HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Recording Secretary Tara Hastie called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and stated she would record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Brian Krueger David Skelton, Senior Planner
Joseph Thomas Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Scott Hedglin Chris Saunders, Associate Planner
Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Lee Hietala
Visitors Present
Jesse Sobrepena
Bart Manion
Sally Sobrepena
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2005
Recording Secretary Tara Hastie called for corrections or additions to the minutes of March 23, 2005.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. * Planning Staff liason to the DRB – Jami Morris.
Planner Morris recommended moving forward with scheduling a date and time to ascertain DRB bylaws and procedures corrections and additions at a lunch meeting between 1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
the first week in May 2005. The DRB concurred with the available meeting dates and time, suggesting having lunch delivered during the meeting. Planner Morris responded she would e-mail
the DRB members with updated information regarding the meeting date and lunch plans.
ITEM 4. Design Objectives Plan update. Please bring your copy of the D.O.P. to the meeting. (Saunders)
Associate Planner Chris Saunders joined the DRB noting the Design Objectives Plan had been adopted and offering the DRB a new and improved document cover. He stated there would be a
second phase of edits to the Design Objectives Plan to update the Conservation Overlay District section of the document. He mentioned the Open House on May 10, 2005 at the Emerson Cultural
Center welcomed the DRB to attend. There were no questions from the DRB regarding the Design Objectives Plan.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Edgewood Condos Concept PUD #Z-05044 (Skelton)
425 East Lincoln Street
* A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of an R-2 (Residential Two Household, Medium Density District) development on 3.72 acres with related site
improvements.
Jesse Sobrepena, Sally Sobrepena, and Bart Manion joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the applicant was proposing either a townhouse or a
condo development. He added there were two existing residential structures on the site. He stated the issues were with future access; i.e. a future need for a secondary access. He
stated the applicant would be requesting 10 relaxations for the condo development and an 11th relaxation if the applicant decided to do subdivision townhouses. He stated the City Commission
would informally look at the project at a later date. He stated the 150 sq. ft. of usable open space per dwelling unit should be a point of discussion as the applicant is not proposing
the open space in a common area for use by the residents. He stated Staff recommended a seating/gazebo area, or plaza. He discussed Staff recommendations from the Staff Report and
stated part of the requested relaxations was to allow a four-plex structure on property zoned R-2. He stated that maintaining the 20 foot side yard set back from the adjoining property
to the west would force the two duplexes to be combined as a four-plex at that location on the site. He stated Staff recommendation #5 could be stricken due to East Lincoln Street not
going through to the east. He stated, typically, the private street proposed would be wider and have boulevards on both sides. However, a compromise has been reached with a Class 2
trail proposed along the east side and a boulevard sidewalk on the west side.
Mr. Krueger asked if the 75 foot setback extended to the FEMA flood line. Planner Skelton responded the setback would start at the jurisdictional wetlands delineation rather than the
100 year flood plain. Mr. Krueger asked if Edgewater Drive would be a private drive. Planner Skelton responded the street easement would only be as proposed as a private street from
the north edge of the property and in the future the street may have to be moved further west based on future development. Mr. Krueger asked if the density calculation was based on
the entire parcel (3.72 acres). Planner Skelton responded that it was. Mr. Krueger asked if the density calculation would be greater than envisioned by the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan
and the surrounding areas. Planner Skelton stated the proposal contained the minimum requirements.
Mr. Sobrepena stated the design of the project was based on the public areas of the buildings being oriented north and south to serve the units. He stated the orientation added privacy
to the existing residential development to the west. He stated the structures themselves were created with more of a “custom” looking development worthy of the picturesque type setting
of the site. He stated there were a number of nice material features; natural stone, quality windows, quality siding, etc.
Mr. Manion stated the project had incorporated the trail as a key factor to the success of the development. He stated they wanted to emphasize access to the trail and the aesthetic
beauty of the development.
Mr. Krueger asked if the narrative submitted with the application indicated the project would offer affordable housing and wanted to know if the materials being proposed would still
allow that. Mr. Sobrepena stated the type of units (multi-plex) would make it qualify as affordable, but
cost was relative in the City of Bozeman. He added it was not an extravagant design.
Mr. Thomas asked the reason for the trail system crossing the road on the north side of the development. Mr. Sobrepena responded the most recent scenario proposed the trail along the
continuous east side of the proposed street and the trail would cross at the intersection. Mr. Thomas asked how the trail interacted with the Manion residence. Mr. Manion agreed to
have the trail located in front of his residence and added that the Planning Office and the Gallatin Valley Land Trust needed to cooperate to create a good layout for the trail system.
He suggested lowering the elevation of the boulevard and lining it with Aspen trees to make it more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Thomas suggested keeping the trail on the west side of
Edgewood Drive clear to the northern edge of the property. Mr. Manion noted the Planning Office and Recreation and Parks Advisory Board would prefer to see the trail located along the
east side of the property. Planner Skelton added there was a need for an impervious surface (i.e., sidewalk) for the future residents and elderly, etc., as well as future development
to the north. Mr. Manion stated the current project design had been suggested by Planning Director Andrew Epple.
Mr. Hedglin asked, if the trail ended up on the west side of Edgewood Drive, would it ever become a city-maintained public sidewalk. Planner Skelton responded there it would probably
not and that a boulevard sidewalk is necessary on the west side and a trail on the entire east side. A trail crossing as proposed would not serve the general public and discourage use
of the trail, as there would be conflicts with traffic in the future. Mr. Hedglin asked the applicant if there had been any concern with regard to headlights shining in the neighbor’s
back yard because of the orientation of the 25 foot wide private drive. Mr. Sobrepena responded landscaping would handle the glaring light issue and there was existing screening. Mr.
Hedglin stated he appreciated the driveways being hidden from the main street, but it seemed as though the development was turning its back on Lincoln Street. Mr. Sobrepena responded
the intention was to create private back yards as much as possible, but there would be a back porch or some sort of pedestrian friendly element instituted. Mr. Hedglin stated he was
concerned with the amount of visitor parking in the proposed scenario. Mr. Manion responded some type of screening could be placed around the back patio area with a door and patio stones
for accessing East Lincoln Street visitor parking areas. Mr. Sobrepena asked Mr. Skelton if there was on-street parking allowed on Lincoln Street. Mr. Skelton responded the street
was wide enough for on-street parking.
Mr. Hietala reserved his comments on the project for the City Commission hearing.
Planner Skelton stated that in the Sub Area Plan, a key issue would be compatibility within the context of the neighborhood. He stated the appropriateness of the structures was an issue
and requested comments on the matter to give the applicants a sense of duplex verses four-plex development. Planner Skelton stated the area had been allowed a greater density than alternative
#1 of the Sub Area Pan required due to its R-2 zoning. Mr. Sobrepena stated the applicant was leaning toward four duplex structures instead of using the proposed four-plex structure.
Mr. Manion stated he was in agreement with using only duplex structures. Planner Skelton added Staff had no problems with the footprint layout due to the design of the elevations.
Mr. Krueger stated he had visited the site earlier and his impression was that the proposal was too dense in one corner of the property. He stated he thought the structures were too
near the property line and the four-plex would be out of character with the neighborhood. He stated he did not like the garage-forward design and there was no community feeling provided
for the tenants. Mr. Sobrepena stated there was a courtyard area, but the applicant was shooting for
privacy as well. Mr. Krueger stated he echoed Mr. Hedglin’s comment that there was no pedestrian linkage shielding the tenants from the proposed parking. He stated in general, there
could be a better design and the current open space did not offer any amenity to the occupants of the proposed development.
Mr. Howe stated the proposal was interesting. He stated the south portion of the site seemed too dense and he would comment further when the project came to the DRB as a formal review.
Mr. Thomas stated he wanted to see all four elevations drawn together to convince people that the development was not going to be an obstruction. He stated he appreciated the choice
of materials and the design. He stated the 10 foot setback on the northern two units bugged him, but he appreciated that density was key and the site was difficult. He suggested requesting
a relaxation for a 15 foot setback on Edgewood Drive to break up the units and address the 10 foot northern setback (shifting the whole development to the east 10 feet). He stated he
liked the proposed elevations.
Mr. Hedglin stated he agreed with Mr. Thomas’ suggestion for the applicant to provide depictions of all four elevations. He stated the roofline would not need to be contiguous and would
bring the mass and scale down. He stated the materials were a good selection and hesitated to say the four-plex was out of place as he had not yet seen the elevations. He stated he
would support a relaxation of the setback to allow movement of the whole development 10 feet to the east.
Mr. Howe suggested using a three dimensional model (computer generated or otherwise) to illustrate the size, massing, and scale of the development. Planner Skelton stated he agreed
that a three dimensional model would assist in illustration.
ITEM 6. 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 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.
________________________________
Tara Hastie, Acting Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board