Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:28 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Carol Asleson Bill Hanson Randy Carpenter Mel Howe Visitors Present Jonathan Roen James Nickelsen ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2004 Chairperson Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of May 11, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. CFT/VLC Zoning PUD #Z-04099 (Saunders) 2311 South 7th Avenue * A Zoning Planned Unit Development application to allow the construction of three office/lab buildings, the division of the existing VLC building for separate ownership, and related site improvements with, private streets, concurrent construction, and yard encroachments. Jonathan Roen and James Nickelsen joined the DRB. Planner Saunders presented the Staff Memo, noting the proposal was to subdivide the existing parcel into six lots. He stated all subdivision issues had been addressed at the DRC meetings. He stated the concerns identified for DRB consideration included: buffering the project from adjoining properties, the character of the development, and how the overall PUD would relate to surrounding lots. Mr. Roen stated the site was existing and the developer proposed to divide the lot between the three building units and construct buildings on the other lots. He stated some of the existing parking would be removed, and some would be modified. He stated the existing buildings would have as little as possible done to them and would keep the characteristics of the LigoCyte building and the Lone Eagle building located in the MSU Technology Park. Mr. Nickelsen stated the applicant’s goal was to take the existing building, break it into a three occupant site, and expand it to accommodate the occupants. Mr. Howe asked if it was Lot 6 they were discussing. Mr. Roen responded it was. Mr. Howe asked if there were any plans to develop the remaining space on the lot. Mr. Roen responded no, it would be used for water retention and open space requirements. He stated the parking and green space depicted were not what they would propose if they had a raw, undeveloped site. Ms. Asleson asked for clarification of the lot line between the Allison Subdivision and the site. Mr. Roen responded the applicant would initiate a boundary line relocation. Planner Saunders noted there was a portion of parkland dedicated from the Allsion Subdivision that would be touching the extension of Lot 6 used for open space. Mr. Carpenter asked what future access would be to the site. Mr. Roen responded that certain types of businesses had an agreement to use the site, and the access easement was an agreement between VLC and Montana State University. He added South 11th Avenue would be the primary access. Ms. Asleson asked if the continuation of South 7th Avenue was a public street. Planner Saunders responded the continuation was not a public street, rather, a water easement that was granted by the State to the City in the 1940’s. Mr. Carpenter asked if the three different tenants would be on lots 1, 2, & 3. Mr. Roen responded there would be multiple buildings on lots 1, 2, & 3 and three different tenants in the existing building on lots 5, 6, & 7. Mr. Carpenter asked if the site was swampy and wet. Planner Saunders responded the university pumped water from the pond adjacent to the site that was fed by the ditch along the South 11th Avenue right of way, and there was water in the existing ditch connecting to Figgins Creek. He added there was a several foot elevation change from the adjoining sites. Mr. Hanson stated future plans indicated an expansion towards the residential area and asked if any residential units were planned for the south side of the site. Planner Saunders responded the use would probably be single homes. Mr. Hanson asked if the site could be broken into smaller scale buildings to be in better keeping with the surrounding area. Mr. Nickelsen responded there may be constraints by building costs, but they would consider it. Mr. Hanson asked what Planner Saunders thoughts were on the drainage and retention on the site. Planner Saunders responded safety was an issue as the West Nile Virus was headlining the news and there were two components needing juggling - to develop a natural looking, working drainage and retention area, and the possible development of a wetland habitat. Mr. Hanson stated there also should be usable open space. Planner Saunders pointed out several areas that were potential usable open spaces. Mr. Carpenter asked what the estimated number of employees would be. Planner Saunders responded approximately one person per 300 square feet of building (about 800 people) would be the estimated maximum. Mr. Livingston asked which of the submittal materials was most current. Mr. Roen responded the drawing was most current. Mr. Livingston asked what was meant by “eliminate the need of geology……” in the submittal materials. Mr. Nickelsen responded the applicant was requesting relief from hiring a geologist or biologist to look at the site (the E.A. requirement). Chairperson Smith stated she understood the only way the applicant could count all the open space on the site was through the PUD. Planner Saunders responded the individual lots would be required to have 40% non-impervious open space for each lot. Chairperson Smith asked if there were any current developments using a PUD so they could count as much open space as possible. Planner Saunders responded that residential developments were meeting open space requirements with parks. Chairperson Smith asked if there were commercial developments using PUD’s. Planner Saunders responded business developments assumed each lot was standing on its own as far as open space was concerned. Chairperson Smith asked if this site had the option of using part of the site as open space, or as something else. Mr. Roen responded the Allison Subdivision may have a retention pond easement on this site, which might double as the applicant’s open space. Planner Saunders stated a large rectilinear pit would not meet the open space requirement and, when the project came in for Preliminary Plat Approval, Planning Staff would need to see a fairly detailed design of how that specific area would be used. He stated they could use reasonable estimates for the cubic feet of water leaving the site to determine whether or not the retention pond was able to handle the amount. Ms. Asleson stated she hoped to see a considerable amount of buffering between the residential adjacencies and the commercial areas of the site. She added she would like to see a geology and soils report to be certain there were no leaks from the labs on the site, and to discover the quality of the groundwater. Mr. Carpenter complimented the applicant for going through a PUD and he hoped there could be a dual function served by the open space as a detention pond and recreational uses for the employees. Mr. Hanson stated he had no concerns with the requested deviations. He suggested using residential friendly architecture or reducing the sizes of the proposed buildings on the site due to the residential use likely to abut the south side of the site. He stated for PUD’s to be granted deviations or relaxations, the proposal would have to be exemplary by providing benefits of pedestrian trails, open space, exceptional design, etc. Mr. Livingston stated there was one area that was basically a loading dock which used a part of the trail and open space for access and a different access should be planned. He stated he did not know if all the impervious cover was necessary and he would like the applicant to minimize the amount. Chairperson Smith stated she was concerned with the amount of parking on Lots 1 and 2. She stated there could be changes made to create one continuous business park on three lots. She stated she agreed with Mr. Hanson that there was too much development on the lots and not enough usable open space. She stated a rearrangement of the parking and the buildings would help buffer residential development to the south. Mr. Roen stated the lot lines between lots 1, 2, & 3 were thrown in at the very end. He stated the site was planned as a whole, and the intention was to meet the parking requirements while maintaining some of the existing storm water retention. He stated, otherwise, all the parking would need to be removed and the whole site would have to be graded. ITEM 4. 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 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. ________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board