Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-04 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2004 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson pro temp Randy Carpenter called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Carol Asleson Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Joseph Thomas Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Brian Krueger Scott Hedglin Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Tomas Bitnar Karin Caroline ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2004 Chairperson pro temp Carpenter called for corrections or additions to the minutes of October 13, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr.Thomas seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Village Downtown Lofts PUD Prel. Plan #Z-04265 (Windemaker) Village Downtown Boulevard and Village Crossing Way * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow four 5-story buildings containing 168 dwelling units to be constructed on two lots. Tomas Bitnar and Karin Caroline joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting she wanted to clarify that there were two buildings with four towers containing the proposed 168 dwelling units. She noted the requested relaxations and that Staff was supportive of them as the probability of any other development being significantly impacted by the requested relaxations is low. Ms. Caroline stated the project was the second phase of development. She indicated the location of the living units and stated all units had north or south views with shared, interior courtyard areas. She stated the finished-grade height would be 70 or 75 feet. Mr. Bitnar stated the project was very large for the Bozeman area. He stated they had tried to remain in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and they had created the model as a visible example. He stated Main Street had many different styles of architecture, including art deco. He stated they used elements of Bozeman’s historical architecture and noted his schematic design would change once constructed, but only in the use of some materials. He stated they conservatively approached the design of the building and would like to use brickwork similar to that fronting Main Street. He stated each floor was designed with the same floor plan to minimize the use of materials and maximize the efficiency of the structures. He stated the square footage of each type of dwelling was average for the market and the structural system from the garage (30ft. by 40ft.) was maintained throughout the dwelling units. He stated the exterior facades would be brick and the interiors would be wood. He added there would be a formal garden that could be seen from above, creating a type of picturesque scene for each dwelling unit. He stated he wanted to keep the transparency (windows), but also the security of the development. He stated the penthouses were not firmly designed as they would be custom constructed for the owner. Planner Windemaker asked which windows would be able to be opened and closed. Mr. Bitnar explained which windows would be remotely opened to allow for cross ventilation. Mr. Hedglin suggested the location of the single encroachment into the setback be specifically noted in Staff conditions. He asked if the Level of Service would be a “D” rating or above a “D” rating. Planner Windemaker responded it was a “D” rating and that MDOT would not allow signalization at that intersection until it was warranted. Ms. Caroline responded the project would have to pay for street improvements at the time it became necessary to install them. Mr. Hedglin asked if there was a plan for the next phase of development. Ms. Caroline responded the next phase would depend on how well the first phases sold and worked. Mr. Hedglin asked if the development was properly integrated so it was not located on an individual pad. He stated the lack of integration was a direct violation of the PUD requirements. Planner Windemaker responded the City Commission had approved the project without connectivity to the Northeast Neighborhood. Mr. Thomas asked if the project gave cash-in-lieu instead of parkland, did the applicant realize that Lindley Park would be used by the tenants of the development. Planner Windemaker stated the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board had no recommendations for active recreation in this location. Mr. Thomas stated that a park could be included on the remainder of Lot 3. Planner Windemaker responded the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board stated the project was isolated enough that there was no need for an active park. Mr. Krueger asked for an overview of opinions on the height of the structures. Planner Windemaker responded that, initially, Staff was not supportive of the height relaxations, but after examining the site, Staff could not see where there would be a large visual impact. Mr. Krueger asked how the artificial lot was functioning inside the lot. Planner Windemaker responded the artificial lot would have to meet all code requirements for a PUD. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter asked how the artificial lot functioned on this site. Planner Windemaker responded the Final Site Plan would have to designate where the artificial lot was located and the landscaping would be required to be located near the structures. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter asked how this project and the rest of the Village Downtown would interact with each other. Mr. Bitnar responded that the heavy cornices would break up the facades and provide architectural fenestration and added that the materials would be similar and there would be landscaping along the porches. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter stated the applicant had inverted the urban transect because the townhouses were nearer the downtown area than the lofts. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter asked if the height would affect the views from the townhouses and neighboring structures. Ms. Caroline responded that it was difficult to visualize, but there were large stands of mature cottonwoods in the viewshed of many of the dwellings and that view would not change. She added the grade of the project was roughly 35 feet below Main Street. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter asked for the distance between the townhouse and the condominium structures. Ms. Caroline responded there would be 100 feet between the two, including the right of way. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter asked if the owners of the townhomes were aware of the height of the proposed structures. Mr. Bitnar responded that the owners had been kept informed. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter asked if the “design day buffer” and landscaping could be pointed out to him on the model. Ms. Caroline illustrated where the landscaped features were and responded there was existing buffering that would remain. She added that the applicant had the intention of keeping as much mature vegetation as possible, but some of the vegetation would have to be removed as it was poorly located and some of it was nearly dead. She stated more landscaping would be added. Mr. Bitnar responded the landscaping would be coordinated throughout the development. Planner Windemaker stated that with FSP review, the landscape points would have to met. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter asked if there was any dedicated parkland. Planner Windemaker responded the trail would be dedicated and would connect to Front Street. Mr. Hedglin stated his comments regarded density on the site. He stated he had a problem with the 26% parking relaxation. He stated there was not enough street parking to allow for visitors and the parking lot would be a secure area for tenants only. Ms. Caroline responded that the available on-street parking could not be counted due to code requirements. Mr. Hedglin asked if Life Safety Standards had been addressed (especially on the north side of the buildings). Planner Windemaker responded that DRC had reviewed the project and had expressed no concerns. Mr. Hedglin stated he was concerned about natural light getting into the courtyards, and where the snow removal areas would be. Mr. Bitnar illustrated where natural light would enter the courtyards and Ms. Caroline responded there would be common maintenance taking care of snow removal. Mr. Hedglin stated the trash enclosure on Village Downtown Boulevard should be enclosed and the visitor approach into the buildings was vague until the moment the visitor was almost into the roundabout. Ms. Caroline responded a person would see it, but the applicant would take suggestions in avoiding any directional confusion. Mr. Hedglin suggested modifying the cornice to keep the building as low as possible. Mr. Thomas stated he would like to see features that brought people in from outside the site and suggested some feature (park, restaurant, etc.) to draw the average Bozeman resident. Mr. Bitnar responded the trail was a huge draw for the public. Mr. Thomas asked if the railroad track through the subdivision was a low activity track. Ms. Caroline responded that the track was used twice a week. Mr. Thomas stated the design of the penthouses only allowed the penthouse residents to use the plazas on top of the structures. He suggested creating access to the penthouse level or roof for the other tenants’ use. Mr. Krueger stated he favored density where appropriate and this site was appropriate. He stated his biggest concern was the proposed height of the structures with the tallest side to the north. He stated he understood the economics of the development, but one of the best things about an urban development were the 360 degree views from the roof. Chairperson pro temp Carpenter stated he supported the density of the project, but was concerned with the height of the structures. He stated he had no concerns with any other requested relaxations, but it seemed like a lot of massing. He stated he supported the project. MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Village Downtown Lofts PUD Prel. Plan #Z-04265 to the City Commission with Staff conditions and the condition for the City Commission to consider the removal of one full floor. The motion died 0-4. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Village Downtown Lofts PUD Prel. Plan #Z-04265 to the City Commission with Staff conditions and the addition of two conditions; 1) a maximum building height of 65 feet from the front grade, and 2) a reduction of required parking by 20% instead of 26%. The motion died 2-2 with Chairperson pro temp Carpenter and Mr. Krueger voting against. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Village Downtown Lofts PUD Prel. Plan #Z-04265 to the City Commission with Staff conditions and the addition of two conditions; 1) a maximum building height of 65 feet from the front grade and 2) the applicant specifically cite the location of the encroachment into the west side yard. The motion carried 4-0. 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 5:00 p.m. ________________________________ Randy Carpenter, Chairperson pro temp City of Bozeman Design Review Board