Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-05 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 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 Bill Rea David Skelton, Senior Planner Scott Hedglin Jami Morris, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Michael Pentecost Erin Groth, Planner Elissa Zavora Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Visitors Present Steve McGrath Rob Pertzborn Jason Leep Tom Clark Harley Huestis ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 7, 2005. MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Smith stated the Board had no Vice Chairperson at this time and one would need to be elected at a future meeting. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB – Jami Morris. There were no items to discuss at this time. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Hastings Signage (Skelton) 1601 West Main Street * The Informal consideration of a Sketch Plan / Certificate of Appropriateness with a deviation to modify the common signage plan to increase the allowable square footage by 20% on building B. Senior Planner David Skelton gave the DRB an update on the Bozeman Gateway project and mentioned that he had advised the City Commission that the DRB wanted to review the each project on individual site review submittals. Mr. Hedglin stated an article in the paper noted the Commission had expressed concern with regard to the traffic flow of the site. Planner Skelton responded that the Planning Board had voiced concerns regarding the traffic on the site also and explained the required street improvements and the impacts of the projected traffic that had to be mitigated. Planner Skelton presented the DRB with the background information regarding the amendment of the comprehensive signage plan for Hastings. He stated the landscaping instituted on the site was not what had been reviewed and approved by staff and the DRB. He stated Mr. Mickilio from Springer Group Architects would be providing information regarding a request for a 20% relaxation for more signage on the south façade facing West Main Street. However, the landowner has not directed Springer Group Architects to proceed on the request yet. Mr. Rea asked if the DRB was reviewing only the signage or deviation requests. Planner Skelton responded the DRB could review landscaping as well as any site related or architectural improvements. Of concern was the south elevation that faces onto the West Main streetscape. Chairperson Smith asked if the rest of the development of the PUD were continued, would the applicant have to go through the review process again as they had not kept to the approved site plan. Planner Skelton responded the review process could change dramatically if the applicant decided to request deviations. Chairperson Smith asked in which phase the parking lot would be addressed. Planner Skelton responded the project was financially guaranteed to be completed within a year and the parking lot should be addressed within that time period for the present phase. The parking improvements to the east would occur with future expansions along the Osco side of the building. He added that he would e-mail the DRB a Staff Report and digital photos. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Baxter Meadows Phase I Mods to PUD #Z-05264 (Morris) 3864 Baxter Lane * A modification to an approved Planned Unit Development requesting to allow land use designation changes and the bungalow lots to be counted as Restricted Size Lots. Jason Leep joined the DRB. Chairperson Smith asked Associate Planner Jami Morris to explain the relationship between this modification request and the last request they had reviewed from Baxter Meadows. Mr. Leep responded that there were two PUD’s being reviewed individually for similar relaxation requests. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report noting the requested modification was for Lot 1 to be residential instead of community center. She stated Staff recommended Lots 2, 3, and 4 remain designated as community center. She noted which lots had already been developed as condos and added that the applicant was requesting the Restricted Size Lots be smaller than the 5,000 square foot minimum and were requesting a relaxation from the floor area ratio. Mr. Leep stated all but two of the houses met the minimum size requirements and the owners of the properties would need to declare on the deed that they owned RSL lots to prevent any additions to the structures in the future if lot sizes allowed. Mr. Rea asked if all the proposed RSL lots were built out. Mr. Leep responded they were. Mr. Rea asked how the lots were built to RSL density if they were already built out. Planner Morris responded the requirement had not yet been instituted in the code when the development was originally approved and the applicant was asking for credit for those existing lots toward phase III of the development; which does fall under the U.D.O. Mr. Hedglin asked if the PUD had been approved with additional amenities that included the RSL lots. Planner Windemaker responded the PUD had been approved with additional amenities, but she did not know if the RSL’s had been considered as