Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docMINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2006 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Members Present: Dawn Smith Bill Rea Christopher Livingston Mel Howe Michael Pentecost Staff Present: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Kelly Marple, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Jesse Chase Gene Mickolio Nate Hagen ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2006. Meeting called to order at 5:35PM, President Dawn Smith noted she was impressed with the minutes of May 24th. Minutes Approved. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Baxter Springs Condominiums Preliminary Master SP #Z-06098 (Krueger/Johnson) Baxter Lane, East of N. 25th Avenue A Preliminary Master Site Plan to allow the development of a 136 unit condominium complex on Lot A of Minor Subdivision No. 362 and remainder of Tract 2 C.O.S. No. 1256 on 9.24 acres zoned R-4 (Residential High Density) District. Chairperson Dawn Smith stated that this meeting would consist of the staff presentation, applicant presentation, followed by questions and comments. Associate Planner Brian Krueger opened by stating that this was a high density residential project with R-4 zoning which means that according to the 20-20 plan they are looking to get 18 units per acre. Planner Krueger stated that the DRC completed their review and they do have some recommendations. Planner Krueger outlined that there are 12 condominium buildings, 136 units which are all two-bedroom units with detached parking and garages, two significant open spaces, and a courtyard plaza-type open space in the center, and a watercourse corridor which is under the jurisdiction of the army corps, so the city’s review board is not involved. Planner Krueger said that the 20-20 plan does specify a north/south trail in this corridor, and the applicant would like to place this trail on their final site plan and that Gallatin Valley Land Trust is really taking a lead on coordinating the locations of these regional trails. Brian Krueger also mentioned that the housing project on Baxter just west of this project will also be building a portion of the trail. Planner Krueger stated that they are also trying to get a pedestrian trail out of this project, and then he gave a layout of some of the surrounding lands. Mr. Krueger then referred to a memo outlining open space usage and he stated that the original site plan showed all of the condominium buildings encircling the common area with no buildings on Baxter Lane. Brian went on to say that the DRC asked if the applicant could create some pedestrian entrances on Baxter – and if they could try and swap some of the garage buildings that were blocking some of the open space. Brian Krueger said that this created a little bit different integration date, so they resubmitted their plan and this is the current plan. Planner Krueger said that they did not ask the applicant to redo simple drawings and landscaping plans. Planner Krueger stated that staff is recommending approval – with some conditions that they are suggesting regarding open space and usage of buildings. Planner Krueger said they are looking for a silt fence, protection of the open space corridor as they begin construction on the site, and they are recommending that applicant installs a lot of the perimeter improvements as they develop this project. Planner Krueger said they would like to see landscaping installed along the front and driveways, and they would like to see some public health and safety issues addressed. As for building elevations, Planner Krueger said that when he reviewed them we had a clear front entrance, so now it needs to be balanced out a little bit – it does not have the same character as the frontage and they would like to see some treatment of the front entrance to highlight it, it is very difficult to differentiate from the residential and main entrance. Planner Krueger stated that the parking buildings range from four spaces to eight and that applicants have a single open uncovered parking space and a covered space for each unit. Planner Krueger stated that part of this is being driven by the fact that all the residential units are 2-bedroom, and there are higher parking requirements for two-bedroom. Planner Krueger stated that they are recommending that they add a dormer or some treatments to some of the longer buildings. For any parking structure over five spaces – Planner Krueger is recommending that they add a second dormer. He stated that some of the backsides of some of the garage buildings have a long uninterrupted face – and he and staff are recommending that they revise the elevations for those buildings with more than five spaces to add some windows, some trellis or add landscaping or something to break it up. He stated that this applies to those buildings that are fronting on Baxter Lane. Planner Krueger mentioned that the applicant did not specify the location of building-mounted lights, and asked that they specify this on the site plan. He also stated that no bicycle racks were specified on the site plan and they are