HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-06 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Michael Pentecost Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Dawn Smith Susan Kozub, Associate Planner
Scott Hedglin Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Christopher Livingston Martin Knight, Planner
Bill Rea
Visitors Present
(Roster not available)
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2006
Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of the last meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Hedglin discussed a correction on the back of page 6, the amendment failed 3-4 and the amendment passed on page six. Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the
April 12, 2006, minutes as submitted. The motion carried unanimously.
ITEM 3. CONSENT AGENDA
Bozeman Gateway PUD Final Plant #Z-06036 (Skelton)
Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane
* A Final PUD Plan Approval Application for the Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD. (The item was distributed at the last DRB meeting. If you have not received
the development plan, contact the Planning Office.)
MOTION: Seeing there were no members of the DRB requesting to remove the item from the consent agenda, Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Hedglin seconded, to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried
unanimously.
ITEM 4. Project Review
A. Baxter Meadows #6 PUD Preliminary Plan #Z-06036 (Windemaker)
Northeast of the intersection of Ferguson Avenue & Galloway Street
* A Preliminary Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow single-family and multi-family development on 11.4 acres in an R-3 (residential Medium Density) and B-2
(Community Business) Districts.
DRB asked for an explanation why the Board is are seeing the PUD. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker explained this is a PUD with relaxations and discussed the location of the phase
within the Baxter Meadows PUD. Planner Windemaker also discussed the various zoning designations and land use patterns within the PUD. Planner Windemaker identified the zoning to the
west of Gallatin Green as B-2 and the fact that there is no residential component as part of the commercial zoning designation is recommending under condition #7 showing that the majority
of the commercial area is going to be commercial land uses.
Planner Windemaker outlined the eleven relaxations being requested with the application.
Mr. Rea questioned the pedestrian sidewalk and the open fence with respect to a building on the lot. Also what is the connection with the walkway in phase 2D is. Also asked how the
Baxter Meadows concept is being perceived. He would like to identify any mistakes that have occurred in previous phases that may be addressed with this phase.
Mr. Livingston wondered which of the restrictions are above beyond and above those requested with phase one. He questioned the floor area ratio for RSL lots with respect to area lot
size and building size.
Mr. Hedglin discussed the RSL concept and lot area/size recommended by CAHAB. Planner Windemaker clarified.
Chairperson Smith requested clarification on how phase six was approved as part of the concept plan and what may be different now. Question on the commercial component for the PUD how
to demonstrate the mix of land uses Planner Windemaker clarified the amount of commercial use in a mixed-use development. Chairperson Smith questioned how we calculate parking and
how the parking problems are being resolved. Planner Windemaker explained how the parking calculations work. Chairperson Smith discussed how Ferguson is laid out in terms of parking,
bike lanes and driving lanes. Harley explained that Ferguson is a collector with 2 driving lanes with bike lanes and parking on both sides.
DRB asked the applicant to identify those recommendations that he does not agree with staff recommendations. Applicant discussed the perception of the subdivision. The new relaxations
are generally due to changes in the UDO and deal with the RSL’s and park frontage. Applicant
disagrees with #7 - zoning and #9 – fences. He would DRB to accept one commercial unit to 4 residential units on the ground floor. Also, he explained that they are agreeable to widening
the pedestrian walkway in Block 15 to 30 feet, and would like to have an exception for the fences on the lots in Block 15 that are adjacent to the linear parkway.
Mr. Rea asked if the commercial aspect is intended to have a commercial center serving the greater community i.e., community commercial center concept. He questioned if there a number
to the amount of commercial versus residential, thus the condition as written.
Mr. Livingston discussed the land use identification with respect to what is commercial versus what is residential. He questioned if the side yard setback next to a 30 foot linear park
is 5 feet.
Mr. Pentecost questioned the 1-to-4 ratio proposal – how do you control this? Harley explained with deed restrictions. He asked for a description of the live/work unit concept. He
discussed the concept of the transition from residential, to mixed-use to commercial.
Mr. Hedglin discussed the pedestrian connection to increased to 30 feet, and the width in other phases. He questioned if a relaxation had been given for fences next to open space and
parks in previous phases.
