Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Joseph Thomas Jami Morris, Associate Planner Christopher Livingston Susan Kozub, Assistant Planner Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Randy Carpenter Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Carol Asleson Bill Hanson Visitors Present Tim German Tim Howard Lark Gould George Mattson Dick Clotfelter Merle Adams Tannis Adams ITEM 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2003 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 9, 2003. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Adams/Gould Appeal #C-03005 (Kozub) 212 North Church Avenue * An Appeal Application to contest the construction of a new, single household dwelling unit. Merle Adams, Tannis Adams, Pete Stein, and Lark Gould joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report, noting public comment had been received after the DRB packets had been couriered. She distributed copies of the public comments to the DRB members. Planner Kozub explained the procedures for the review process of an Appeal Application. She listed the items Staff was concerned with when the initial application was submitted. She stated Merle and Tannis Adams (neighbors) had filed the Appeal Application. Mr. Hanson stated the issues involved were more subjective and asked for Staff’s position on the original project. Planner Kozub stated Staff initially had concerns, but after DRB Informal Review, had decided to approve the project with conditions. Mr. Howe abstained from comment on this project due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Asleson asked what impact the DRB decision would have on the project. Planner Kozub responded the DRB would be providing comments and a recommendation to the City Commission. Chairperson Smith asked what review process would apply if the applicant were to instead remodel and add additions to the existing house. Planner Kozub responded the review process would be the same. Chairperson Smith asked if the mediation meeting proceedings would be kept separate from the Appeal process. Planner Kozub responded a general report from the mediation consultants is included in the file for public access, but the details would not be included. Chairperson Smith asked, as far as mediation was concerned, was it fair for the DRB to ask the applicants on both sides to discuss the outcome of it. Planner Kozub responded that both parties could be asked any questions regarding the project. Chairperson Smith asked what the side yard setbacks were for that area. Planner Kozub responded the side yard setbacks were five feet, but had been seven feet in the past. Mr. Adams stated he and his wife had lived on North Church for 15 years. He stated the architect for the Goulds (Pete Stein) had approached his wife and stated “she should enjoy the sunlight while she could because it would be gone soon”. He stated all the people involved had agreed to participate in a facilitated meeting that had few, if any, results. He stated Mr. Stein had made a comment with regard to Church Avenue going to look like uptown Butte. Mr. Adams read an excerpt from an article regarding “good neighbor” policies when constructing homes. He stated it was not his intention to assure the Goulds could not construct a home. He added he would like to see the lot developed and a new home constructed to replace the existing home. He suggested relocating the house back thirty additional feet on the lot. He stated the upstairs bedroom, as proposed, would land literally ten feet away from the driveway pad of his home where he parks his diesel truck. He stated the Goulds would only agree to move ten feet back, but that would be even more of a problem for he and his wife. He stated he was in the design guild and he was continually trying to solve problems within constraints. He stated that for five months out of the year, the features of the proposed home would cast a shadow on his home. He stated he had redesigned the Goulds property while trying to keep true to their intentions, and he understood the Goulds would not take and use his idea, but he was attempting to illustrate that a solution could be reached even if it was not his solution. Ms. Gould interjected that the specific contents of the facilitated meeting were to be confidential. Mr. Adams and Chairperson Smith concurred. Mr. Adams stated the proposed home would negatively affect his daily life. Mr. Hanson stated he was struggling with the Adams’ house being as tall as the proposed structure and what the effect of that height was to the neighbor next to him. Mr. Adams responded there was an empty lot next to his lot and his house was constructed in 1892 and remains in its original shape and design. Chairperson Smith asked what Mr. Adams thought would be an overall solution. Mr. Adams stated he would decrease the roof pitch from a 9:12 to a 6:12. Chairperson Smith asked if a 6:12 pitched roof was characteristic of a historic home. Mr. Adams responded, in his opinion, many historic Craftsman style roofs had a roof pitch of less than a 6:12. Ms. Gould stated they took into consideration light issues affecting the neighbors in the design of the home. She stated the two parties had agreed to move the home ten feet back on the lot, but Mr. Adams had changed his mind and insisted on thirty feet. She stated she was offended that everyone thought the home would be a “scar” on the neighborhood. Mr. Stein stated he respected Mr. Adams’ ideas and had worked with him many times. He stated he apologized for his comment about the light and had not thought it would be taken seriously. He explained the height limit was thirty two feet and the project did not call for anything that exceeded the code. He stated the ridge of the building was farther from the property line than the other existing buildings in that neighborhood. He stated the Goulds had chosen the style of architecture to help protect the light to the north. He stated the existing spruce trees should be removed if light consideration of the neighbors was an issue. He stated the mass of the building was farther from the property line than either of the surrounding structures. He stated the building could be reduced a foot or two, but not much else could be done without totally redesigning the structure. Ms. Asleson asked if any other floor plans were entertained or discussed. Ms. Gould responded a lot of thought had gone into the footprint of the building and the result was to accommodate relatives who might be living at the residence. Mr. Livingston asked what Ms. Gould’s response was to moving the home an additional thirty feet back on the lot. Ms. Gould responded Planning Staff would not support