Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040809 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2009 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:31 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Rea Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Wall Mel Howe Elissa Zavora Visitors Present Jesse Sobrepena Rob McRae Gary W. Gullickson Dan Harding Eva Unruh Todd Thesing Michael Schreiner ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2009 Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on the third page the third paragraph comments had been made by Chairperson Livingston instead of him. Mr. Rea stated on the same page at the bottom the language “organization of that size doesn’t need that much space” should be removed. MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to approve the minutes of March 25, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEM 1. USDA Office Mods to FSP #Z-08284 (Krueger) 2229 Boot Hill Court * A Final Site Plan modification to allow minor changes to the approved preliminary elevations. MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for USDA Office Mods to FSP #Z-08284. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. South Wallace Lofts INFORMAL #I-09002 (Bristor) 541 & 549 East Babcock Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a four-story, 63’ 9” tall, 30 unit residential condominium development, three commercial spaces with covered parking, and related site improvements. Susan Kozub, Dan Harding, and Eva Unruh joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal and that there are two existing houses on the lot that are addressed on Babcock Street. She noted the well maintained houses were located within the B-3 zoning designation which promotes a higher density on the site than existed. She noted the proposed height would be beneath the maximum allowable height and would accommodate a four story structure with a partial fifth story penthouse. Mr. Rea asked Planner Bristor to clarify the height limitations of the B-3 core area. Planner Bristor listed those limitations and noted that the proposal was outside of the core area. She noted which items Staff had been seeking direction on from the DRB including the open corner at Babcock Street and Wallace Avenue, materials, and building mass. Ms. Kozub noted the location of the property on an aerial photo for reference. She noted increased density had been a common requirement of the City Commission and the location would be a great spot for density and mixed-use. She noted that though the existing residences were grandfathered in for the B-3 zoning, it was not the best use of the property and the owner had been looking for someone that would move the existing residences. She stated they thought there was an increasing need for smaller, affordable housing units. She noted the typical unit would be 600-1,000 sq. ft.. She stated the proposal did not currently require deviations, but if the corner building were redesigned, a deviation might be necessary for encroachment into the street vision triangle. She noted cash in lieu of parkland would be submitted and noted the available parking reductions for the B-3 district and mixed-use development. She stated the owner would be speaking with the Engineering Department regarding the required street improvements and sidewalks on both sides of Wallace Avenue and on-street parking. She noted the applicant had not examined parking and engineering details as of yet, but would have more detail in the formal submittal. Mr. Harding directed the DRB to the basic site plan for the proposal. He stated the most efficient parking scheme had been used to determine the layout of the project. He stated the idea was that each of the buildings would get light on two sides and directed the DRB to the street level plan proposed for the structures. He stated he loved the site because the surrounding buildings had been used to provide aesthetic inspiration for the structure. He noted they were early on in the design phase, but elements from the surrounding neighborhood had been incorporated to enhance the design. He stated he thought the proposal contained the paradigm for living downtown with most units being single bedroom units with the exception of two, two bedroom units to keep the project price under control and provide the local market with that opportunity. Mr. Wall asked Planner Bristor if she had attended the Parking Commission meeting and if there was concern about not providing at least one parking space for each unit. Planner Bristor responded that some units would be offered by the owner without parking spaces and the Parking Commission had expressed support more than concern. Mr. Harding added that reductions in parking had not been approved by the Commission beyond 33% and the developer was willing to take the risk of less value for a unit without a parking stall. Mr. Wall responded that he understood the willingness of the owner to take that risk, but parking was a big issue not only for the person buying a unit but for the surrounding area; he asked where the nearest public parking area was located in relation to the proposal. Planner Bristor responded there was a public parking area within two blocks of the project and noted Staff was not uncomfortable with the parking reduction. Mr. Wall stated he was concerned with moving forward with a project that did not at least provide one parking space per unit. He noted the corner that would provide the site triangle was a high traffic area and he was concerned with the corner design. Ms. Zavora asked what comments regarding parking had come of the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Kozub responded there were some residents concerned about spillover traffic and on-street parking as well as the Heebs owner’s concerns regarding people parking in their lot, but none of the rest of the neighborhood had come to the meeting. Ms. Zavora asked if the units were sold what the cost would be. Mr. Harding responded there were target price points that would be from between $185,000 -$285,000 with the penthouse units being in the high $500,000. Ms. Kozub added that the neighborhood was more comfortable due to the proposal containing one bedroom units. Ms. Zavora asked if the building next door was a rental apartment building. Planner Bristor responded it was. Ms. Zavora asked if there had been target businesses in mind with regard to the business aspect of the development. Ms. Kozub responded small retail and small services (such as dry cleaning drop-off) had been considered. Ms. Zavora stated the retail aspect of the development would generate more traffic and would require parking spaces. Ms. Zavora asked if the removal of the houses had been investigated. Mr. Schreiner responded they would give them away if there was no cost to them for moving the structures. Ms. Zavora asked what the triangle feature (gable roof) was depicted at the top of the structure. Mr. Harding responded it would be mechanical equipment screening. Mr. Rea asked if the office spaces would be condo or rental. Mr. Harding responded they would be condo. Mr. Rea asked if there would be deed restrictions in place. Mr. Thesing stated a deed restriction would be investigated. Mr. Rea asked if the owner could arrange the by-laws in such a way that they are not allowed to rent the units. Mr. Thesing stated there was a big concern about who the renters would be so the plan had not been formulated as of yet; he noted they had a specific target market. Mr. Rea asked Planner Bristor if the site triangle would be a big issue for the applicant. Planner Bristor responded that the UDO contradicted itself in that respect, but Staff would be supportive of that type of deviation request. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant had met with Streamline to discuss the opportunity of using the site as a bus pullout. Ms. Kozub responded they had not yet approached Streamline but it could be investigated. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how the Preservation Board would view the proposal given that two historic structures would be removed. Planner Bristor responded the Board knew that it was necessary to draw people to downtown and establish density; she noted Staff was promoting moving them instead of demolishing them. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he thought of this as an opportunity to provide affordable housing. Planner Bristor responded the structures would lose some historic integrity being moved off the site and would not be eligible for the historic register, but the architecture would maintain its historic character. Chairperson Livingston asked if there was any talk about changing the Babcock Street/South Wallace Avenue intersection to a controlled intersection. Ms. Kozub responded there was talk of redeveloping an adjacent site with Babcock Street extending to the library and a traffic light would be included, but that had not yet been decided. Planner Bristor added that Engineering will require a traffic study with the formal proposal. Chairperson Livingston asked which was accurate; no walls around parking or all walls around parking. Mr. Harding responded the accurate depiction was all walls around the parking. Chairperson Livingston asked if there had ever been talk about putting residential units on the ground floor instead of retail. Mr. Harding responded they had not discussed that. Ms. Kozub responded the mixed-use option had been preferred. Mr. Howe stated he was a little concerned regarding the amount of parking proposed for the project; though the parking could be dealt with by removing the retail. He stated he thought the building mass would be appropriate for the site and he had no problem with the corrugated metal. He stated the overhang at the southeast corner would be up to the architect. He stated he was generally supportive of the proposal. Mr. Wall stated he agreed with Mr. Howe that the parking would be a concern and suggested that one parking stall per unit should be provided. He suggested Staff discuss the street vision triangle due to the uniqueness of the intersection, the building mass and scale were appropriate, and he was “down with” the brick and corrugated metal proposed. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments noting that parking would be a concern, the massing was appropriate, and the corrugated metal and brick were in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. She suggested office type services as opposed to retail services to lessen the vehicle impact on the site. Mr. Harding responded they did not know for sure what the occupancy rate would be for the units on a given night and noted other options would come up for the parking on the site. Mr. Rea stated he thought the building overhang at the corner (street vision triangle) was ridiculous and suggested it should be retail or rental space for income generating square footage. He stated the building mass was great, the corrugated metal (as long as it was not painted to look like it was rusted) would be fine, he worried about the west facing façade due to the 10 foot air gap instead of a view, and he was concerned with the retail spaces being empty because they would affect the pedestrian activity on the street. He suggested a live-work arrangement. He stated he could not applaud the applicants loud enough for taking on the sale of units without parking spaces; he suggested owners buy into shared vehicles (Green Cars) when they purchased the units to reduce the necessary amount of parking. He stated he bought his first property in Bozeman without a parking space and he didn’t mind walking or riding his bike; he stated he thought there would be people interested in purchasing those units. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB concerns regarding parking. He noted if LEED certification were sought, it would attract clientele that may not have vehicles and would energize the project. Mr. Harding responded they had talked about the requirements at the Parking Commission meeting and they might be changed in the future to allow far less parking; he agreed that LEED certification should be investigated. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he did not see any bike racks, but if they were included it would assist in drawing the intended market. He stated he saw a huge opportunity for affordable housing with the movement of the two houses. He suggested pushing on the bus shelter and discussing those options with Streamline. He stated providing the street vision triangle was absurd (the building should encroach), the mass was appropriate, and the materials would be appropriate. Chairperson Livingston stated the only benefit to providing the street vision triangle would be if the traffic doesn’t change; he suggested the applicant would want the vision triangle to prevent traffic accidents but if the intersection were mitigated, the vision triangle would become unnecessary and the building could encroach. He stated the mass, materials, and overall concepts were great. He stated from the pedestrian point of view the building was not very friendly due to the large amount of brick on the south elevation; he suggested looking into modifying the appearance to promote people walking around the site. He suggested a stoop or residential street-face as a way of getting people onto the streets. Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that people would see the brick as live-work units and the retail might become the attraction for the sale of the residential aspects of the site. 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 comment forthcoming. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board