Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-07 Design Review Board Minutes.doc DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Walter Banziger Elissa Zavora Joe Batcheller Visitors Present Jake Scott Tammy Hauer Monte Hauer Shawn O’Connell Clint Pedrazzi Katryn Mitchell Chaucer Silverson Jamie Morris Craig Mendenhall Cory Ravnaas Katherine Schultz Joby Sabol ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2007. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of March 14, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV #Z-07033 (Bristor) 140 East Main Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and Deviations to allow the construction of an addition and remodel of the existing structure. Tammy Hauer and Jake Scott joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report on Associate Planner Allyson Bristor’s behalf noting the second paragraph on page12 should be stricken as it did not pertain to the proposal. Mr. Scott stated there were two conditions in the Staff Report that he would like to address; the aluminum frame was a concern for Staff as it was too reflective and bright so the applicant would be using black or colored metal instead with the glazing itself having a filter that would make in non-reflective, and the other of Staff’s concerns was the color of the Ariscraft product which would be the same color material with a different texture. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant would be using real brick and the reason they would be using it. Mr. Scott responded that they would be using the thin brick and the reason was due to the setback and seismic requirements from the U.D.O. and the Building Code, respectively. He added it was the applicant’s intent to build-out the sides of the building to provide relief, shadowing, and break up the facades of the structure. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant to address condition #4 from the Staff Report. Mr. Scott explained that the garage doors would only be used by the residents and the required parking would be provided. Mr. Rea asked if the original building was under the proposal. Mr. Scott responded that it was. Mr. Rea asked what the DRB was reviewing. Assistant Director Saunders responded the DRB would be reviewing the building from the glass tower to the back of the structure. Mr. Rea asked if the framing of the structure would match the storefront. Ms. Hauer explained which frames would match and which would differ as compared to the glazing. Mr. Rea asked if the mullion materials would be a different color. Mr. Scott responded they would be using different colors with the same style to separate the historic structure from the addition. Mr. Rea asked if this would be an informal review. Assistant Director Saunders responded this would be a formal review with a formal recommendation to the City Commission for the new addition. Mr. Batcheller asked why the project had been proposed in two parts. Ms. Hauer responded that the approved restoration had been too intrusive into the operation of their business and the addition could be occupied while the remodeling to the existing building occurred. Mr. Rea asked the applicant to explain what materials would be used in one site on the proposal. Mr. Scott explained the proposed materials and added that the dimensions were inaccurate in one location. Chairperson Livingston asked if the front façade would have Ariscraft material as well. Ms. Hauer responded that it would and told the DRB what colors they were proposing. Chairperson Livingston asked if there would be a green roof. Mr. Scott responded there would be. Mr. Banziger asked if the coloration of the material would be different in one location than in another. Mr. Scott responded it would have spandrel glass in one location and the rest would be glazing; adding that the brick in those locations had been depicted incorrectly. Chairperson Livingston added that in one location there would be an aluminum panel (wall section A5, where the floor deck entered). Mr. Rea stated he was relieved that the applicant was not using E.F.I.S., he had no problem with the mullion changing from one color to another, and he applauded the tower feature in the middle; adding that he thought it would be controversial. He stated he applauded the applicant for the sun shading and the green roof, but was disappointed not to see the applicant take those efforts further. He stated he agreed with Staff conditions and suggested the project was very clever. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and was only disappointed that the brick from the original structure would not be kept. He stated he thought they had done a good job and he was in support of the project. Ms. Zavora stated she was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions. Mr. Batcheller stated he supported the proposal and he liked to see more modern buildings instituted in the downtown area. He added that he thought it might be a controversial building. Mr. Banziger stated he liked the transition from the north to the south building and added that the separation of the historic aspects of the building had been very well done. He stated he supported the proposal with Staff conditions. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments, but he was concerned that the proportion of the Ariscraft material was the same proportion as a concrete block; adding that CMU block was not a good material to be present on Main Street due to its mass. He suggested the use of something more horizontal than vertical as it would give the proposal a more modern, horizontal presence and he would hate to have people think the applicant had used concrete block. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for to the City Commission with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0. Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Chairperson Livingston’s comment regarding the use of the Ariscraft material and added that another, more sophisticated material could be used. Mr. Scott responded that he would look into it and had no problem using another material or modifying the proposed material to have less mass. 2. Story Mill Neighborhood PUD Concept Plan #Z-07056 (Saunders) North and south of Griffin Drive, east and west of Story Mill Road * A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to allow the development of ~106.651 acres for a combination of B-1 (Neighborhood Business District) , B-2 (Community Business District) , R-S (Residential Suburban District), R-2 (Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District), and R-4 (Residential High Density District) development. Craig Mendenhall, Cory Ravnaas, and Katherine Schultz joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting that the Stockyard had joined the proposal in response to Chairperson Livingston asking if the proposal had grown from the last time the DRB had seen it. Assistant Director Saunders stated the project would contain approximately 106 acres; adding that it would be the single largest development ever to come through the City of Bozeman review process. He stated there were a lot of relaxations being requested due to the urban nature of the proposal and site restraints. He stated the biggest visual impact would be the building heights; adding that they would be nearly doubling. He stated there would be 20 PUD points required to be met by the proposal and the applicant had been discussing point requirement options with Staff. He stated there was a lot of mature landscaping that would be preserved. He stated the signage plan had not been addressed, but would be upon Final PUD submittal. He stated there would be a lot of opportunities for plaza and open space areas. He added that there would be stacked reviews for the proposal including; Site Plan, Certificate of Appropriateness, and Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Mendenhall stated the applicant was excited to present the newly developed plans that would now include the Stockyard and 1,200 dwelling units. He stated there would be 1.4 million square feet of housing, 160,000 square feet of commercial space, and ~45 acres of open space. Ms. Zavora asked the difference between the green colors depicting open space areas. Mr. Mendenhall responded it was depicting the differences between open space areas and delineated wetland areas that would be preserved. He stated a linear park would branch from the watercourse setback and there would be park nodes along the trail. He stated there was a nearly 50/50 split between open space and construction areas. He stated there would be roughly five miles of trails that would extend to other locations beyond their site with a 1 ½ mile loop around the site itself. He stated the applicant was attempting to have the proposal a pilot for LEED certified projects; he defined some of the potential strategies the applicant was considering including; the institution of wind energy solutions, solar paneling, an on-site treatment plant, rainwater harvesting, or solar hot water systems. He stated the applicant would be attending a charette on green buildings the next Monday and invited the DRB to attend. Ms. Schultz added that LEED was encouraging the applicant more height with more density and less urban sprawl. Mr. Ravnaas added that the project would not be getting the largest amount of LEED points due to the lower density of their proposal. Mr. Mendenhall directed the DRB to the overall street layout of the proposal. Mr. Batcheller asked what the depicted bronze areas would be. Mr. Mendenhall responded they would be dock-like bridges. Planner Saunders responded that the County regulated and maintained all bridges and if the proposal contained a true bridge, the proposal might have difficulties with the County Road Office. Mr. Mendenhall noted the applicant had broken the proposal into seven areas they referred to as districts that would be completed in 10 phases, and informed the DRB that the first “district” of the project would be in the NE corner of the proposal and would be phase 1 of the development. He stated the applicant’s purpose was to create an “edge” on Story Mill Road and Hillside Lane with the institution of stoops to promote pedestrian activity. He stated the buffer there would be more focused on building scale rather than vegetation. He cited an example depicting a possible town home design that would work well as a transitional element on the site. Ms. Schultz added that phase one would contain 23 residences. Mr. Mendenhall stated that district two of the proposal would support the mill style of the structures in that location. He directed the DRB to a color rendering of the mill structure that would include office, retail, and residential elements within the mill itself. He stated one part of the structure would be reinforced internally and reused as an outdoor plaza due to its dilapidated condition. Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district three of the proposal the applicant was attempting to create activity along Volmer Street as it was primarily residential. Mr. Schultz added there would be 180 residential units along Volmer Street. Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district four of the proposal the applicant was looking to blend the site with the surrounding neighborhoods and to buffer the storage units to the north. Ms. Schultz added that this district of the proposal would contain 130 dwelling units, 14,000 square feet of retail, and 7,000 square feet of office space. Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district five of the proposal the applicant was trying to organize the home sites with space in between and a connection to the proposed trails. Ms. Schultz added that it would contain 140 dwelling units. Mr. Mendenhall stated that district six (near the Boys & Girls Club) would contain a lot of the proposed open space to provide for the creation of a multifunctional park that could work with the Boys & Girls Club for scheduling of events. He stated the structures would be a little more contemporary. Ms. Schultz added that there would be 300 dwelling units. Mr. Mendenhall stated that district seven of the development would include the Stockyard property and would be the most eclectic as it would contain the most varied uses. He added that it would be most accessible to vehicular traffic, potentially reducing the amount of traffic on Bozeman Avenue. He stated there would be ground level retail with offices on the second floor. He added that the proposed building would be up to 75 feet high and they had provided a maximum solar efficiency and a design dialog with the mill. Ms. Schultz added that there would be 40,000 square feet of retail, 20,000 square feet of office space, and 60 dwelling units. Mr. Mendenhall stated the Stockyard would need to respond to the mill and the open space areas proposed in that location. He stated structured parking would be used to provide the maximum amount of open space available. Assistant Director Saunders stated that the review process for PUD’s had been discussed by he and Mr. Ravnaas to determine the best way the proposal should be reviewed. Ms. Zavora asked if it would be a proposed 10-year build out. Mr. Ravnaas responded it was estimated at a 10 year build out. Mr. Batcheller asked if the applicant intended to enhance any of the wetlands. Mr. Mendenhall responded that was the applicant’s intention; adding that the wetlands would be cleaned out and water would be filtered through them. Mr. Batcheller stated the proposed buffer for Bridger Drive seemed out of place and asked the applicant to explain. Mr. Mendenhall responded the applicant liked the trees and swale along Bridger Drive so they had decided to tuck single-family lots into the trees to help transition the site to higher structures. Mr. Batcheller asked if the only large park area would be near the Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Mendenhall responded there would be other two acre parks that could provide the opportunity for soccer fields or other similar activities. Mr. Batcheller asked the estimated start date for phase one of the proposal. Mr. Ravnaas responded they would like to break ground in September if possible. Mr. Banziger asked for the density, height, and massing of the buildings in blocks 27-29. Mr. Mendenhall responded the proposed density was a reflection of the traffic in that location and would provide for commercial and retail functions; adding that the commercial and retail functions would need supported by the proposed residential structures. Mr. Banziger asked the applicant to discuss the proposed height of the structures. Mr. Mendenhall responded there would be six or seven story buildings that would not exceed 75 feet. Mr. Banziger stated the proposal would have a small city feel. He asked how the proposal fit in with the existing taller structures in the downtown area. Mr. Mendenhall stated the taller buildings would be designed to step back on the upper levels to provide for a break in the massing of the structures. Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant was still considering the 800 – 1,000 square foot size for the proposed residential sites. Mr. Mendenhall responded they were. Mr. Banziger asked how the public had responded to the proposal. Mr. Mendenhall responded he did not think the proposal would have made it this far without great responses from the general public. Mr. Rea asked if the commercial aspects of the development would contain short-term stay or hotel facilities. Mr. Mendenhall responded the applicant had investigated those types of uses. Mr. Rea asked which phases would contain something of that nature. Mr. Ravnaas responded those uses would be in phases 7 or 8 of the development. Mr. Rea asked if geothermal devices would be instituted on the site. Mr. Mendenhall responded they had investigated cold geothermal devices, but there might not be enough water available to support those techniques. Mr. Rea asked if the ditch was still present. Mr. Mendenhall responded there was a ditch in that location; Mr. Sabol added there were also water rights in that location, but the applicant did not own them. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the level of the water table. Mr. Ravnaas responded the table was 8-14 feet below the surface. Mr. Mendenhall added that they had to go below the frost line for the construction of building foundations anyway, so underground parking would not be difficult. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the design guidelines were specific or general. Ms. Schultz responded that some items had been specifically addressed (such as tree removal) and structures had been left more general as the applicant was seeking an eclectic design to the site. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant to discuss the design and build process for the residential and then the commercial portions of the development with regard to whether or not the DRB would be seeing architectural and design dictates. Mr. Mendenhall stated the applicant was providing the DRB with conceptual ideas for massing and building aesthetics with the use of hard data to support the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if GBD Architects would be the designer architects for the proposal. Mr. Mendenhall responded they would be the governing architects and other architects would also design specific sites to provide for the eclectic nature of the proposal. Ms. Schultz added that GBD Architects would be part of the design guideline process, but the final say would fall to the owner. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the name of the street that connected to Rouse Avenue. Planner Saunders responded it was Bryant Street. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there would be a condition in the design guidelines with language that all commercial and residential structures be LEED certified. Ms. Schultz responded there would be language in the design guidelines, but it would not be a requirement as there was currently no LEED standard specifically geared for residential use. Chairperson Livingston asked the amount to be reduced on the request for 150 square feet per unit reduction to the required open space. Mr. Ravnaas responded the requested reduction would be to almost zero in some cases as there was so much open space proposed within the project. Mr. Saunders added that there were three open space requirements that must be met in the proposal and green roofs would support a possible relaxation to those requirements. He added that configured space of the open space was already required to be usable, private open space. Chairperson Livingston asked if the proposal was subject to the park open space requirements and what those requirements were. Planner Saunders responded they were subject to those requirements and explained what they would be in relation to this proposal. Chairperson Livingston asked for an example of the requested relaxation to allow no required yard setbacks. Mr. Mendenhall responded there would be two areas; where retail would be on all four sides of the building, and where open space would be located on all sides of the building. Chairperson Livingston asked if there would be a maximum impervious coverage on some of those lots. Mr. Mendenhall responded there would be a maximum allowable impervious coverage. Chairperson Livingston asked if there had been a solar study done with regard to the heights of buildings and their proximity to each other. Mr. Mendenhall responded that solar studies had been done and some of the home sites could have more separation. Chairperson Livingston stated that adding up height had indicated two different heights based on roof pitch. Mr. Mendenhall responded that the preferred height would be the proposed 75 feet. Chairperson Livingston asked if the applicant thought people would see a stockade fence along the northern side of the site. Mr. Mendenhall responded that the design guidelines would need to be adhered to and would dictate the design and height of fences. Ms. Schultz added that the fence design would be a combination of low vegetation and fencing. Chairperson Livingston asked that if in five years of no one purchasing any lots, what would happen to the existing approved PUD. Mr. Ravnaas responded that a new PUD would have to reviewed and approved. Planner Saunders concurred that there was language in the UDO that required the review of the PUD again if there were any significant modifications to the approved plan. Chairperson Livingston asked what would happen if the LEED strategy was completely abolished. Planner Saunders responded that the PUD would need to be reviewed again and added that if the conditions of approval were not met, the city would be able to enforce those conditions. Mr. Sabol concurred with Planner Saunders and added that a good example of that would be the River Rock Subdivision in Belgrade. He stated he thought that the owner of the property could not shift a predominantly residential development to a commercial or industrial development as it would be contrary to the conditions of approval. Chairperson Livingston stated that his point had been what would the risk be that the development did not work and would there be a method by which to ensure that the development was constructed as approved. Mr. Mendenhall responded that, relatively, the proposal would only take a small amount of time even being estimated at build-out in ten years. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for verification of the zoning. Planner Saunders reiterated which zoning classifications were being requested and reviewed by the City Commission. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the proposal should be classified as a Mixed-Use zoning district. Planner Saunders responded that the proposed mixed-use zoning designation had not been approved by the City Commission as of yet and many aspects of the development would not fit in well with the proposal. Ms. Zavora asked the progression of the proposal’s phasing. Mr. Ravnaas responded the first couple phases would be done from north to south along the east side of the proposal as the infrastructure was completed. Ms. Zavora asked what it would take to get the density points up to the LEED certification they were attempting. Mr. Mendenhall responded it would take three times as much density and it would need to be instituted in height. Planner Saunders stated the density downtown could be 200 units per acre as there was no minimum square footage required per lot; there could not be such high densities in residential zoning districts as there was a minimum square footage required per lot. Mr. Batcheller asked if there had been any traffic projections done, with regard to internal trip capture, within the 20 some odd blocks affected by this proposal. Mr. Ravnaas stated the applicant had an idea about how much vehicular traffic would be generated and they had been conservative in their traffic estimates. Planner Saunders added there had been traffic lights approved and funded for Griffin Drive & Rouse Avenue and Oak Street & Rouse Avenue that would assist in calming some of the traffic generated by this proposal. Mr. Batcheller stated he was curious how much gridlocked traffic attempting to get out would be framed within the proposal. Mr. Ravnaas responded that, hopefully, it would be traffic using their services instead of crossing town. Ms. Zavora asked if Story Mill Road would remain a dirt road. Mr. Ravnaas responded that it would be paved. Planner Saunders added that options were being explored for some sort of bridge structure across the railroad tracks and creek. Chairperson Livingston suggested a method that would cause the abandonment of L Street and asked if parking on the street would be counted toward the parking calculations. Mr. Mendenhall stated only 25% of the parking on the street would be counted. Mr. Rea stated he was wildly in favor of the project and was very hopeful that it would happen. He stated the Mill Spur Trail seemed like a strong connection as a bicycle path and it had not been thoroughly discussed. Mr. Mendenhall responded they would provide an additional easement for the trail to pass the bike lanes. Mr. Rea stated the clarity of the phases was very important so that the development would be built out as planned. He stated he was more and more bothered by the sustainable community discussion as everything in the proposal was undecided. He stated there were easy and difficult LEED points to acquire and they should be more focused on their LEED elements. He suggested he would like to see all the buildings Net Zero certified instead of LEED certified as it would be one step higher in classification. Mr. Mendenhall responded the highlighted areas were the LEED requirements that the owner had wanted to see. Mr. Rea responded he wanted to hold the applicant to the LEED requirements. He stated he thought the applicant had made progress in the area of road design and suggested that everything north of the East Gallatin River was an obvious place to locate a Jeffersonian Grid street design. He stated that he was concerned with the economic gutting of downtown as there were many commercial spaces downtown that were available for lease and an economic vacuum might be created. He stated he was fine with the proposal being seen once if all aspects of the proposal were clearly depicted (i.e. landscaping, elevations, etc.) and added that the applicant probably could not comply with every site being completely planned; he suggested the DRB review the proposal in phases. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he supported previous DRB statements. He stated he would be supportive of the requested heights of the taller buildings within the proposal as the grade from Main Street was an 80 foot difference. He stated he was supportive of reviewing the project in phases as that provided evidence of the proposed architecture as opposed to site plan review. He suggested the current design guidelines did not seem extensive enough. He stated the applicant had presented design forms on the renderings brought to the meeting, he appreciated the diversity of those renderings, and it was something he really expected to see, but GBD Architects would not be designing the whole development. He stated the presentation tonight would not be the same from another architect. He stated he was in support of the proposal as it could be made to work. He noted that some of the sites within the proposal were in the Entryway Corridor and would be reviewed on a site plan basis under the requirements of the U.D.O. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments, but liked the proposed layout of the streets. She stated she was concerned that the development would not be completed as designed and approved; adding that she would prefer to review the proposal in phases. Mr. Batcheller stated he did not have any problem with the proposal and he agreed with previous DRB comments, but he was concerned with the generation of traffic. He suggested the applicant look into an interchange at L Street. Planner Saunders responded there would be a 20 year lead time and a $30,000,000.00 price tag on an interchange in that location. Mr. Batcheller stated that he thought the development would encourage downtown to be more competitive. Mr. Banziger stated he was supportive of the proposal and agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated he thought the DRB would need to see the development in phases due to the market and other aspects of the development changing. He stated he was not concerned with the proposed layout of the streets, but thought Jeffersonian Grid would work nicely as well. He stated he would like to see a lot of the infrastructure installed in the first phases. He stated he was surprised that the affordable rental LEED requirement had not been met. Mr. Mendenhall responded that there would be affordable rentals instituted in the proposal. He suggested the feeling of the development would create another city center and he did not know how that would impact the community. Planner Saunders responded that the expectation is that Bozeman would be a multi-core community. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated he thought the proposal illustrated a good vision for the city as another version of what something away from the center of town could be and the height request did not bother him. He stated that he was concerned that the regulatory structure of the U.D.O. did not provide the opportunity for the DRB to review the proposal as intimately as necessary. He stated some of the larger buildings were things that the DRB typically got involved in and suggested the applicant bring the largest structures (those meeting the criteria for DRB in Entryway Corridors) and those of historical significance back to the DRB for review. Mr. Ravnaas stated he was not concerned with coming back to the DRB for review, but was concerned that the future reviews would alter the overall layout of the proposal. Chairperson Livingston responded it would be more of a guiding document that would become a part of the competitive market. Mr. Rea stated that he did not want to see the infrastructure of the proposal with the review of the phasing. Mr. Saunders stated the DRB would want to see the successive iteration of detail that would be reviewed at Site Plan submittal. 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.} The owner of Gallatin Laundry, Shawn O’Connell, stated he was concerned with preserving the historical presence of his building in downtown Bozeman and with JLF’s proposed alley access from Bozeman Avenue as it would reduce entrance to the alley for his delivery vehicles (semi trucks); adding that he was interested in improving the access for the future development and growth of Gallatin Laundry. He stated they had entertained the removal of a wall on their structure or the increase of the width of the alley to increase the accessibility to his business for his employees. Chairperson Livingston suggested that Mr. O’Connell submit those comments in writing so that review boards and commissions would receive the comments in their packets and could examine them with the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders added that public comment submitted by Wednesday would be included in packets, but Staff would appreciate receiving the comments sooner to allow for time for any other City departmental review. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board