Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 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 David Skelton, Senior Planner Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Brian Krueger Michael Pentecost Visitors Present Ted Mitchell Greg Stratton ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of September 28, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris. Chairperson Smith stated that, since there would be no recommendation made today on the Bozeman Gateway project, Mr. Pentecost would be participating in the meeting. She asked if Michelin from Greenspace Landscaping had been appointed to the DRB. I explained the process of appointing a new member to the DRB and stated that she had not yet been appointed as the City Commission had not formally reviewed and approved her application. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05217 (Skelton/Murray) Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B-2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. (First of a two week review.) Greg Stratton and Ted Mitchell joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff memo noting that the DRB would be reviewing the application twice; with the formal Staff report being given to them the second meeting. He noted the location of the proposed development and listed the types of uses proposed within the development. He stated the Farmers Canal flows from west to east through the site and would be piped underground and the design of the project is such to protect the three existing watercourses and wetlands on-site. He stated the open space areas would remain in the present state and improved to city standards and maintained by the property owners and there would be a landscape/water feature along Huffine Lane in the Entryway Corridor. He stated there was a request to reduce a portion of the required watercourse setback established by the wetlands boundary and outlined the other relaxations from the U.D.O. requested by the applicant. He stated that the WRB has recommended approval to encroach into the wetlands setback associated with the watercourses. He stated if the streets were deemed as private streets within the PUD, there would be no relaxations needed for the proposed lighting and diagonal parking. He stated there was an Ice Tea grant that the applicant has agreed to participate in and allow for an easement to continue the trail across Huffine Lane and further west on the north side. He stated the applicant had attempted to address the backs of structures facing the Entryway Corridor and they felt the problem had been alleviated. He stated Staff had asked for more detail and illustrations with implementation of the Development Manual, and the applicant has provided better detail with the manual, but they would need certified landscape plans in the future. Mr. Hedglin asked if Garfield Street was being constructed. Planner Skelton responded that Garfield Street was being constructed as a collector street. Mr. Hedglin asked if the construction of the road was at the cost of the developer or the city. Mr. Stratton responded that the construction cost was wholly the developers. Mr. Hedglin asked how the intersection would work. Mr. Stratton responded it was a right turn only intersection with signalization. Mr. Krueger asked if the discrepancy over the calculated open space had been addressed. Planner Skelton responded it had and added that landscape information distributed to the DRB would provide clarification. Mr. Krueger asked if the Entryway Corridor guidelines had been met. Planner Skelton responded that he had not looked at the new Design Objectives Plan yet with regard to this project, but would discuss them in the DRB staff report for the next meeting. Mr. Krueger asked if the DRB would see specific sites for review at future meetings. Planner Skelton responded that the development would be done site specific in phases and the DRB would review each specific site if it meets the threshold in the UDO for DRB review, adding that Staff was generally supportive of the proposal if more information and detail to implement the project is provided. Mr. Krueger stated the development manual furnished by the applicant was very important as a guideline for the design of individual sites within the overall proposal. Planner Skelton responded that it was important to be careful that the manual did not contain less restrictive development guidelines, but also noted that what was ever approved the City would be party to any modifications proposed by the developer Mr. Mitchell stated he would have no problem with DRB review for each site if there were contradictions between the proposed structures and the design guidelines in the development manual. Chairperson Smith stated that her concern was with proposed franchise structures. Planner Skelton responded that there was a question as to whether or not the DRB would review the smaller buildings; his thought was that if there was a proposal that did not follow the development manual, then the DRB would review the proposal to ensure compliance. Planner Skelton stated a directive from the Board of Regents that had the college looking for agricultural lands further outside of city limits and that further development of the university lands may occur in the future. Chairperson Smith asked the layout of Fowler Lane and how many lanes it would contain once completed. Mr. Stratton responded Fowler Lane would have four lanes near the intersection and have signalization. Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant wanted a higher-end development in Bozeman; with a lot of money going to preserving the existing wetlands, being pedestrian and vehicle friendly, having great open space areas, and water features. He stated the back sides of structures would not appear as backsides; there would be screening walls 12 feet tall. He noted the development would be done in phases and listed in which order the proposal would be completed. He noted the applicant was very fussy about quality and added that he thought the DRB would be very happy with the end result. Chairperson Smith asked if anything had changed from the Informal DRB review. Mr. Mitchell responded that the open space had been widened, a structure had been added, and a structure had been slightly altered. Mr. Stratton added that the streets had been slightly tweaked to meet Engineering Department guidelines. Mr. Pentecost asked if a view of a large dirt field would be visible to the public throughout the construction of the project. Mr. Mitchell responded that many of the parking lots and some of the buildings would be completed, but there might be a short time when there would be pieces of undeveloped land. Mr. Pentecost asked if there would be leases or if tenants would own their buildings. Mr. Mitchell responded the applicant would prefer to lease buildings and have control over the proposed structures, but there would be tenants that would insist on buying the pads outright. He added that the applicant would still be responsible for the parking lots and landscaping. Mr. Pentecost asked how the parking would be addressed for a proposed five-story structure that the design guidelines allowed for. Mr. Mitchell responded the only way it could be done would be to institute a parking structure on the site. Mr. Pentecost stated the parking structure would allow for a lot more parking and less structures. Mr. Mitchell agreed with Mr. Pentecost. Mr. Pentecost asked if there was a vehicle in place to protect the development from the institution of parking structures that would overrun the site with asphalt. Chairperson Smith suggested considering the parking structure element seriously at this early stage to prevent future difficulties. Mr. Mitchell responded that the cost of the structure pretty much ruled out its use in this proposal. Mr. Hedglin asked what would prevent a private individual from purchasing property within the development and sitting on a dirt field for five years awaiting the property value to increase. Mr. Mitchell responded that sitting on the property to await an increase in property value would not be allowed and added that the time limit on developing a site purchased within the PUD would be one year. Mr. Hedglin asked if the time frame for the proposal to be built out would still be 5-7 years. Mr. Mitchell responded they were anticipating 8-9 years to completely build out the site. Mr. Howe asked how the proposed water features could be called water features in the winter and if there were safety characteristics in place so the water features did not become a danger to people. Mr. Mitchell responded the more formal ponds, falls, and fountains would have a heating and cooling system that was borrowed from the surrounding structures and would prevent the water from freezing and the informal water features would be subject to nature taking its course. He stated the wetland plantings and shallow ponds with sloping banks would help prevent hazards to people. Chairperson Smith asked if the Farmers Canal would be day-lighted (above ground) or piped. Mr. Mitchell responded the applicant would be piping the portion of the canal through the development, but there was an existing culvert along the western edge of the site. Mr. Stratton added that a section-line ditch crossed from the site over Huffine Lane to the east side of Fowler Avenue and was already piped in conjunction with the extension of Fowler Lane. Chairperson Smith asked if the grocery store had been considered in the bank pad location as a “gateway” from the west. Mr. Mitchell responded he did not want a grocery store immediately in view of the Entryway Corridor and added the trees would screen much of the view. Chairperson Smith stated she did not see any trail connections from Fowler Avenue to the grocery store. Mr. Mitchell responded that they had forgotten that connection and it would be a great feature to institute. Chairperson Smith asked if the construction phasing had been firmly decided. Mr. Mitchell responded that he did not know for sure if Phases 2 & 3 would be simultaneous until he saw how Phase I would play out. Mr. Stratton added that the interest in Phase 3 was greater than the interest in Phase 2. Chairperson Smith stated she was concerned that the landscaping would not be completed in a timely manner and suggested the locations along the Entryway Corridor be landscaped and paths instituted first, within a certain number of feet from the corridor. Planner Skelton responded that the Entryway Corridor would be one of the first locations to be addressed. Planner Skelton asked if the