Chairperson Smith questioned what is being considered affordable. Harley responded with the least total amount for a single dwelling. Chairperson Smith questioned the price per square
foot. Harley explained that nothing holds them to a price point.
Mr. Livingston asked about the parking calculations for a live/work unit. More commercial without parking could be a disaster; garages are too small. Harley responded that the garages
are usable.
Mr. Pentecost questioned how the live/work lots are designed, and wondered if the live/work lots were large enough to accommodate the parking.
Harley addressed the question on transition from residential to live/work to commercial; the applicants don’t want to lose flexibility.
Mr. Rea questioned the design of the pedestrian walkway and the need for a jog. Harley explained need for symmetry on either size; “L” shaped house and side yard easement; and fencing
problems.
Mr. Pentecost discussed the parking problems. He struggles with departing from original concept of transitions; he cannot support the change to eliminate transitions; need to keep the
plan as is.
Mr. Livingston stated that taller fencing next to linear park would not be good; would rather see larger open spaces. He indicated that live/work units need a reasonable parking component.
Mr. Rea disagreed with Mr. Pentecost on the buffer concept; already sees a good transition. He struggles with the live/work unit concept and wants to see a deed restriction. He is also
struggling with pedestrian connections but the only way to deal with it would be to eliminate lots. He supports keeping condition 9 as written.
Mr. Hedglin indicated that Phase 6 is an excellent opportunity to have a “course correction” and require live/work units as outlined in the initial concept, and wants to see it kept
as community commercial.
Chairperson Smith stated that a successful development should go beyond the actual development and reach the larger community; this is even more important now that a middle school is
planned in the area. She did not support project’s concept a few years ago and still does not support it based on the arrangement of the density; 20-foot alleys are useless; not enough
physical space to support the density; parking issues, etc. She does not support smaller RSL lots because of the price per square foot, and is overall not supportive of the project.
Harley indicated that he would like to request a relaxation of 18.42.130.B regarding fences next to linear parks. Chairperson Smith stated that you can’t ask for a relaxation after the
fact due to noticing requirements.
Mr. Hedglin indicated that he would like to reword condition #7 to require community commercial – and not allow multiple household dwelling units. He likes the staff condition, but
perhaps the DRB should add to it.
Motion – approve application with the conditions outlined by Staff.
Motion to approve passed 3 to 2, Chairperson Smith and Mr. Rea opposed, Mr. Hedglin, Mr. Pentecost, and Mr. Livingston in favor.
Lerner SP/COA #Z-05299 (Knight)
907 & 915 North 17th Avenue
* A Preliminary Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of an office building and 32 condo units on approximately 3/14 acres zoned R-O
(Residential-Office) District.
Chairperson Smith noted that DRB is a public meeting not a public hearing.
Planner Knight gave a brief history of the project. On February 22, 2006, the DRB recommended approval by a vote to 7-0 with 3 conditions. Because several adjacent neighbors were not
noticed, Staff has reopened the project to provide a fair opportunity for public comment. Planner Knight noted the 3 conditions that were recommended at the first DRB meeting and stated
that most of the trees have already been removed. Staff would be supportive of a new condition. Planner Knight went over which trees were removed on the plans.
Mr. Rea asked if aged metal condition question? Planner Knight noted it is as written in memo.
Mr. Rea asked if they were using the same plans as before? Planner Knight responded yes. Mr. Rea asked a procedural question on PSP verses FSP.
Mr. Pentecost asked for further explanation on the public comment regarding traffic concerns on 17th. Planner Knight noted office and residential uses will increase traffic and problem
of 17th as a cut through. Mr. Pentecost asked if cut-through traffic was a problem most everywhere. He asked if there a traffic study completed. Planner Knight noted the project did
not warrant a traffic study; but also North 17th is not up to city standards. Mr. Pentecost asked for the occupant load for building. Applicant – 64 residential units and one office
building. Mr. Pentecost asked if there were impacts on Walton Homestead.
