Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-16 DRB MinutesWednesday, January 13, 2016, 5:30 pm, City Hall, Madison Room – 121 N. Rouse A. Call meeting to order – Bill Rae Calls meeting to order at 5:33 Board Present: Lessa Racow Melvin Howe Bill Rea Cynthia Andrus (Commission Liaison) Walter Banzinger Brian Krueger (Planning Staff Liaison) B. Changes to the Agenda – No Changes to the Agenda C. Approve Meeting Minutes – No Minutes to approve D. Public Comment – No public comment E. Action Items A.15569 – Taco Bell at Catron Crossing – (Davis/Kohtz) 2515 Catamount Street To seek informal advice and guidance on the future development of a new commercial building for a restaurant use with parking and associate site improvements. Heather Davis begins presentation on the informal application for Taco Bell at Catron Crossing. The applicant is looking for feedback before their formal application. Project is at the corner of Catamont and Valley Center Roads. It is zoned B‐2. Ms. Davis begins discussing location of the project and the approved Master Sight Plan of the area. Ms. Davis discusses the setbacks for the project and that it will complete a portion of the road that is currently undeveloped. She states that the project will be reviewed based on the Bozeman Design Objective Plan. Concerns include franchise architecture and making the project unique. The building will use the drive access currently in place for the neighboring hotel. Heather Davis states that they are currently requesting a relaxation to the stream setback. Ms. Davis displays the proposed building showing materials used, outdoor seating and landscaping. Heather Davis discusses a suggestion to reduce the amount of pavement and a suggestion to flip the site plan for building location. Ms. Davis mentions that they moved away from franchise architecture and toward innovative design. In addition, the applicant used pedestrian connectivity, which is favorable. Call for Public Comment – No public comment Discussion by the board – this is an informal project, so no formal vote on the item. Lessa Racow begins the board discussion. She states that with a formal application, they will require a landscape plan given the tight space and stream buffering and to soften the building with all of the pavement. Lessa Racow suggests moving the access to Catamont Street to make easier access for the drive‐thru. She feels that it still holds a bit of franchise architecture and resembles other Taco Bells, but still is a bit unique. Bill Rea comments that franchise architecture is always a big deal for this board, but has improved over the years. He states that the volume and design are largely the same as other Taco Bells. He likes opening up to the stream on the east. He likes the stream and patio eating area being close to one another. Applicant states that the patio is on the south side to allow additional lighting. Bill Rea apologizes as he was turned around on the map. Bill Rea states that the design doesn’t particularly bother him in that area, as that area already has the Outback there. He expressed concerns with the wood as it could weather quickly. Bill Rea says that he would say to staff that he would allow this level of franchise architecture. He did state that landscape would be critical in the formal application. He suggested they look at the Cannery District for landscape ideas. Melvin Howe comments that we have seen a great change in franchise architecture. He states he sees no concerns with franchise architecture as it is improving. As long as designs are quality, it is fine. Board takes a 5 minute break between projects. Currently do not have a quorum, so waiting for a board member to arrive. B.15531 – Golden Gate Condominiums SP/CCOA (Brekke/Kohtz) 4835 Golden Gate Avenue A site plan and commercial certificate of appropriateness application to allow five multi-unit residential buildings, with a total of 84 dwelling units, and affiliated open space, landscaping and surface parking. Allyson Brekke begins presentation of the Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Commercial COA. Ms. Brekke shows maps indicating the location of the building and explains the development is proposing 84 units among 5 buildings in the Loyal Gardens Subdivision. Ms. Brekke indicates that the property is R‐4 bordering an R‐3 zoning district. The project proposes 23 units per acre. Ms. Brekke indicates that the adjacent storm water ponds and City lift station to the east and subdivision open space to the west. She indicates a small private open space and parking interior to the site. Ms. Brekke indicates that the buildings are meeting all required setbacks. Ms. Brekke states that in R‐4 you are required to have at least 8 units per acre and up to 33 units per acre. Ms. Brekke displays the placement of the buildings along Golden Gate Ave. She indicates that the DRC required an additional access for the units. The additional access was added for emergency use only and will be gated and locked by the fire department. Ms. Brekke indicates that this lot was designed for only one access. She states that staff encourages the interior to the lot parking location. Ms. Brekke discusses the intent to shield the 24‐plex along Huffine with a landscaping berm and that there is a shared use asphalt trail already in place along that section of Huffine. Ms. Brekke states that the buildings are all similar in design, with main difference being the length of the buildings and number of units. Ms. Brekke states that the DRB’s goal is to discuss how the buildings address the streets and how the balconies appear and the variation and materials being used. Ms. Brekke states that there is both private open space located interior to the lot as well as being provided on private patios and balconies. The general height of the buildings is about 38’. The proposal does an adequate job of keeping the building lighting to the inside of the property (facing toward the parking lot). Ms. Brekke states that the majority of parking is on the site. They are able to count on street parking as well based on the length of the property street frontage. Ms. Brekke discusses the concerns presented by the neighbors regarding the proposal. The neighbors are concerned with density, traffic control and neighborhood character. Ms. Brekke displays Google street images showing the site as you drive down Golden Gate Ave and Huffine, to give an idea of the current character of the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Brekke discusses that the project meets most of the Design Guidelines presented in the Design Objectives Plan for the Huffine Entryway Corridor. Ms. Brekke concludes her presentation and opens up for applicant presentation. Applicant/architect Jesse Sobrepena begins presentation of projects. He starts with images of a similar project to the one being proposed on Golden Gate that is constructed south of town (in Meadow Creek Subdivision). He states that there is some material variation that gives a streetscape feel. He states the project displayed has received positive feedback from the community. Applicant shows a birds eye view rendering of the proposed project as it would look once constructed. Applicant states that the design objective was to provide an attractive sustainable building within city limits. In addition, to provide a private outdoor area for everyone in the units. Also, affordability was considered. He states that a lot of thought was put into keeping the best face forward towards the streets (Golden Gate and Huffine). They attempted to keep the busier parts of the project internal to reduce concerns with parking, etc. Applicant states that instead of a large fat building, they went with a linear design, so there are no corridors to heat and light. He feels the building offers interesting design and roof shapes. Applicant shows a rendering of how the project will look on the street side of the 24‐plex. Applicant completes his presentation. Board begins with staff and applicant questions. Lessa Racow questions why the secondary entrance will be gated. Ms. Brekke responds that the fire department wants the drive access to remain available for their use at all times. The idea is to avoid parking in the space and blocking fire access. Lessa Racow questions if the colors in rendering are accurate. Applicant responds that they are fairly accurate. They will not be white like the units displayed earlier that are located south of town. Walt Banzinger questions if staff could go back to see the character of the neighborhood. He questions if it’s R‐3 zoning or single family homes. Allyson Brekke states that it was developed under R‐3 zoning at the lowest density available. He questions the applicant about what was discussed with owner when designing. Applicant stated that the owner had explored various versions of 12‐24‐plexes. Mr. Banzinger questions if they explored other density options. Applicants state that they only explored high density to make it viable. Applicant also comments that they have already reduced density based on the informal review process. Melvin Howe questions if there will be any outdoor seating. The applicant states that they focused on providing nice balconies and patios with a nice view. Melvin Howe questions if there is a local bus stop. Applicant states that there is a bus stop nearby and that they explored a reduction in parking, but it was not available. Bill Rea questions if these are rental units or condominiums. Applicant responds they will be condominiums. Bill Rea questions if the original subdivision came before the DRB. Allyson Brekke states that it did not go to the DRB and that it was platted in 2012. Bill Rea questions when homes began to be developed. Allyson Brekke states that some spec homes were built at the time of the original plat, but most have been built within the last two years. Bill Rea questions if Golden Gate Avenue meets city standards. Allyson Brekke responds that it’s the city standard of 60’ right‐of‐way. Commissioner Cynthia Andrus questions the parking lot connectivity and the walking connectivity that goes east to west within the property. Applicant responds there are walk ways and sidewalks throughout the property. Cynthia Andrus questions the affordability of the buildings. Applicant responds that it is affordable with respects to Bozeman – compared to single family homes and some similar sized units downtown. Cynthia Andrus questions if there are other properties were there is only one drive access with an emergency drive access. Ms. Brekke states there are some other recent project approved with a similar drive access arrangement. Cynthia Andrus questions if there are bike spaces available. The applicant responds that there are about 40 bike spaces available – mostly internal to the site. Lessa Racow questions if the regulations on R‐4 have changed since this was zoned accordingly. Ms. Brekke says there hasn’t been changes to R‐4 zoning. Lessa Racow questions if something other than pavement has been considered for the emergency entrance. Applicant responds the fire department was not in favor of anything other than pavement – they had considered the grass pavers. Bill Rea questions the pedestrian access outside of the property for the bus stop or bike paths. Lessa Racow questions how some of the units could connect to the bike paths. Allyson Brekke comments on some ways it may be accessible. Board opens the meeting for public comment. Public Comment – Eli Anselmi states that originally there was intent to have a buffer to the south with the zoning transition. However, the subdivision has been developed with all single household homes. He is not opposed to high density, but does not think this is not the best way to go about it. He expresses concern with the building height and thinks there should be some blending from 1.5‐2 story buildings to the larger structures using more of a townhome look, etc. He said that he looked at the subdivision plat when he bought his home and thought the density was estimated to be 12‐14 units per acre. Public Comment from Lance Lehigh, who say he wants something that better incorporates neighborhood character and he does not feel that this does. He thinks that lowering the buildings along Golden Gate to two‐story would be advantageous to the design. He