HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-07 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Walter Banziger Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Michael Pentecost Martin Knight, Assistant Planner
Elissa Zavora Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Christopher Livingston
Bill Rea
Mel Howe
Visitors Present
Kasey Arrington
Lauren Oechsli
Crystal Kirchhoff
Bob Tubbs
Shawn Moran
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2007.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on page 3, the 4th sentence of the last paragraph should read “ramped” up instead of “amped” up.
Chairperson Livingston stated that on page 4, the 3rd sentence should read Staff conditions would need to be “substantially reworked” instead of “reworded”.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of June 27, 2007 with corrections. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEMS
1. The Ridge Addition SP/COA #Z-07143 (Knight)
4181 Fallon Street
* A Sketch Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of 9,000 square foot addition to the existing fitness facility and related site improvements.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to move the item to the regular agenda for discussion.
Mr. Rea stated he wanted to go on record that he appreciated that the applicant was matching the existing materials and that it was the right thing to do, but the Design Standards had
become more stringent and the DRB was expecting a higher quality of materials and design. He stated he would not be comfortable supporting the proposal if it had been a new development.
Ms. Zavora asked what would happen to the mature Spruce trees. Planner Knight responded they would have to be removed, but landscaping requirements had been addressed with the PUD.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for The Ridge Addition SP/COA #Z-07143 as presented with the addition of a
strong recommendation to relocate the existing trees within the PUD. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. West Winds Phases 4-8 Mods to PUD #Z-07141 (Windemaker)
Northeast of the intersection of Oak Street and Davis Lane
* A request for modifications to an approved Planned Unit Development to eliminate the Winter Park Street intersection with Davis Lane, to eliminate townhouse lots, to allow a church
lot, and to change the allowable height.
Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting what the applicant was requesting. She stated that the lack of connectivity by eliminating the intersection was
unacceptable, and that they will have to connect to a full access intersection at Vaquero Street and Davis Lane. She stated that staff has recommended that the options with the church
lot be denied due to the layout changes being so significant. She stated the request for a relaxation to the height (42 feet) would not exceed the maximum height in the zoning designation,
but was a request for a flatter pitched roof. She stated Staff condition #3 addressed the height and would need to be removed if the DRB was not in support.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked Planner Windemaker to look at figure 2.1 and the townhouse lots on Buckrake Avenue, asking if those townhouse lots would be removed. Planner Windemaker
directed the DRB to the locations of the townhouse lots the applicant had requested for removal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded he had been told those lots had been sold. Planner
Windemaker responded that the lots in Phases 4-8 had not been created and had not, therefore, been sold.
Mr. Rea asked if any of the lots across from the church parcel had been sold. Planner Windemaker responded they had not, as the ones depicted on Phases 4-8 of the plan did not yet exist.
Mr. Rea asked if, with the decreased density, the applicant had asked for relief from the density bonus approval for the project. Planner Windemaker responded they had not applied
for relief, and that CAHAB was not happy about the decreased density of the proposal and the loss of the mix of housing types.
Ms. Zavora asked if the proposal could just be conditioned to fix the connectivity, provide the intersection with Vaquero Street, and realign the roads without denying any of the proposed
options. Planner Windemaker responded that it appeared to Staff that the road redesign starting with the church options would be too significant of a change.
Chairperson Livingston asked if Winter Park Road entering onto Davis Lane was an important aspect of the proposal. Planner Windemaker responded that the intersection at Vaquero Street
and Davis Lane was a very important aspect. Chairperson Livingston stated that it would not have to be Winter Park Road. Planner Windemaker responded that Vaquero Street was an existing
right of way and it is where the full access intersection must be; however it is not a
given that the design must be an extension of Winter Park Road but might even be a T-connection to Spring View Court, and added that the proposed fire station would need that intersection.
Chairperson Livingston stated the whole street layout was flawed and it was hard to imagine what would happen when Vaquero Street was extended into the subdivision due to the lots being
stacked. Planner Windemaker stated that the intent of Staff condition #2 was to place the green space either north or south of the Vaquero Street intersection.
Mr. Rea asked if it would be better to approve the proposal with Staff conditions or deny it as there were so many significant changes. He stated he preached for clean grids and good
planning and did not see it in the current proposal.