Mr. Livingston asked if the public comments are mostly related to traffic. Planner Knight noted that was true, but also two comments on side yard setbacks and height, but those do meet
City requirements. Mr. Livingston asked how one-way traffic would be enforced. Planner Knight stated signage and the width of the street would handle it. Chris Budeski stated it would
also be encouraged by the street having a narrower throat. Mr. Livingston asked which trees have been removed and has the condition been violated. Planner Knight stated the trees have
been removed, but preserving them all was not realistic based on proposed building location and drive access location. Chairperson Smith noted preservation could mean keep the trees
in current location or relocate. Mr. Budeski stated many will be relocated off-site.
Mr. Rea asked if was there a condition that all trees on 19th or on 17th being saved.
Chairperson Smith asked for clarification that last meeting’s conditions were only “recommended” because findings were never signed by a decision making authority which is the Planning
Director in this case.
Planner Kozub stated DRB can note the intent of condition, but again, DRB is an advisory body that provides a recommendation to the Planning Director; she noted the applicant could not
in violation of a condition that was never formally approved.
Mr. Rea asked if the noticing error was applicant’s responsibility. Planner Knight stated it was.
Mr. Pentecost asked for clarification that decision-making body (Planning Director or City Commission) does not have to agree with DRB’s recommended conditions. Planner Kozub stated
that was correct.
Chairperson Smith asked for clarification on drive access and phasing, and if the access on 19th is full. Mr. Budeski noted there is a shared access.
Mr. Rea asked if there was the possibility to gate or block off access. Planner Knight stated that wouldn’t be possible due to Fire Department requirements.
Mr. Budeski stated he was not at last DRB; therefore, he takes offense to the idea that an applicant would intentionally take out trees to violate a DRB recommended condition; he noted
there was a problem with the health of the trees because of filling site; he stated the property is still located in the county; he noted it was a joint noticing problem – not just applicant’s
fault; he stated he met with a Cashman’s Nursery representative to discuss relocating trees to other parts of town; he noted the applicants have agreed to traffic mitigations on 17th,
including: 1) speed bumps; 2) “do not enter” signage; 3) “do not block intersection” signage; 4) narrower throat; and 5) covenants. He stated that adding 32 units to North 17th traffic
is not significant compared to trailer park. He stated no variances or deviations were requested and this is an infill project.
Mr. Livingston stated he understood that certain wording was “considered” not “shall be” for the aged metal; he requested clarification from DRB.
Mr. Budeski noted the location of the power lines over spruce trees could be a problem.
Mr. Rea questioned which trees are staying and which are being removed or relocated.
Chairperson Smith asked where are trees being relocated. Mr. Budeski stated they will be moved to Bridger Canyon and other places, and all 15 will be moved. Chairperson Smith referenced
Loyal Garden project and tree relocation. She asked if they will be burying power lines. Mr. Budeski noted it is very expensive to bury power lines and would need easements. Chairperson
Smith asked for more information on buildings. Mr. Budeski described the architectural features of the buildings.
Chairperson Smith asked if the open space was passive or active. Planner Knight noted it is passive with 150 SF per unit provided on site, and additional parkland will be provided with
cash-in-lieu. Mr. Budeski concurred the open space would be passive.
Mr. Rea asked about procedure and recommendation, noting DRB needs a lesson on stronger wording for conditions; he noted an amendment is needed for trees on 19th; he stated traffic will
be increased, however, a bigger concern is cut- through traffic, but he stated he feels that the design of parking lot is not conducive to cut-thorough traffic.
Mr. Pentecost noted the design was addressed during last meeting; he stated he felt the DRB should strike the metal requirement; he concurred that traffic on 17th will increase but that
is a problem everywhere; he applauded their efforts to meet with neighbors; and he noted DRC requires two accesses.
Chairperson Smith read into the record Board member Elissa Zavora’s comments which support the preservation of spruce trees, the need for additional landscaping – foundations plantings
and more trees, and she noted a berm does not work to save spruce trees. She suggested a priority should be to relocate the trees on the site.
MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved to approve application #Z-05299 with the conditions of approval as stated by Staff with the elimination of Condition #9, and the modification of Condition
#10 to read “applicant shall conserve and/or relocate on-site the existing trees.” The Board discussed how many of the trees should be saved and who should make that determination.
Mr. Rea asked if they should add language to specifically save the four spruce trees.
Mr. Livingston noted few sites in town have existing nice trees; he suggested the applicant relocate as many as possible on-site.
