Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Mel Howe Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Walter Banziger Visitors Present Michael Delaney Tony Renslow Nate Heller ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2007. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to approve the minutes of February 28, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. The Village Homesites Concept PUD #Z-07034 (Windemaker) Village Downtown Boulevard/Village Crossing Way * A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to allow the development of a 20 lot single household subdivision with relaxations requested for lot width requirements, rear yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, and lot coverage. Michael Delaney, Tony Renslow, and Nate Heller joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting this proposal was the last phase of the Village Downtown development. She stated the applicant was proposing nineteen single-family lots with requests for relaxations on lot coverage, lot width, no frontage on a common street, and decreased setbacks. She stated the current proposal would not be as regimented as the previous proposals but would have similar aspects. She stated Staff was concerned with the lack of street frontage and parking for the wetlands park; adding that the on-street parking might not be counted toward the dwelling requirements. Mr. Delaney stated the circular trail going along the west side of the site would contain 7 or 8 parking stalls with directional signs to provide for the trail and added that they were attempting to create the largest wetland park in Bozeman on their site. He stated they were trying to have complexity and variety on the frontages of the homes to carry on the existing character of the downtown area with emphasis on the use of brick and stone; he added that those materials had been requested by potential owners of the units. He stated Front Street only went through as an emergency access to avoid large trucks using the street as a main thoroughfare. He stated the proposal contained one of the most well lit, safe, and well constructed streets in the city and he disagreed with the condition of extending Front Street. Mr. Rea asked if the applicant wanted to maintain Front Street as it existed. Mr. Delaney responded he did. Mr. Rea asked how that would occur. Mr. Delaney responded there would be an opening for pedestrians and bicycles with a break-away gate for emergency vehicle access. He added that the construction vehicles coming through the site was sort of abusive and when construction was finished Front Street would be closed off and the landscaping would be completed. Mr. Rea asked if the applicant would prefer to place a house there. Mr. Delaney responded that he would not prefer to see a house there. Planner Windemaker added that a house could not be located there due to the City of Bozeman owning the street right of way. Mr. Rea asked if more parking could be located by the tennis courts. Mr. Delaney responded there could be more parking located there, but they had roughly calculated the required parking and did not think they would need more parking stalls in that location. He added that there were 50 stalls at the front of the Village Downtown development that weren’t used by anyone and they would be more than enough to accommodate patrons of the trail system on the site. Mr. Rea asked if this proposal was a much lower density than the previous proposals. Mr. Delaney responded it would be a lower density. Mr. Banziger asked the real reason for the requested relaxation to allow a reduction in the required setbacks. Mr. Delaney responded that they were attempting to maintain the overall appearance of the subdivision and surrounding area. He added that they were trying to encourage people to use their garages for their vehicles instead of storage. Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant was trying to remain in keeping with the downtown atmosphere of the area. Mr. Delaney responded that he was. Mr. Banziger asked the applicant to walk through the style of the facades. Mr. Delaney responded they had not worked those details out as of yet and they would be included in the Preliminary Plan PUD Application. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked if Thomas Bitnar would do the design of the proposal similar to what existed. Mr. Delaney responded the design would be similar, but would have variation to make each one individual. He added that there would be several style options available to choose from with a set list of materials and colors that were allowable. Mr. Rea stated he thought the parcel was interesting as it so clearly belonged with the surrounding area. He stated he was not too worried about the streetscape but was concerned with the backside of the development as it would affect the community (backs of the garages). He stated that ultimately the discussion would be one of design and not the request for decreased lot widths or setbacks. Mr. Renslow stated that the backs of the structures would be addressed using attention for the architectural design of the garages. Mr. Rea stated the seclusion of the development caused there to be a danger that it would be abused. Mr. Delaney responded that it had already been abused. Mr. Rea asked if the tennis courts were for the public’s use. Mr. Delaney responded the tennis courts would be for the residents. Mr. Rea suggested the design of the path should be pedestrian oriented and he was not opposed to the break-away gate, but it might not be needed if the design of the path was clearly pedestrian. Mr. Delaney added that all the features of the development needed to be similarly designed and aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Rea stated his biggest concern would be the back side of the proposal; adding that the Village Terraces proposal had been more detailed and had given the DRB more to discuss. Mr. Howe stated he would be interested to see the graphics for the architecture at the Preliminary Plan PUD stage; he was in support of the requested relaxations and not extending Front Street. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB statements that Front Street did not need extended as long as it maintained a pedestrian appearance. He stated he could not envision the distance proposed in between the structures being enough of a space. Mr. Delaney responded there were several locations in older parts of town where you could stand between two homes, extend your arms and touch them both, but they were some of the best houses that had been built; he added that the proposed distance between these structures seemed like a lot compared to some. Mr. Renslow stated the closeness of the structures would provide for a sense of community. Mr. Banziger stated he would like to see architectural renderings before he made a judgment on the proposal adding that he needed to see the quality of what the space would look like before he passed judgment on the requested relaxations. He stated he would like to see the reason that the City Engineering Department wanted Front Street to be extended as it did not seem necessary at this time. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he encouraged that Front Street not be extended as it would change the entire character of the development. He stated he had no problem with the requested relaxation for the rear setback as the lots had no houses across the alley and it would work fine. He stated he was not in agreement with Mr. Banziger’s comment regarding the four foot setback and suggested articulating the sides of the structures. He stated the rear garage being ten feet from the house would not allow for a back porch and suggested moving forward with the requested relaxation. He asked the allowable distance of separation from protected openings to the property line. Planner Windemaker responded she thought the allowable distance was three feet. He stated the only question he had was what the elevation grade change would be. Mr. Delaney responded the change in elevation would be 15-20 feet. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated there would be a grade differential aside from the differential between three-story and two-story structures. Mr. Delaney added there would be incorporated roofs. Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he thought the proposal had potential. Planner Windemaker asked if the applicant had considered a zero lot line on one side as the narrow side yards would have landscaping issues. Mr. Delaney responded that the problem with zero lot lines would be the lack of windows below six feet. Planner Windemaker asked how Mr. Delaney would address the landscaping in those locations. Mr. Delaney responded there would be no fences between the living portions of the houses and they would instead incorporate landscaped features to provide separation. Mr. Banziger stated he was more conservative than Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost and he would need to see three dimensional graphics before he offered any more suggestions. Mr. Delaney stated the cul-de-sacs would provide a sense of safety. Planner Windemaker responded that the police had studied and found that cul-de-sacs were not the safest place as more crimes occurred in those locations. Mr. Howe asked what the extension of Front Street would serve. Planner Windemaker responded it was the police, fire, and engineering departments that were concerned with circulation and public safety and those concerns would be served by the extension of Front Street. ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ________________________________ Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Pro Tem City of Bozeman Design Review Board