Mr. Banziger asked if the proposal could be continued to the next meeting. Chairperson Livingston responded the applicant would have had to be in attendance at the meeting.
Mr. Howe suggested the proposal would seem to require a continuation or other such device before a recommendation of approval of the proposal. Chairperson Livingston stated that a recommendation
of approval or denial were the DRB’s only two choices due to the applicant not being in attendance.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that he felt only one issue fell into the jurisdiction of the DRB (the height) and the DRC would address the other Staff concerns; adding that he did
not see the requested relaxation for the height as a problem.
Mr. Rea stated that street layout was an aesthetic aspect and would then fall within the jurisdiction of the DRB review criteria. Mr. Banziger concurred as the DRB had considered street
layout in other proposals. Ms. Zavora agreed.
Chairperson Livingston stated that the original subdivision conditions called out specifically DRB and City Commission review of the mix of housing types within the proposal. He added
that he had a problem with the removal of the townhouse lots as the mandate from the original conditions was to provide for a better mix of housing types; adding that it would be important
to keep those townhouse lots as their loss would leave it a monoculture of structures out there and lend nothing to diversity. He stated he thought option 1B allowed for an increase
in detached single family and would eliminate most of the senior assisted living portion of the proposal. He stated he found all the options of the proposal to be unacceptable.
Ms. Zavora added that she disagreed that there would be no market for townhouse lots.
MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Commission for West Winds Phases 4-8 Mods to PUD #Z-07141. The motion carried 5-1 with
Vice Chairperson Pentecost being in opposition.
2. Boshaw Condos SP/COA #Z-07131 (Knight)
907 & 915 North 17th Avenue
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to permit a change in materials and increased height to the previously approved four-plexes (aka Lerner SP/COA#Z-05299).
Kasey Arrington, Shawn Moran, Crystal Kirchhoff, and Bob Tubbs joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Martin Knight presented the Staff Report noting that the DRB had reviewed the proposal
as the Lerner Office Building; adding that the office building would not be changed. He stated the Planning Director had chosen to require the Site Plan review process due to the controversial
nature of the development and the amount of public comment that had been received. He stated the five foot setback backing the existing apartments and the requested height had not been
found to be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated the setback would need to be increased one foot for every foot of height being requested by the applicant.
Mr. Moran stated the Boshaw group had not been members of the original proposal. He stated their objective was to provide an affordable housing structure and modifications could be
made to the requested roof pitch to accommodate the approval of the proposal. He stated the area provided a location that would improve the surrounding neighborhood; adding that a pitched
roof would be more economical.
Mr. Tubbs stated he had built homes for 31 years and the cost of the bladders for the flat roof would be $50,000.00 and did not include the drainage, parapet, etc. He stated the proposed
roof system could be put on all four roofs for the same cost.
Mr. Moran stated he had always been involved in entry level (first time buyer) homes. He stated the lenders in the community had lists of people who could only qualify for certain amounts.
Mr. Tubbs stated that he had spoken with Planner Knight regarding the requested height and the first two buildings were the only ones on the five foot setback, the rest were on a nine
foot setback; adding that if one of the buildings were moved south four feet, the height condition would be satisfied. Mr. Moran stated that if the applicant continued to shrink the
structures to meet the requirements, the usable space would be too small.
Mr. Rea asked Planner Knight if County property was across the property line. Planner Knight responded that it was and added that there were some apartment buildings along the site
boundary. Mr. Rea asked if the other four-plexes had been approved with the flat roof and industrial design. Planner Knight responded that they had been approved and would be moving
forward as the infrastructure had been installed. Mr. Rea asked what was with the proposed hole feature in the dining room. Mr. Tubbs responded the hole feature would be removed.
Mr. Banziger asked the height of the existing office building. Planner Knight responded it was 37 feet high with a flat roof. Mr. Banziger asked the applicant if they would encroach
on the setback or cause a narrowing of the street if they relocated the proposed structure four feet south and switched to a 5:12 roof pitch. Mr. Tubbs stated they had plenty of room
and would not encroach into the setback or cause narrowing of the street as the infrastructure was already installed and they would be aligning that building with the other two.
