HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2005
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Bill Rea Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Randy Carpenter Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Brian Krueger Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Michael Pentecost
Mel Howe
Dawn Smith
Visitors Present
Lowell Springer
Greg Allen
Michael McGullum
Darrell Swanson
Jason Hawkins
Don Cape, Jr.
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2005
Continued until next meeting.
ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris.
Chairperson Smith asked the situation with the neon lighting on the Outback Steakhouse. Planner Morris responded she was working on getting it removed as there was a condition of approval
in place stating there could be no exposed neon lighting. She stated the applicant had instituted the neon during temporary occupancy and she had sent a letter telling the owner to
remove the neon lighting, but they had complained to the City manager and he had given them an extension of 30 days for the removal of the neon lighting. She added that the Planning
Director was prepared to issue a cease and desist order with the suspension of their Conditional Use Permit but they had requested an extension until Monday and it had been granted.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Baxter Meadows Phase II Mods to PUD #Z-03276A (Windemaker)
4598 East Baxter Lane
* A modification to an approved Planned Unit Development requesting to allow building height flexibility and the bungalow lots to be counted as Restricted Size Lots.
Michael McGullum and Greg Allen joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker
presented the Staff Report noting Staff conditions and adding that there would be modifications to the PUD requested. She stated there were four relaxations requested; to allow the
maximum building height in the B-2 district to be 65 feet, to allow the restricted sized lots to be less than 5,000 square feet for single-household detached dwellings, to allow the
RSL not to be subject to floor area ratio, and to allow them to exceed that maximum floor area on the RSL lots. She stated the applicant would have to record the RSL as a deed restriction
and Staff would not support the relaxation request to exceed the maximum floor area.
Mr. Krueger asked the noticing requirements for the CUP. Planner Windemaker responded the project would be noticed 15 days before the City Commission meeting and the adjoiners within
200 feet would be noticed. Mr. Krueger asked the duration of the sunset provision for the RSL’s. Planner Windemaker responded that the restricted dwelling unit size would be removed
after November 24, 2008, unless extended by the City Commission.
Mr. Carpenter asked why Staff condition #1 was qualified with a specific statement at the end. Planner Windemaker responded that the height relaxation needed to be declared.
Mr. Pentecost asked the size of the smallest lots. Planner Windemaker stated they were 2,400 square feet and Mr. Allen added that lots of that size already existed.
Chairperson Smith asked if the larger footprint would affect the setbacks on the lots with reciprocal easements. Planner Windemaker responded it would not affect the setbacks or the
reciprocal easements. Chairperson Smith asked the maximum allowable height in the B-2 zoning district. Planner Windemaker responded the maximum height was 57 feet through a CUP.
Mr. Allen stated the main issue was the building height relaxation request. He stated the floor area ratio to the lot size not being supported by Staff was understandable. He stated
the City Commission had originally reviewed the requested height three times and throughout the design of the project they had decided on a height of 65 feet, which would be less than
downtown, and the visual impact would be minimal.
Mr. Krueger asked if the RSL’s would have garages provided. Mr. McGullum responded there would be two car garages on all the lots being discussed and explained that the reciprocal easement
was to insure each lot had a yard. Mr. Allen added it would apply primarily to phase three of the subdivision.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the applicant/owner was amenable to Staff conditions of approval. Mr. Allen responded they were amenable. Mr. Carpenter asked the setback in the business district
in question. Planner Windemaker responded the applicant had been granted setback relaxations and listed the required setbacks. Mr. Allen added that the only way to get people interested
in commercial buildings in that location would be to have tenants in their area.
Mr. Pentecost asked for perspective drawings from the east to Gallatin Green Boulevard. Mr. Allen responded he had perspective drawings and explained what they depicted. He added that
the perspective drawings indicated how the view-shed would effect the surrounding properties and the visual impact would only be evident within 200 feet.
Chairperson Smith asked if the next project was the only area that would need the 65 foot height relaxation. Planner Windemaker responded it would be requested on a case by case basis.
Mr. McGullum responded it was tied together with the Baxter Meadows Master Plan and the parking would be partially subterranean. Mr. Allen responded they were trying to accomplish
the use of “green” buildings but had not yet been certified.
Mr. Carpenter responded he was supportive of Baxter Meadows projects. He added that one would never quite know the visual impact of the height of a structure on a residential area and
he was satisfied with a case by case review. He added that he supported the project with Staff conditions.
Mr. Pentecost concurred with Mr. Carpenter and added that he would support the requested increase in square footage.