the structure being set back a total of 50 feet. Planner Kozub added that the move of an additional thirty feet to the rear of the lot would disrupt the streetscape. Mr. Livingston asked whether or not the setback was to the dripline and could it be encroached upon. Mr. Stein responded that the International Building Code had requirements for eave encroachment. Ms. Gould added the project only took up 20% of the lot as opposed to the 40% allowable. Mr. Hanson stated Mr. Stein had suggested the rules were changing according to the appearance of this project and Mr. Hanson wanted to clarify that the ordinance had not changed and the DRB was reviewing the Appeal with respect to the Ordinance. Ms. Asleson asked where the ridgeline began and ended. Mr. Stein responded the ridge began at the shed and indicated on the drawing where it ended. Ms. Asleson questioned where and when the shading would occur due to the height of the building. Mr. Adams responded the ridge height of the building would cause there to be no winter sun from October to April. Mr. Livingston asked if the Goulds had offered to do a “sun study” to determine the true impact the height of the building would have on the neighbors. He stated that during the previous DRB review he had commented about walking the “street wall” on North Church Avenue. He stated he thought the manipulation of that façade had broken up the street wall. He stated he did not think it was a particularly specific neighborhood as far as housing stock and that the taller main gable was consistent with the area. He stated the biggest issue was the shadow. He stated they needed to remember that the gable was shorter than depicted, and while there was a certain amount of shadow December through January, it was a moving shadow and one could find the exact conditions on another street at the same time of year. He stated he felt the proposed residence was consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. He cited the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and the wording that described diversity in historic neighborhoods. Mr. Hanson stated he appreciated his colleague’s comments. He stated he applauded the Goulds proposal for its urban in-fill qualities. He stated from a design standpoint, he did not think the house would decrease the appeal of the neighborhood, and he thought it would instead increase the appeal of the area. He stated the issue of the blocking of the sun was difficult, but if there was a Dynamic Angle Test done they would find there were only a few times when the sun would be blocked by the proposed home. Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She stated she felt the appropriateness and design of the proposal were in keeping with the surrounding area, and a sun angle study would be a good idea. Chairperson Smith stated the DRB had not previously reviewed an Appeal Application, and the issue was not easily resolved because the DRB could understand both sides of the situation. She stated her impression of the area was that it was diverse and she was surprised that so many people disliked the proposed home because it was not the same as the rest of the neighborhood. She stated the proposal was in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. She stated she agreed with previous DRB comments and supported the proposed home. MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to recommend denial of the Adams/Gould Appeal #C-03005 to the City Commission. Motion carried 4-0 with Mr. Howe abstaining. B. Bridger Peaks Village Final Site Plan #Z-03175 (Morris) NW corner of Oak Street and the proposed North 15th Avenue * A Final Site Plan Application requesting approval for the unified development of a 120 unit affordable, senior, and handicapped housing complex per DRB conditions of approval at the Preliminary Plan stage of the application process. Tim Howard joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report, noting the DRB had reviewed the project in August. She stated the subdivision portion of the proposal had been approved. Mr. Livingston asked if the colored depictions referenced in the submittal document existed. Planner Morris displayed Staff’s copy for the DRB to review. The DRB concurred that all Staff and DRB conditions had been met since the previous meeting. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW A. City Center Project Master Plan Informal #I-03051 (Windemaker) East Beall Street, North Black Avenue, East Main Street, North Willson Avenue * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the City Center Project Master Plan. Richard Clotfelter joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report, noting the DRB had not reviewed a Master Site Plan as of yet, and due to the recent adoption of the UDO, they were reviewing it for the first time. She introduced the mixed-use project consisting of cultural facilities, hotel and conference center, and office and retail space. She explained that several structures would be demolished and the Cat Eye Café would be relocated. She stated the applicant was requesting height deviations, and no minimum yard along the south side of Mendenhall Street. She stated the applicant would be required to provide historical information on the Cat Eye Café in case the structure was damaged during relocation. She stated Staff suggested the architectural guidelines be enhanced with regard to the downtown streetscape. She stated the human scale found along Main Street should be continued. She stated the deviation for the setback along Mendenhall Street would be checked to be sure there was no issue with the sight vision triangle. She stated the proposal has to be found compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Howe stated he did not understand the issue with the sky-bridge and human scale. Planner Windemaker explained that sky bridges tend to draw pedestrians off of the street, unless there is enough activity on the ground floor to attract the interest of pedestrians. To maintain the human scale when a design has sky bridges or tall buildings, the ground floor must have activities like display windows and entrances to attract pedestrians. Mr. Hanson asked if it was an Informal Review of a master plan. Planner Windemaker stated the DRB should express concerns, give recommendations, and determine whether or not the submittal was detailed enough for formal comments. Chairperson Smith asked if the proposal was appropriate for the zone in which it was located. Planner Windemaker stated the only issue was the duplex, which could be changed to a five-plex or done as a PUD. Chairperson Smith asked if Straight-A-Way Motors would relocate. Planner Windemaker responded that