Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Scott Hedglin called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Mel Howe Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Elizza Zovora Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Brian Krueger Scott Hedgelin Michael Pentecost Christopher Livingston Bill Rea Visitors Present Matt Ekstrom Hallie Rugheimer Keith Belden Jerry Perkins ITEM 2. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Susan Kozub. Planner Kozub was absent. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Legends at Bridger Creek II PUD Preliminary Plan #Z-06021 (Windemaker) ~ 1,300 feet east and ~ 300 feet north of the intersection of MT Hwy 86 (aka Bridger Drive/Bridger Canyon Road) and Story Mill Road A Planned Unit Development Application with relaxations to allow the development of ~ 57 acres for single household residential use, parkland, and open space areas. Matt Ekstrom joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report. Mr. Howe, referring to page 2, item 3 of the Staff report, asked why the right-of-way wasn’t discussed in the conditions. Planner Windemaker noted it is a code requirement; however, she would clarify the conditions and the references to code provisions. Mr. Howe noted the street sections didn’t add up to 31 feet. Mr. Ekstrom noted 31 feet is a standard City street and the proposed street sections would fit within the proposed right-of-way. Mr. Rea asked Planner Windemaker to discuss Lots 41-45, the RSL lots. He asked if front yards are usually facing onto open space. Planner Windemaker noted there would be a standard 20 foot setback from the front property line with a sidewalk connecting to the open space. Mr. Rae asked if the lots on the southwest were nearly the same in size as the ones to the east. Planner Windemaker noted they were. Mr. Krueger asked about the rear yard setbacks for garages with concrete pads in front for parking. Planner Windemaker noted the condition regarding the distance from the property line to the fronts of the garages is noted on the subdivision plat. Mr. Livingston asked for a determination of the front yards and back yards on several lots. He and Planner Windemaker discussed several lots and blocks with Planner Windemaker indicating the front yards. Mr. Livingston asked if there was some document that shows the orientation of the front, rear, and side yards. He suggested it should be done for buyers’ interpretation. Mr. Ekstrom referred the Board to Section 12 of the submittal, which has a map that indicates the orientation of the lots. Mr. Pentecost asked what the UDO says about the front of the house facing the open space and the rear yard opening to the street, and how did emergency vehicles service the homes. Planner Windemaker noted the fire department would probably require numbers on both the front and rear of the homes. Mr. Pentecost asked why the street had to be extended to the property line. Planner Windemaker noted the requirement is to provide access for adjoining properties for whenever they wish to develop. Mr. Hedglin asked who maintains the streets and the open space. Planner Windemaker noted the Homeowners Assn. would maintain the open space and private lanes. Vice Chairperson Hedglin asked what the required amount of parking was for these units and was there enough parking provided. Planner Windemaker noted the parking requirements would be based on the number of bedrooms in each unit. Mr. Ekstom noted the street widths are the same in the specified area, just the location of the sidewalks in the open space is a requested relaxation. Mr. Rea asked if there would be a street connecting to Creekwood Subdivision. Mr. Ekstrom noted the alley would continue to the property line. Mr. Ekstrom stated he had nothing further to add and he would answer questions. Mr. Rea asked Mr. Ekstrom to discuss the information in tab 9. Mr. Ekstrom noted the section contains the open space and energy savings aspects of the proposal. Mr. Krueger asked if they had considered using a standard street with the houses fronting on the street and standard sidewalks. Mr. Ekstrom noted the concern of the neighbors was the ability to access the creek from the existing subdivisions to the south. He noted the open space is open to everyone. He stated there is also access for pedestrian travel and sewer line maintenance access. Mr. Livingston asked for the width of a drive access being considered. Mr. Ekstom noted it would be 18’ to 20’ depending on the location. Mr. Livingston noted there was no guarantee that parking would be available along the streets. Mr. Rea noted with a better understanding of the proposal has helped his understanding of the project. What bothered him most was the use of curved roads to conserve energy. He suggested the design guidelines promote the use of passive solar energy. Mr. Krueger stated he was concerned with the garages that faced the alleyway and the possibility that the area would be come a dead zone. He suggested the applicant create guidelines as to how the garages would be developed. Mr. Ekstom noted those items could be included. Mr. Rea noted he has seen this design in California and Florida. He noted the open spaces became formal