Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docMINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2006 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Acting Chair Scott Hedglin called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Upstairs Conference Room of the Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana. Board Members Present: Scott Hedglin, Acting Chair Mel Howe Michael Pentecost Bill Rea Elissa Ann Zavora Staff Members Present: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Jesse Sobrepena Bart Manion ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2006. Since not all Board members had had an opportunity to review the minutes from the meeting of July 12, action was tabled to the next meeting. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW Edgewood Townhomes Prel. PUD # Z-06123 (Skelton) 425 East Lincoln Street * A Preliminary Planned Unit Development Application to turn 10 Lots into 2-Residential, Single Family Households and 8-Residential, Multi-Household lots in conjunction with a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application. Senior Planner Dave Skelton gave an overview of the project, noting that the subdivision and the planned unit development are being considered simultaneously; and the Design Review Board is providing input on the PUD only. He stated the applicant is proposing a ten-lot major subdivision on the subject property, with the two existing single-family structures to remain on their own lots and eight townhouse lots on which four duplex townhouse structures are to be located. The Senior Planner stated the applicant’s desire to construct a private street in a right-of-way less than 60 feet wide is driving the PUD process. He noted that some of the DRB members were part of an informal review of this project, and identified the changes made as a result of that review. He noted that the Commission had identified the proximity to existing houses to the west, the footprints of the buildings, density, and compatibility with surrounding development as issues to be addressed. He indicated that the original setback was to be ten feet; and that has been expanded to 20 feet on the new plans. Also, the applicant had originally proposed a total of 16,000 square feet in eight units; that has now been reduced to 12,000 square feet. Also, the applicant had originally proposed two duplexes and one four-plex fronting on East Lincoln Street; the plan now includes four duplexes instead. Senior Planner Skelton noted that staff has reviewed this application and feels that it meets the concerns raised by the Commission during the informal review. Further, staff feels the materials are appropriate. He indicated that the elevations of all four sides of the structures have now been provided, and reflect a Craftsman style that is generally compatible with the surrounding area. He stated that, to accommodate the smaller footprints, the structures have been changed from 1½ stories to two stories. The Senior Planner turned his attention to the parkland and common open space for the project. He noted that 0.3 acre of parkland dedication is required, and open space is required for use by the homeowners and their guests. This plan proposes 0.116 acres of dedicated parkland, with the remainder of the requirement to be met through a cash-in-lieu payment. When the report for this meeting was prepared, staff had not yet received the comments from the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board or the Gallatin Valley Land Trust. The input from those agencies and the Recreation and Parks Superintendent varies significantly, ranging from use of the cash-in-lieu monies to assist in constructing the pedestrian/bicycle trail across Bozeman Creek to trail extensions or easements for future trail extensions. Senior Planner Skelton concluded by reviewing the four conditions recommended by staff for approval of the application. He also noted that input from the neighbors was received just prior to this meeting, and copies have been provided for each of the Board members. He indicated that their concerns revolve around density, mass and scale, and building heights. Jesse Sobrepena indicated concurrence with the staff report, and noted they were aware that the neighbors would be an issue. He stated that, in addition to reducing the size of the footprints significantly, the setback from the existing development to the west has been increased to 30 feet due to the fact that the driveway cannot exceed 150 feet in length for fire truck access since a hammerhead turn around is being provided. He cautioned that if any more square footage is lost from this project, he is not sure the developer would be willing to proceed since it is important to balance the economics of the project with what the City and the neighbors want. He has tried to create duplexes that don’t look like duplexes and to provide some variation in their appearance. He has also tried to orient the buildings so they have the least amount of impact on the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Responding to Bill Rae, Mr. Sobrepena stated that the parcel to the north is part