suggesting a minimum of six. In regards to the landscaping plan it looks like they have met their points, but they are looking for some additional treatment of interior space. Planner Krueger stated that a storm water retention pond is being planned and that current guidelines suggest it be designed as an amenity, therefore staff is looking for a more detailed plan on how this will be integrated into the front yard. Planner Krueger then mentioned that screening of the ground and mechanical equipment needs to be specified, and they need a condition to include some raised crosswalks and also different treatment area to crosswalks to make them identifiable to drivers. He said they will need to see a watercourse setback planting plan and that they need to provide a certain amount of plants in that area. The north-south trail is required to be installed and that would be part of the setback planting. Planner Krueger said that during DRC meeting they had some comments from the Fire Department who is concerned about signage for each of these buildings, they want to see a common signage plan that shows locations and types of signs, so visitors to this site will have some orientation, Planner Krueger said that this would be required for staff review prior to final approval. Brian Krueger said that they will require a materials palette and color palette prior to final site plan, and that staff is recommending that they provide at least three different color columns for these buildings. He said that this is a high-density project and that the city is looking to meet the targets for that density as well as meeting the open space requirements and getting that density while still providing affordability. Chairperson Dawn Smith asked to hear from the applicant at this time. Jim Ullman of Morrison-Mairele, Inc. commented on what a good job Brian Krueger has done, and he stated that since this is a high density residential complex, they are trying to meet all goals as outlined by the UDO. Mr. Ullman stated that the trail system master plan shows the route of the trail, and the applicant agrees that they want it to tie into the north and south portion of the development. Mr. Ullman also stated that they are widening Baxter along the frontage of this project and tapering it off near the property east, and this will eliminate the narrowing and then widening of Baxter. Mr. Ullman said that they have taken precautions in trying to line the driveways up with driveways across the street to eliminate any issues for accidents and help line of sight. He stated that they have already incorporated some of the changes from the DRC planning staff, and he has nothing else to present at this time. Gene Mickolio stated that they have talked about minimizing the impact of the buildings of this site by berming some areas. Mr. Mickolio said that they are working on minimizing the amount of construction traffic coming in and out of this site. Jesse Chase stated that they are planning on installing all of the infrastructure to meet with city parks requirements and to tie into what DAB is doing with the north-south corridor. Chairperson Smith asked for questions. Bill Rea asked Planner Krueger if he knew what the army corps of engineers standards are compared to the city’s. Planner Krueger answered that he didn’t know offhand, but he knows they are fairly restricted. Mr. Krueger said they have to provide some widening of Baxter and because of that some wetland will be lost. Mr. Krueger also said that in regards to the garage building in the far SW corner of the project - there is setback encroachment so they are working with the army corps to do some mitigation in that area. Planner Krueger also said that as far as the city is concerned they will condition that they bring proof of approval and provide a setback planting plan with the city’s standards – as long as those two conditions are met with the army corps of engineers. Bill Rea asked the following question: Your condition for all parking buildings with more than five spaces that present a rear elevation to Baxter Lane – there are none that provide a back to Baxter Lane anymore because of the new site plan, is that right? Except for three? Brian Krueger answered that building three and the first building is on the drive line side of Baxter, he also said that he wanted to mention that as a condition - if there are buildings fronting on the open space versus fronting onto the complex. Bill Rea stated that his question regarding the jog on the east corner was answered by Jim Ullman and that it makes sense to line it up. Mel Howe asked if there any discussion on putting some offsets in the garage structures as well as the other detailing they were talking about. Planner Brian Krueger said that no, they did not have this discussion, but this is rare, and they usually only see these parking garages in a smaller scale. Mel Howe asked if the retention pond was not currently there, but will be there, correct? Planner Krueger answered that it is on their other set of plans, it is just not detailed. Mr. Krueger also stated that entryway corridor guidelines say that the retention