Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-17 DRB Minutes for ApprovalDesign Review Board Wednesday, January 25, 2017 5:30 pm, City Hall, Madison Room A. 05:32:18 PM (00:00:54) Call meeting to order and Roll Call. Present were: Board members: Bill Rea, Chair Peter Constanti Charley Franklin Lessa Racow Mark Hufstetler Brady Ernst Kiersten Iwai Walt Banziger Cyndy Andrus, Commissioner Liaison Staff members: Marty Matsen Brian Krueger Tom Rogers Rebecca Owens Guests: Susan Riggs B. 05:32:41 PM (00:01:17) Changes to the Agenda. No changes were made to the agenda. C. 05:32:43 PM (00:01:19) Public Comment. No comment was received under this agenda item. D. Action Items 1. 05:32:56 PM (00:01:32). Review of draft project design standards and DRB involvement in project review Special presentation and work session evaluating draft Article 5 – Project Design, of the Unified Development Code (UDC) update. The review will include a segment on how the DRB might be involved in development review. Tom Rogers presented an overview of the draft project design standards, noting he is seeking feedback from this board. He noted that this phase of the unified development code revision process is addressing approximately 150 issues. Article 5 combines the development code and the design objectives plan and turns it into one document that is divided into three divisions. This evening’s presentation defines where the article applies, why it applies and when applies ,and how it works. Tom Rogers stated the provisions of this chapter apply throughout the community. This is significantly different because the design objectives plan currently applies only to entryway corridors and neighborhood conservation overlay districts. He stated the determination has been made that the same minimum standards for development should apply throughout the community. He stressed that these standards apply only to industrial, commercial and apartments primarily, and do not apply to single- family detached homes, duplexes and townhomes . He noted that the code is designed to provide a significant amount of flexibility. Under these revisions, setbacks are to be reduced. The block frontage applies different standards based on the context of what is on the ground, so it is sensitive and respectful of existing development. He stated integrating all of the requirements into one document makes the process easier to understand and makes it more predictable. Tom Rogers stated block frontage, site plan and design elements, and building sites are three elements that work in concert. He stated Main Street downtown is a store front type block frontage and reflects an urban style with limited options. Departures are only allowed on certain standards, and those change based on the type of block frontage. He then turned to landscape block frontage, noting this is generally the type of development required today. He addressed the mixed block frontage, which allows store front, landscape or a combination. The gateway block frontage is the solution to major arterial streets, and incorporates provisions for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular travel. He noted other block frontages apply to secondary streets. Tom Rogers turned attention to recently annexed properties, noting they will be subject to a master plan for development, taking into consideration the future land use map. Tom Rogers addressed the site plan and building design. He noted the site plan deals with the relationship of this development to adjacent properties as well as how well the internal site design works. When looking at the building design, issues considered include character, massing and articulation, building details, building materials, and blank wall treatments. 06:02:24 PM (00:31:00) Responding to questions, Tom Rogers stated this code does not eliminate zoning districts. He noted the block frontage designation will be determined by the existing zoning district and the character of the neighborhood. He stated some areas may include a combination of block frontages, noting the North 7th Avenue corridor includes both store front and landscape block frontages. 06:08:51 PM (00:37:27) Responding to additional questions, Tom Rogers stated that the administrative staff reviews an application, and the Community Development Director or the Commission makes the final determination on whether a plan complies with the code. He noted the intent statement identifies what is expected, with imagery that supports that text. The developer may request review of a plan by this body to determine if requested departures result in a better design; and that input will be considered by the decision maker. He stated that variances are allowed because an administrative challenge must be provided, particularly in places where environmental issues may not allow compliance with the code requirements. 06:15:13 PM (00:43:49) Responding to comments about the potential that the wide setbacks along major streets could result in urban sprawl, Tom Rogers indicated that there are commercial nodes throughout the city. He recognized that Huffine Lane is turning into one big strip mall. 06:18:47 PM (00:47:23) Tom Rogers noted that the pattern set today will impact development over many years. 