Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-05 Design Review Board Minutes.doc DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Scott Hedglin Jami Morris, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Erin Groth, Planner Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Brian Krueger Michael Pentecost Visitors Present Lowell Springer Bill Rea Jerry Smania Don Cape, Jr. Dave Sovulewski ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of September 14, 2005. Mr. Hedglin requested a correction (handwritten) to the minutes in the last paragraph of the Stoneridge Square P.U.D. Prel. Plan discussion. Mr. Krueger stated that on page 6, the final motion, Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes with the requested corrections. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris. Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Springer the reason there appeared to be something being done at the Hastings Shopping Center. Mr. Springer responded the real work would begin after the owner and tenant had signed the required documents. Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Springer about the new building and he responded that there was going to be a new tenant that should move in soon. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Stoneridge Square P.U.D. Prel. Plan #Z-05183 (Morris) Northwest of the intersection of N. 19th Ave. and W. Oak St. * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan requesting the unified development of + 185,000 square foot retail complex zoned B-1 (Neighborhood Business District) and B-2 (Community Business District) development. (Third of a three week review.) Lowell Springer and Don Cape, Jr. joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff report noting the applicant and representative had discussed the relaxations at the last DRB review. Planner Morris stated the applicant and representative were requesting the removal of the 10,000 square foot cap on the building footprints within the P.U.D. She stated the Commission imposed the cap to accommodate the 6,000 square foot per tenant for multi-tenant structures, but the Commission did not want to see huge structures. Mr. Springer stated the Stoneridge P.U.D. Guidelines allowed up to a 10,000 square foot building footprint and the City Commission suggested the applicant make the development appear as a city block, thus increasing the sizes of two of the structures and possibly a third (the proposed bank). He stated the relaxation request would accomplish the city block feeling that the City Commission recommended. Mr. Cape added that only two buildings on the site would be affected by the relaxation request. Planner Morris responded the bank was a subject of contention and may need to be included in the relaxation request. Mr. Krueger asked if the relaxation request was due to the judgment of the City Commission. Mr. Springer responded it was. Chairperson Smith stated that two separate zonings (B-1 & B-2) being developed as a whole site was an issue and asked if the proposal would be evaluated as the whole site or two separate zonings. Planner Morris responded she was unsure how it would be evaluated. Mr. Springer showed the DRB his conceptual drawings. Planner Morris responded that Staff recommended the units alternate and address the watercourse, the green-space, and the street. Mr. Howe asked if the request was simply for amendment of the P.U.D. Planner Morris responded he was correct. Mr. Howe asked if the request was precedent setting. Planner Morris responded she did not know if it was precedent setting, but there were people interested in the request. Mr. Springer responded there was no other development like this adjacent to residential development and the precedent would end there. Mr. Cape added that their intent was to uphold the City Commission recommendations to the best of their ability. Chairperson Smith asked why the request was coming up so late in the process. Planner Morris responded the applicant did not formally request the amendment with the application. Mr. Krueger stated he was not really supportive of the architecture of the P.U.D.; that it did not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. Mr. Springer responded that the City Commission would not oppose the project. Mr. Howe asked if the applicant could make the two buildings work with a maximum of a 10,000 square foot building footprint. Mr. Springer and Mr. Cape responded the City Commission had suggested the design as a city block and the function of the structures would be at risk if they were designed smaller. Mr. Springer added he thought the City Commission would support the request. Mr. Hedglin stated he did not agree that two large buildings were better than four smaller ones. He stated a three hundred foot long structure would not achieve what they wanted and suggested the applicant provide four buildings instead of two. Chairperson Smith stated if the request was for a U.D.O. amendment she would not have supported it, but since it was for a P.U.D. amendment request, she would support the increase in building footprint, but suggested a square foot cap for future development if the P.U.D. changed ownership. She stated she would like to see the architectural treatment of the P.U.D. emphasized with true effort in design to break-up the development (i.e. change of materials, colors, etc.). Mr. Howe asked if the actual square footage depicted for the buildings in question could be the cap amount for the P.U.D. Mr. Springer responded the applicant was agreeable to using the proposed buildings’ square footages as footprint caps. Mr. Springer stated he would be requesting the relaxation for the bank structure, as well. Planner Morris explained that the multi-tenant square footage had not been requested as a relaxation. Chairperson Smith asked which items the DRB could discuss at this time. Mr. Springer stated he would like the record to show that he could find no reference in the U.D.O. to a maximum amount of square feet per tenant, but he could find mention of a maximum amount of square feet per building. Planner Morris again attempted to explain. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Stoneridge Square P.U.D. Prel. Plan #Z-05183 to the City Commission with the condition that the shop buildings proposed at 14,800 square feet and 10,900 square feet be broken into four separate structures. Chairperson Smith responded the DRB had approved the P.U.D., and its site plan, in its entirety and the DRB would be contradicting its own motion. The DRB concurred and the motion died. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Stoneridge Square P.U.D. Prel. Plan #Z-05183 to the City Commission without DRB support of the requested P.U.D. amendment to abolish the 10,000 square foot building footprint cap. The motion carried 3-1 with Chairperson Smith voting in opposition. B. Lot 24, Stoneridge Subdivison Informal #I-05033 (Groth) 1289 Stoneridge Drive * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of four condominium buildings approximately 1,875 square feet each, and one office building approximately 4,000 square feet with related site improvements. Dave Sovulewski and Jerry Smania joined the DRB. Planner Erin Groth presented the Staff report noting the project was located in the Entryway Corridor. She stated she had laid out the guidelines for the applicant and the project had gone to DRC that morning. She stated it would be a mixed-use development. She stated the proposal for water and sewer service would need to be reworked, the drive approach would need rearranged, and that a pedestrian trail runs through the stream setback; although it was not shown on the plan. She stated the DRB could discount the major encroachments noted in the Staff Report as they were found to be right on the line, but there was still one porch depicted that would encroach. She stated the proposed landscaping was in conflict with the existing trail would need to be reworked. She stated if there was no easement, the condos could be located on the setback line. She stated the carports relating to the townhouse units were considered separate from the parking stalls for the offices. Mr. Smania had calculated a reduction of two spaces to accommodate landscaping that would be in addition to the minimum mandatory standards; a total of 700 square feet of additional landscaping along the street frontage would be required. She stated when the application came through formally, she would prefer to see more landscaping, but it would ultimately be decided by the DRB. Chairperson Smith asked why the DRB was reviewing what appeared to be a zoning application. Planner Groth responded that the DRB review was due to the project’s location within an Entryway Corridor, and the mixed-use development within the proposal. She added the site would be obvious from Oak Street. Chairperson Smith asked if the parking reduction was for the residential portion of the development or the commercial portion. Planner Groth responded only the residential parking could be decreased without a relaxation request. Mr. Krueger asked Planner Groth to describe the pond easement. Planner Groth responded that the approval of the P.U.D. may not have provided enough drainage detention areas for this site, but the Engineering Department would address the issue. Chairperson Smith asked if there was ever any standing water in the area. Mr. Sovulewski responded there had been a small amount of standing water. Mr. Smania added that many people thought the P.U.D. had been developed with all necessary detention ponds. Planner Groth responded the last word from Engineering was that the drainage would come only from the road and added the site was unique. Chairperson Smith asked if the lot nearest Oak Street and Stoneridge Drive had a below-grade area. Mr. Smania responded that it did have a below-grade area and added that there were required setbacks on all sides. Mr. Smania stated the proposal was to propose two or four, 18,000 square foot condo units facing the east and an office building. He noted the area and massing calculations on the site plan and stated the project had morphed into a “village” with allocated parking for the condo units and storage areas. He stated screening had been included, though the residential portion of the development was facing another residential development. He stated they had attempted to make the site more pedestrian friendly. He stated the most logical location for the access would not work as there needed to be a forty foot offset from the intersection and it would need to be redone. Planner Groth asked if the spike features on the patio screening area were to accentuate the roof elements. Mr. Smania responded they were and added that he had walked the site and determined the residential components did not feel proper in any other location. Chairperson Smith stated she thought the site was compactly proposed and it was partially due to the detention easement. She stated the entry plaza was great in the front, but she would prefer to see an encroachment into the 25 foot setback rather than the plaza fronting the road where it may not get as much use from the public. Mr. Smania responded that the plaza was setup as a type of living-room/garden area to be used by people parking along the road. Chairperson Smith asked what would happen between two of the proposed buildings. Mr. Smania responded there would be landscaping, sidewalks, and the rooftop elements would come down nearer to the ground in that location. Planner Groth responded she thought there was a larger than required setback. Mr. Smania responded the P.U.D. required him to have a 25 foot setback. Chairperson Smith asked where the pedestrian connection would be located. Mr. Smania showed Chairperson Smith where the pedestrian connection would be located and noted the passage feature which would be flanked by garages and storage elements. Mr. Hedglin stated the alignment of the vehicular access ought to fall where the traffic engineers suggested, the site as proposed was too congested, and the vehicular movement through the parking lot would be an issue (i.e. improper backing to exit the site). Mr. Howe agreed with Mr. Hedglin’s comments. Mr. Krueger stated he understood why the carports were being proposed, but their institution would deaden the entire site by blocking the view of the condominiums. He stated that he did not support a lesser amount of parking, but he supported the mix of uses. Mr. Pentecost asked what was driving the carport portion of the proposal. Mr. Smania responded the market in Bozeman was driving the carport proposal as people did not want to leave their vehicles outside during winter weather. Planner Groth added that residential parking was calculated based on dwelling units. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with Mr. Krueger with regard to the carport design as there would be no true entrance to the homes on the site. She stated she liked the concept of a mixed-use design, but she was concerned with site coverage and the constraints of the site. She suggested rearrangement of the site without compromising the sizes of the structures, if possible. Mr. Smania responded the easements and setbacks removed half of the buildable area from the site. Mr. Pentecost asked if the units would be rentals or for sale. Mr. Smania responded they would be for sale. Mr. Howe asked Mr. Smania if he was confident that the drainage calculations were accurate. Mr. Smania responded the calculations had been done my Morrison-Maierle. Mr. Howe suggested the area of detention for the P.U.D. had been located fully on this site. Mr. Smania suggested he might move the whole development to the west into an easement and would discuss the option with Planning Staff at a later date. Mr. Pentecost asked if the proposed homogenous material palette (stucco, soffit,) he was reading was correct. Mr. Smania responded that Mr. Pentecost was accurately reading the proposed materials; the intent was to have two color tones, texture, and some corrugated metal. Mr. Krueger stated the D.O.P. encouraged the use of natural materials within the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Smania stated the applicant was open to suggestions, but the proposed materials were easier to maintain and went well with the landscaping. Mr. Pentecost suggested articulation and variation in the materials palette. Mr. Krueger stated the stream setback had been relaxed (from 50 to 35 feet) with the approval of the P.U.D. Chairperson Smith added that there was an approved P.U.D. relaxation for the front yard setback to allow a lesser setback of 15 feet. Mr. Krueger stated he would support moving the structures forward. 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.} Bill Rea introduced himself as a possible candidate for membership to the DRB and mentioned that he was referred by Christopher Livingston. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board