pond needs to be designed. Mel Howe also asked if there are unique color schemes for each of the buildings, or one color scheme for all of the buildings. Brian Krueger answered that condition suggested that they use three different unique color schemes. Michael Pentecost asked if the extent of their property is the extent of city limits. Brian Krueger answered that yes, it is a very long narrow size and may be difficult to develop in the future and that it is maybe a half or a third of the width of this property, but just as long. Michael Pentecost and Brian Krueger then went to a map hanging on the wall to review some of the surrounding land of the Baxter property. Michael Pentecost asked the applicant if this is considered low income affordable housing. Jesse Chase answered that yes, they are looking at from $135,000 to $139,000 for these condos, and that this is where they are hoping the price will be. Michael Pentecost then pointed out that the shakes are shown to be pre-primed and painted, but the rendering shows stained shakes. He wished to know if the cedar shakes are to be stained. Jesse Chase answered that they will be real cedar. Christopher Livingston asked if these are considered garages or storage buildings, and if there is a difference between the two. Gene Mickolio answered that these are garages. Mr. Livingston then asked: Where does the model of these units with the circle-the-wagons scheme of storage units come from? Mr. Mickolio answered that efficiency of the layout determines the layout, and that basically we need “X” amount of parking and that the center courtyard has changed a little from the original layout. Mr. Livingston asked if there a thought to incorporating some of these storage-garage units into these 12-plexes. Jesse Chase answered that they originally looked at attached parking, but said that when you are building all of the same units you need to make it fair for all tenants and can’t have it so that one guy has attached parking and one guy has to walk 100 feet. Mr. Livingston then asked what their idea for signage was to get to these places. Jesse Chase answered that a large ‘you are here’ sign is planned which addresses all areas. Mr. Livingston asked if that was for once he gets through all the garage buildings. Mr. Chase told him that it will be shown on a map exactly where the signs will be and the efficiency of showing where the units are located. Dawn Smith then asked if these are going to be affordable housing, why not build carports instead of garages. Jessie Chase said the idea was to cover snow machines, skis, bikes, tools, etc. Dawn Smith said that she was talking about a three-walled structure and whatever interior support you would need. Jessie Chase said that security is one reason not to have the carports and that bicycles, boats, etc. are more secure in garages. Dawn Smith said that she would agree with that - but 50% of all other parking is not protected. Jesse Chase said that every unit is provided one garage so everybody has security. Dawn Smith said that only one of your vehicles will be secure, so what does that accomplish. Mr. Ullman pointed out to her that it gives you the opportunity to keep your stuff secure, and you could put a fancy car or a motorcycle in the garage and have a secure spot. Dawn Smith asked if there was going to be a parking problem because there is no parking on Baxter, so if people aren’t parking in the garages, there will not be a place to park. She said that if people aren’t parking in the garages there will be a big problem. Chairperson Smith also stated that they are being credited towards the 270 spaces as parking spaces, not storage, but if they don’t use them as parking spaces there will not be enough parking. She said why not consider carports, they are all over Denver, and will offer some protection for the vehicles and lower price per unit. Jesse Chase suggested that maybe they can control this issue in the covenants and have a maximum of two cars allowed per unit. Dawn Smith asked if the garages have electricity in them and Mr. Chase answered that yes they will. Bill Rea asked if the interior court is accessible and where. Gene Mickolio said that yes will be handicapped-accessible. Dawn Smith asked if they have gone to CAHAB (Community Affordable Housing Administration Board) with their proposal. Jesse Chase responded that this is not an officially designated affordable housing project, and that they have got approval through Fannie Mae and will be offering classes. Michael Pentecost asked if he were to come to visit this place and everyone has parked in their garage, is there any additional parking allowed, is the parking count on the numbers? Dawn Smith responded that yes there is - exactly 100%. Brian Krueger also answer yes, with 100% with accessible places. Jesse Chase said that there are more one-car units than you think and that this place won’t be overflowing with cars. Michael Pentecost said the he will go along with it that there are primarily single people in this project – but that guy owns two parking spaces and they are reserved, one in garage and one assigned space. He then asked