Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Bill Hanson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Jami Morris, Associate Planner Mel Howe David Skelton, Senior Planner Carol Asleson Susan Kozub, Planner I Joseph Thomas Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Hanson Visitors Present Clint Litle John Dunlap Lowell Springer M. McGullum Lee Hietala Gene Mickolio Dick Bridy ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2004 Vice Chairperson Hanson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of April 13, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. CONSENT A. ASI Bozeman Senior Housing SP/COA #Z-04074 (Morris) 1441 North 15th Avenue * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 44-unit independent senior housing development and related site improvements. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report, noting the DRB had reviewed the conceptual application, the Preliminary PUD, and the Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Livingston stated he did not remember seeing the submittal prior to this meeting. Planner Morris presented color renderings and diagrams of the Concept and Preliminary PUD’s. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for ASI Bozeman Senior Housing SP/COA #Z-04074. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. West Winds Zoning PUD #Z-04050 (Morris) E. of Davis Lane, S. of Baxter Lane, W. of North 27th Avenue, N. of Oak Street * A Zoning Planned Unit Development Application to allow a unified development plan on 160.30 acres with single-household units, townhouse, apartment, senior housing units (assisted and independent), neighborhood community center facilities, and related park/open space improvements. John Dunlap and Clint Litle joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report, noting the DRB had been provided with the minutes from the conceptual review. She stated Staff supported the project without some of the requested relaxations (a, b, c, & i from the Staff Report). She reviewed the relaxations requested by the applicant and Staff’s position on each. Ms. Asleson asked if the DRB would be seeing the proposal again as she was concerned with the landscape plan. Planner Morris responded the DRB might see a Site Plan, but not the Final PUD unless requested by the DRB. Mr. Litle added that the stream setback and landscape plan would be integrated at a later date. Mr. Livingston asked Planner Morris to explain condition #34 from DRC. Planner Morris responded that the condition stated the applicant had to take access from one of the interior streets rather than from one of the collector/arterial streets. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he could find nothing akin to architectural guidelines in the submittal. Planner Morris responded there was an option through the PUD process allowing a more conceptual idea of architectural guidelines; instead, they had an architectural committee that would sign off on each plan before the building permit was approved. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the one thing that was lacking in the submittal was the architectural guidelines and it was a key piece of the proposal, he added he wanted to be sure the proposal was reviewed under the same criteria as all the others had been. He asked if the diagram depicted the true delineation of the wetlands. Mr. Litle explained grey depicted the wetlands and passive park areas while green was depicting the areas that would be usable. Vice Chairperson Hanson suggested some lots would be impacted by the edge of the wetlands. Mr. Litle responded the watercourse ran through the center of the site, and he had measured the setback from the edge of the watercourse. Mr. Litle added the groundwater was extremely shallow (not a running brook) which allowed native wetland vegetation to grow there. Mr. Springer noted one could have a wetland, respect the environment, and put a usable lot there. Planner Morris responded the owner of the lot would not appreciate being unable to put anything in that location, such as a fence or any other structure generally permitted in a rear yard. Mr. Dunlap stated his intention was to work with the Park & Recreation Advisory Board, and Staff was to govern the PUD as it grew, but he could not bring in all the information at once. Mr. Dunlap stated the reason for the relaxation of the watercourse setback was to provide for active recreation areas (soccer fields) and the use of the land would not change with the development of those recreational areas. Mr. Dunlap stated the requested watercourse setback relaxation was not to provide for a deficiency in parkland requirement. Planner Morris responded the applicant would still have to plant the watercourse setback with native vegetation. Mr. Litle stated the 50 foot setback would cause the planting of native watercourse vegetation in an alfalfa field. Mr. Springer added the native plants would not survive too far from the actual watercourse and suggested transitional plantings. Planner Morris clarified that the setback would still be required to be planted as outlined in the U.D.O. She added the Wetlands Review Board wanted to see the area reconstructed back to its original state. Vice Chairperson Hanson asked if Mr. Dunlap had anything else to discuss. Mr. Dunlap responded that the relaxations were requested to provide for compliance in the submittal. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the park calculation from the planning office was .03 acres per dwelling unit, and the applicant submitted calculations of .03 acres for single-household lots and 11% for the rest of the lots. Planner Morris responded the Pre-Application stated specific densities and the number of units were indicated. Mr. Dunlap responded he applied those densities only as large parcels with an estimated sewer trunk capacity. Mr. Litle stated, in a multi-family calculation, there was no way of telling the density. Planner Morris responded there was a maximum density for an “R-3” lot. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the problem with the applicant’s interpretation of parkland requirements was that it amounted to half of Staff’s calculation and the proposal could not make up the difference the way it was designed. Mr. Dunlap responded it was his understanding that he needed to follow the U.D.O. as the regulatory document and according to the U.D.O. he had met his parkland requirements. Planner Morris responded that the applicant could not provide estimated densities for the sewer, water, etc. and not use the same estimations for parkland requirements. Vice Chairperson Hanson summed up the conversation for the rest of the DRB. Mr. Litle stated the applicant agreed to disagree with Planning Staff. Mr. Livingston asked if there was a maximum density that could be calculated on the property as the lots were zoned. Mr. Dunlap responded there was. Mr. Livingston stated the applicant knew the overall acreage, they knew the maximum density allowed, and he could not see the argument if they knew the key pieces to the calculation. Mr. Dunlap stated if he could not offer a Section 42 housing project, the deal would be broken, but the property would still be developed. He stated he was trying to meet and exceed the PUD standards and provide for Section 42 housing. Mr. Livingston asked if a Cultural Resource Inventory had been conducted. Mr. Litle stated a letter was sent and one would be done. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the PUD was regimented and not integrated. Mr. Litle responded the applicant had attempted to integrate with the surrounding developments. Vice Chairperson Hanson asked if the applicant had considered inter-mingling the types of homes within the subdivision. Mr. Litle responded the uniform design was used to limit the crossing of streets over the wetland areas. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he was more concerned with the streetscape not having rhythm. Mr. Dunlap stated the streets could not have been moved because private access could not be made from Davis Lane. Vice Chairperson Hanson suggested providing access using alleyways instead of streets. He added that he did not see exceptional design elements proposed making it a project worthwhile for DRB support in exchange for relaxations. Mr. Livingston stated the grid street system and design had come a long way from the first review with the DRB. Ms. Aselson stated she could not support any relaxations in the landscaping. She stated since the development itself changed use, so did the use of the watercourse. She stated she could not support the watercourse setback relaxation, and would defer to Staff to calculate the parkland requirements. Ms. Asleson stated she completely supported Staff recommendations. Mr. Howe stated he did not see anything in the submittal that the DRB could review in the way of architectural design. He stated green usable areas had to be included on the site; however, he could only forward the proposal to the City Commission stating he supported Staff recommendations. Mr. Thomas stated he did not support the relaxation for the watercourse setbacks. He stated the design of the parking lots could change. He stated he would like to see more of a lead into the subdivision, using the buildings to bring people into the area instead of parking lots. Mr. Livingston stated everyone would like to think the UDO was the perfect document, but it would never be that way, and it all came down to how one interpreted the document. He stated he had difficulty understanding why the applicant could not calculate the parkland requirements based on the maximum density. Mr. Livingston stated people forget there is a certain amount of natural vegetation for wildlife and the preservation of natural environments. He stated he agreed with the Planning Staff with regard to parkland calculations, and he supported Staff recommendations. Vice Chairperson Hanson suggested the park required a different character. He stated he could not support the requested relaxation for the watercourse setback. He stated he supported Staff’s parkland calculation. He stated the only internal street with bike lanes was Tschache Lane and he suggested that Hunters Way or Buckrake Avenue include bike lanes. Ms. Asleson asked to see the landscape plan when the other issues with setbacks and parkland requirements had been met. MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for West Winds Zoning PUD #Z-04050 with Staff recommendations, denial of requested relaxations A, B, and C, and the addition of two conditions; 1) the DRB is to review a Final P.U.D. Plan including the landscape plan and the Park Master Plan, and 2) the DRB is to review the elaborated architectural guidelines including streetscapes and entry details. The motion carried 5-0. B. Hastings Shopping Center SP/COA #Z-04047 (Skelton) 1601 West Main Street * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a three phase redevelopment of the existing shopping center including; façade renovation, parking lot improvements, and new retail space fronting Main Street. Dick Bridy joined the DRB. Planner Kozub presented the Staff Report on Planner Skelton’s behalf, noting the proposal included façade, landscaping, and parking lot