Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Ben Ehreth, Assistant Planner Dawn Smith Jami Morris, Associate Planner Mel Howe David Skelton, Senior Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Carol Asleson Joseph Thomas Visitors Present Ed Thulin Mark _______ John Davison Ted Mitchell Greg Stratton John H. Larsen Catherine Koenen Mike Promisco ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 12, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Continued until the next meeting. ITEM 4. U.D.O. Edits Discussion A. * Discussion of the U.D.O. text amendments pertinent to the DRB. Continued until the next meeting. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. The Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD #Z-04313 (Skelton) Southwest of the intersection of West College Street and Huffine Lane * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a mixed-use commercial development on 72.2 acres with related site improvements. Mel Howe joined the DRB. John Larson, Ted Mitchell, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Planner Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposed project. He stated the size, scale, and magnitude of the project would have a substantial impact on the Entryway Corridor and there were a number of requested relaxations; i.e. reduction of block length and width, spacing of drive accesses, encroachment into the 50 foot watercourse setback. He noted the significance of the proposed improvements to the traffic situation in the area and added that Garfield Street would end up functioning as a Collector Street with the development of this property. He stated the open space provisions were being worked through as there were discrepancies in the calculations from the applicant and Planning Staff. He stated the applicant could gain performance points by incorporating residential development onto the site and indicated the locations of ponds and public plaza areas stating the applicant would receive credit for the public open space areas. He stated the applicant proposed a trail system and to re-route the Farmer’s Canal with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and the Gallatin Valley Land Trust accepting the concept design. He stated the landscaping was broken into six disciplines and listed them. He stated the thumbnail sketches and landscaping would be provided with the Developmental Manual and the signage would be taken care of at a later date. He stated the parking calculation had been based upon 800,000 square feet and the applicant was slightly over the allowable maximum amount of parking (roughly 3,000 total parking spaces). He stated Staff would like to see a breakup in the presentation of off-street parking along the Entryway Corridor, did not want to see franchise architecture, and would recommend the orientation of the drive-throughs’ be located away from the Entryway Corridor. He stated the Developmental Manual should outline exactly what the “Lifestyle Center” would be. Mr. Krueger stated he was concerned with the requested relaxation for the 50 foot stream setback. He stated that the project would be a phase development starting with the grocery store and retail pads and asked, if the developer was unable to finish the project, what would happen to the PUD. Planner Skelton responded that a time limit of some sort would be placed on the project and added that a new developer could consider modifications to the PUD, but the final approval of the project would be binding. He added the key was to have a unified plan through the establishment of the Development Manual. Ms. Asleson asked how many phases of development were proposed. Planner Skelton responded there would be six phases. Mr. Ted Mitchell indicated the phases on the color rendering and added that Fowler Lane and Garfield Street improvements would begin in roughly 30 days. Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with Mr. Krueger regarding the watercourse setback and asked Planner Skelton why Staff was allowing the requested relaxation. Planner Skelton responded the relaxation was not a blanket relaxation and only occurred at three or four points in the development. Ms. Asleson asked if Staff had hoped to decrease the proposed amount of parking. Planner Skelton responded that Staff would like to see a reduction in parking, but the difficulty would be in determining which parking stalls to eliminate. Mr. Hanson asked about the discrepancy in the calculation of the open space credits. Planner Skelton responded that the discrepancy was due to the required setbacks and whether or not they would be 50 or 25 feet; he added that the calculation was complicated. Mr. Hanson asked if the ponds and wetlands were calculated. Planner Skelton responded that the only landscaping not calculated were those areas within the parking areas as they were separate points. Mr. Hanson stated the plat map showed a lot of cut up pieces. Planner Skelton responded that it was difficult to determine which tenants wanted lots and how many they would need. Mr. Hanson stated Bridger Peaks had not been depicted as broken up and cited several areas where parking would become an issue if one tenant bought several lots. He asked Planner Skelton if he had discussed the proposed anchor (“Big Box” store) and service entries on the corner of the Entryway Corridor. Planner Skelton responded there had been some discussion with regard to relocating some of the features and added that Staff was concerned with the orientation of the building. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Skelton to further explain the lot and parking lot issue as she was reviewing the parking requirements like she would review another project’s parking requirements. Planner Skelton responded that the applicant was aware of Staff’s concerns with parking and added that, at this time, the parking was an unknown factor with Staff suggesting common ownership. Planner Skelton stated he was hoping for comment from the DRB regarding the need for satellite buildings to help buffer and break up the parking. Mr. Hanson asked if there were discussions with the applicant regarding the linear parks and the insertion of public areas. Planner Skelton responded that options for public areas had been discussed. Mr. Mitchell stated there had been a misunderstanding regarding the parking on the site and added that, at this time, they were unsure of their prospective tenants and would not know how the site would need to be divided. He added that the applicant did not want to have to come back later for subdivision and boundary re-alignments of lots. He stated the applicant would like to control the parking by selling the building pads to the individuals and retaining the parking lots to maintain by their standards and control. He indicated two lots where the parking might be sold with the building pad and insisted that the development would maintain, light, and landscape the remaining parking lots with the tenants paying their percentage of the maintenance. He stated the grocery store screening along the Entryway Corridor had been addressed and the building would be moved away from the setback to avoid the public seeing any unsightly building facades. He stated the potential drive-throughs’ would be placed on the south side of the structures and screened; with the exception of the bank drive-thru, which would be tastefully done. He added that one of the ponds could be reduced in size and a public recreation area inserted. Mr. Stratton stated the natural features (streams) could be relocated and maintained in order to meet the required setback. He stated the wetland areas were not high quality wetlands; they had been cow pastures for years, and the applicant thought the area could be mitigated with a 404 permit for Wetlands to meet the setback requirement. He stated the basis for the Variance request was to leave the area in a natural state. Mr. Mitchell added that the applicant was going to unnatural lengths and expense to preserve the natural wetlands and perennial stream and added that Fowler Lane would be constructed on this property to avoid damaging the wetlands. Mr. Stratton stated the applicant would meet the open space requirements no matter what they had to do and the width of the landscaped islands would be greater, but probably not to 60 feet. He stated the parking requirements would be met. Mr. Larson stated the suggestion of expanding the sidewalks would make the streets fundamentally too wide. Mr. Mitchell added it would defeat the purpose of having a “Lifestyle Center”. Mr. Stratton addressed DRB concerns from the first meeting. He stated the many impervious surfaces would be dealt with through drainage, the filtering of retention ponds would be taken care of on-site, there was no residential component planned for the project, the drive-thru facilities would not be on the Huffine Lane side (with the exception of the bank), the building materials would be tasteful-if not natural, bike parking nodes would be placed at every pedestrian entrance to the core area, and the architectural character of the development would not be radically different from the existing character of Bozeman, but unique. Mr. Larson stated the grocery store would be the least impacted area on the site and added that the orientation and location of the structure kept the development unified. Ms. Asleson asked why the corner anchor (grocery store) would insist on that particular lot. Mr. Larson responded that the wetlands and physical features on the site would not accommodate a 60,000 square foot structure in any other location. Mr. Davison added the tenant would insist on the exposure and visibility from Huffine Lane and the convenience of deliveries. Ms. Asleson suggested the applicant provide landscape detail with the formal submittal. Ms. Asleson asked if the traffic on the through street could be slowed down by curving the road or the placement of speed bumps. Mr. Stratton responded traffic calming could be done several ways. Mr. Thomas stated the terminus of Gateway Boulevard was an office building and suggested the terminus should be the hotel. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Larson agreed, but the proposed hotel location was determined by the amount of traffic and exposure. Mr. Hanson asked if there were adequate pedestrian pathways at one location and suggested widening them. Mr. Larson responded the idea was to move pedestrians from the parking areas to the plaza and businesses. Mr. Hanson asked how the lot lines through buildings would be dealt with. Mr. Stratton responded they would be addressing setbacks for each lot and the buildings would be repositioned with boundary realignments. Mr. Hanson stated he was supportive of and excited about the project, but he would like to see development of larger open spaces for public gatherings. He stated the lot lines were a concern, the location and orientation of the grocery store was a concern, and the proposed drive-throughs’ should be located along the rear of the structures. He stated the improvements to the streams would offer greater enhancement to the project than the relaxation of the setback and he looked forward to seeing the formal submittal of the project. Mr. Thomas stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson’s comments regarding the grocery store and again suggested the relocation of the hotel. Ms. Asleson stated she supported the project but agreed with Mr. Hanson’s comments regarding the grocery store site, the plaza area should be for the public, and she was eager to see the project as it developed. Mr. Krueger stated he was concerned with the phasing of the project as the developer’s of each lot could be different and added that the straight street through the property would make it easier to sell lots. Chairperson Smith stated she was thankful the applicant had addressed the DRB’s previous comments. She stated she was open to satellite buildings as long as they were not huge, but larger, buildings and added that she would also support grouping the structures. She stated she agreed with Mr. Hanson with regard to drive-throughs’ and she would like to see the detention ponds treated as a wetland area or completely dried up due to the threat of West Nile Virus. She stated the service driveway could be relocated and she was undecided regarding the requested relaxations because outdoor green space could be used to compensate for the requested relaxation. B. Creekwood Concept PUD #Z-04293 (Morris) 2215 Bridger Drive * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application for the unified development of a 53 lot subdivision zoned R-S (Residential Suburban District) and R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low Density District) with relaxations and a 30% residential density bonus. Catherine Koenen, Shawn Shahan, Dennis Foreman, and Mike Promisco joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report noting what materials the applicants would need to provide because the site is in an R-S zone and within an Entryway Corridor. She indicated they would need to provide adequate provisions for tenant privacy and suggested the use of a larger setback in one location. Mr. Shahan stated they were trying to create a pedestrian subdivision with 8,100 linear feet of trail systems and added that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust had coordinated with them on the design of the trail system. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Morris the purpose of the 30% density bonus. Planner Morris responded in order to get more density, the PUD points must be met. Chairperson Smith asked if the street frontage minimum of 50% would be met without the parkland adjacency. Planner Morris responded that was one requested relaxation. Chairperson Smith asked if the public was invited to use the trail system and parks. Mr. Shahan responded that the community was welcome and encouraged to use the trails and parks. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be covenants restricting the size of the structures. Mr. Shahan responded the guidelines for affordable housing and the covenants would restrict the size of the structure and the sale price of the home. Chairperson Smith stated her initial reaction was that the enclosed open space was private, but the applicant had attempted to bring in the community by not using fences and creating public parking areas. Mr. Thomas stated he thought it was great that a climbing wall was included in the proposal. Mr. Foreman responded that a hammerhead in the parking lot had been included to appease the fire department. Mr. Hanson stated he supported the project and the density bonus. He noted how the access drives for the garages would be configured and suggested consolidating the width of the drive aisles. He stated the trail needed to be directly connected to the parking area for disabled people. Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She suggested being careful not to make the garages seem like the front door. She stated the lack of fences would cause difficulties because of pets and the need for kennels or some type of restraint. Mr. Shahan responded that the amenities on the site would make it difficult to keep the view-scapes if fences were allowed and other options (invisible fences) to accommodate pets were being discussed. Mr. Krueger stated he was not supportive of the cul-de-sacs, but understood the need for them. Chairperson Smith stated the neighborhood shared driveway forced people to share and interact with each other. C. Thulin Condos SP/COA #Z-04316 (Ehreth) Haggerty Lane A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 120 unit condominium project and related site improvements. Ed Thulin and Chris Budeski joined the DRB. Planner Ehreth presented the Staff Report noting the proposed development was zoned R-4. He stated the topographical constraints limited the applicant to a five foot sidewalk and five foot bike lane along Haggerty Lane. He stated Staff suggested the use of unique colors and architecture to tie the development together and suggested linkages to the pedestrian pathways provided. He added that Staff recommended some additional window detailing. Mr. Hanson asked if the open space requirements had been met. Planner Ehreth responded that roughly18,000 square feet of open space was required and had been met. Mr. Hanson asked if the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board had looked at the proposal. Planner Ehreth stated the City Superintendent of Facilities had seen the proposal and no formal response had been submitted. Mr. Thulin stated each building was a fourteen-plex. He addressed Staff conditions stating there were 8 buildings, and he thought each building should be tied to the other while having slight differences. He stated that they were not trying to encourage the public to use the cul-de-sac and were concerned with the amount of privacy the tenants would have. He stated the window and façade detailing was updated after Planner Ehreth had written the conditions and he listed the proposed materials. Mr. Thulin indicated that access from the development to the northwestern common open space area would need to meet federal requirements for accessibility (F.F.H.A./A.D.A.). Mr. Krueger asked what was planned for the balconies. Mr. Thulin responded they were not actual balconies but narrow, jutting ledges edged with airplane cable. Mr. Krueger asked where the access was from the lower area of the site. Mr. Thulin indicated the options available to him for site access. Mr. Krueger asked if there would be buffering proposed for the site. Mr. Thulin responded that there would have to be some buffering. Mr. Hanson asked if the subdivision required dedicated parkland. Mr. Budeski and Planner Ehreth responded that the minor subdivision was not required to have dedicated parkland. Mr. Hanson suggested using a different external material that would not cause rust to run down the side of the building. Chaiperson Smith asked what changes had been made since the third DRC meeting. Mr. Budeski responded that the City had required the trail be eliminated and replaced with sidewalk. Chairperson Smith asked the difference in elevations between the pods. Mr. Budeski responded there was a two foot offset for all of the structures. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be outside storage available to tenants so that they would not be utilizing the parking stalls. Mr. Thulin stated that boats, trailers, etc. would not be allowed in the parking lot. Ms. Asleson stated she supported a difference between buildings with a similar color scheme and suggested linking the sidewalks and buildings to the parking areas. Mr. Krueger suggested making the pedestrian pathway connections and stated he thought there was no need for separate colors on the structures. He added he was not in favor of Staff condition #6. Mr. Hanson stated the addition of the pedestrian link between the parking and buildings was a good idea. He stated it was not necessary to have multiple colors on the structures and he saw no need to change the windows but the elevations were very “hotelesque”. He suggested variation and detail in the texture of the structures to make them more elegant and the integration of masonry at the entryways to break up the façade. He suggested a little more detailing but was not promoting “muttons”. Chairperson Smith stated she did not like the design of the proposed parking lot as it was a long, unbroken strip and needed traffic calming devices. She stated she supported all Staff’s conditions of approval and suggested rewording condition #2. She stated she agreed with Mr. Hanson’s comments. Mr. Hanson stated topography was difficult on this site and the lot had to be maximized for cost effectiveness. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Thulin Condos SP/COA #Z-04316 with Staff conditions #1, #3, #4, #5, and #6 and amended condition #2 to depict a color scheme with variation in building color throughout the development. AMENDMENT: Chairperson Smith moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to include the addition of condition #7 instituting traffic calming techniques and pedestrian crossings. The amendment carried 5-0. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Thulin Condos SP/COA #Z-04316 with Staff conditions #1, #3, #4, #5, and #6, amended condition #2 - to depict a color scheme with variation in building color throughout the development, and the addition of condition #7 instituting traffic calming techniques and pedestrian crossings. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 9. 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.} Mr. Budeski suggested the DRB have fewer items on the agenda. ITEM 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board