feels the outside of the buildings are all pretty similar and doesn’t meet the variety of the neighborhood – some variety would be beneficial. He feels that there is not enough thought to access of the subdivision trail system and that if they plan to use parking along Golden Gate, it will be a health and public safety issue. Public Comment from Matt Sonnichson – He states he will be right in front of the access drive. The way the project is proposed, there will be 160 cars driving in front of his home. He states that traffic is being increased considerably from what was originally planned at 12‐14 units per acre. He thinks that the traffic will be more taxing than expected. Public comment from Randy Stevens – Questions if the buildings are exceeding utility needs. He questions if the traffic study extended beyond Golden Gate. He stated back up at the He states that the bus stop may not be ideally place in relation to the project with regard to street crossing. He is interested in what the rent would be for these properties. He is concerned about the transition. He states the renderings do not indicate the other buildings in the area and is perceived as an island. Public comment from Karmon Klundt – Expresses concerns with the impact of safety and vehicle usage. She states that she is concerned with the view and that they chose this neighborhood because it was single family. She feels they are an island from the city and that there is not much connectivity and so there is a lot of walking traffic around the neighborhood and additional traffic could be dangerous. Public Comment from Larry Summers – Questions if there will be AC units outside of the building – applicant responds no. He states that he regularly uses the trail system and it is pretty decent. He states that he has seen some very visually appealing buildings and supports making more diverse buildings and making the units less dense. Public Comment from Jay Willett – Discusses that Advance Dr goes right onto Huffine Lane, but does not allow access into the subdivision (right in/out only). With it being the closest access to the proposed project, that it will really bog down that access. Planning to use this access just will not work with its current design. Bill Rea questions the access onto Cottonwood. Mr. Woolit expresses no concerns with the access to Cottonwood. Public Comment from Mike Hennessy – Questions the developer about whether they have gone through discussions about what the units will cost based on the claim that they will be affordable. He questions if they have explored what it will take to make them available to the public. He expresses the concern with no transition. Public Comment from Shaun Ross – He states that he is concerned with the lack of transition and the backyards and balconies facing the street. He states that he would not use Huffine or Cottonwood to ride his bike, that it’s dangerous and thus won’t be relieving the vehicle demands. He states that there are no real services nearby so it won’t be a lot of bikers and walking. He doesn’t feel there’s much curb appeal. Public Comment from Karen Willett – Ms. Woolit states that the character of the neighborhood is a major concern with single household homes fronting 3 story buildings. She suggests discussing with the school system how the bus accesses the neighborhood, as there is issues with them coming through the neighborhood. Public Comment from Brad Eberspecher – Just wants to repeat what others have said. That the originally planned for 12‐14 units per acre would be much more compatible with the neighborhood. If you use street parking, it will leave little space for vehicle traffic. Close of Public Comment. Bill Rea brings conversation back to the front for motion, discussion and a vote. Thanks the public for their comment and reminds them this board is one small portion of the process. Lessa Racow questions if these units will be condos and assumes there will be a HOA. Questions if there will be an owner/renter ratio requirement – applicant responds no. Questions if there will be allocated visitor parking – applicant responds no. Walt Banzinger questions the utility study and what was put in place and whether they meet the demands of the property. He questions how the owners association aligns with the owners association in place. Builder states that they went to the HOA and they gave them the OK with this project. Walt Banzinger questions if a traffic study was done with regards to this property. Ms. Brekke responds that the traffic study was done with the original subdivision of the property and that Engineering sees no immediate concerns with the traffic demands. Walt Banzinger questions the understanding that the homeowners had that it would be 8 units per acre. Ms. Brekke responds that 12‐14 units was originally based on original park land dedication on the original subdivision and the water/sewer, but that has all been re‐checked with the proposed density and meets code requirements. Mel Howe states that the board is responsible for the way the project looks. The board’s responsibility is to discuss the aesthetics of the project. He questions the city’s position on the density. Ms. Brekke responds that the density is on track with what is being established currently in the community. In addition, they are meeting the code requirements with park land, parking, storm water, etc. Cynthia Andrus questions what portion of the subdivision is developed. Public responds that there are over 130 lots and currently 124 homes built. Bill Rea questions where the 12‐14 unit misconception came from. Ms. Brekke explains that was the general estimate based on the original subdivision plan. Bill Rea questions how the HOA associates with the City. Ms. Brekke states that the HOA has the ability to require more than the City, but that the City is not party to any HOA requirements. Bill Rea questions if there is land space to add a sheltered bus stop. Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager, states that the Streamline bus stops occur within the street right‐of‐way, to put it on public space would require easements into the street right‐of‐way. Bill Rea questions the AC units. Applicant responds that there will be no ground units and that they will be thru the wall and shielded by the balcony. Applicant responds that the Streamline bus system is anticipating putting a shelter at that stops at Cottonwood and Huffine in the near future. No additional questions from the board. Bill Rea questions where they will go from here. Ms. Brekke states that currently the project will go to the Director for final action, but may be reclaimed to the Commission. Cynthia Andrus clarifies that the city commission added the project to a future agenda to discuss if they will reclaim this project. It has not been decided officially for it to be reclaimed by the commission. Lessa Racow begins board discussion on the project. She states that she likes the architectural design. She also states that she likes the parking on the interior of the project. She has a hard time with the three‐story building being right on Golden Gate. That it may be too much and perhaps lowering the units on Golden Gate to two‐story would help. With regards to the large building on Huffine, she states that it may be beneficial for the middle section of the building to change in height or design to break up the street face. She expresses concerns with the owner occupancy percentage for the building units – but that’s not a concern for the DRB. With regards to landscaping, the development needs to provide access to existing trails – to avoid dead grass pathways and people crossing over storm water areas. Lessa Racow states that replacing some of the benches in the proposed private open space area with a fenced in dog park may be advantageous to the occupants. Lessa Racow suggested lighting with over the property addresses would help with way‐finding, also changing the color of the buildings – which could also help with the transition from the neighborhood to the project. Lessa Racow expressed concern with traffic connectivity – especially with the second access being gated off. She really encourages a permeable surface for the gated off access, not paved. With regards to the central access, having parking immediately at the entrance could be problematic. She is concerned with the parking with regards to the lack of visitor parking. Walt Banzinger states that he feels the developer is developing within their rights and code requirements. He states that the architecture is nicely done. He questions if the developer should be responsible for fixing the problems created by all single household homes being built within the subdivision. He questions if there is a possibility for the developer to create the buffer between the single household properties. He feels there is an opportunity to develop the property and get a good return for the developer, but still meeting the needs of the community. He suggests working with the community to reevaluate some of the density. Creating breaks in the building fronts would be advantageous. He suggests creating the buffer between the single household homes and three‐story multi‐family units. He also suggests blending the architecture with the character of the surrounding homes. Bill Rea states that the board can be very subjective while the staff needs to be more objective based on code. He states the property is being developed within the rights of the property owner, but that it just does not fit in this space. He feels it’s a cookie‐cutter design onto the property multiple times. He does not like that there’s no connectivity outside of this property – there should be bike lanes between buildings so that there is not a perception that this is an island. He feels the scale of the building could be brought down through various building heights bringing down the building heights on Golden Gate and increasing along Huffine. He said that he appreciates color on the units instead of being largely brown. He agrees that an effort should be made to reduce vehicles with accessibility to bike and bus systems. He feels that the traffic issues are valid concerns. He feels it meets the City’s code checklist, but needs a good second look to meet the neighborhood’s demands. Walt Banzinger questions if the applicant would entertain reviewing the design. Applicant states they would review the color and connectivity. He also agrees they would address the front to Huffine and breaking it up. Applicant also continues to state that similar situations with the R‐4 high density butting up against the single family homes exist across the street and it has not affected home value, etc. Board discusses how they will move forward with the motion. Brian Krueger states that the City is required to move an application forward and act on the proposal presented. It is up to the board to either provide a recommendation or not. It is typical to make a motion in support and just either vote in favor or against. Walt Banzinger moves to accept staff’s recommended motion. Melvin Howe seconds. Walt Banzinger comments that he thinks that the builder should take the neighborhood’s opinion into consideration and build collaboratively. Bill Rea comments that it’s not in the spirit of the design objectives plan. He states the neighborhood should have known density could have been developed to this degree. He feels however that the neighborhood context is critical here – and that the project could meet that density in another way in design. Lessa Racow states that she agrees with everything that was said and that they’re in a tough position. Typically they have issues with the architecture, but there are none here. However, the way the site relates to the community is a concern and that it’s being forced. She feels with a little adjusting, that it could pencil out to a better plan than is currently shown. Walt Banzinger states that they did everything right, but based on public comment, he just can’t support it. Vote on the motion: None in favor All oppose. E. FYI/Discussion – no additional items F. Adjournment – Bill Rea adjourns the meeting. For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the second and fourth Wednesday of the month at 5:30pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301).