Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-23-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docMINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2006 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair Christopher Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. in the Upstairs Conference Room of the Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana. Board Members Present: Christopher Livingston, Chair Mel Howe Michael Pentecost Bill Rea Walter Banziger (new appointee) Joe Batcheller (new appointee) Staff Members Present: Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Tony Renslow Jeff Sandholm Mike Wiseman ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 12 AND AUGUST 9, 2006. July 12. It was moved by Mel Howe, seconded by Bill Rea, that the minutes of the meeting of July 12 be approved as submitted. The motion carried. August 9. Since the final copy of the minutes was received just prior to the meeting, Chair Christopher Livingston postponed action on the minutes of the meeting of August 9 to the next meeting. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Village Terraces Concept PUD #Z-06190 (Windemaker) North of Main St., and Southeast of Village Downtown Blvd. * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow 8, 4-story buildings with up to 9 residential condominium units on Lots 3 and 4 of the Village Boulevard Minor Subdivision on 14.6 acres zoned R-4 (Residential High Density) District. Lanette Windemaker noted this concept plan is for the third phase in The Village Downtown, which lies east of Broadway Avenue. She stated the first phase was the townhouses; the second phase was apartments; and this phase is to include eight buildings with nine apartment/condominium units in each. There are to be three units on one side and six on the other, allowing for a combination of studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. The first floor is to include interior garages. Planner Windemaker stated the applicant is requesting a relaxation from the front yard setback; however, the concept plan shows the required 15-foot setback, which reflects the applicant’s ability to meet the code requirements. She indicated that they are also requesting a relaxation from the height limitation to allow the buildings to be 48 feet to the rooftop, with an additional 10 feet for a trellis pergola and the chimneys. She noted that the applicant has previously been granted a height relaxation to allow the chimney feature on the townhouses to be 40 feet tall. Also, a height relaxation was also granted to allow The Lofts to be 75 feet tall; and, due to the slope of the lot, portions of the building are actually higher. In light of those previous relaxations, Planner Windemaker indicated staff has found the requested relaxations not unusual within the development. She concluded by noting that staff has identified the amount of hardscape as a concern, and suggested that the area in front of the garages could possibly be reduced since parking cannot be stacked in front of the garage doors. Mr. Tony Renslow, Project Manager representing The Village Investment Group, stated the intent is to construct four-story condominium units. He suggested that these new buildings should help to reduce the visual impacts of The Lofts. He indicated that, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting this morning, the development team has been looking at possible ways to reduce the amount of hardscape, and believes that squeezing the buildings closer together could help to address that concern. He then indicated that a total of 72 condominium units are to be constructed in this third and final phase of The Village Downtown, which will have a total of just over 250 dwelling units. Responding to Bill Rea, Mr. Renslow estimated that the new condominium buildings will be 30 to 40 feet lower than The Lofts buildings. Further, he identified the ground level difference between these structures and The Lofts structures, estimating it at 30 to 40 feet. He acknowledged that the views for the lower two levels of these new buildings will be partially obstructed by The Lofts, but the upper levels should not be. He noted, however, that from a height standpoint, The Lofts will still be taller. Responding to Bill Rea, Mr. Renslow stated that the same plan is to be used for each building, with three two-bedroom units on one side and a mix of studio and one-bedroom units on the other side that totals six units. He indicated that a rooftop patio is planned on each structure, for the visual enhancement and enjoyment of the owners of that building. He indicated that this continues the theme of common areas where residents can gather that has been followed throughout this development. Responding to Christopher Livingston, Mr. Renslow stated the connector in the back is to be a plowable, drivable material that disappears as much as possible with the landscaping. He indicated that the type of material is not known, but could possibly be stained concrete or painted asphalt; and encouraged input and suggestions from the DRB members. Further responding to Christopher Livingston, Tony Renslow confirmed that the material depicted on the lowest level is stone, but the final material selection has not been done. Michael Pentecost