if all spaces are going to be assigned, or will it be an open free-for-all. Jim Ullman answered that yes, they will be assigned spaces. Brian Krueger stated that they have met the city’s requirements for this project and we should remember that we don’t exist in a vacuum and we will have to develop around this in the future and we should plan for parking. The UDO has us assigning spaces. Gene Mickolio said that whoever lives here stays here and is allowed two vehicles maximum. Jesse Chase mentioned that at the last one they built (Valley West) 40% had only one car. Dawn Smith said that at Valley West you can park on the street and that there is no second chance here, no overflow parking. Jim Ullman said that from the standpoint of what’s more important - is it open space wetlands, or more parking, does it help to provide a nice corridor or bump out parking, or take out an area of the courtyard and put in parking. He said that they followed the UDO to provide the parking that is required and he would assume that when they planned the parking requirements they were thinking of trying to get 18 units per acre, so it’s a catch-22. Dawn Smith said that she is not faulting the applicant as much as the city because you are meeting what they are requiring. Christopher Livingston asked if there something in town that they’ve done similar to this. Gene Mickolio gave as an example the Kagy Crossroads Apartments on the west side, which has a very similar layout, but is probably tighter than this one. Mr. Livingston asked what type of activities would be happening in the courtyard and if they could point to an example where there is a courtyard that is being actively used. Jesse Chase asked him if he was asking for his opinion, or if they’ve done a study. Mr. Livingston said he just want to see where it has worked. Jesse Chase said that he has seen that where there is a detached garage, people hang out in the interim area. Michael Pentecost said he would like to address that since he lived in a similar place like it in Billlings – and as it turns out it was the only place that kids could play because that was the only grass, and that it was used all of the time. Mr. Pentecost also mentioned that this courtyard does have a southern access to it, so it will be light. Dawn Smith asked for comments. Bill Rea said that in general the project saddens him because he strongly believes in low-income housing but he wishes it didn’t have to be this bad. He said that he sees it his duty to at least make it acceptable to the community, so he appreciates what they’ve done with putting the three units up to face Baxter. Mr. Rea said that he is going to propose some language to mitigate these elevations on the west garages and a better connection for the complex to the open space, maybe raised walkways, so there is some access. Mel Howe said that his only comment is that the number of buildings that are pretty much identical with some color differences and that the buildings could be more varied and still be attractive to the investors. Michael Pentecost said he had no comment. Mr. Livingston said that he thinks as a product the prospective we have is what is acceptable, and his problem is that he finds this site plan to be horrific. Mr. Livingston went on to say that he thinks it’s a very inefficient use of space, you have 20 feet of grass between buildings where nothing is ever going to occur, there is windows but no doors, it’s a passage but not really a passage, and there’s a 15-20 foot slot between the garages on the west side. He also said that the area near the courtyard doesn’t know whether it should be paved or not, or a playfield, and wondered how much the people on third floor are going to use these spaces. He thinks the garages will be filled up with stuff and then there will be a parking problem. Mr. Livingston said that he thinks this is an efficient product for them to build with garages, but he doesn’t see any integration between the two. He said that it doesn’t give him a sense of satisfaction, and that it is a place for people to go just from their parking stall into their unit and back out and he sees the grounds as being completely underutilized. Michael Pentecost said that he is going to parallel what others have said in a couple respects; he understands that when you embark on a mission to supply affordable housing and you can give them something in Bozeman for $135,000 that it is an opportunity for someone to start, but a better setting would be nice. Mr. Pentecost also stated that the garages are 10 by 20, with a nine foot door, so he doesn’t think there is 10 feet inside. He thinks it is a storage shed because he doesn’t think dimensions of the garage are big enough for a car. He said he wasn’t losing sight of the objective, which is a $135,000 living place. He said there is 1 x 4 Mertec on the corners, and you have large tall expanses of green siding, and it might serve to make corners 1 x 6 so corners are bit more substantive. He said that he thinks they are building themselves a parking problem, but recognizes that they are doing everything by the book. Dawn Smith asked Planner Brian