MOTION: A motion was made to approve application #Z-05299 with the conditions of approval as stated by Staff with the elimination of Condition #9; and the modification of Condition
10 to read “applicant shall conserve and/or relocate on-site the existing trees.”
The motion carried 3-2 with Chairperson Smith, Mr. Hedglin, and Mr. Pentecost in favor and Mr. Rea and Mr. Livingston opposed.
IHOP Sketch Plan/COA #Z-06016 (Kozub)
Southwest of Tschache Lane and North 19th Avenue
* A Sketch Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant with related site improvements. This is the DRB’s second review
of this project.
Planner Kozub presented the revised IHOP plans and noted received draft of final PUD, copy to look at. This site has already been approved by city commission. Instead of site plan review,
we have chosen to do sketch plan review. DRB has already reviewed, have attached minutes from previous meeting. New elevations on wall, smaller versions in packets. Motion was to recommend
denial, 5-0. Need for 2 sided building, materials details, etc. Changes include…….
For screening the applicant clarified……located on roof, screened by parapet. Staff has recommended 2 conditions, 1st additional joint detail, 2nd, from the PUD, asking for additional
detail on material.
Bill- do you have original drawings from last DRB?
Susan- yes, first PUD, next …this, now….whats on wall. Concern was with North elevation.
Bill- does staff feel that drivet and stucco was limited to 25%
Susan- I did not have time to run calculation. Elevation appears to possibly be problem with North and east elevations. Only what you would see from a projected elevation is considered.
Bill- restriction on parking lot lighting?
Susan- 20’ maximum, lighting will be addressed with PUD. I will look that up!
Dawn- question from elisa, whats the story with the landscaping plan
Susan- PUD
Dawn – elissa, foundation plantings
Susan- elissa was hear for last meeting
Dawn- elissa, why landscaping for half the building?
Susan- flowers shown are not what landscaping plan is proposing
Dawn- what is the landscaping, why has it not been included in this sketch plan?
Susan – the PUD has requirements for foundation plantings. Site landscaping is all part of the PUD, foundation planting is the requirement of IHOP based on what the PUD requires. You
can add a condition that the plans need to meet the PUD, but that’s an assumption, overkill
Dawn- I will never go on an assumption!!!
Applicant----Rick Carin, engineer, Adam Ford, Architect, Micheal Jones, with the Developer
Adam- concerns were with the shokey elevation, as you see, we have dress it up with a storefront windows. Other comments were there was not a corner presence, thus, we have added the
tower. We brought material samples to see, this is matching the development current/going in. This is the accent trip color, all the groves and canopies are going to be standing seam.
There is a dumpster on the site. It will be this integral color….All the mechanical is on the roof and will be screened by the parpatet. 6’ wall has been added to screen equipment, etc
from shockey. Those are all the items that have been added since last DRB.
Scott- glass on building spando glass?
Adam- the north and below the tower will be spando because its all the kitchen. The rest of its clear glass.
Micheal- no questions
Chris- no questions
Bill- no questions
Dawn- outdoor seating, 2 part questions, does PUD encourage outdoor eating areas? Some type of waiting seating? Like benches
Adam- there will be benches and planters by entryway. Don’t recall anything in PUD requiring outdoor eating.
Dawn- outdoor eating is definetly encourage in this community, I wasn’t sure if that’s in the PUD. If its not in the PUD, im not going to require it, otherwise, I would
Susan- I have not seen any requirements, other than the open space areas requiring benches.
Dawn- any other questions for applicant??
Scott- as much as I don’t agree with the spando glass…the requirement that we make it a 4 sided building, the elevations are light years beyond the initial submittal.
Micheal- I agree with scott. I would go back to the architect, when you took this project on, it’s a tough project. I am going to make a recommendation, what would happen if you tooke
off the hats. All these buildings have hats. It looks so forced. I challenge them to remove the hats. If you want to get away from the franchise architecture, I recognize the hats from
miles away.
Developer- from our point of view, we would love to lose the hats, $$$$$$
Micheal – if im driving down and see a building that’s unique…..
Chris – you can take the franchise from the exterior, but you cant take it away from the interior. In this location, that doesn’t work. I dont think the interior works, from the standpoint
of how it impacts that corner.