such. Mr. Leep suggested the community centers were additional amenities and noted where they would be located. Mr. Hedglin asked if the open space requirements were calculated for the PUD as a whole. Planner Windemaker responded the open space was calculated phase by phase but the parkland requirements were calculated for the PUD as a whole. Chairperson Smith asked the purpose of the request for the RSL designations. Planner Morris responded it was retroactive credit to meet the RSL requirements for future phases. Chairperson Smith asked if the maximum sizes and ratios for the RSL lots would be the same for the other phases. Planner Morris responded they would be the same. Mr. Rea asked if the existing barn on the site was protected. Planner Morris responded that it had no significant historical value and was not protected. Mr. Hedglin stated he did not like the idea of grouping the RSL lots so closely together, but if the applicant was willing to petition the owners to change the deed, then he would leave it to the individual homeowners. He stated he agreed with Staff conditions. Chairperson Smith stated she supported Staff conditions, but her concern was getting the owners of the 40 proposed RSL lots to agree to deed amendments. Mr. Hedglin asked if it was appropriate to ask the applicant to publicly notice the requested deed amendments for the lots. Planner Morris responded it would be noticed through the Planning Office per code requirements. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Baxter Meadows Phase I Mods to PUD #Z-05264 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-0. B. Baxter Meadows Phase III PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05266 (Windemaker) Northeast of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Harper Puckett Road * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan with relaxations to allow the construction of 129 single-family dwelling units. Jason Leep and Robert Pertzborn joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting the location of the development as the farthest west quarter of the PUD. She stated it would be the lowest density phase of the development and added that the City Commission had agreed to the removal of the equestrian component of the proposal. She stated the purpose of three different plans for phase III was to provide enough RSL lots to meet the requirement if there weren’t enough created in phases I & II, and to show the possible school site. She stated Staff did not support the request for 5% of the net buildable area, but CAHAB did support 7.5% of the net buildable area and Staff was in agreement. She stated Staff would not support the relaxation requested to count part of the watercourse setback to satisfy park dedication requirements, but the stream corridor and wetlands could be counted as park dedication land. She stated the block that did not meet the size requirements would be allowable due to extenuating circumstances of orientation and lot restrictions. She stated the development guidelines would need to illustrate various architectural requirements, varied rooflines, fences, etc. Mr. Rea asked if Staff conditions 2, 3, & 4 applied to the proposal. Planner Windemaker explained that she did not think those conditions would apply as they were addressed in prior phases of the PUD. Mr. Rea asked if the stream corridor and wetlands counting as parkland was a standard practice and not precedent setting. Planner Windemaker responded it was standard practice. Ms. Zavora asked why phase II had been skipped. Planner Windemaker explained that phase II had been approved prior to Ms. Zavora’s appointment to the DRB and that the RSL requirements did not exist during phases I & II of the development. Mr. Rea asked if the potential school property ended at Cattail Street and if any of it was built out. Planner Windemaker responded Cattail Street was the boundary and the property had not been built out. Chairperson Smith asked if the applicant would meet the parkland requirements without the stream corridor and wetlands. Planner Windemaker responded they would still meet the requirements. Chairperson Smith asked the minimum width requirements for the open space areas. Planner Windemaker responded there was no minimum width but Staff recommended a minimum width of thirty feet. Chairperson Smith asked if there was a relaxation request for the alleys. Planner Windemaker responded there had been no relaxation request for the alleys in this phase of the development. Mr. Leep stated the applicant disagreed with Staff condition #6 that the 2.4 acres not be counted as parkland and added that their relaxation would be payment for a special request to re-route the ditch through the park to add a water feature and it had been done intentionally to improve the area. Mr. Pertzborn added that the protection of critical habitat would be given credit, but the dry area fifty feet on either side of the re-routed ditch should be credited to the open space. Mr. Pertzborn stated the total qualifying amount of parkland equaled 4.11 acres in excess for parkland and 6.97 acres in excess for open space calculations. He added that just because the applicant did not need the acreage