Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-03 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2003 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Dawn Smith Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Randy Carpenter Candace Honatke, Assistant Planner Jim Raznoff Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Carol Asleson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Hanson Visitors Present Jeff Riggs Jeff Sandholm Amy Grant Per Hjalmarsson Evert Wierda Randy Visser ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW A. Wheat Montana MiSP/COA/DEV #Z-03011 (Honatke) Lot 21, Block 1 Stoneridge Subdivision * A Minor Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Deviation to allow the construction of a 3,400 square foot restaurant establishment and related site improvements. Jeff Riggs, Jeff Sandholm, and Phil Rotherham joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Candace Honatke presented the Staff Report. She noted the project proposed usable plaza space and access to the trail system linking adjoining properties. Mr. Riggs indicated the location of the plaza area on the colored rendering of the proposed site. He stated the Wheat Montana francise had a silo as their trademark and the space inside the silo was designed for people to view the architecture from the inside. Mr. Carpenter asked why the 5’ front yard deviation was requested. Mr. Sandholm noted the extra five feet created more room for the plaza and a smoother flowing design. Mr. Hanson asked if the construction of the bank would coincide with the construction of the Wheat Montana building. Mr. Riggs stated the constructions would probably overlap. Mr. Hanson asked if the bank and the proposed Wheat Montana development would work together on the parking space allotments. Mr. Sandholm stated the bank and Wheat Montana had an agreement with regard to sharing parking spaces. Mr. Raznoff asked where the bank was located on the plans. Mr. Sandholm indicated the location on the color rendering. Mr. Raznoff asked for the zoning designation. Planner Honatke responded the zoning was recently changed to B-1. Vice Chairperson Smith asked what accesses would be to the south and west if the trail did not continue south of the proposed project. Mr. Riggs stated the best case scenario would be if the trail did continue on the properties to the south. He stated if the southern property owners did not continue the trail, the applicant’s trail would connect to the sidewalk. Vice Chairperson Smith stated there was a great potential by a need for public space due to the residential uses in the near vicinity. Mr. Carpenter stated there could be a reduction of the three compact parking spaces to provide a connection from the Wheat Montana parking lot to the to the west and the main entrance to the establishment. Otherwise, Mr. Carpenter stated he liked the project. Mr. Riggs stated they felt the need to provide as many parking spaces as possible for future use. Ms. Asleson suggested installing the asphalt closer to the entrance of the structure as a deterrent to pedestrians walking across the grass. She stated the west façade could use some shade trees and a drip irrigation system with sleeves provided prior to surfacing the plaza. She stated she supported the project. Mr. Hanson stated he thought the proposal was excellent. He agreed with Ms. Asleson that it appeared the pavement came right to the edge of the building and, instead, could use some planting along the sides of the building to assist in cooling it. He noted locating the dumpster near the front access was a pet peeve of his and it should be moved as far from view as possible. Mr. Rotherham asked Mr. Hanson to suggest a location better suited for the dumpsters. Mr. Hanson recommended shifting everything to the side. Mr. Hanson stated he would like to see the plaza emphasized with some sort of framing. Mr. Raznoff stated it was one of the best proposals he had seen for North 19th Avenue. He stated he did not have an opinion on the dumpsters’ location. Vice Chairperson Smith stated she liked the proposal. She stated the southern entrance was not feasible for handicapped people and suggested rearranging the handicapped parking spaces or eliminating some regular parking spaces to provide handicap accessibility near the eastern entrance. She asked why the dumpster was located so far from the kitchen, the major trash producing area. Vice Chairperson Smith asked if the materials to be used were the same materials that were listed in the packet materials. Mr. Sandholm stated the materials were the same and the colors were very similar. Mr. Carpenter asked if the code required lighting along the path. Planner Honatke responded that neither the path nor the lighting are required. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Wheat Montana MiSP/COA/DEV #Z-03011 with Conditions as outlined by Staff. The motion carried 5-0. B. The Village Downtown Concept PUD #Z-03025 (Windemaker) North of East Main Street, East of Broadway Avenue * A Major Subdivision Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of 32 townhouse units on approximately 8.1 acres, with garages and private access at the rear of each unit. Bill Muhlenfeld, Per Hjalmarsson, and Thomas Bitner joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report. Mr. Muhlenfeld stated the proposal is surrounded by Main Street, the Jackpot Casino, and an area of wetlands. He stated they were seeking PUD approval for a 32 unit town house development. He stated the access would be off of Broadway Avenue. He stated the plan was to proceed with the infrastructure and then begin the town home structure development. He stated the proposal contained alleys and a trail. He stated the location was terrific, but required a large amount of grading. He stated he wanted the development to blend with the surrounding architecture on Main Street. He stated open porches were proposed for the fronts of the buildings. Mr. Bitner stated he tried to implement architecture from the surrounding neighborhoods into the strictly residential proposal using traditional, simplistic materials and architecture. He stated the proposal contained harmony, proportion, and scale. He stated the landscaping created private space for the individual town homes. Mr. Bitner presented a model