noted this is obviously a very large scale development. He has no problem with the increased height, particularly since the precedent has already been set for the mass and scale within this development. Bill Rea voiced his agreement on the request for increased height. He is, however, bothered by the fact that the same plan is to be used for all nine buildings and that this plan shows no regard for compass orientation of those buildings. He acknowledged that this type of plan allows for doing the project cheaper; however, he voiced his preference for seeing the buildings respond to their different orientations. He then asked about the trail that runs on the north edge of the project. Planner Lanette Windemaker responded that she is uncertain of the exact alignment of the GVLT trail connection. She indicated that a trail will be required along the boundary line and over the berm, then encircle the wetlands area. Bill Rea noted this board strongly encourages connection of pedestrian and bicycle trails. Tony Renslow indicated the application for the trail has been submitted, and they plan to enhance the wetlands area. Christopher Livingston noted the plan is 21 parking spaces short and, since no stacking is permitted in front of garages, asked where those additional spaces are to be provided. Planner Windemaker responded that some on-street will be allowed where appropriate, and possibly some parking lots can be added adjacent to the buildings. Tony Renslow noted there is a total of 12 bedrooms in each building, and there are 12 parking stalls in the garages. He stated the additional 21 parking spaces will bring the total spaces to 117 for this project. He confirmed that parking stalls can possibly be tucked behind the buildings in addition to the on-street parking spaces. Christopher Livingston noted he has seen other projects where they were barely able to cover their parking needs and, when combined with the loss of spaces due to snow and visitor parking, the result has been parking on the lawn or the colored pavement where parking was not intended. In this instance, the property is a long way away from Bozeman’s developed road system; and he is concerned that the garages will simply become storage units and that those vehicles will be parked elsewhere on site. Christopher Livingston indicated he has no problem with the relaxation to allow taller buildings, particularly since they will be adjacent to existing 75-foot-tall structures. In light of the concept plan submitted, he does not support the requested relaxation from the 15-foot front yard setback. He then voiced concern about the proposed layout of the buildings, stating he feels the buildings could be better integrated into a cohesive development if they were all located on the two larger lots. He also expressed a strong interest in seeing a courtyard that works rather than one that becomes a wasteland. He noted it appears that component of the plan has not been given much attention, and it is important to ensure that it is part of the overall development. Lanette Windemaker noted that screening of the mechanical equipment is a critical issue and asked how the developer plans to do that. She acknowledged that it can easily be screened from the sides, but noting it will be important to screen from the top, also, in light of the adjacent tall buildings. Tony Renslow responded that the mechanical units should be fairly small, noting he anticipates that stacks will probably be constructed in two locations to serve the entire building. Responding to Bill Rea, Lanette Windemaker stated there is a difference of opinion on whether the 60-foot-wide access to the Front Street right-of-way can be developed as a second access to this development. She stated the Fire Department can currently use the road, if necessary, for emergency access; and they do not wish to have it gated. Christopher Livingston noted that, during review of an earlier phase of this development, concern was expressed about the possibility of 250 dwelling units being constructed in a location without a second egress to Broadway Avenue. He then cautioned that the failure to provide a second egress could create some traffic flow problems. Chair Livingston closed this agenda item by thanking the applicant for the opportunity to review this concept plan. ITEM 3. LIASON DISCUSSION Discussion by Planner Brian Krueger regarding the Bozeman Gateway Development Manual. Brian Krueger introduced the issue, noting that the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision is a large planned unit development subdivision across the street from the Gallatin Valley Mall. He characterized it as a somewhat complex array of lots and open space. Development of this PUD is to be done using a development manual that was painfully developed through a public process involving the Planning staff, the DRB and the Commission; however, staff is now finding things that are not so clear and is seeking feedback on the following issues: (1) improvements to be completed by the developer, (2) shared parking, (3) parking lot lighting, (4) pedestrian lighting, (5) site furniture, (6) building materials and materials palette, and (7) signage. Planner Krueger stated it is important to identify which improvements are to be installed by the developer and which improvements are to be completed by the tenant of each lot, to ensure that those improvements are coordinated and completed. He noted that almost all of the lots are to be subject to reciprocal parking agreements, thus allowing for shared parking within this development. Planner Krueger turned his attention to the parking lot lighting, noting that the approved lights are decorative in nature. The Mitchell Group now is requesting an alternative that may have an exposed bulb to the approved list. The Planner asked if the approved fixtures are the only ones to be allowed or if others might be considered if they are more appropriate for the style of building proposed. Further, if different types of light fixture are to be allowed, he asked if a range is to be established in the guidelines or if they should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The manual currently provides that pedestrian lighting must be provided every 50 feet, but there is no map that identifies the pedestrian ways, and no details were provided for pedestrian lighting. The Planner asked if the same fixture is to be used for pedestrian ways as for the parking lots. He indicated that the entire planned unit development is subject to the restriction that, at the close of business, two of the three parking lot lights are to be turned off, leaving the lots darker. Planner Krueger stated that examples of the site furniture to be used are contained in the development manual. In light of the request from Rosauers for permission to use their unique furniture, staff is asking if the fixtures in the development manual are to be used, whether they fit with the design of the building or not, or if there should be some latitude in considering the fixtures to be located on a specific site. The Planner noted the development manual indicates that masonry is to be a primary building material within the PUD. He further noted there was a substantial amount of discussion with the Mitchell Group about artificial stone versus natural stone; and it was determined that natural stone or a convincing substitute would be allowed. He noted that staff is now seeing applications for products that are not the same and asked if a limit on the types of materials should be set or if this issue should be considered on a case-by-case basis. He noted that staff is now asking for a materials palette at the informal or the preliminary plan stage and cautioned that materials can dramatically affect the budget and the viability of the building. Planner Krueger concluded by addressing signage within the development. He noted the overall signage plan has been approved and includes multi-tenant pole signs. Some of the individual lot owners are now asking for freestanding monument signs in front of their businesses, and the development manual is not clear on whether those signs would be allowed or if only building-mounted signage is allowed. He noted that staff’s initial recommendation is that only building-mounted signage be allowed, since this is a destination development. Planner Brian Krueger stated that each development is subject to a complex review process, since it is weighed against the unified development ordinance, the design objectives plan, and the development guidelines as well as the conditions on the subdivision. Also, the application is subject to review and approval by the Gateway Review Board (GRB) and, when it is submitted, must be accompanied by a letter from that board saying that the materials, building, signage, hardscape and all other components meet specifications. He asked if the GRB has the authority to make determinations on site furniture and signage or if those issues need to be coordinated between the GRB and the DRB. Bill Rea stated he likes to see the materials palette for a building early in the process and suggested that the DRB be very restrictive on the types of materials allowed to ensure a quality development. He then stated he does not support monument signs for individual businesses, cautioning that the result would be to clutter the development. He then expressed support for standardized site furniture, noting that it provides for continuity and consistency within the development. Michael Pentecost stated the design manual has almost become a specifications document. He noted that, while the document may not reflect his personal choices, it does provide for a unified theme and precludes the need for judgment calls. He concluded by voicing his agreement with Bill Rea’s comments. Responding to questions from Planner Krueger, Mel Howe stated he wants to see what the Gateway Review Board recommends on possible variations from the development manual. He characterized the manual as a performance specification rather than a proprietary specification. In response to comments from board members, Planner Krueger confirmed that the GRB will review every site plan application to make sure it complies with the development manual, city ordinances, and the intent of the planned unit development prior to its submittal to the City. Michael Pentecost voiced his support for building-mounted signage rather than monument signs for the individual businesses. Responding to Michael Pentecost, Planner Krueger stated it is important that the landscaping of each individual lot complement