the UDO requires the business to be located on an arterial street, and the current proposal did not meet that requirement. Chairperson Smith asked what the implications were for a historical building such as the Ellen Theater. Mr. Clotfelter responded nothing would be done to alter the building. Planner Bristor responded any changes interior or exterior would require a Certificate of Appropriateness review by the Planning Office. Mr. Clotfelter stated the area on both sides of Main Street allowed a building height of 55 feet. He stated the proposed height of the Performing Arts Center was due to the loading docks needing to be at the same height as the stage. He stated the idea was that retail uses would be around the edges of the structures and on the ground floor. He stated a parking garage has optimum dimensions when accessing from the alley and the retail spaces had to have a proper depth so some of it would be located inside the garage. He stated the Master Site Plan formal application would include a traffic study. He stated they had tried to focus the height of the structures along Mendenhall Street, and duplicate the streetscape of Main Street on Mendenhall Street. He stated there was a covered area between the buildings that made it a nice pedestrian gathering spot and the covered walkways provided pathways to several of the buildings without forcing ground-level pedestrian paths to be over capacity. He stated they were attempting to keep traffic out of the residential areas. He stated the height, coverage, and alleys were concerns for the DRB to address. He stated the RFP for the garage was due by Friday. Chairperson Smith asked for the order in which the structures would be built. Mr. Clotfleter explained the order of events. He added the issues needed to be cleared within the next ninety days to accommodate funding mechanisms. Mr. Livingston asked Mr. Clotfelter to explain the land exchanges and if the parking garage was the keystone to the project. Mr. Clotfelter explained which existing structures would be moved. He stated the parking garage was the only element that had to have public financing. Mr. Livingston asked where it was documented that there was a parking shortage in downtown Bozeman. Mr. Clotfleter stated there were documented studies indicating the city was only 10% away from its parking capacity. Mr. Clotfelter added there would be another 200+ new jobs available at the completion of the project. Mr. Hanson stated he found it interesting in negotiations with the city that there had been no discussion for integrating housing into the proposal. Mr. Clotfelter responded the problems with including housing in the proposal were that building heights and the cost of building would increase. Mr. Hanson stated, from an aesthetic standpoint, the inclusion of residences on parking structures worked well to mask the parking. Ms. Asleson asked if the applicant was requesting to put the parking garage adjacent to the street or the sidewalk, and if it was because of the necessary width of the structure. Mr. Clotfelter responded the Armory face was setback and they wanted to maintain that distance from the street. He stated the design had used part of the alley to compensate for the front setback. Ms. Asleson asked if the height of the structure was to accommodate loading purposes. Mr. Clotfelter responded they could look into lowering the height a few feet, but would have to take into consideration the length of the delivery trucks. Chairperson Smith asked which structures would be built with what funds and if anything was guaranteed to be built. Mr. Clotfelter explained the funding and stated nothing was guaranteed to be built. Chairperson Smith asked what Staff was considering as bonding to guarantee completion of the project in a timely manner. Planner Windemaker stated each structure would be reviewed individually as far as financial guarantees were concerned. She added there could be bonding issues if there were any doubt that there may not be enough parking. Mr. Howe stated he thought the submittal for the City Center was well arranged and thorough. Mr. Livingston stated he had no problems, with the exception of the pedestrian bridge, which seemed ridiculous. He stated it seemed a characteristic of a dying city and not a growing one. He stated the one thing interesting about the project was the parking garage. He stated the first iteration of the parking garage was that he would have to pay for part of it. Mr. Clotfelter stated the business owners who would benefit from the garage and the city would pay for the structure and there would be no taxes incurred. Mr. Hanson stated he liked seeing the proposal in the Concept Master Plan stage. He stated with the formal submittal he would like to see the architectural design of the proposal and he thought there was some necessity for architectural guidelines to be imposed on the project. He stated signage and lighting would become important. He stated there could be a unifying vocabulary interpreted differently from building to building. He stated he agreed with Mr. Livingston that he did not like the sky-bridge. He stated he supported Staff and DRB comments. Chairperson Smith stated she thought downtown Bozeman needed a hotel, but had concerns that the hotel would not be appropriate for the surrounding area. She stated she did not think the downtown needed a conference building, parking area, or performing arts center. She stated she concurred with Mr. Hanson regarding the need for architectural guidelines. She stated she did not have an issue with the pedestrian bridge, but she would like to see a sidewalk connection included. She suggested the structures be setback further from Mendenhall Street to accommodate snow removal. She stated her ultimate concern was the ability of Mendenhall Street to handle roughly 800 cars in a half hour time span exiting the site (Performance Arts Center). Mr. Clotfelter stated the traffic study would address those issues. Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She suggested an outdoor plaza be incorporated into the design. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Bristor if there were any historical issues which needed to be addressed. Planner Bristor responded, aside from the Cat Eye Cafe building, there were no other historical issues to be addressed. Mr. Mattson stated he and his wife had driven into Bozeman from Billings and he thought the streetscape was lovely and it was a revelation to see a city so beautiful. 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. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:14 p.m. _____________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board