of two townhouses with cars and small scale people to show proportions and some infrastructure. Ms. Asleson stated, in the area where there were seven town homes together, there should be space between the buildings to break up the facades. Mr. Muhlenfeld stated there would be height differences in the facades causing breaks in the lines of the facades. Mr. Hanson asked what the blue spots at the entrance indicated. Mr. Bitner stated they are the proposed retention ponds. Mr. Hanson stated on projects similarly subdivided into town home lots, only one acre of parkland is designated for public use. He stated the location of the open spaces would be difficult for the public to access. He stated he was concerned with the long, unbroken expanse of the front facade. He stated he disagreed that there was variation in the view from the street. Mr. Hanson asked the applicant to submit a model of the long facades for the next review. He noted his concern was the visual impact from the street. He asked if the boulevard could be better used as open space. Mr. Bitner stated there were more phases being prepared for future development and the boulevard was crucial to those phases. Planner Windemaker noted the boulevard had already been approved in the subdivision review stage. She noted the applicant could do a couple of different things with regard to open space, but was not required to dedicate parkland. Mr. Raznoff asked Planner Windemaker to elaborate on what the normal requirements were for each requested deviation. He stated he was not hot or cold about the proposal, that it was just different from projects the DRB usually reviews. Mr. Bitner stated the proposal was kind of experimental, but he believed the proposal had merit. He noted Main Street contains a half mile of facades and the proposal fit in with that design. Mr. Carpenter asked if on-street parking would be allowed on the main thoroughfair. Mr. Bitner stated there would be parking on one side of the street and no parking in the alleys. Mr. Carpenter asked if the street would ever be extended through for emergency accessibility. Planner Windemaker stated it was unlikely. Mr. Carpenter requested the dimensions of the buildings as he was concerned with the 10’ setback in the alley causing parking difficulties. Vice Chairperson Smith asked if the alleys are proposed to be paved and plowed. Mr. Muhlenfeld stated the alleys would be paved and plowed. Vice Chairperson Smith asked if the garages could be used as rentals. Mr. Muhlenfeld stated the garages would not be provided to tenants as apartments, and they would not be rentals. Vice Chairperson Smith asked for the length of the Dunbar building. Mr. Carpenter stated it was about 120’ long. Vice Chairperson Smith stated she liked the proposal better than the first proposal because this proposal was strictly a residential development. She commented that the DRB was lacking information regarding the recent history of the project (i.e. PUD approval), but she liked the overall concept of the design. Mr. Muhlenfeld stated the applicant was striving for symmetry. He stated the dimension of the land was unusual and previous uses have left it unusable as is. C. Baxter Square MaSub Concept PUD #Z-03026 (Morris) 5371 Baxter Lane * A Major Subdivision Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of 121 townhouse lots, two-eight plex lots, and one single household lot. Amy Grant, Per Hjalmarsson, Evert Wierda, and Randy Visser joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report and indicated, on the site plan, the trail along the east side of the creek. Mr. Hjalmarsson stated the proposal was being developed by two owners. He stated the development was accessed by a city standard street, with a smaller private road. He stated they added another street to allow for greater ease of parking. Ms. Grant stated they agreed to give cash-in-lieu and match the cash-in-lieu with public park land. Mr. Hjalmarsson stated the size of the park, in relation to the number of units, was quite large. Ms. Grant stated the eight-plex units would allow people to move in for $5,000 if they are gainfully employed. Mr. Raznoff stated he had no comments other than the proposal leaned toward a more urban design. Ms. Asleson stated there would be more space if each unit did not have its own garage access. She suggested combining the garage accesses. She complimented the applicants for including the trail system. Mr. Hanson asked about some of the buildings on the colored rendering, and if the proposal contained an access easement for the trail system. Ms. Grant stated there would be an access easement for the trail. Mr. Hanson stated he did not favor the number of driveways from the street. Mr. Hanson asked if the setback from the property line met zoning requirements. Mr. Hjalmarsson stated the easement was located in the correct spot. Vice Chairperson Smith stated if the garages were moved, they would double as firewalls and sound barriers between the units. Vice Chairperson Smith asked what the lengths of the driveways were from the beginning of the sidewalk to the front of the house. She stated if it was too short, people would park two cars in front and there would be problems for through traffic on the street and pedestrian circulation on the sidewalk. She stated the development was challenged as far as parking was concerned on-street parking is limited. Ms. Grant stated the tenants would not maintain the front yards of their property and the maintenance of the landscaping would be in the buy/sell agreement. Mr. Hanson stated that some on-street parking could be generated by widening the streets. Vice Chairperson Smith asked for the size of the units in the eight-plexes and the cost of each. Ms. Grant stated the units were one and two bedroom units and the price was roughly $100,000 per unit. Vice Chairperson Smith stated she did not think the project included affordable housing. She stated the project had very little space and her major concern was with the lack of parking; however, there would be an opportunity for the project to link up with existing public spaces. ITEM 3. ADJOURNMENT Ms Asleson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. ______________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Vice Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board