the improvements on the adjacent public rights-of-way and common open spaces. Mel Howe stated he feels the GRB review will result in addressing many of the requirements in the development manual prior to the application being submitted to the City for review. Planner Krueger noted that if the DRB feels there is a need for specific guidelines for the furniture and the lighting, that would resolve many of his concerns. Mel Howe suggested that an addendum could be attached to the manual to address any additional issues. He acknowledged the benefit of retaining continuity and a unified look as this subdivision is developed. Michael Pentecost noted that during the initial meetings on this development, Mr. Mitchell brought in samples of Artcast, stating he had found the one cultured stone that he felt would be acceptable in his development. He finds the apparent “bait and switch” before the Design Review Board at this time a slap in the face. Bill Rea voiced his agreement with Mr. Pentecost’s comments, stating he finds that a change in the materials allowed could become a problem. Christopher Livingston indicated he agrees with the concerns voiced by the other board members. He noted this development is a giant fabric that the pieces need to fit into; and it is important to address how well those pieces fit together. He noted that the board is now seeing the architectural direction that the development will be going, with the types of lights, benches and tables being identified; and he believes that having the theme change could be acceptable. He recognized that the building materials will vary from building to building and, given the size of the development, he feels that would be preferable to the monolithic look that could result from a narrow scope of materials. He proposed that a good, high quality palette of acceptable materials be developed for the subdivision. He then expressed his agreement with the other board members’ comments on signage, stating that building-mounted signage is appropriate but a monument sign for an individual business is not. He then indicated he likes the idea of the Gateway Review Board initially steering and overseeing how the application is developed, but asked what happens when the project goes back to that board after being through the City’s process. Planner Krueger asked the DRB members to address the issue of pedestrian lighting, the heights of the standards and where they should be located. Mel Howe noted that lights are installed for safety and security; and he finds that one fixture every 50 feet, particularly if they are on 8 or 10-foot poles, will result in dark areas. Christopher Livingston noted there will be lighting along the streets, in the parking areas and on the buildings, so pedestrian lighting will be needed along the trail features, at the groupings of furnishings, and at the bus stops. Bill Rea stated he is a strong supporter of bollard lighting. Joe Batcheller stated it is pointless to put the pole signs by intersections, since drivers are concentrating on their turning maneuvers and not reading the signs. Mel Howe suggested that the maps should show where the furniture is to be located. Planner Krueger indicated that he has received the input he needed; Chair Livingston closed discussion of this agenda item. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 2. Sandholm Bidegaray Office Building SP/ INF, #I-06022 (Krueger) Lot 57 of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision * An Informal Application looking for advice and direction on the construction of a two-story, 7,000 square foot office building in the Bozeman Gateway Planned Unit Development zoned B-2 (Community Business) District. Planner Brian Krueger stated this site lies along West Garfield Street, at the eastern boundary of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision, adjacent to the Morrison-Maierle development that encompasses six lots. Since the Sandholm building is to be located adjacent to the Morrison-Maierle building, he laid out the two informal plans, identifying the importance of ensuring development of the two sites in a manner that provides for appropriate circulation and coordination of site improvements. He indicated that the shared access is to be along the lot line between Lots 57 and 58; and under this application, vehicles are to turn south to access the parking lot. He forwarded staff’s recommendation that a sidewalk connection be provided and that there be landscaping and seating along the trail as well as in other locations throughout the area. Planner Krueger stated that under this application, a 7,000-square-foot building is to be located on the subject lot, with its only access being via a shared access and a cul-de-sac street. He indicated that staff has suggested a raised walkway from the building to offer opportunities to move around the site and to adjacent lots. He noted that the development manual talks about the importance of the facade to any street right-of-way. He indicated that the building placement is not driven by setbacks, but by easements along West Garfield Street and the eastern edge of the property; and they preclude the preference for locating the structure closer to the street corner to provide a more urban feel. He identified color, materials palette, roof