Chairperson Smith stated using the RSL designation was acceptable, and if RSL’s had existed they would have been counted earlier. She asked if condition #1 should read as condition
#2 does; using the word “up” for the utmost in clarification.
MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Baxter Meadows Phase II Mods to PUD #Z-03276A to the City Commission with Staff conditions
and the amendment of condition #1 to include the word “up”. The motion carried 5-0.
B. Vida Urbana CUP #Z-05248 (Windemaker)
Caspian Ave./Galloway St./Vaquero Parkway/Kimberwicke St.
* A Conditional Use Permit Application to allow the construction of neo-traditional, mid-rise apartments up to 65 feet in height in a B-2 (Community Business District) zoning.
Michael McGullum and Greg Allen joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting the project would be reviewed against the criteria for a PUD.
She noted Staff conditions and added there would need to be work done on the calculations for open space and landscaping. She stated ADR Staff had commented that what was proposed as
wood did not appear to be wood.
Mr. Carpenter asked the required setbacks for the lots. Planner Windemaker responded the setbacks were 10 feet as there were utility easements located on the lots. Mr. Carpenter asked
where the parking would be located. Mr. Allen responded the parking would be located diagonally along the street and subterranean. Mr. McGullum added that the underground structures
would have two drive lanes with at least one underground parking space and on-street parking.
Mr. Allen stated there would be enough required open space and parkland, but the calculations would need to reflect the correct amounts. Planner Windemaker added that the applicant
would need to verify the recreational areas, the open space, and the cash-in-lieu calculations but had enough overall area to cover the requirements. Mr. Allen added the landscape plan
depicted the proper point requirements.
Mr. Howe asked if any younger people would be living there. Mr. Allen responded it was a transitional project marketed directly to younger and older people without children.
Mr. Pentecost asked if the parking could be revisited. Mr. Allen responded there would be 135 parking spaces assigned to this lot and the on-street parking would be arranged diagonally
with the majority of the parking being subterranean. Mr. Pentecost asked if the subterranean parking was completely enclosed. Mr. Allen responded that it was.
Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be a limit on the number of cars. Mr. Allen responded the requirements for the units would be met, but a restriction on the number of vehicles was
not in place; he added spaces could be assigned, but not the spaces on the street. Mr. Allen responded the applicant was angled toward an owner occupied market as opposed to rentals.
Planner Windemaker added it would be a standard urban parking situation.
Mr. Krueger asked the street-side height of the structure. Mr. Allen responded it was roughly 50 feet tall. Mr. Krueger asked the closest any of the upper stories would come to the
highest point of the structure. Mr. Allen responded 10-15 feet.
Chairperson Smith asked if the garages would be addressed in the covenants as parking only and not storage. Mr. Allen responded they would be private garages and could be used as the
tenant decided; he added they had no intent to restrict the use of the garages. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be commercial structures integrated on the site. Mr. McGullum
responded they were considering a commercial element on the first floor of building A (a coffee shop perhaps). Chairperson Smith stated she was concerned that there would be no visitor
parking. Planner Windemaker responded the commercial parking was not calculated separately from the residential parking. Chairperson Smith asked if the applicant had looked into solar
heating of the pool. Mr. McGullum responded they had researched it, but had not yet decided on solar panels or a vegetative roof. Mr. Allen responded they were looking into the certification
options at this time.
Mr. Howe stated he supported the project as it would fit in with the surrounding area nicely.
Mr. Pentecost stated he agreed with Mr. Howe and added that the vernacular was appropriate and the geometries had been taken into consideration. He stated that it would be geographically
appropriate.
Mr. Carpenter stated the answer to the growth management problems was density, he was not concerned with the setbacks, but he wished developers would take more aggressive stances toward
the ownership of automobiles as it would be in their best interest.
Mr. Krueger stated he supported the project, he loved the term “urban parking situation”, and he liked the idea of someone taking a chance on subterranean parking.
Chairperson Smith stated she supported the application, the variety of materials proposed, the pool element, and the overall design. She stated her one concern was the parking situation.
Mr. Allen responded that hopefully people would see less of a need for multiple vehicles. Chairperson Smith stated she was comfortable with the height relaxation request.
MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Vida Urbana CUP #Z-05248 with Staff conditions. The motion carried
5-0.
C. Stoneridge Square PUD 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.
Lowell Springer, Don Cape, Jr., and Jason Hawkins joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report noting the City Commission had directed the applicant to repeat
DRB review with more detailed elevations. She handed out the original conditions from the City Commission and stated condition #5 was no longer applicable. She stated Staff was concerned
with signage in the B-1 district, would not support a %20 relaxation request, and would not support the request for the maximum building footprint square footage to exceed 6,000 square
feet.