Mr. Howe asked if the DRC had reviewed the proposal. Planner Knight responded the DRC had reviewed the proposal with regard to the height.
Ms. Zavora asked if the existing vegetation would remain. Mr. Tubbs responded it would remain. Ms. Zavora suggested the setback to nine feet might accommodate more landscaping.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the zoning for the parcel of land. Planner Knight responded
the zoning was R-O. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the maximum allowable height in the R-O zoning. Planner Knight responded that it was 42 feet. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked
what the units would sell for. Mr. Moran stated their hope was to stay around the $180,000.00 range. Mr. Tubbs added that the original bid had been substantially larger than the $60,000.00
bid they were currently investigating. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that Staff had felt the requested height was inappropriate and asked Planner Knight to explain. Planner Knight
explained the surrounding zoning designations and their height restrictions. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that the requested height would be appropriate for the maximum allowable
height within the R-O zoning designation.
Chairperson Livingston asked if there was a five foot minimum setback in the R-O zoning district. Planner Knight responded it was. Chairperson Livingston asked if it was cheaper to
build a 5:12 pitched roof than a 9:12 pitched roof. Mr. Tubbs responded it would be. Chairperson Livingston asked if the applicant would remove the brick from the proposal. Mr. Tubbs
responded the brick would remain on the front of the structures.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Staff conditions regarding the roof pitch. Mr. Tubbs agreed that the roof pitch would be modified per Staff conditions.
Ms. Zavora stated she thought the proposal would look better if the buildings were aligned.
Mr. Rea stated he did not support the roof pitch as he was fond of a 6:12 roof pitch and the 5:12 would be way too big. He stated he was not bothered by the height limitation; adding
that one piece of affordable housing should not shadow another piece of affordable housing. He suggested leaving the thin veneer brick off altogether and using seamless steel; adding
that a different siding or color could be used. He stated he did not support the proposal as presented due to the requested height. He stated he was supportive of an aggressive interpretation
of the City’s color requirements; adding that he would like to see more accent colors.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he did not support the project as the Lerner Building as it would be inappropriate to the surrounding neighborhood. He stated he saw nothing different
from the original proposal and it held the same standard for Entryway Corridor design. He suggested designing architecture for North 19th Avenue as the DRB had been charged with the
review and approval of proposals within that corridor. He stated the applicant had stayed within the requirements of the UDO and he would not comment on the requested height, but would
suggest the architecture would need to be reworked to provide for the Entryway Corridor.
Chairperson Livingston stated he had reviewed past minutes from the previous DRB review of the proposal and had noticed that the proposal had not changed from what had been presented
before. He stated the proposed design had had not been viewed favorably in an informal review before and he would be inclined to deny it as his problem with it was that the proposed
structures would remove most of the natural light from neighboring buildings. He stated that he thought there was a point where diminishing the scale of the structures would made them
look better. He stated the market that the proposal had been developed for would be different than the market for the current proposal.
He stated lowering the roofs and diminishing the scale of the structures would be appropriate for the site. He suggested the institution of landscaping in some areas and reducing the
scale and height of the proposed structures. He added he would have a hard time approving a project that
he couldn’t see (the proposal hadn’t been modified from the previous approval).
Ms. Zavora asked if she would see the proposed structures from North 19th Avenue as the office building would be blocking that view. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded they would
be seen. Planner Knight added that from some view sheds the structures would be seen, but the office building would be the primary focus from North 19th Avenue.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Boshaw Condos SP/COA #Z-07131 with the deletion of
Staff conditions 1, 2, 3, & 5 and the modification of condition #4 to read that the applicant must provide for the unity of design and building materials within the development. The
motion died.
AMENDED MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Boshaw Condos SP/COA #Z-07131 with the deletion
of Staff conditions 1, 2, 3, & 5 and the modification of condition #4 to read that the applicant must provide for the unity of design and building materials with the Lerner and Homesite
development. The motion died.
Mr. Moran asked for a continuance to the next meeting of the DRB.
MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Rea seconded to continue Boshaw Condos SP/COA #Z-07131 to the next meeting of the DRB. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 5. 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 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board