lighting had been discussed. Mr. Stratton responded there were only a few areas where the lighting requirements would be low and there would be minimal traffic in those locations. Mr. Stratton added that the applicant was requesting the open space requirement of 40% be reduced and soft trails replace a portion of the required sidewalk. Mr. Pentecost asked the thought process behind the installation of the streets and the phasing of the development; whether it was financially organized. Mr. Mitchell responded he wanted to ease the town into the development. Mr. Pentecost asked at which point Technology Boulevard would connect the east and west nodes. Planner Skelton responded that the Fire Department and Engineering Department may require a secondary access with the construction of Technology Boulevard. Mr. Pentecost added he thought he was being teased by the synergy, energy, and potential as he did not get to visit the site for five years and asked why there were no residential, live/work units proposed for the site. Mr. Mitchell responded that the applicant would love to install some two- and three-story residential segments to the development, but the combination of residential and retail development made the parking allocations difficult; he stated they were discussing the option. Mr. Pentecost cited downtown Bozeman where residential spaces were above business spaces and the parking stalls were used in turns (before 5:00 p.m. for business and after 5:00 p.m. for residential). Chairperson Smith asked about the parking calculations. Planner Skelton responded he was uncertain until they were able to determine which lots or common areas would receive credit for a reduction based on shared parking. Mr. Stratton responded that the applicant had proposed 20 parking spaces over the required amount. Mr. Skelton stated there may be parking issues with the hotel conference center. Chairperson Smith stated the hotel would not see as much use as a hotel along the interstate. Mr. Mitchell responded that minimizing the amount of parking surface shown could be done by shared parking arrangements between structures. Chairperson Smith asked how many people the conference rooms would hold. Mr. Mitchell responded that the original plan considered 5,000 square feet of convention, but this proposal had been reduced to around 3,000 square feet. Chairperson Smith asked the reason for the pavement around the retail structures in Phase 1. Mr. Mitchell responded it would be for maintenance, delivery, and traffic flow purposes. Chairperson Smith stated the DRB would need to see the two retail and the anchor structures to be certain the presentation of the backsides of the structures were addressed. Chairperson Smith asked if there was enough distance between a delivery location and a turn for the right amount of vehicle stacking to accommodate traffic flow. Mr. Stratton responded that semi templates would be installed to insure enough distance for maneuvering of larger vehicles. Planner Skelton stated that there was a lot of difficult with overlaying architectural and infrastructural plans with 100% accuracy. Mr. Mitchell added there would have to be some larger vehicle circulation to service the site (i.e. trash removal and deliveries). Chairperson Smith suggested a sidewalk cut or widening at certain locations. Planner Skelton stated the DRB needed to be concerned with the presentation of the structures and trash enclosures to the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Mitchell responded there would be screening and architectural features integrating the trash enclosures into the buildings. Mr. Pentecost asked how the integration would work when using trash enclosure walls to integrate with structure walls. Mr. Mitchell responded they would use relief, cultured stone, and a cornice (or similar feature) with an enclosed roof. Chairperson Smith asked if the proposed false wall would have any openings. Mr. Mitchell responded there would be no openings and the false walls would be treated. Chairperson Smith requested building heights, elevations, cross sections of water features and streams, landscape guidelines, and lighting specifications. Planner Skelton stated the majority of the proposal would be reviewed by ADR Staff; the specific sites would be reviewed by DRB as needed if the meet the threshold in the UDO for DRB review. Mr. Krueger asked if the applicant was anticipating deviation requests. Mr. Mitchell responded they were not. Mr. Pentecost suggested the grocery store address Huffine Lane instead of addressing the parking lot. Mr. Hedglin asked if Mr. Mitchell had any examples of the “lifestyle center” design. Mr. Mitchell responded that there were many design examples and they would acquire those for the DRB. Chairperson Smith responded the closest comparison in Bozeman was the Stoneridge development. Mr. Pentecost asked for clarification regarding seeing the back of the entire development, as it had street frontage interior to the site, and the rear of the structures would be addressing the public outside of the development. Mr. Mitchell reiterated how the rear of the structures would be treated. 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 were no members of the public to comment at this time. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board