to meet the current phase’s requirements did not mean the earned points should be disallowed. Planner Windemaker responded the intent of the watercourse setback was to keep the public outside of an area that could potentially flood when there was no specific floodplain designation. Chairperson Smith asked where the extra land would be used in the future. Mr. Pertzborn responded it would be used in future phases of the development. Chairperson Smith asked the use of a bare section of land by Harper Puckett Road. Mr. Leep responded it was intended as a buffer zone. Chairperson Smith asked if there were maintenance agreements in place to maintain the buffer areas. Mr. Pertzborn responded there would be maintenance and landscaping arrangements. Mr. Pertzborn added they would have comprehensive landscaped features encompassing the buffer areas. Chairperson Smith noted locations on the plat where trail connections did not seem to exist and asked the reason for the 30 feet of open space along C Drive if it was not to be used as a trail corridor. Mr. Pertzborn responded that there would be a retention pond within the 30 feet of open space and a trail would be integrated at that location. Chairperson Smith asked if some land would be dedicated to the school. Mr. Pertzborn responded the school would be buying the property. Chairperson Smith asked what type of trail would be on Riatta Road. Mr. Pertzborn responded there would be sidewalks. Chairperson Smith asked what offset the applicant was presenting for the addition of the watercourse setback into the parkland requirements. Mr. Leep responded the water feature had been instituted to enhance the open space as opposed to the underground piping of the ditch. Mr. Huestis added that the ditch had been instituted as an asset to a proposed park and could have been removed so that the land it now occupied would have been counted with the required parkland. Mr. Hedglin stated he realized the RSL’s in phase III were contingent upon phases I & II and he felt the RSL lots should be spread uniformly throughout the development. He stated he would support the requested relaxation to count the fifty feet of land along the ditch as parkland if there were connections between all of the phases of the development, but only if the connections were instituted. Mr. Rea asked if he was correctly reading that there were high density lots depicted. Mr. Leep responded they were supposed to be medium density lots. He stated he appreciated the developers issue with the stream setback, but the ditch existed when the property was purchased and there could be a precedent setting issue in the future if the relaxation request was granted. He asked if there was a reason the RSL lots were not spread uniformly throughout the development. Mr. Leep responded the phasing of the developments and the orientation of the RSL lots on the alleyways made scattering those lots difficult. Mr. Rea stated he echoed Mr. Hedglin’s concerns regarding breaking up the concentration of the RSL lots. Mr. Leep responded the design of the RSL lots in one area would tie them together and ultimately make the design of the structures better. Mr. Huestis added that a certain number of RSL lots needed to be instituted in phase III of the development. Planner Windemaker added the RSL grouping was quite impressive and some of the issues would be alleviated if Phases I & II met most of the RSL requirement. Mr. Rea stated that Block 16 along D Way seemed incredibly awkward and those two properties would be difficult to sell. He stated he was curious if there would be fence restrictions along Baxter Lane and Harper Puckett Road with regard to condition #9. Planner Windemaker responded there would be and added that condition #10 allowed for a taller fence outside of the setback area if need be. Ms. Zavora stated she appreciated the institution of the stream within the park area, but agreed with Mr. Rea that allowing those acres to be counted as parkland requirements would be detrimentally precedent setting. Chairperson Smith stated using the relaxation request as performance points was not an extraordinary feature of the PUD; it was double dipping. She added the dialog had been present since the informal review period and the extraordinary features had not yet been provided. She stated the RSL lots should be more integrated and suggested placing some of the RSL lots across the alley from where they were being proposed. She stated she did not support a decrease in landscaping in place of architecture along Harper Puckett Road. She added that if the school did purchase the land, the applicant should consider a direct off-road connection to the school in a north-south manner. MOTION: Chairperson Smith moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Baxter Meadows Phase III PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05266 with Staff conditions #1- #11, the modification of condition #9 to include fence restrictions, and the addition of condition #12 to better integrate the RSL lots throughout the development. The motion carried 4-0 with Associate Planner Jami Morris providing the fourth vote in the capacity of ADR Staff. C. Lot 24, Stoneridge SP/COA #Z-05271 (Groth) 1289 Stoneridge Drive * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of four condominium units, at 1,632 square feet each, and one 3,500 square foot office building with related site improvements. Tom Clark and Jerry Smania joined the DRB. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Erin Groth to address the reason the DRB was reviewing the project. Planner Groth responded that the project met the thresholds for DRB review and added that there had been items discovered during the Informal review process that had needed to be addressed and the applicant had corrected those items identified. Planner Groth presented the Staff Report noting what corrections the applicant had made. She stated the suggestions from the DRB had been instituted on the current site plan and added that more landscaping had been proposed. Mr. Rea asked what concerns had been identified regarding the drainage pond. Planner Groth responded that the drainage easement had been established to service the subdivision in its entirety. Mr. Rea asked if elevations had been part of the Informal submittal. Planner Groth responded the current elevations had not been modified from the original submittal. Planner Morris asked how many bedrooms would be constructed. Planner Groth responded there would be twelve bedrooms total. Planner Morris asked for the parking calculations. Planner Groth responded there could be a mixed-use reduction with four on-street spaces and added that they were shy two spaces overall for the commercial aspect of the development. Planner Morris asked about the landscaping in lieu of two parking spaces. Planner Groth responded there would be additional screening and the applicant had exceeded the landscaping-in-lieu requirement of 700 square feet. Chairperson Smith asked if the trail would be maintained by the Stoneridge Association. Planner Groth responded the association would maintain the trail. Mr. Smania stated the comments from the Informal DRB review had resulted in a better proposal and added that separation of the uses made the project unusual. He stated the scale of the structures had been decreased and there would be a four-foot brick colored, band placed on all the buildings with features mimicking the surrounding structures. He stated the six-inch standing seam roof, the gables, and the colored band would be the bonding materials used to maintain the overall character of the subdivision. Planner Morris asked Mr. Smania to differentiate between the residential and commercial entries. Mr. Smania noted each location on the site plan and added that the units were wheelchair accessible. Planner Morris asked if the office building entries would have a different character than the residential entries. Mr. Smania responded they would. Planner Morris asked if Mr. Smania expected the people who lived in the units to work there as well. Mr. Smania responded that would be the ideal circumstance. Chairperson Smith asked if there was a gated wall between condos #1 and #2. Mr. Smania responded it would be an open area. Ms. Zavora stated she liked the color scheme proposed for the development, she thought the landscaping in lieu of parking was sufficient, and she appreciated the 150 feet exceeding the requirement. Mr. Rea stated he generally supported the project, he appreciated the proposed color band, and he suggested considering the use of stronger colors. He stated he was concerned with the European walkway between the structures, but he noted the grade difference made the walkway plausible. He stated the tree to the south of the site triangle needed to be moved farther back. Planner Morris stated she liked the design and the layout, but was concerned with the parking allocations and landscaping-in-lieu due to existing parking difficulties in Stoneridge Subdivision. Mr. Clark responded that most of the vehicles were construction vehicles and the problem would be alleviated. Planner Morris responded that she was not suggesting a condition be placed on the parking allocations, but she wanted it known that there was a concern evident. Mr. Clark added that the on-street spaces were obviously for the residential portion of the development. Chairperson Smith stated she supported the modification of the open space area. She stated she rarely supported reductions in parking, but saw no specific cause not to in this instance due to the relative smallness of the project. She added that offsite storage would become necessary in the future. She stated she appreciated the extraordinary landscaping performance in lieu of parking and suggested a seating area near the retention pond. Planner Groth added that she had misstated the parking allocations in the Staff Report, but that would in no way change the calculations depicted on the site plan. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Planner Morris seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Lot 24, Stoneridge SP/COA #Z-05271 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-0 with Associate Planner Jami Morris providing the fourth vote in the capacity of ADR Staff. 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 6:25 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board