a lot of landscaping along the Villard side; more greenery would soften the harshness of the dark brick façade. 11. The Feather and Stone design concept is well done on the Willson façade but is “lost” on the Villard façade. The vertical glass “link” between the two mass sides of the building should be brought down to the ground floor façade as it is shown on the Willson façade. It seems that the exterior materials of the north façade should be reversed to continue the “rock and feather” design concept as it turns the corner onto the Villard façade. Rather, it currently is reversed with the wood “feather” on the side of the taller North Central buildings and the “rock” brick materials on the side of the lower scale homes. The Chair asked for a Motion from the Board. Board Member Allison Bryan made the Motion from the text of the staff report which was seconded by Erin Eisner. Page 6 of 6 Board Discussion: Board Member Allison Bryan stated (1) that people use balcony decks and that they should provide privacy for the residents on the balconies and for the lower homes across the street and alley; (2) the glass connector piece between the two sides of the building elevation on the Villard façade should be brought down to the ground floor; and (3) the west side of the building along the alley should have better materials used. Board Member Mark Hufstetler complemented the design and the treatment along the east elevation and commented that the north and west elevations are more visible to the public and should not have a lesser design and materials as is currently proposed. Those elevations should have higher quality materials. Board Member Erin Eisner complemented the design concept. However, the alley elevation looks like a warehouse. The 3rd floor courtyard has been brushed over in its design. There is one tree; why is it placed where it blocks windows? Board Member Paul East likes the comments Lotus Grenier made regarding the rock and feather design concept being “lost” on the Villard and alley façades. He agrees that those elevations should have the same materials as the Willson façade. The ground floor pedestal is not reflective of the “feather and stone” design concept. Board Member Brady Ernst asked what coloring would be used on the vertical glass element linking the mass of the two sides between the feather and the rock halves of the building design. Board Member Allison Bryan asked the Applicant to not use dark mortar between the bricks; the mortar should not be the same color as the brick.