Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-03 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2003 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:38 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Joseph Thomas David Skelton, Senior Planner Christopher Livingston Susan Kozub, Assistant Planner Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Randy Carpenter Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Visitors Present Eric Nelson Phil Porrini Jerry Williams Bill Muhlenfeld Thomas Bitnar Karin Caroline Mike Delaney Jeff MacPherson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2003 Mr. Livingston stated on page 4, the second paragraph “thought the design flew in the face of the Dunbar Building…” should say “the Dunbar Building and other structures have a frontage on Main Street which extends Main Street to the east.” Chairperson Smith stated on page 3 the minutes reflected her asking if the public supported the Plaza she stated she wanted the minutes to reflect that she was asking if the public liked the overall design of the project. ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEM A. Valley West CUP for a PUD #Z-03290 (Kozub) Northwest quarter of the intersection of Ferguson Avenue and Babcock Street * A Conditional Use Permit Application to amend a Planned Unit Development with additional relaxations to allow covenant revisions. Mr. Carpenter requested the project be removed from the Consent Agenda so that it could be discussed by the DRB. Assistant Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Memo, noting the applicants were requesting six additional zoning relaxations from the code. She stated Staff supported the relaxations and listed the reasons. She added the relaxations helped support the mimicking of the design and diversity of the historic parts of town. Mr. Livingston asked if the formal recommendation by the DRC had been done that morning, to which Planner Kozub responded that the DRC had recommended approval 6-0. Mr. Carpenter asked if Staff was concerned that the lot area and width relaxation request would overcrowd the lots. Planner Kozub stated Staff did not have a problem with the relaxations based on the design review of the Valley West Architectural Review Committee, and based on the fact that overall lot coverage would not exceed 40%. Mr. Carpenter questioned whether lot density was overdone with the requested additional relaxations. Chairperson Smith asked if relaxations of lot area and width were to reduce the size of the lots or increase the amount of the structures on the lots. Planner Kozub stated the relaxations would apply to existing and future lots. Mr. Livingston asked where cars would park if the requested relaxations were granted. Planner Kozub responded off-street parking is provided. Mr. Livingston stated the yard areas could be compromised for use as parking. Chairperson Smith asked if Mr. Carpenter had been out to the site. Mr. Carpenter responded he had and he stated he thought the lots were too small. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission. The motion carried 4-1 with Mr. Carpenter voting in opposition. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Baxter Meadows PH. II PUD #Z-03276 (Windemaker) 4598 East Baxter Lane * A Preliminary Plan Planned Unit Development Application for the development of 73 residential, single family lots; 7 residential, multi family lots; 52 commercial lots; 6 parking lots; 5 park/recreation/open space lots; and related site improvements. Jeff Kanning joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report, noting Baxter Meadows was proposed as a neo-traditional village. She explained the different uses within the project and stated the newest addition was a commercial component. She stated Phase 2 had approximately 143 lots and the average residential density was 8 dwelling units per net acre. She described the requested relaxations. Planner Windemaker distributed a re-draft of Staff conditions and added that DRC still had some issues with some of the requested relaxations. She stated the residential relaxations and the design of the commercial lots, as well as the bulbed corners instead of street vision triangles, was being supported by Staff and DRC. Planner Windemaker noted Staff and the DRC were not in support of the parking deviation or the reduction of the water course setback. Mr. Livingston asked what purpose a portion of the alley served. Planner Windemaker responded the intent was for vehicular access to garages and to comply with the subordinate garage requirements. Mr. Thomas asked if the 2-foot setback was only at one location. Planner Windemaker responded it was only for that particular location. Chairperson Smith asked if the open space calculation was cumulative and not calculated by phase. Planner Windemaker responded that the PUD open space calculation was flexible by each phase, but the Subdivision park dedication had to be met with each phase. Chairperson Smith asked what would happen if they did not meet the park/open space requirements in the last phase. Planner Windemaker responded the City Commission would make the decision. Chairperson Smith asked what the advantage of the proposed street vision triangle was. Planner Windemaker stated the landscaping would not be such an issue if the street vision triangle were rearranged by the use of a bulb designed corner. Mr. Kanning stated Baxter Meadows was a 440-acre mixed-use development and Phase I was primarily residential. He stated the relaxations became necessary when they proposed the neighborhood center and alternate modes of transportation. He stated the relaxation request for lot area and width would allow flexibility for the developer and the subdivision owner. He added the narrower lots (15 feet wide) were strictly pedestrian and utility lots. He stated the applicant did not anticipate anyone building tight to the alley and the building height request was to accommodate people so they would not have to drive anywhere for central service needs. He stated the building height also related to parking due to the fact that the commercial aspect of the project was market driven and there was no way to know what businesses would come onto the site. He stated the landscaping was more of an urban streetscape with bulb outs on the corners and the park/open space total would meet the code requirements, or exceed them, at the end of the development. He stated there were five housing types provided in the development and added that a ten minute walk from anywhere in Baxter Meadows would bring the pedestrian to the village center’s services. Chairperson Smith asked what housing types were in Phase 1. Planner Windemaker responded all the residential types were in Phase 1, and all the types except Estate Homes were in Phase II. Mr. Kanning responded the smallest homes were the ones along the already developed boulevard and from a marketing standpoint they were trying to give an array of sizes. Chairperson Smith asked if the smallest houses were the cottage homes and if the 25-foot setback relaxations would only allow a 15-foot wide house. Mr. Kanning responded none of the lots with homes on them would be less than 35 feet wide. Chairperson Smith asked if to decrease the minimum rear yard to 2-5 feet was for the garages or for the homes. Mr. Kanning responded the rear yard setback was 2 feet from the garage to the alley. Chairperson