form, and building design as issues to be considered. Jeff Sandholm presented an updated site plan based on comments from the Development Review Committee, noting that he is working with the Gateway Review Board (GRB) on the design of the structure. He noted that the GRB has voiced concern about the shed roof forms, and he is also looking at expanding the lower canopy. A porch area and lawn are to be located under the upper canopy on the other side of the building. Once the GRB approves the plan, he will submit a formal application to the City. Mel Howe voiced support for the building as proposed. Responding to Michael Pentecost, Mr. Sandholm identified the members of the Gateway Review Board; Mr. Pentecost noted that none of them are architects. Michael Pentecost stated he feels the plan as submitted is appropriate. He has no problem with the shed roof, noting that there are also shed roofs on the Morrison-Maierle proposal. He finds the massing and scale appropriate and indicated interest in seeing the materials palette and colors in conjunction with the formal application. Mel Howe suggested that the DRB should not see applications for development in the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision until after the GRB has completed its review. Christopher Livingston suggested it would be helpful for someone from the Gateway Review Board to accompany applicants to review before this body. Dan Bidegaray noted that the GRB did not think the shed roof form is timeless, and they were concerned about the warehouse look. Planner Krueger noted that staff prepares a final letter for informal reviews and suggested that a copy of that letter could be sent to the GRB for projects within that development. He also suggested that, if the DRB wishes, projects within this development could be subject to informal reviews by the Development Review Committee only. Christopher Livingston noted that the Design Review Board is typically respectful of an individual architect’s work unless a project does not look designed. He recognized that the DRB has an interesting dilemma with the GRB process; and he is uncertain about how to resolve it. Bill Rea noted he hates to sway an applicant from the informal review process, particularly since this is the one step where the DRB can have the biggest and least painful impact because it is very early in the process. He stated that, given the location of this parcel and its relationship to the Morrison-Maierle building, which includes shed roofs, he finds the building form appropriate and a nice transition from the agricultural character to the south, east and west. He then characterized this and Rosauers as the cornerstones of the development, with a lot of exposure; and stressed the importance of the building materials used. Responding to questions from board members, Jeff Sandholm acknowledged that more parking has been shown for his development and the adjacent Morrison-Maierle development than is needed. Christopher Livingston recommended that the entrances to the Morrison-Maierle site and the Sandholm site be aligned. Michael Pentecost noted it is important to have someone involved in the process that sees the overall plan for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision to ensure that all projects are coordinated. Bill Rea encouraged that more emphasis be placed on the West Garfield Street entrance. He acknowledged that it will be the “front door” of the structure and that everyone uses the “back door”, but noted it is important to provide a better street appearance. Christopher Livingston stressed the importance of putting a strong emphasis on the intersection. He also noted that Morrison-Maierle has figured out the parking for its building in isolation, and it is important that it be coordinated with adjacent development. He then stated he would like to see the masonry pieces of the building be in brick, giving a nod to the adjacent Morrison-Maierle building. He then stated he finds this a well-designed building and offers a certain amount of articulation that is truly part of the design and not just glued on. He noted that the Morrison-Maierle building reflects a rich palette of materials, and to have the first buildings in the development constructed with that palette, will make it much more difficult for other buildings to not perform to those standards. Michael Pentecost voiced his agreement with encouraging that brick be used. Joe Batcheller stated it is important to provide a drive path that lines up rather than snaking through the site. Chair Livingston thanked the applicant for the opportunity to review this informal application. 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.} No comment was received under this agenda item. SELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Chair Livingston noted that, since Scott Hedglin is no longer on the Board, it will be necessary to appoint a new Vice Chair. It was moved by Bill Rea, seconded by Mel Howe, that Michael Pentecost be appointed Vice Chair of the Design Review Board. The motion carried. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT – 7:42 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, it was moved by Bill Rea, seconded by Michael Pentecost, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried.