Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Elisa Zavora Susan Kozub, Associate Planner Christopher Livingston Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Michael Pentecost Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Joe Batcheller Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Bill Rea Walter Banziger Visitors Present Shelly Engler Steve Domreis Ray Johnson Keith Belden Tom Milleson Brian Caldwell Graham Goff Jami Morris Doug Minarik Craig Mendenhall Corey Ravnaas Steve Domreis ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2006. Ms. Zavora stated that on page 3, in the second to the last paragraph, it should read Dan La France. Mr. Rea stated that page 5 should state bicycle racks and should read LEED instead of LEAD. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to approve the minutes of October 25, 2006 with the requested corrections. The motion carried 7-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. PT Land/Perkins CUP for PUD #Z-06230 (Windemaker) Baxter/Oak/11th/15th (Continued from October 25, 2006.) * A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with relaxations to allow for development of 18 lots for commercial and open space use on 47.62 acres generally bounded by Baxter Lane, North 11th Avenue, West Oak Street, and North 15th Avenue with American Federal Savings Bank as the initial phase of the PUD, zoned B-2 (Community Business) District. Ray Johnson, Brian Caldwell, Shelly Engler, and Keith Belden joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting the project’s location. She stated the applicant was basically dividing the area into four sections for specific uses. She stated ADR Staff had reviewed the proposal and had recommended 13 conditions of approval on the PUD plan and 10 conditions of approval on the site plan. She stated the first phase of the PUD was the American Federal Savings Bank which would be located on the southernmost lot on the site. She added that she had inserted the condition that DRB review the PUD proposals on a site to site basis if the proposed project met the DRB review criteria. Mr. Belden stated the project was complex and contained several pieces. He stated the PUD portion of the application was attempting to transition from Oak Street to the “hospitality/resort” section of the proposal. He stated the site plan reflected the surrounding developments and the lot lines had not been established as the purchaser of the land might want to buy two lots and boundary realignment could be done in the future. Mr. Caldwell stated that the methodology used was to consider the overlay districts the property was located within and added that the Design Objectives Plan did a quality job in ensuring well conceived designed projects. He stated the guidelines for architectural character were well addressed in the DOP. He stated the first part of the proposal’s design guidelines addressed the industrial portion of the site; this to provide for the existing industrial developments in the area. He stated the signage was a subtle way of differentiating between the various types of development on the site. He stated the bulk of the work would be in the service/warehouse neighborhood district as it would be a Conditional use and would need details provided. He added that he thought the proposal was in keeping with the existing Kenyon Noble site. Mr. Johnson stated that the DRB had made suggestions at the last meeting and he listed those items that had been addressed. He stated that the revised elevations were not completed, but the revised site plan had been completed. He stated that the applicant had no issue with revising the elevations, renderings, and site plan to be more conforming. He stated the building footprint would be set in stone and added that there was not a color palette at this time. He stated the DRB had made very good suggestions and they would be worked into the submittal. He stated the bank may want to add an addition to their structure and the applicant preferred to leave them room on the site for that purpose. Ms. Engler stated she had the privilege of working on 1001 Oak Street, it was one of the finest landscape plans in Bozeman, and this submittal was in keeping with that property. She stated she had forgotten about the residential adjacency screening, but she would correct that problem. Mr. Johnson added that American Federal Bank would institute more landscaping than required. Mr. Belden asked which Site Plans within the PUD would need to be reviewed by the DRB at the time of their submittal. Planner Windemaker explained the DRB’s review criteria and the condition placed on the proposal by the DRB. Chairperson Livingston added that particular owners developing sites might want input from the DRB and it would give the owner more control over the aesthetic value of their proposal. Ms. Zavora asked if they had added two parking stalls in lieu of a tree. Ms. Engler responded the tree would not be removed, but relocated. Mr. Rea asked if the percentage of the area taken up by the bank would be substantial. Mr. Johnson responded there would be plenty of room to add an addition to the bank in the future and the percentage of the site that the bank would take would not be substantial. Mr. Rea asked if the DRB would be making a motion on the conditions and the memorandum. Planner Windemaker responded that the DRB would be making a motion on both Staff conditions and the memo. Mr. Caldwell suggested the removal of condition #4 from the DRC meeting stating his reason was that there were no differences and it would be difficult to demonstrate them. Mr. Rea asked for clarification of the Staff condition addressing the dead end of Tschache Lane. Planner Windemaker explained. Mr. Batcheller asked if the DRB would review every project on the site. Planner Windemaker responded that the DRB would review only those that met the threshold review criteria from the UDO. Ms. Zavora stated that Staff condition #5 stated that lots “may be” located where depicted. Planner Windemaker responded that Staff would need to know which lots are located in the entryway corridors. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the established development guidelines might be different for each type of proposal on the site. Mr. Caldwell responded that the differences would be in the uses and not the development itself; adding that they are intended to be similar as their locations would be right across the street from each other. Planner Windemaker responded that the applicant would need to write into the development guidelines that there would be differences in structures and uses within the site. Mr. Caldwell responded that those differences would be instituted. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission with Staff Conditions and the addition of Site Plan Condition #11 that the revised elevations, which will indicate the recommended changes from informal DRB review on October 25, 2006, be reviewed by the DRB as a consent item. The motion died. Mr. Rea stated that relaxation request #1 of the memorandum was a request not to build a sidewalk in one location and, upon visiting the site, found he was not in support of the requested relaxation. He suggested an asphalt path be included. Planner Windemaker stated Baxter would be constructed with bike lanes, the sidewalk would need to be extended to connect with North 15th Avenue once that connection had been made. Mr. Rea responded that, for the record, he disagreed with City Engineering and added that he did not understand the reason a dead end road would be a concern for Staff. Planner Windemaker responded the applicant had requested the road end before the property line which would be the city’s concern. Mr. Belden added that a financial agreement (150% financial guarantee) would be in place with the city and an agreement with the adjoining landowner would be in place as well. Mr. Caldwell added that there would be 4-10 permitting issues. Mr. Rea stated his big concern was Staff condition #5 regarding not constructing a planned collector street through to Baxter Lane; he had walked the site and thought North 15th Avenue would be a large collector. Mr. Belden responded that an agreement had been reached to provide an alternate way to get to Baxter Lane and the Engineering Department had placed a condition on the proposal to provide for that connection. Mr. Rea suggested using North 11th Avenue. Mr. Belden responded that North 11th Avenue was too far away. Mr. Rea stated the connection would make block 4 more valuable with more of the properties having street frontage. Mr. Belden responded that the design would shift. Mr. Rea stated he would support North 15th instead of 14th Avenue being the connection. Chairperson Livingston added that the rest of the site would benefit if they used North 15th Avenue instead. Mr. Rea asked if the wetlands had been renovated or recreated by Lowe’s. Mr. Belden responded it was a marginal wetland that had been beaten down my cattle and added that Lowe’s had obliterated ¼ of an acre in the construction; he added that a wetlands mitigation plan would be in place. Chairperson Livingston stated he had one comment regarding the building entrance and the monumental and human scale in the entryway should not have 30 feet of glass to potentially blind patrons of the establishment. Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested the applicant e-mail a digital version of the color elevations for the American Federal Savings and Loan to the DRB for review. Mr. Rea stated he was so glad to see a PUD proposed that was on the Jeffersonian grid. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission with Staff Conditions and the addition of Site Plan Condition #11 that the revised rendered elevations of American Federal Savings, which will indicate the recommended changes from informal DRB review on October 25, 2006, be reviewed by the DRB before Final Site Plan approval. The motion carried 7-0. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Buffalo Wild Wings CUP/COA #Z-06209 (Kozub) 1783 North 19th Avenue * An Application to review revised plans for the construction of a 6,759 square foot restaurant including the sale of alcohol and related site improvements, zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). Tom Milleson and Shelly Engler joined the DRB. Associate Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report noting the changes made to the original submittal. She stated there would be two connections to the North 19th Avenue Greenway, windows were added to the south and west elevations, and clarified materials had been included. Mr. Milleson stated that CM Architecture out of Minneapolis was the architect on all of the Buffalo Wild Wings establishments. He stated he had made a list of recommendations and submitted them to the applicant and added that they did not have the freedom to redesign the floor plan but had agreed to use less Drivit and more stone. He stated he was requesting feedback from the DRB as to whether or not the project could move forward given the current elevations or if it would need re-evaluated. Ms. Engler stated she had tried to carry the theme for the landscaping so that there would be continuity on the site. She stated the patio location was desired as a different exposure would be too hot in the summer. She stated the south side landscaping would have to be vines or ornamental grasses as there was very little room available. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated the DOP discouraged franchise architecture and asked Planner Kozub if that meant franchise architecture was prohibited. Planner Kozub responded that the word “discouraged” had been used instead of prohibited to provide for flexibility and suggested the DRB have a meeting outside the confines of project review to discuss that definition. Mr. Banziger asked what the windows added to the south and west elevations would look like (i.e. would they slap a Bobcats sticker on it or would it appear as a display case). Mr. Milleson responded that the windows would contain items like display cases, would be real windows with lighting, and could be opened from the outside. Mr. Banziger also asked if the liquor code forbade the patio connecting to the trail. Ms. Engler responded that the applicant did not connect the patio to the path for security purposes. Planner Kozub added that Staff liked the current location of the relocated path as it created interest in the patio from those on the path. Mr. Rea stated the window only provided for sports autographs or tennis rackets and there were fewer windows proposed with this submittal. Mr. Milleson responded that there would be three windows that would be clear and one would be dark spandrel glass. Mr. Rea stated that the mechanical equipment would need to be screened from the actual elevational view. He suggested the path go directly to the patio. He stated a secondary patio could be instituted. Ms. Engler suggested a spur back to the back door. Mr. Rea responded that it would be nice to have a bike path in that location. He stated that the project had not been changed substantially enough to merit a recommendation of approval to the City Commission. Chairperson Livingston stated that long runs of wall commonly occurred where there was nothing and windows would break up a long run. Ms. Zavora asked if the point calculations for landscaping were accurate and if the application still met the requirements. Planner Kozub responded that she had not had a chance to count the landscape points. Ms. Engler added that she thought the requirements had been met. Ms. Zavora asked if there were only three trees being relocated. Ms. Engler responded that there were only three, and one other would be questionable. Ms. Zavora asked if night lighting on display cases would be allowable. Mr. Milleson responded the displays would only be lit during hours of operation. Mr. Batcheller asked if the path could be routed along the stream. Planner Kozub responded that it could if the adjacent property owner (Home Depot) was amenable. Mr. Batcheller suggested the path follow the natural course of the stream until it could be connected to Baxter Lane. Chairperson Livingston asked the location of the trail connection. Planner Kozub responded she was not sure where exactly it would connect as the properties in between were County jurisdiction, but there would be an eventual connection. Chairperson Livingston stated there were sight lines on North 19th Avenue, and the further the distance, the easier it would be to see the mechanical equipment. Mr. Milleson responded he did not know exactly how tall the mechanical equipment would be. Chairperson Livingston stated that a similar franchise proposal had reorganized their proposal within the site and the project had later been approved and added that the floor plan to the proposal looked the same as any other; where would the definition of franchise end. He added that he did not think there was a distinction with regard to franchise architecture. He stated the symmetry of the proposal might be the applicant’s problem and suggested changing the symmetry. He suggested connecting the entry to a walkway along the front of the building. Mr. Rea stated the south elevation that would contain the memorabilia lacked depth, suggested a 3-4 foot bump, and that the windows be made into display cabinets instead of fake windows. He stated the patio on the north elevation would need to be larger and could tie into the path, the fence, and the site better. He stated the west elevation was the throw away elevation and should be more respectful of the path. He stated the lighting depicted was not acceptable as it was not consistent with the trail and the view to the west. Mr. Howe agreed with previous DRB and Staff comments regarding the institution of awnings, and suggested not making the full windows into display cases if they would not have a greater depth. Mr. Banziger stated he felt Mr. Milleson was at a disadvantage because he was not the one who attended the original meeting and the applicant had tried to sell the same proposal in a new suit. He stated he thought the building could address and integrate into the site better, he suggested the patio looked as though it had been just slapped on, the design was unimaginative, and he agreed with Mr. Rea’s comments that the windows should be made into display cabinets instead of fake windows. He added that he agreed with previous DRB comments. Vice Chairperson Pentecost suggested attempting to figure out how the entry canopy might relate to the site while wrapping the corner and pulling the entry around to the side of the site. He suggested designing the building more to the site. Mr. Batcheller stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and thought it was a half-hearted attempt to improve the original submittal, he did not think it optimized the way people would interact with the surroundings (particularly the patio), and suggested rotating the patio 180 degrees citing a missed opportunity due to the location of the stream. Mr. Banziger stated the applicant would now have two sets of DRB meeting minutes to look back on for redesign assistance. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments with regard to the location of the patio and path. She suggested a differently shaped patio; possibly wrapping it around the structure to provide for shade and sun as well as nice views. She suggested addressing the utility side of the structure to dress it up a bit more. She stated the scale was off on some of the proposed plantings. Planner Kozub suggested a regular landscape plan, excluding the color, to make it easier to read. Ms. Zavora agreed and suggested making the landscape plan match the site plan and elevations, and the elevations exclude the vegetation in front of the façade. Chairperson Livingston stated he appreciated the applicant coming in for an Informal review as it was an opportunity for the DRB to offer feedback. 2. Story Mill Center Informal #I-06030 (Saunders) Story Mill Rd./Hillside Ln./Griffin Dr. * An Informal Application requesting advice and comment on the subdivision and development of 106.583 acres to provide for a mix of zoning designations including: B-1 (Neighborhood Business District), B-2 (Community Business District), M-1 (Light Manufacturing District), R-2 (Residential Two-Household Medium Density District), and R-4 (Residential High Density District). Corey Ravnaas, Craig Mendenhall, and Steve Domreis joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff memo noting the project was an assemblage of several parcels on the northeast side of town including approximately 90 acres. He stated the project would include rezoning and be reviewed by many different boards and commissions. He stated the DRB would review the proposal based on the fact that it is located within a registered Historic District with most of the property being within city limits and some of the property needing to be annexed at a future date. He stated some of the things specifically being reviewed by the DRB would be the open space, the location of the site within the Bridger Drive Entryway Overlay Corridor, and the proposed PUD aspect of the project. Mr. Domreis stated the project was continually evolving and would ultimately be a ten year project. He stated there were 90 acres of land and 35 acres would be open space to tie the site together. He stated the proposal did not look as though it was laid out by one individual and the site was first looked at a year ago with the idea being to rehabilitate and rejuvenate the historic Story Mill structures. He stated the tin structure in the center of the site would create one of the best public spaces. He stated their goal was to create a LEED development and added that the program recognized developments and individuals preserving the community. He stated the development of streets and paths, wetlands, etc. would default to LEED standards and they had gotten a platinum rating in preliminary discussions with the LEED organization. He added that the old rail spur trail would enter the site. Mr. Domreis stated that parcel A would include the Mill and the Parks property to the north and would contain 40 homes in the neighborhood. He stated they were looking at something that was not a component of the Mill, but would complement the mill. He stated the parking would be protected and hidden and there would be a stoop with major living on the ground level and bedrooms on the upper level. He stated they were looking to capture, store, and re-use rainwater on the site. He stated that five lots would be brought in as buffers along Story Mill Road and Hillside Lane for transitional purposes to adjacent development. He stated that the tin shed building would be removed, but recreated in a form that kept the same composition as the original and added a retail function. He stated a plaza had been instituted to provide space for the public. He stated the brick warehouse as part of the Mill would be a neighborhood grocery store and they wanted to bring back the loading dock aesthetic. He stated a later phase might contain residential development in the silos. Mr. Mendenhall stated that the footprint in the Story Mill right of way might have to be altered, but would remain in keeping with the historical nature of the site. He stated the applicant had asked a water color artist to depict the existing buildings in watercolor to illustrate how the development could appear. He stated an example was a building in the rear of another that was at hazard of falling down and the applicant wanted to keep the building while reinforcing some existing walls, removing some walls, and creating a courtyard area in lieu of removing the structure entirely. Mr. Domreis stated that the applicant wanted to maintain the contours and texture of the existing site (i.e. structured parking backed up to the hillside). He stated that he had been walking the site to see what would be the best context to the existing neighborhood. He stated the color rendering illustrated the eclectic nature of the architecture and the applicant wanted to stay in keeping with the eclectic nature of Bozeman. Mr. Mendenhall added that eclectic had to be applied to scale as well as architecture and the proposal provided for that. He stated there would be approximately 150 homes along Story Mill Road, ranging in size from a one bedroom flat to a three bedroom home; adding that they were going for diversity in housing types. Mr. Domreis stated that there would be a challenge activating the spine running through the buildings in phase I and the applicant had addressed that by using different scales of buildings. He stated the applicant was interested in exploring ideas regarding pedestrian paths and recreational areas. He stated the applicant was considering including a live/work environment with a variety of scales of green spaces (community gardens, etc.) and added that there would be four or five story buildings with connected parking. He stated the potential for breaking into smaller lots would exist. Mr. Mendenhall stated that there would be opportunities to provide retail projects with the parking abutting the storage facilities. Mr. Domreis stated that old growth trees would be maintained and the river would not be completely isolated, but opened up for use by the public. Mr. Mendenhall added that paths and river access were part of the LEED criteria. Mr. Domreis stated green fingers would be brought through one parcel and buildings would be tucked into the trees and green areas. He stated they would be adding larger open space areas to accommodate baseball/soccer fields and the retail development would be surrounded by residential development including retail on the front. Mr. Mendenhall stated there would be roughly 1,100 units and 2,300 parking stalls associated with the development, but they would be attempting to limit the number of parking stalls to provide for LEED requirements. He stated the applicant was attempting to provide a transit system that could be instituted on the site. Mr. Domreis stated they were attempting to create a potential boardwalk on the site and illustrated which structures were taller on the proposal. Mr. Mendenhall stated he had just finished a platinum LEED rated building and a large portion of the materials were within 500 miles of the site and the local workforce. Planner Saunders added that the 2,300 parking stalls proposed were only about half of what currently existed downtown. Chairperson Livingston responded that he had seen projects that had not provided enough parking; adding that the reality was that people had a lot of gear. Mr. Banziger added that many single-family residences were being rented to four or five college kids who had more than one vehicle. Mr. Rea asked what level of LEED the applicant was attempting to provide. Mr. Mendenhall responded they hit platinum level in the charrette discussions for the neighborhood and the proposal would be the first LEED neighborhood in the world. Mr. Rea asked the situation regarding the existing trailer court. Planner Saunders responded that the existing trailer court was outside the jurisdiction of the DRB and would be addressed by others. Mr. Rea stated he felt honored to be able to review the project and asked if the applicant would use the silos as housing in the first phase. Mr. Mendenhall responded that it might be residential in a future phase. He asked if the structural integrity of one building would be safe. Corey responded that the materials would be reused, but the structure itself leaned at an angle. Mr. Mendenhall added that a wrapped silo would provide fire exits and balconies with a core, elevator, and stairs. Mr. Rea stated that phase A was the strongest part of the development and added that in architecture he always pushed for a clarity of plan and celebration of section, but thought the master planning was off and had become too convoluted causing “clover planning” in area C; he suggested the use of a strong grid instead of the tortured feeling of the proposal. He added that the first phase had clarity and respect for the existing buildings and he appreciated the diversity in materials and sizes, but the master plan still needed clarity. He stated there did not seem to be enough density to support the commercial clusters and would rather see a strong commercial node (i.e. a grocery store with housing above) in one location with residential surrounding; he was concerned that there would not be enough density to maintain the separation of the commercial areas. Mr. Mendenhall responded that some roads meandered around wetlands. Mr. Domreis responded that the applicant had taken a European approach to the nature of the buildings along the streetscape. Mr. Howe stated it was an exciting proposal and the applicant had done a lot of creative thinking to put together a 90 acre project. He stated he did not see anything to complain about, but suggested a rectilinear pattern to the streets, though the proposed layout caused some emerging patterns that he liked. He stated that being able to see the range of buildings easier would be good and he supported the project. Mr. Banziger commended the applicant on the proposal and stated that (as he was a LEED professional) he was very excited to see the project. He stated the eastern side of him liked the grid patterns as they would be very formal and very easy to find your way around in and the western side of him liked the idea of the proposed system. He asked if the applicant intended to use recycled materials. Mr. Domreis responded they would be reusing and using recycled materials. Mr. Banziger asked what type of energy conservation methods would be instituted on the site. Mr. Mendenhall stated the site would have solar powered light poles. Mr. Domreis added that strategies such as solar flower farms were being investigated as sustainable solutions. Mr. Mendenhall added that the mill had been powered by water; they were considering a central utility, and geo-thermals. Mr. Banziger asked if the LEED certifications were being connected to the historical buildings or if it would be a conflict. Mr. Mendenhall responded he had just done a LEED building that was also historically certified and it would be necessary to choose the right contractor. Mr. Banziger asked if there would be gray-water collections. Mr. Mendenhall stated they would check into all their options, including that one. Mr. Banziger asked the density of the proposal. Mr. Mendenhall responded it would be roughly 23 homes per acre. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant to explain the process regarding what they would actually build and what would be sold and developed by others. Mr. Mendenhall responded that they were in schematic design phase to construct phase 1 of the development as a prototype. Mr. Minarik added that the prototype better addressed the wetlands, open areas, and streets. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that his concern would be undeveloped lots sitting there with no guarantee that they would be able to be sold and developed. He asked the time frame of Phase 1 of the development. Mr. Mendenhall responded that once their entitlements were given, phase 1 could be completed in 17 months. Vice Chairperson Pentecost expressed his concern that the same idea or concept has not yet sold and might not. He asked if marketing was supportive that the proposal would happen in a timely manner. Mr. Mendenhall responded that in the first two years the proposal would introduce 192 homes and the applicant would be able to weigh whether or not the market would support the proposal; he added the proposal would contain workforce housing. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that the project was really exciting with the flavor of the Pearl District. He stated his concern was access to the site as Wallace Avenue, Rouse Avenue, and Griffin Drive were the only entrances which would be a large load for those streets. Corey stated Story Mill Road would probably be signalized, along with Rouse Avenue and Griffin Drive; adding that L Street would get traffic added to it from the development so they had been meeting with NENA to come to an arrangement. He added that they had investigated an overpass from Cedar Street to Oak Street. Mr. Batcheller stated he had read the traffic report and he liked the project overall. He stated the project would be adding a lot of density to the northeast part of Bozeman. He stated the Oak Street connection would probably have to be instituted and there would be a lot of collector streets that he would like to see installed. He stated that beyond the periphery of the project would be affected most by the increased traffic loads and there would be a tremendous amount of stress on Oak Street and 7th Avenue; he suggested the city consider an overpass on Mandeville or Baxter Lane. He asked what environmental impact the development would have on the Story Hills area (would it be like Peet’s Hill). Mr. Mendenhall responded that the applicant had received good feedback and was still waiting for word from the City Parks Department. Mr. Batcheller stated the proposal looked like a donut with the stockyards in the middle and stated it could be an identifier for the proposal. Corey responded that the owner of the Stockyard did not want to sell her property, but she realized that riding the coattails of the development for the Growth Policy Amendment, Annexation, & Zone Map Amendment might be beneficial to her and the applicant would not design her land for her. Mr. Mendenhall responded that if it were their property to design there would be a major park in that area with a road to access the river. Mr. Batcheller suggested phase D of the development would need a strong connection to Griffin Drive to discourage traffic on Oak Street and Rouse Avenue. Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with Vice Chairperson Pentecost that she was concerned that the development would not be built out and followed through with. She stated that she agreed that the Stockyard would be a nice addition even if it wasn’t a part of the proposal. She stated she liked the layout of the street as it was inviting to her to want to go explore it and added that you could walk a different path every day. She added that she liked a little bit of retail in each section as the access to each would take her to a different service in a different area. Chairperson Livingston stated that half the proposal contained traffic studies and asked how fast the project would be built out if the reconstruction of Rouse Avenue wasn’t going to be done until 2011. Corey told him that the development would catch up to the Rouse Avenue improvements. Chairperson Livingston stated that if the traffic didn’t work, the whole proposal wouldn’t work. He stated the average cost of housing in Bozeman was $250,000 and the applicant would have to have that number to make their proposal work. Mr. Howe added that the sizes of the houses had bearing due to the smaller housing being the lower part of the average. Chairperson Livingston stated his consideration was what a person could afford if they made $25,000 dollars a year. He suggested the City of Bozeman buy Story Hills and create a large park. Planner Saunders responded that the idea had been suggested, investigated, and had not come to fruition. Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed that the Stockyard could be really positive and suggested walking paths be located in that area, making better use of the access to the commercial portion of the development. He stated he knew there was a vision that could incorporate that piece of land and a vision without it being incorporated. He stated that area A would get a certain amount of activity to the Stockyard. He stated that the reality for that area of town would be a vision for its future, things would change, and the proposal was a vision for a very positive future. He stated the biggest thing would be holding true to those values when the rubber hits the road and cost becomes an issue. He complimented the applicant and stated he saw nothing negative regarding the proposed height of the buildings. He suggested instituting mixed uses within those residential areas (small bakery, coffee shop, etc.) within walking distance of the residential development. Planner Saunders stated that fundamentally the proposal would be a question of density (i.e. 60-70 units per acre) and the City of Bozeman was not necessarily ready for that. 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 10:00 p.m. ________________________________ Christopher Livingston, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board