Chairperson Smith asked where the elevations for IHOP were located. Mr. Springer responded IHOP would be reviewed at site plan review and he had not yet updated their elevations.
Mr. Springer directed the DRB to the power point presentation noting the locations of the pedestrian plazas and specific shops. He stated the feeling of the development shown was traditional
and the applicant was attempting to use a similar style in Bozeman. He stated the applicant did not prefer the franchise looking architecture given that the structures were “big box”.
He stated a pedestrian area had been instituted on the site as a focal point and the vertical elements would tie together the transitions from store to store. He stated the materials
had changed substantially and mentioned which materials would be used (copper - standing seam and cultured stone).
Mr. Pentecost asked Mr. Springer to confirm the locations of the proposed structures on the site plan. Mr. Springer illustrated those locations.
Chairperson Smith stated she had two “Best Buy” renderings. Mr. Springer explained which rendering was the proper depiction. Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Springer if the parking calculations
were correct. Mr. Springer responded they had depicted the minimum allowable amount of parking without having to request express permission from the City Commission. Chairperson Smith
stated the minimum or structured parking would be the only things allowed in the Entryway Corridor according to the Design Objectives Plan. Planner Morris responded the parking had
not been calculated as a mixed-use, but it would make no difference as the parking would be calculated with individual site review. Chairperson Smith stated emphatically that she would
like to see shared parking arrangements or a reduction in parking. She asked if an entrance would be blocked by a portion of façade. Mr. Springer responded that it would be blocked
and asked the DRB to let Staff decide based upon the tenant.
Mr. Krueger stated he had been alone in his non-support of the project at prior review and he felt that his concerns had been addressed by Mr. Springer so that he was now in support
of the project.
Mr. Carpenter stated he supported the project, but saw a need for more flexibility in the franchise architecture.
Mr. Pentecost asked what he would see driving down North 19th Avenue. Mr. Springer showed Mr. Pentecost which elevations he would see. Mr. Pentecost stated he would see articulated
materials on the structure unless he looked at the back sides of the structures. He stated he would critique the east elevation on building #1 and one elevation on building #3 as being
weak and added that if it were he and his office he would develop the facades more and do a better job. He stated the franchise style architecture was subjective and he had seen very
nice Starbucks designs. He stated his primary concern would be the view of the development from North 19th Avenue.
Mr. Howe stated he supported the project but the conditioning of the projects was causing a disturbing similarity between developments. He stated the term “franchise architecture” was
not the use of dirty words, but the criticism from various boards and committees was causing repetitive elements to occur.
Chairperson Smith stated she concurred with Mr. Carpenter that a franchise architectural feature could be acceptable if properly tweaked. She stated the City Commission had been adamant
about leaving franchise architecture out of the development. She stated she liked the relationship of the proposal to the rest of the Stoneridge development and she would echo Mr. Pentecost’s
comments regarding the weak elevations. She stated she supported the requested size increase of the shop buildings specific to this site. She stated condition #8 could be deleted as
the IHOP would be reviewed individually.
Planner Morris asked if anyone had any suggestions regarding the blank elevations. Mr. Springer responded he could do those elevations in shades and shadows as he had done on some of
the facades, but he wanted to maintain variety in form while using the same materials. Chairperson Smith added that the surrounding landscaping would improve the look of the elevations.
Mr. Pentecost stated the design was a great gesture and suggested carrying the elements around the structure. Chairperson Smith stated she would like to condition the project to provide
for DRB review of the individual pad sites. Mr. Springer gave his word that he would work on the blank elevations without having to have another condition placed on the project.
Mr. Krueger stated he had commented to the City Commission in general and suggested the applicant/owner challenge themselves to institute the guidelines from the Design Objectives Plan.
Mr. Springer stated that if the DRB and the City Commission would define franchise architecture specifically it would make everyone’s life easier.
MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Stoneridge Square PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05183 to the City Commission with Staff conditions,
the deletion of conditions relating to the IHOP and the condition restricting the tenants to 6,000 square feet maximum in the B-1 zoning district, the addition of a condition that the
current project be reviewed at FSP submittal and all site plans in this development must be reviewed by the DRB, and the addition of a condition that the increased building size be approved
for the shops and bank but only to the exact sizes depicted on the current site plan. The motion carried 5-0.
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 5:35 p.m.
________________________________
Dawn Smith, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board