06:19:19 PM (00:47:55) Brian Krueger stated that the 19th Avenue corridor and Oak Street are managed by another government entity that has total control over pedestrian facilities and the streets, that those corridor setbacks are to accommodate their requirements. He cautioned that the City must comply with the Montana Department of Transportation regulations so the consultant is looking at options for those routes. 06:24:05 PM (00:52:41) Responding to questions about planned unit developments, Tom Rogers stated staff does not promote them, characterizing them as a special zoning district that lasts forever. He noted they are still in the code, but they are being de-emphasized. 06:27:13 PM (00:55:49) Tom Rogers addressed departures and how to determine if they result in a better plan. He stated the urban design manual will be the additional guiding document used in staff review and will the basis on which they are considered along with the requirements for the applicable block frontage. 06:35:38 PM (01:04:14) Responding to questions on when the unified development code revisions will become effective, Tom Rogers stated he anticipates adoption in two months or so, with the code to be effective thirty days thereafter. He indicated that this board can provide input in writing or, if desired, he can attend another board meeting. 06:38:43 PM (01:07:19) Responding to questions raised by Susan Riggs, Tom Rogers stated that if someone were to construct a new building like Schnee’s in the downtown, they would be required to provide more windows on the side. 06:42:29 PM (01:11:05) Tom Rogers asked how the DRB members wish to be involved in the review process, noting that the code revisions as drafted include all of the points that previously triggered review and added any development over four stories. He stated that the new provisions would have increased reviews by one more project over the past year. 06:48:36 PM (01:17:12) Bill Rea suggested that the trigger for DRB review be lowered from 90 parking spaces to 50 spaces, noting he feels that trigger is currently too high. He also suggested that a project involving demolition should include required DRB review. He noted that this board is not typically meeting twice a month, but recognized that these changes might result in meeting twice a month or possibly longer meetings. 06:50:58 PM (01:19:34) Bill Rea stated he feels providing input on informal applications is important. He noted that when a formal application is submitted, the developer can become angered by the DRB input and that puts the Commission in a tough situation. He thinks review of informal applications could result in a better review process and allow the developer to accept the input with much less cost involved. 06:58:58 PM (01:27:34) Tom Rogers thanked board members for their input and asked them to submit any additional comments in writing so he can incorporate the information into the revisions. 2. 07:06:29 PM (01:35:05) Revision to Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors (Owens) Special presentation to provide update on revisions to the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan, now entitled the Bozeman Urban Design Manual, including review of: the first public version of the modified resource; application of the Manual as related to block frontage standards in the proposed Unified Development Code amendments; DRB’s continued employment of the resource; and project schedule. Rebecca Owens stated this is the first review of the proposed revisions by any board. She provided a brief background of the purpose of the Bozeman Urban Design Manual, noting the document was created to guide large scale development, which was originally anticipated along entryway corridors. She stated that to coordinate with the unified development code updates, this document must also be updated. She stressed that a lot of large scale development is occurring outside the Class 1 and Class 2 entryway corridors, citing Stadium View Apartments and development at the hospital as examples. She noted that this document is intended to provide examples for how to meet departure criteria. She stated the deviation process provided a lot of flexibility, while the departure criteria require general compliance with the code requirements which are intended to result in higher quality development. Rebecca Owens stated the priorities were to make the document more user friendly, provide better illustrations, more up to date practices instead of traditional design, change scope and flexibility and what design quality means. She noted the public was very vocal about values around recreation and access to open space and character. Rebecca Owens stated these revisions are on a tight schedule, noting the final draft is to be completed in less than a month with the Commission to consider final action prior to expiration of the consultant contract, which is March 20. She then turned attention to the revisions in this document, noting that Bozeman has doubled in size since 1994, so it is now a more urban area. She stated the new document is to be called the Bozeman Urban Design Manual to reflect those changes. She provided a brief overview of the chapters to be included