HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Rea
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Mark Meissner
Ray Johnson
Harley Huestis
Jerry Perkins
Lee Oldenburger
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2007.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on page 4, his statement regarding old and new construction should say “was not blurred” instead of “blurred”.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to approve the minutes of April 11, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Baxter Meadows Phase 4 PUD Prel. Plan #Z-07049 (Windemaker)
Southwest of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Davis Lane
* A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan with relaxations to allow 125 single-family lots, one multi-family lot, and one owner’s center lot with related site improvements.
Harley Huestis and Mark Meissner joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was a 127 lot PUD subdivision with 125 of those lots
being single-family. She noted the location of the proposal and directed the DRB to the requested relaxations in the Staff Report; she reiterated those relaxations. She stated Staff
was not fully supportive of the height request of 17 foot tall light poles. Mr. Huestis responded that the applicant would institute the 20 foot tall light poles recommended by Staff.
She stated the community center lot relaxation request had been found to be unnecessary. She stated the architectural features needed to appear in the covenants; adding that she thought
the architectural features had already been included in the existing covenants from previous phases. She stated she was seeking feedback from the DRB regarding which of three landscape
plans the DRB would like to see instituted on the site.
Mr. Huestis stated the landscape plans would be the largest issue before the DRB and directed their attention to his full size renderings of three proposed landscape plans. He stated
the PUD landscape point requirements had been met, but the site plan landscaping criteria would be what the DRB was recommending. He listed the potential locations of landscaping and
explained how many required landscape points would be derived from each plan; adding that there were also wetlands landscaping requirements that must be considered. He stated the applicant
preferred landscape plan B as it met the minimum performance points required and would spread out the landscaping. He stated the third plan included more landscaping and maintained
the buffer areas depicted on landscape plan B. He stated that plan C was above and beyond the minimum and the applicant would do either landscape plan B or plan C. Mr. Rea asked Planner
Windemaker which landscape plan Staff was supportive of. Planner Windemaker responded that Staff would like to see above and beyond the minimum amount of landscaping (landscape plan
C) due to the relaxations requested with the PUD.
Mr. Huestis stated that the covenants called out four-foot tall, open fences along the trail corridor and had addressed the required architectural style. He stated the floor plan had
been thought out and the elevations had been provided so that variations of them could be used. He stated that each elevation had interest to it and the submitted floor plans did not
necessarily have to be located on the perimeter of the site.
Mr. Rea asked if the jog in the southeast corner of the development was for the expansion of Davis Lane (a turning lane). Mr. Huestis responded that it would provide for the expansion
of Davis Lane.
Mr. Banziger asked if Staff had a preference on the landscape plan. Planner Windemaker responded Staff would prefer to see option C.
Chairperson Livingston asked if it would be on-street parking. Mr. Huestis responded that the streets were a standard design of 31 feet back of curb to back of curb with parking on
both sides; adding the PUD would have private roads. Chairperson Livingston asked what private meant. Planner Windemaker responded that private meant that the subdivision would have
to maintain the public right of way. Chairperson Livingston stated he had only mentioned the on-street parking as there seemed to be an existing parking dilemma in Baxter Meadows.
Mr. Huestis responded that the parking issues were in the central area of the Baxter Meadows PUD due to the close proximity of the residences. Chairperson Livingston asked if the driveway
would be deep enough to stack a car. Mr. Huestis responded that it would be deep enough. Chairperson Livingston stated they had driven through the Baxter Meadows PUD and had seen that
the garages were not being used for vehicles as much as for storage.
Mr. Rea stated the area seemed so dense and suggested landscaping plan B as presented, but reconsidered that plan C might be better due to some of the trees dying off immediately after
being planted. Mr. Huestis responded that middle ground could be found between proposed landscaping plans B and C.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that one requirement of the PUD was that landscaping be
above and beyond in return for the requested relaxations and recommended proposed landscape plan C.