areas with little use by the residents or the public. Mr. Livingston stated he was concerned with the current prohibition by the UDO on front yard fencing on lots 19-26 and the high fence to be placed along the wetlands/creek. Planner Windemaker noted the fencing is limited to 4’ in height along any open space. Mr. Livingston noted he was concerned that the open spaces would become places for pets to relieve themselves and not be usable by people. He asked for the rationale for the ability to combine lots for a larger property and a larger home. He questioned the soundness of having an enclave of larger homes. Planner Windemaker noted it would not affect the RSL lots as they are guaranteed by the covenants. However, the aggregation could affect density of the subdivision. She noted this application is the last time the City has an opportunity to look at the density. She noted they are at borderline density as proposed and she may write a condition to remove the ability to aggregate lots. Mr. Livingston noted the proposed lot layout would support healthy open spaces for people to use. Mr. Pentecost asked if a boundary realignment subdivision exemption would require City Commission approval. Planner Windemaker noted the Planning Director now reviews and approves those applications. Mr. Pentecost asked if the applicant was allowing or encouraging accessory dwelling units. Mr. Ekstrom noted the lots aren’t large enough for detached garages and accessory dwelling units over them; therefore, they would not. Mr. Pentecost noted he couldn’t support the request for the 15’ setback from the property line to the garage door as his truck would hang over into the street. He stated he would support Staff’s requirement of 20’. He concurred with Mr. Livingston on the aggregation of lots. Vice Chairperson Hedglin commented that the RSL lots are consolidated in the southeast corner and he would like to see them scattered throughout the development. The Board concurred that an additional condition requiring the prohibition of aggregation of lots was needed, and the RSL lots should be redistributed, especially in the southeast corner. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to recommend approval of application #Z-06021 with the Staff conditions, plus condition 3.1 regarding the 20’ setback for the garages, plus a condition prohibiting the aggregation of lots, and to ask the applicant to consider redistributing the RSL lots to northern portions of the property. Mr. Pentecost noted he would support the applicant’s proposal for the design for the RSL lots as he stated he felt the location is appropriate and mirrors the lots to the south. Vice Chairperson Hedglin noted his comment is in regard to the seven RSL lots in the southeast corner. Mr. Pentecost suggested pushing the lots forward and re-orienting the front of the homes onto Boylan Road with the open space to the rear of the home. He noted the lots only have alley frontage. Vice Chairperson Hedglin noted the open space would then become dead space. Mr. Rea asked for Staff’s opinion on a zero lot line for the RSL’s. Planner Windemaker noted issues with zero lot lines would have to be clearly discussed in the covenants. Mr. Rea noted the size of the lots made the location of the RSL lots suitable. MOTION: Mr. Pentecost moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to amend the motion to not redistribute the RSL lots. The amendment carried 6-1 with Vice Chairperson Hedglin voting no. The motion carried 7-0. B. Perkins PUD Concept Plan #Z-06020 (Windemaker) North of Oak Street, south of Baxter Lane, and west of North 11th Avenue * A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Application with relaxations to allow the development of ~47 acres for commercial uses. Keith Beldon and Jerry Perkins joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report. She described the three relaxations requested, the possible phasing of the project, and the recommendations of Staff. Mr. Livingston asked why the DRB is looking at the submittal. Mr. Howe suggested the item be struck from the agenda as there are no aesthetic issues to be reviewed. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to continue the item to another time, when the application is more complete. Mr. Belden asked that the Board comment on the open space. Mr. Howe noted the Board doesn’t usually comment on open space issues unless asked to do so by the planners. Mr. Rea asked if the discussion is ended, would the review process be extended. Planner Windemaker suggested they asked the applicant to submit an informal. Mr. Rea concurred. Mr. Pentecost noted the City has applications to permit subdivisions to be developed with a PUD. He suggested the members be allowed to make comments on the application. Planner Windemaker noted a Concept PUD application and review is required by the UDO and the applicant submitted what was required. Mr. Howe withdrew his motion, and Mr. Livingston withdrew his second. Ms. Zavora asked for clarification as to why the open space would be a separate lot. Planner Windemaker described the scenario noting it would allow the taxes to be paid by the subdivision Home Owners Association rather than an individual lot