in the manual, noting that the designs are all new since the designs in the current plan are outdated. She stated code references have been eliminated. Rebecca Owens stated some of the significant changes in the guidelines pertain to building placement, setbacks, building details and site improvements. She noted there used to be emphasis on agricultural heritage and rural context, and this plan is more urban oriented. She stated the appendices are very history oriented with relationship to other plans, and she anticipates that will be condensed. She indicated that staff has just begun to review the document and has not yet aggregated comments. She highlighted some of the issues that have been identified to date and suggestions for improving the document. She stated the vision is not just to have a printable document, but to include an on-line image portfolio tagged for each guideline. She noted there is still some confusion about what issues should be in the code or the manual. She stated that innovative architectural features are to be encouraged, but they are to be compatible with the historic features of the area. She noted parking lots and the implementation of best practices for those areas are big issues to be addressed. She noted that linking sites together will be encouraged when possible. Rebecca Owens stressed that this is a preliminary plan, and noted this board will have another opportunity to review this document prior to its being considered by the Commission. 07:35:17 PM (02:03:53) Peter Consanti how does this interface with Article 5? Rebecca Owen stated the code references will be part of every section of this document. She noted there is the option for hyperlinking between the documents. She stated the new block frontage draft has a reference to this plan. Tom Rogers stated the current code has 44 different articles; the new code will have seven. He noted it is loosely referenced, and stated staff is open to how to better tie the documents together. 07:39:26 PM (02:08:02) Responding to Mark Hufstetler, Marty Matsen stated the code is updated by MuniCode and is searchable. He cautioned that having the unified development code and all of its attendant documents available in different places can result in documents not updated in the same way. 07:43:23 PM (02:11:59) Rebecca Owens stated one of the biggest goals of these revisions is to provide flexibility and another is to ensure it is a stand-alone document. She indicated that the consultant will be making revisions until their contract terminates on March 20; then the Commission will determine if it wishes to act on the document or if it wishes to have staff make some additional changes prior to adoption. 07:47:38 PM (02:16:14) At Marty Matsen’s request, Rebecca Owens reviewed the times set for public comment. She noted that by the public hearing, staff will have included tweaks but there is opportunity for additional changes to be made prior to final adoption. She stated the first public hearing before the Commission is scheduled for February 13, so feedback before that is important. 07:51:35 PM (02:20:11) Susan Riggs stated she feels there are many good ideas in the document; however, she feels it is very disjointed and not user friendly. She recognized the details can be worked out, but she is concerned about consistency in formatting and content and avoiding conflicts between the documents. She also asked about guidelines for historic preservation and whether commercial uses will be removed from that document. 07:55:59 PM (02:24:35) Brian Krueger responded to several questions from board members, noting that the code will be the document on which decisions are based, particularly where conflicts occur. He stated that an overlay district overlying a hybrid zoning becomes extremely difficult. 08:01:01 PM (02:29:37) Rebecca Owens encouraged board member feedback on the plan. 08:01:57 PM (02:30:33) Mark Hufstetler asked how staff feels about examples related to indigenous architecture for Bozeman. He stressed that is not just good design, but good design that fits in Bozeman and southwestern Montana. 08:02:54 PM (02:31:30) Rebecca Owens stated overall the plan is moving from rural oriented design to an urban context. She noted there must be room for innovation in architectural details and materials used. 08:05:42 PM (02:34:18) Responding to Bill Rea, Rebecca Owens stated an example of characteristics of the indigenous built environment could be provided. 08:08:29 PM (02:37:05) Responding to Bill Rea, Brian Krueger stated that many architects are new to Bozeman and base their designs on budget rather than what is desired in Bozeman . Bill Rea noted this board has been able to assist architects in providing a better design based on the guidelines. 08:10:45 PM (02:39:21) Bill Rea asked that the third draft be distributed to board members as soon as possible. E. 08:11:19 PM (02:39:55) FYI/Discussion. Brian Krueger noted the Board will be considering two large projects at its February 8 meeting. The February 22 meeting will include one project as well as this an update on this plan. Bill Rea announced that his term will expire at the end of June and he will not seek reappointment. F. 08:16:56 PM (02:45:32) Adjournment.