improvements. Planner Kozub stated the three deviations originally requested were no longer needed. She stated there would be two variances requested, one for parking spaces along Main Street, and one for the landscaping to be completed later than required. Mr. Springer stated the variance request was to wait for the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to give the applicant permission to install plant materials, but the parking lot would be completed. Mr. Bridy stated the parking calculation only considered the existing structures and the applicant had provided an excess of the required parking by 30-40 spaces. Vice Chairperson Hanson asked for a description of the entryway corridor width. Planner Kozub directed the DRB’s attention to the zoning map and illustrated where the entryway corridors were located. Mr. Livingston asked if there were any problems with the Montana Department of Transportation. Mr. Springer responded they were unhappy with the arrangement of the entrances and exits due to conflicting turns. Vice Chairperson Hanson asked if the condition of the unified signage plan meant they had to meet the square footage requirements. Planner Kozub stated it did. Mr. Bridy stated he had renewed every tenant in the shopping center who could be renewed, so those tenants would be there for quite some time. He added that Hastings had received approval of their current sign; however, he could foresee future difficulties with their sign. Mr. Springer stated Red Mountain was working on the design of the sign. Planner Kozub added the individual sign permits would be reviewed at a later date. Mr. Springer stated he had a client who agreed to improve the property specifically for the community without gaining much of anything for the improvements. He stated they were trying to keep it affordable and still do a nice job. Ms. Asleson asked if the speed bumps and exit onto North 15th Avenue would be eliminated. Mr. Springer responded they would. Mr. Bridy stated McDonalds had three access point rights on their lot, and they would close off one driveway, but the applicant and McDonalds were in preliminary discussions to acquire more space for McDonalds and improve the drive-through area. He stated they were trying to accommodate the flow of traffic through the parking lot. Mr. Springer stated a car would get time to slow down, be diverted in, and stacked in a safer location. Vice Chairperson Hanson asked the applicant to review the total number of parking stalls proposed. Mr. Springer responded if the site were completely built out, there would be 30 parking spaces over the required number (380 required – 486 allocated spaces in the proposal). Mr. Bridy stated that even if they increased the size of the building, there would still be excess parking spaces. Mr. Livingston stated he was concerned with the pedestrian access point at the base of the hill for safety reasons. He suggested better locations. Mr. Springer responded the requirement would be more of a landing, and then a gradual hill to the street. Mr. Livingston asked if in the FSP the parking would still be over the required amount. Mr. Bridy stated that even if the proposed new building was 30,000 square feet, he would still have 30 extra parking spaces. Mr. Livingston stated that cutting across the parking lot would be the hardest habit to break and there should be some pedestrian access to ease that difficulty. Mr. Bridy stated there was indemnity from the D.E.Q. regarding penetrating the blacktop and causing an existing situation to get worse. Mr. Bridy stated it was his intent to provide landscaping from the edge of Osco and all the way around the building. He stated he would rely on the Cashman Nursery analysis and the D.E.Q. for landscaping issues. Mr. Livingston stated he agreed with Staff conditions and noted he would add a condition to provide for pedestrian crosswalks. Vice Chairperson Hanson suggested the applicant include some sort of pedestrian pathway across from the high-school as there was so much pedestrian traffic from that direction. He stated he would love to see the relocation of the parking fronting Main Street. Mr. Bridy responded he would not have parking places for patrons of Pork Chop Johns if he removed that section of parking. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he supported the project. Ms. Asleson added when she went to the UPS store, the corner of parking nearest that store was usually packed full of vehicles. MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Hastings Shopping Center SP/COA #Z-04047 with Staff conditions and the addition of two conditions 13) pedestrian access from east to west across the site at the existing approach from North 19th Avenue shall be installed, and 14) the pedestrian access shall be located further north from the West Main Street drive approach, subject to review and approval by the City Planning Department. The motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Hanson moved to add condition 15) to delete the row of parking fronting West Main Street, west of the center access drive, for a continuous landscape barrier along West Main Street. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Vice Chairperson Hanson seconded, to add condition 15) to plant an additional landscape island 10’ by 20’minimum size (two parking spaces), with the installation of a tree, on the West Main Street frontage directly opposite the Hideaway Lounge. 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. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. ________________________________ Bill Hanson, Vice Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board