Krueger if the 8-foot door meets the city’s parking spot size. Brian Krueger stated that the space has to be a 9 x 20 spot. Dawn Smith stated that she feels that there are serious problems with the UDO. Dawn Smith then stated some landscaping comments from Elissa. In regards to the catoni astor, Elissa recommends breaking it up because you should never take a hedge over 45-50 feet without breaking it up. Same with the juniper hedge. Dawn Smith then gave her comments – she said that if this project was truly an affordable housing project she would support them in a reduction in some of the green space, but she said they haven’t done that and they also haven’t asked for a variance. Chairperson Smith also said that two parking spaces would save them a ton of money, and is it possible for you to do two parking spaces or one and a half parking spaces and then put closet-sized storage lockers for people to put their skis and bikes but it wouldn’t take up as much place as a garage? A little building with four or six units instead of one-car garage. Chairperson Smith said she doesn’t have a problem with density, just whether it will work and thinks there is no way to get into the open space, her comment was to realign the parking lot islands so that you can get into the parking lot across the parking lot and into the open space. She said she would support a deviation on that to make this site work. She said she doesn’t agree with Chris about the courtyard and could see the courtyard working and if it worked it would work really well because it would give a sense of community. Brian Krueger then made a comment about the open space – he said they specifically didn’t require access into that open space and that it’s not the function of these watercourse corridors, he says the corridors are very moist and damp and not a place for active recreation. Michael Pentecost stated that they have 106 garages around the perimeter and if they were converted to carports – steel frame with shelter – they would pick up 10 parking spaces and save $560,000 on their project. He said that the garages are $35 per square foot to build and that would be $7,000 per garage times 106. Mr. Pentecost said that creates a more open corridor, guarantees enough parking, and supports smaller storage units. Mel Howe said he has an addendum to the questions – did they talk about trash pick up this morning. Brian Krueger answered that they finished DRC last month and talked about it then and they made recommendations and addressed the issues. Mr. Krueger said that post office requirements and sanitation have also been addressed. Chairperson Smith asked for any motions. Christopher Livingston said that he motioned that on file number Z-06098 Baxter Street condos we approve with the staff recommendations. Mel Howe seconded. Dawn Smith then asked for discussion. Michael Pentecost said that he thinks they need to consider the carports and that it should be added to the motion as a condition. He said that it would resolve any potential parking problems. Dawn Smith asked if there was other discussion. She said she would like to add a condition to make a pedestrian passageway from the three north buildings to the courtyard, besides the east and west ones. Dawn Smith asked if anyone would like to make an amendment. Christopher Livingston stated that the amendment would be the addition of condition 10 that the applicant consider carports in lieu of garage/storage units. Condition 11 that a pedestrian access be provided from the three north units to the courtyard centrally located between the east and west existing access points. Michael Pentecost seconded. Dawn Smith asked: For the amendment all those in favor of adding condition 10 and 11. Board agreed unanimously. Dawn Smith asked if there was anymore discussion on the original motion. Bill Rea – One comment I would like to change the wording from 3C – from Baxter Lane to read open space. Dawn Smith – Is that because his conditions weren’t updated to the new site plan. Brian Krueger stated that it doesn’t apply. Mel seconded Bill’s amendment. Dawn Smith asked any if there were any more discussion on the amendment. All present said no. Chairperson Smith then asked for all those in favor of the amendment – it was unanimous in favor. Dawn Smith then asked if there was any more discussion on the original motion. All were in favor except Bill Rea opposed. Dawn Smith then brought up next Thursday’s meeting on liaison information. Brian Krueger said that the meeting is in this room on Thursday, June 22nd from 3:00 to 5:00pm. This is an informal DRB public meeting and is a requested meeting by the DRB. Planner Krueger said that some agenda items are Brian’s vacancy which has finally been posted, how to empower staff, and lack of bylaws. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes) Dawn asked for public comment – none was offered. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Dawn asked for a motion to adjourn, Bill offered the motion, Christopher Livingston seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 6:57p.m. This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).