Mr. Banziger agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost and suggested proposed landscape plan C be instituted on the site.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost and recommended proposed landscape plan C in return for the requested relaxations. He added that trees were few
and far between when driving in that location and landscape plan C would make the area much nicer. He suggested that in between landscape plans B & C, there could be another row of
plantings instituted between houses and Baxter Lane as it would be advantageous to creating a future buffer.
Mr. Rea asked if Staff would object to a 6 foot Carrigana bush instead of a stockade fence to buffer the site. Planner Windemaker responded that Staff would not be averse to vegetation
as a buffer. Mr. Huestis added that the applicant had decided that the landscaping should be instituted more evenly on the site and not completely placed as buffering. Chairperson
Livingston added that a better alternative might not be being able to see through the site back to Baxter Lane and suggested creating a buffer.
Mr. Banziger suggested seating areas or other pedestrian amenities be instituted on the site in some of the buffer and pocket areas of landscaping. Chairperson Livingston added that
at critical density in the subdivision the use of the trail systems would increase, as would seating area potential.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Baxter Meadows Phase 4 PUD Prel. Plan #Z-07049 with
Staff conditions and the acceptance of landscaping plan C. The motion carried 4-0.
2. American Federal Savings Bank FSP/COA #Z-07080 (Windemaker)
N. of Oak St., W. of N. 11th Ave., E.of N. 15th Ave., S. of Baxter Ln.
* The building elevations for a Final Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 14,718 square foot bank and related site improvements.
Ray Johnson, Jerry Perkins, and Lee Oldenburger joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting the DRB was reviewing the proposal as they had
conditioned during the PT Land PUD review on October 25, 2006. She stated the DRB had before them the proposed elevations for the project and requested they comment on the elevations
being presented.
Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant had taken the DRB comments to heart and had modified the design of the elevations several times. He stated the new computer program caused the
renderings to look mono-colored as opposed to shaded and did not provide a view from a distance. He stated the applicant had instituted pre-cast concrete panels, concrete block, and
metal fascia to break up the facades. He stated the building had changed a lot for the better from the previous submittal; adding that the floor plan was exactly the same as the original
submittal. He stated more detail had been carried through the facades of the building.
Mr. Rea asked if split faced CMU would be used. Mr. Johnson responded that fluted concrete block would be used instead.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked what material was being depicted in one location. Mr. Johnson responded it would be lick-n-stick stone as real stone would be too difficult to find.
Mr. Banziger asked if last time the DRB had seen the proposal there had been mixed architectural features proposed. Mr. Johnson responded that it had not been intentional mixing of
architectural features and materials and the problem had been corrected on the current elevations.
Chairperson Livingston asked if there would be a full brick veneer used for the structure. Mr. Johnson responded that it would be. Chairperson Livingston asked what type of metal
panel would be used over the windows. Mr. Johnson responded that stainless steel had been discussed as an option, but the applicant had not decided which style of metal would be used.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the canopy would be the same material. Mr. Johnson responded the metal canopy material would match the roof.
Mr. Johnson presented the site plan from the October 25, 2006 meeting that depicted previous DRB concerns and explained how those concerns had been addressed; adding that ~60% of the
site would be landscaped.
Chairperson Livingston stated that he appreciated how the proposed west elevation had been addressed with regard to the pedestrian scale of the entrance.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he thought the applicant should pay particular attention to the scale of the selected cultured stone.
Chairperson Livingston suggested taking the proposed window frame and matching it to the panel above it as there would be a lot of material proposed for the structure that might get
out of hand from a compositional standpoint. Mr. Johnson concurred.
Mr. Rea stated the fluted frames proposed for the structure made him nervous and suggested pulling back on those materials if any were to be decreased.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comment and the entrance seemed a bit overwhelming; adding that maybe the proposal being a bank caused the applicant to want the entrance
to be at such a large scale. He stated he agreed with Chairperson Livingston regarding the matching materials for the window frames and material proposed above.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for American Federal Savings Bank FSP/COA #Z-07080 to the Planning Director with
Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-0.
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 6:35 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board