Bill – I feel condition 2B is NOT being meet, based on the 25% west elevation……I would question if its on the other elevations
Susan- I read that per each elevation
Bill – I’m further concerned that under those awnings, it takes that percentage up even higher.
Dawn- I would make a comment that if the awnings covers the efface, works for this tenant, but not next. That makes this building an exclusive use. If there is an elevation that needs
significant reduction in efface, where is it??
Architect – originally we showed it…I lost its horizontal appeal???????????
Dawn- I would think that after 3 reviews, your application would be 99% in compliance, it wouldn’t even need a condition. In a motion, I would like to add outdoor seating area.
Susan – how would DRB feel about replacing some of the efface with….concrete. if that 25% is not meet, how would the DRB feel about incorporating a new material in place of the stucco?
Would the DRB rather see the stone go up higher?
Chris- im not seeing it being greater than 50%.
Dawn- these are not conditions im giving you, these are the PUD. We cannot give a relaxation to the PUD
Susan- when I read this condition…..75% of the building has to be everything else…you could add windows….lots of possibilities
Micheal – if you look at the front façade, you composition has accomplished the 25%, my question is does the other facades meet the 25% requirement??
Dawn- I would say that if you are saying that 75% of the building is another material……according of the PUD, an awning covering a drivet, that does not……
Susan- a COA would be required to remove part of a building….at that time we would call out that it was a requirement of the PUD,etc. window awnings would be incorporated into the ….
Micheal- real stucco is cement/concrete without rocks. Im just saying were going to turn it into a stone building.
Dawn – they are not meeting there PUD, they must redesign this building
Susan- the condition reads that ……..
Chris- if its approved with these recommendations it would have to be redesigned to meet PUD
MOTION
Chris- motion to approve the IHOP sketch plan, z-06016, with the conditions of approval per the staff memo
Chris- second
Bill – should we put the elimation of hats as part of the condition?
Susan – ADR staff will ensure conditions are meet?
Dawn – any discussion on motion? Micheal – im not ready to approve abuilding that does not meet the PUD. We could condition this to say….I would like to add, as a condition that we
loss the hats.
Bill – its an important corner
Micheal – compositionally there fine, I just want to lose the hats.
Chris – parapet high for mechanical is 6’, that’s more than enough to screen
Dawn – do you want amend the motion?
Micheal – amend to add the removal of the red roof, timber supports
Dawn – is there a second
Bill- second
Dawn – all in favor of amendement, 3-2 in favor of amended motion, any discussion on amended motion
Chris- we are going out of our scope of design review. It doesn’t need to be a consesus
Bill – we do have design in our title
Dawn – we have 3 building facades that are going to be changed to meet PUD, now we are removing an existing element, which further changes the building. I don’t know what the building
looks like
Micehal- im hearing, at this point we are going to rely on ADR that the building will be architectural acceptable.
Dawn- any further discussion, all those in favor, 2-2, ……….how much more basic can we get than a sketch plan review. The sketch plan should be our last look.
Susan- ideally
Dawn – we shouldn’t have to add one more time to see something…..i need a vote from…..
Micheal – want to see it again
Dawn - 3-2 NOT in favor. Motion failed. We need a positive motion??
Susan –the DRB needs a recommendation to the planning director
Dawn- someone wants to make a motion?
Bill- outdoor seating condition??
Dawn – I wasn’t going to vote for it
Micheal- I will move that it meets the PUD, and is reviewed by the DRB at that time. Deny application at this time, bring back to DRB meeting PUD
Scott- second
Chris – could it be consent item??
Susan – just need 4 color elevations??
Chris- correct
Micehal – amended motion that it comes back as consent item.
Dawn – motion for an amendement to add condition that outdoor seating be provided for waiting patrons
Bill- second
Dawn – amended motion, all in favor, 5-0. losing the hats is not a requirement, you have to meet the PUD.
ITEM 5. FYI ITEM
Landscape Improvements (Skelton)
This item will be continued to another meeting due to time constraints.
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.}
There was no public to comment.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Krueger announced he is resigning from the DRB to work for the City.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m.
_______________________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board