of the original piece of property and will be maintained by the owner. He assured the DRB that no future phases are proposed or anticipated. Responding to additional questions from Bill Rae, Senior Planner Skelton stated that Edgewood Street is a private street. He indicated that, while a private street cannot run through a floodplain, it can encroach into that boundary through an extensive review process. He stated the DRC supports not extending East Lincoln Street to the east because they do not wish to see the creek impacted or the additional traffic on Sourdough Road; those same comments also apply to Edgewood Street. He indicated that extending the street to the north boundary does not achieve anything in the short term; however, staff has requested that a street easement be provided and that the applicant execute a waiver of right to protest the creation of an SID to extend the street in the future. Responding to Scott Hedglin, Mr. Sobrepena indicated the dead end street is 149 feet 6 inches long, and meets Fire Marshal Greg Megaard’s needs and requirements. Responding to Bill Rae, Mr. Sobrepena stated this new plan is in response to the Commission’s interest in seeing a less dense project. It was his interpretation that the smaller footprints and two-story structures would meet that direction, particularly since a majority of the adjacent homes are two stories. Responding to Elissa Zavora, Senior Planner Skelton stated that the information received from GVLT suggests that 0.3-acre public park is not of true benefit to the community; and they would prefer applying the cash-in-lieu of parkland funds toward the construction of a bridge that will provide for a valuable extension of the trail corridor through this property. Responding to Mr. Manion, Senior Planner Skelton stated that the cash-in-lieu payment must be made at final plat. Responding to Elissa Zavora, the Senior Planner indicated that the DRB is to look at the built environment, including the site plan, trail corridor, architectural issues, and density. Responding to questions from Mel Howe, Senior Planner Skelton stated that the UDO allows for cash-in-lieu of parkland. He voiced his uncertainty about what the applicant may do with that portion of the site where the parkland is currently proposed if the entire parkland dedication requirement is met through the cash-in-lieu payment. He then indicated that staff has received three different recommendations regarding the pedestrian trail system from the reviewing agencies, varying from extension of the trail to the north edge of the property, to obtaining an easement for future extension of the trail and construction of the pedestrian bridge, to cash-in-lieu of parkland for the entire dedication requirement. Responding to Michael Pentecost, Mr. Sobrepena confirmed that this application would result in four duplexes being constructed on 70,000 square feet of land. Further responding to Michael Pentecost, Mr. Manion indicated that this property is separated from the properties to the west in a variety of ways, ranging from no buffer to a rickety fence to a hedge to large conifer trees. Responding to Scott Hedglin, Senior Planner Skelton stated the property is zoned to accommodate up to twelve units per acre, and the growth policy has set a minimum of six units per acre. He indicated that the density of the townhouses is just over six units per acre, although the overall property would have a density of just over two units per acre. Bart Manion noted that when this development started, single-story structures were proposed; the height has been increased to address concerns about the density that resulted from the sprawling footprints. Responding to Scott Hedglin, Mr. Sobrepena stated that the proposal for a cash-in-lieu payment for all of the parkland dedication is news to the applicant’s team and could change the design of the project entirely. Bart Manion cautioned that the costs of the creek crossing will be high, estimating the Bozeman Creek crossing at $890,000. Responding to questions from Bill Rae, Senior Planner Skelton stated pedestrian connection is one of the items often sought in exchange for approval of the relaxations sought. He suggested that the Board could recommend cash-in-lieu be provided for parkland dedication or that the developer be required to install the bridge. He stressed that, in any event, the planning documents specifically call for a future trail in this area. Bill Rae questioned the need for a north/south trail when there is an east/west trail through the property. Senior Planner Skelton left the meeting. Acting Chair Scott Hedglin declared a break from 6:15 p.m. to 6:18 p.m., to give the applicant an opportunity to review the written comments submitted by the neighbors. Jesse Sobrepena stated they are trying to make a viable project and, to cover the costs of the amenities and improvements being required by the City, a certain amount of square footage is essential. He forwarded the applicant’s position that they have considered the Commissioners’ comments and have made the changes they felt were needed to meet those comments and concerns. He noted that the footprint has been reduced by approximately 30 percent and this is a proposal they feel is appropriate. Bart Manion noted that when he bought the property in 1999, Raymond Suiter had received preliminary approval for two 3,200-square-foot single-family homes. Since he and his wife had just had a baby, they were unable to proceed with that project, although he paid $15,000 additional for the engineering drawings for that project. When he went to re-apply for the two single-family houses, he was informed that the road must be extended to the north, to the Robert and Sally Sobrepena property, and they submitted a joint application for four single-family homes. That proposal met a lot of resistance from the neighborhood and, because of infrastructure costs and design requirements, they found that a more dense project was needed to support those costs. He noted they have changed the design three times to appease the various concerns raised. He suggested the possibility of transferring density rights to PC Development for its development near the hospital if that is deemed a better option. Michael Pentecost characterized this as infill development. He suggested that if the subject 70,000 square feet were divided into four 17,000-square-foot lots for 4,000 square-foot single-level ranchers, there would be no objections and density would not be an issue. He noted, however, those lots would be three or four times the size of the lots in many of the other subdivisions in the community. He feels that four well-designed duplexes on this 70,000-square-foot parcel is appropriate, and the existing vegetation and new landscaping will protect the neighbors from this project. He turned his attention to parkland, stating he would rather have the dedicated parkland than a cash-in-lieu payment that is to be applied toward a bridge. He voiced support for extending the trail to the stream, recognizing that the bridge will be built later. Mel Howe voiced his concurrence with Mr. Pentecost’s comments. He noted that staff has determined the buildings meet the code requirements, and he finds them quite presentable. He concluded by stating he finds this design acceptable. Elissa Zavora voiced her agreement with both Michael Pentecost and Mel Howe. Her only concerns are with the open space and its elimination if cash-in-lieu is accepted and a trail that goes to nowhere. She finds that this infill project matches well with the surrounding area and development. Bill Rae noted that he would like to see the east/west path continue along the East Lincoln Street alignment, noting it would make a nice connection. He questioned the proposed north/south path, stating he does not find that it makes sense. Bart Manion stated that NorthWestern Energy has offered to allow a trail on its easement through Mac Evans’ property. Bill Rae noted that one can read a lot between the lines in the neighborhood comments. He understands their concerns; however, this is an infill project that makes sense in the greater city fabric. Scott Hedglin noted this is a good-looking project that is within zoning regulations. He recognized that the applicant has worked hard to meet the requirements of the Fire Department and the utility companies. He concluded by noting that he has no opinion on the open space, the park or the cash-in-lieu issues. Michael Pentecost and Elissa Zavora suggested possible revisions to Condition No. 4; however, it was determined that the conditions should remain as recommended by staff. It was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Bill Rae, that the Design Review Board forward a recommendation for approval of the Edgewood Townhouses Preliminary PUD Plan, under Application No. Z-06123, subject to the following conditions: As outlined in the provisions of Section 18.36.090.E.2.a(7) and 18.50.030, BMC, the applicant will meet the necessary twenty (20) performance points for open space with said provisions and calculations for open space and cash in-lieu of open space to be provided on the site plan, for review and approval by the Planning Office. Any provisions for payment of cash-in-lieu of open space shall be made prior to filing of the final plat or issuance of any building permits, which ever occurs first. Landscape features used to meet the required UDO points must be installed in the required yard setbacks. Credit for screening is allowed only when it is a continuous hedge along the adjoining property line. Any proposed signage shall comply with the UDO and be properly dimensioned on the site plan. The applicant will apply for and receive a sign permit prior to proceeding with installation of any signage. A pedestrian crossing and signage for the Class II trail across East Lincoln Street should be considered as part of the planned unit development. The motion to approve, subject to the conditions listed above, carried. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Since no public was present, no comment was received under this agenda item. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT – 6:45 p.m. It was moved by Michael Pentecost, seconded by Bill Rae, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried.