HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Brian Krueger Susan Kozub, Planner I
Randy Carpenter Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Scott Hedglin
Dawn Smith
Mel Howe
Visitors Present
Robert Pertzborn
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2005
Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of April 27, 2005.
MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris.
Recording Secretary Tara Hastie explained to the DRB that Associate Planner Jami Morris had no new information to present the the DRB at this time.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Valley West Phase III CUP to Amend PUD #Z-05073 (Kozub)
North of Babcock St.,south of Durston Rd.,west of Ferguson Ave.,east of Cottonwood Rd.
* A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Application to amend the Valley West PUD and allow additional relaxations.
Rob Pertzborn joined the DRB. Planner I Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report noting the applicant was requesting modifications of the covenants and additional relaxations from the
U.D.O. She stated Staff supported requested relaxations A, B, and E but did not support requested relaxations C or D. She stated relaxations C and D could result in overdevelopment
of the site. She stated if the DRB supported these relaxations, additional language in the covenants was recommended. She stated, in exchange for additional requested relaxation C,
Staff recommended more restrictive language in the P.U.D.
Mr. Krueger asked if the Accessory Dwelling Unit provision was an alteration of what the
applicant proposed. Planner Kozub responded the relaxation request was to allow A.D.U.’s to be larger than 600 square feet. Mr. Krueger asked if the provision would prevent the walling-off
of the A.D.U. Planner Kozub responded that additional language in the covenants would prevent the walling-off. Planner Kozub and the applicant agreed on the administrative interpretation
which makes the relaxation request no longer applicable.
Mr. Carpenter asked where the relaxation for side yard encroachment came from. Mr. Pertzborn responded they did not want people maxing out their back yard, and the encroachment into
the provided side yard was addressed, not the required side yard. Mr. Carpenter asked if height restrictions were being imposed. Planner Kozub responded the height could be restricted
by number of stories. Mr. Pertzborn added the integrated roof allowed for smaller roof heights.
Mr. Hanson asked if the streetscape had a wider boulevard. Planner Kozub responded yes, on the perimeter streets. Mr. Hanson asked if, in some cases, even though the setback was reduced,
the green-space was bigger. Planner Kozub responded he was correct; the green-space was larger along the arterial streets. Mr. Hanson asked if the setback relaxation was requested
along any of the arterial streets. Mr. Petzborn responded the whole P.U.D. was subject to the requested relaxations with 1/3 of the integrated porch in the setback, and added the applicant
could abide the encroachment of only the porch as long as the porch was integrated. Mr. Hanson stated there were a lot of residential lots with wider boulevards and the character of
the street would obviously be different if the requested relaxations were granted. Mr. Pertzborn responded the sidewalk would always be located in the same spot. Mr. Hanson asked if
the relaxations impacted the business lots. Planner Kozub responded the 10 foot front yard setback relaxation was only for the residential lots and would not affect the commercial lots.
She added that if the DRB supported the front yard relaxation, it should only be for Phases 3 and up, not for previous phases or any commercial lots. Mr. Pertzborn responded, in theory,
the lots would not be overbuilt. He added that the relaxation was requested for the Restricted Sized Lots (Affordable Housing lots) primarily, but he would like to see the relaxation
be for all residential lots in Phases 3 and beyond.
Mr. Pertzborn stated his intention was not to have huge A.D.U.’s on the lots or have lots with two rentals, and create something that works well within the neighborhood. He stated the
yard setback relaxation was intended to create more of a rear yard space for the R.S.L.’s. He stated the covenants could encourage a wider porch on each lot.
Chairperson Smith asked where the relaxations would occur throughout the P.U.D. Mr. Pertzborn directed the DRB to the chart at the back of the covenants which illustrated the locations
of each phase. Mr. Pertzborn responded each street was analyzed as to where the relaxations would make sense and where they would not.
Mr. Hedglin stated he thought the R.S.L.’s were only where the legend called out townhouses. Mr. Pertzborn responded that was not the case. Planner Kozub directed the DRB to the appropriate
locations on the site plan. Mr. Pertzborn responded if the lot was 5,000 square feet, it was an R.S.L. lot. Mr. Pertzborn responded there was a mixture of lots on the streets and added
that it was impossible to do an R.S.L. on a corner lot due to the setback requirements.
Mr. Krueger asked if there was a specular market for single level residences. Mr. Pertzborn
responded that people had complained there could not be a decent sized, single level unit built on the existing lots, but he did not know for certain if there was a market for them.
Planner Kozub added that one builder had stated there was a market for the lots, but she knew no definitive information. Mr. Krueger asked if the minimum dimensions for porches could
be included in the covenants. Mr. Pertzborn responded the covenants stated the location of the porches and additional language describing minimum dimensions would be a good idea.
Mr. Hanson asked if the concept of integrated porches would allow an extension of the living space over the top of them. Planner Kozub responded it was a possibility. Mr. Hanson asked
if the second story form would extend to that same line. Mr. Pertzborn responded it would be an option for both the first and second story, but the applicant would settle for the first
story only.
Mr. Hedglin asked, if the applicant was forcing the construction of the front porches, why the applicant wanted large back yards. Mr. Pertzborn responded the back yard was used differently
and added the porch was a transitional space and many items would not fit on the existing porches due to their size. He stated a contemporary design and composition called for both
a big front porch and a big back yard.
Chairperson Smith asked if there was a restriction to the number of A.D.U.’s on a block or in a Phase of development. Mr. Pertzborn responded there was currently no restriction. Chairperson
Smith stated there were existing parking difficulties with the institution of A.D.U.’s. Mr. Pertzborn responded the subdivision met the A.D.U. parking requirements and the number of
occupants was restricted to two persons for the A.D.U.’s. Chairperson Smith asked the percentage of the built out A.D.U.’s in the subdivision. Planner Kozub responded it was difficult
to tell as some of the A.D.U. spaces had no kitchen and were used only as storage space or a bonus room.
Mr. Hanson asked if the lot coverage would be increased from 40% to 45% for all lots. Mr. Pertzborn responded only on the residential lots with single level living. Mr. Hanson asked
if the R.S.L. lots would remain 40%. Mr. Pertzborn responded the R.S.L.’s would remain 40%.
Mr. Krueger stated he supported Staff conditions as there was no mature landscaping in the subdivision as of yet. He stated the extra space was nice for allowing vegetation to mature
as opposed to hard-scaping. He stated he supported the smaller lots and a mix of sizes of structures.
Mr. Carpenter stated that he supported a larger rear yard. Planner Kozub stated it seemed everyone agreed with condition 1e, but that condition 1h was still being debated. The DRB
and the applicant concurred.
Mr. Hanson stated he thought Staff did a good job outlining the conditions and the question remaining was the front yard setback. He stated he was supportive of the requested relaxation
for a 10 foot front yard setback, and added that some of the most affluent neighborhoods addressed the street with encroaching porches. He stated the lot coverage was important in usable
space for the people who live there. He stated he would not support the idea of only the R.S.L. lots being given the relaxations as other tenants would think it unfair and added that
recommended condition 1e for the A.D.U.’s was functional and would work well.
Mr. Carpenter asked what features were counted in the 40% lot coverage calculation. Planner
Kozub responded ground level patios, eaves, etc. would not be counted and clarified which items would be counted; such as, covered porches and bay windows.
Chairperson Smith stated she had always like this P.U.D. and what she feared the most was the project becoming “heavy”. She stated there was a difference in feel between 20 small homes
on small lots and 20 large homes on small lots. She expressed concern that one lot could use all of the requested relaxations at once. Planner Kozub responded there was no restriction
on how many relaxations a lot could use, but there were circumstances that would most likely prevent one lot from using all the relaxations. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with
Staff with regard to A.D.U.’s (condition 1e) and was undecided regarding the front yard.
Mr. Hedglin stated a 600 square foot A.D.U. was a one bedroom apartment. Planner Kozub added that the A.D.U. could only be one bedroom; per section 18.40.030 of the U.D.O. Mr. Pertzborn
responded the size of the area above five feet could equal no more than 600 square feet. Planner Kozub read the A.D.U. section of the code to the DRB.
Mr. Hanson stated Chairperson Smith’s comments regarding the heaviness of the development had merit. Chairperson Smith added it was the smaller main houses that needed to be balanced
against the A.D.U.’s. Planner Kozub responded there was a section of the code providing language stating the A.D.U. could not have a larger footprint or be taller than the primary residence
and added that the P.U.D. should give something in return for the relaxations; for example, a garage with a footprint less than 750 square feet.
Mr. Hanson stated the problem was also the location of the structures on the lot.
Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to see the buildings staggered along the streets; he was in support of the requested relaxation for a 10 foot front yard setback.
Mr. Krueger asked if the integrated façade would include both stories. Planner Kozub responded that the integrated façade could include both stories and the covenants should be rewritten
to include clarification and a definition of “integrated façade”.
Mr. Hanson asked if the ten feet included the steps off the porch. Planner Kozub responded no.
Mr. Krueger asked if there was a minimum grade from the curb. Mr. Pertzborn responded there was a minimum grade requirement and it was 30 inches off of the curb.
MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Valley West Phase III CUP to Amend PUD #Z-05073 with Staff conditions and the amendment
of the covenants with the modification of condition “1h” as follows:
The Revised Covenants shall specify that the relaxation for a porch and integrated façade to encroach up to five feet into the required 15-foot front yard setback shall be allowed for
Phase 3 and beyond, only if all four (4) of the following conditions are met:
The encroaching porch must have a length equal to or greater than one-half the length of the building façade or 12 feet, whichever is greater. The remaining portion may be occupied by
an integrated façade as defined in these covenants;
The encroaching porch must have a minimum depth of six (6) feet.
Second or subsequent stories are not allowed to encroach into the 15-foot front yard setback; and,
No stairs are permitted beyond the 10-foot setback. The motion carried 6-0.
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 4:50 p.m.
________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board