owner. Ms. Zavora asked how the zero setbacks would work. Mr. Pentecost noted Main Street buildings have zero setbacks. Mr. Krueger asked for the standard yard setback, and if the open space included the front yard setbacks. Planner Windemaker noted the setback is very small (rear 10’, side 5’) and the UDO allows the front yard setback to be counted as open space. Mr. Livingston asked what the recommendation offered in condition #1. Planner Windemaker noted she wanted the applicant to know the DRB usually receives more information – draft elevations, parking layout, landscape design. Vice Chairperson Hedglin asked if the Board would see the site plans for each lot and compare them to the guidelines, which they would also review. Planner Windemaker concurred. She suggested the structures and the guidelines be presented to DRB as an informal. Keith Belden, applicant’s representative, apologize for not providing building designs. He noted the design of the buildings has not been determined at this time. He noted there is a tremendous amount of wetlands in the north. He noted he has heartburn over providing two pedestrian pathways. He noted the wetlands could be a huge amenity. He stated they are locked in to certain street requirements. He stated they would be willing to come in with an informal. Mr. Perkins asked which architecture the Board preferred, Lowe’s or Kenyon Noble. Mr. Krueger and Mr. Livingston reviewed the concerns with the Kenyon Noble building. Planner Windemaker noted issues Staff had were how to achieve enough fenestration on the roof to break-up the large expanse and how the mechanical equipment screening would be done. Mr. Krueger asked what other uses are anticipated, were they more complementary to the Kenyon Noble industry or to the hotel industry. Mr. Perkins noted they don’t know at this point. It could be some of each. Mr. Livingston asked if the presence of Kenyon Noble would steer this development or how will the convention center adapt to the area. Mr. Perkins noted the price of the lots will preclude the storage building use. Mr. Livingston asked if the wetlands would restrict access. Mr. Belden noted a 404 permit would be required and supervised by the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Livingston asked if Lot 1 was too large for a convention center. Mr. Perkins noted the possible owners wanted the wetlands on all three sides of the lot. Mr. Pentecost asked for clarification on the zero lot line for the southern lots. Mr. Belden noted Bridger Peaks Town Center has mostly zero lot lines on most side yards. He noted there could be some fire code issues with certain sizes of structures. He anticipated two buildings side by side or back to back, but not more than two. Mr. Pentecost suggested that specific lots be designated and with a requirement that over sized back or side yards be required. Mr. Pentecost asked which street the front door would face. Mr. Belden noted it would face the wetlands to the west. Mr. Howe stated that an architectural design shouldn’t be recommended to the applicant. He stated the architects should have the freedom to create a design for the structure and its use. Ms. Zavora stated she was concerned with the zero lot lines and the possible lack of adequate landscaping. Mr. Rea stated the orientation of the exterior court of the convention center would be better placed on the south side. His concern was how the building would impact the view of the Bridger Mountains for the Bridger Peaks residential units. Mr. Krueger noted the design guidelines consider different designs for different portions of the property. He stated the zero lot line issue is a concern as a huge structure could be proposed and constructed on lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9. He asked the applicants to highlight the benefits to the community and how the Planned Unit Development (PUD) is special. Mr. Livingston noted the street layout seems to make sense. He stated the zero lot line could be solved by placing “or” between side and rear yard in the covenants or on the plat. He suggested parking in a horseshoe shape around a building would be problematic for the Board. He noted the guidelines could show a large variety of businesses in the property. Mr. Pentecost reiterated his concern with the zero lot line. He concurred with Mr. Howe that the architecture should be a design for the site and use. He suggested the orientation of the convention center could be dynamic if addressing the south. ITEM 4. 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.} Vice Chairperson Hedglin OPENED and CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING as there was no public present. Ms. Zavora reported on a meeting held with Planning Staff and the Bozeman Gateway applicants. Mr. Livingston commented that it wasn’t really clear what the Board was to do with the earlier Concept PUD. He asked that the agenda tell the Board what they are to do with the proposal. Planner Windemaker suggested the expected action be indicated on the agenda as it is on the City Commission agendas. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. ______________________________________________ Scott Hedglin, Vice Chairperson Design Review Board