Smith asked if these were the lots that would have a joint back yard agreement. Mr. Kanning stated there were platted easements that would allow the lot owners to have five feet of the neighbor’s yard and added that at the rear there would be 24 feet from structure to structure. Mr. Livingston asked if the relaxed yard setbacks and increased lot coverage were permitted, where would it end? He added the relaxations create an extremely dense situation in those areas. Mr. Howe asked if a relaxation of a feature of the code, such as vision triangles in a project, would make the City of Bozeman liable if there were an accident at that intersection. Planner Windemaker responded she was unsure because they were private streets, but the proposed bulb out achieved nearly the same effect as the vision triangle would. Mr. Carpenter stated he supported the commercial aspect of the proposal, and only time would tell if the design worked for the community. He stated the bungalow and cottage lots were too dense, the setbacks were too shallow, and there was too much coverage of the lots. He stated each of the residents would have two cars which would create parking and traffic difficulties. He added the density of the area was non-conforming with the existing city of Bozeman. Mr. Thomas stated he was in support of diverse development such as this proposal. He stated the parking was a concern and he did not support the relaxation of height standards, but the other relaxations were fine. Mr. Livingston stated the height of 38’ to 44’ was more consistent with the scale of the project. He stated he disagreed with the increased maximum height, and he would like to see a better plan indicating the proposed landscaping with the relaxation request for required landscaping. He stated the residential area seemed to make sense if one did not drive. He stated he thought the minimum lot area was extremely small, and if all site conditions were considered there would be a serious issue with the parking. He added these conditions began to compound one another. He stated the problem was not with the traditional lots. However, the lot coverage on the denser lots was too extreme. He added that having the lots differ in size was setting a precedent. Chairperson Smith stated when the DRB first reviewed the project she did not support it. She stated the two main reasons were: 1) the separateness in the housing density (at odds with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan), and 2) she did not support any relaxations for any of the cottage homes because she could not understand why someone would prefer to live in a home without a yard when they could live in a duplex that did have a yard. She stated the commercial issue was that a 72-foot tall building would be overbearing. She stated the cash-in-lieu money for the parking was going for a parking structure downtown and would not benefit this development in any way. Chairperson Smith added the DRB was against building height relaxations. MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Baxter Meadows PH. II PUD #Z-03276 to City Commission with Staff Conditions and recommending approval of the requested relaxations with the exception of height and residential lot width, area, coverage, and yards. The motion carried 4-1 with Chairperson Smith voting in opposition. B. The Village Downtown Lofts Concept PUD #Z-03287 (Windemaker) East of the intersection of Broadway Avenue and Mendenhall Street * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of four, 5-story buildings with 144 lofts (each with a subterranean garage, 4 loft floors, and a penthouse floor) on two lots totaling 8.5991 acres. Thomas Bitnar, Mike Delaney, Bill Muhlenfeld, and Karin Caroline joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report, noting there were 144 units with five stories and a subterranean garage. She noted there were two issues, the height would need a relaxation (75 feet from 34 allowable), and a relaxation for parking requirements, which might not necessarily be needed. She stated they would have to meet the 4.23 acre Park Land dedication requirements and part of that dedication would be along the proposed Trestle trail. She stated they would have to demonstrate the 20 landscaping performance points. Ms. Caroline stated the project was in the last remaining spot for high density residential development. She stated the underground parking garage would be under the footprint of two buildings. She noted the area in between the buildings was a portico for pick up and drop off and the applicant would recalculate the parking to meet U.D.O. requirements. She stated the applicant wanted to give the DRB perspective on how the buildings would lie within a cross section of the area. Mr. Livingston asked for a description of the conceptual idea for lots 3 and 4. Mr. Muhlenfeld stated they had not developed the idea yet, but the zoning was R-4. Mr. Livingston asked the maximum height of townhomes. Mr. Bitnar responded the maximum height was 44 feet and noted the proposed architecture tried to gain inspiration from Bozeman’s existing architecture. Mr. Bitnar added the development would be a great gateway for Bozeman as seen from the interstate. Mr. Livingston asked if the emergency access easement connected to Broadway Avenue. Ms. Caroline responded it connected to Front Street with an all weather road for emergency access only. Mr. Livingston asked why the access easement was not a second entrance. Planner Windemaker responded the project was taken before commission as a Variance and the commission was concerned that it would become another way to avoid Main Street traffic signals. Ms. Caroline stated the applicant was aware that, if street improvements were necessary for safe traffic flow, he would be required to make those improvements. Mr. Delaney responded the development was for the enhancement of downtown and people would be inclined to walk downtown. Mr. Livingston stated his question was based on the number of cars and ingress/egress. He added there was a potential for increased congestion. Mr. Muhlenfeld responded he did not think the residents would be driving at the peak driving times due to the nature of the development and its occupants. Mr. Livingston stated he thought the project was a great idea because of its proximity to Main Street and was an extension of the downtown area. Mr. Thomas stated he thought it was a good project and it would enrich that area. He applauded the design. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be a curb cut at the north end of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Caroline responded there would be a chained gate. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be dedicated park land. Planner Windemaker responded there would be along the proposed trail. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be bike parking. Mr. Delaney responded there would be subterranean bike parking along with the vehicle parking. Mr. Carpenter asked for a description of the view toward Mendenhall Street. Planner Windemaker responded there would be the railroad tracks, the Story Hills, etc. Mr. Carpenter stated he supported the townhouse development and he stated he felt it was the right development in the right place. Mr. Howe stated he thought the proposal was attractive looking, and he was looking forward to seeing the final product. Chairperson Smith asked if they were proposing two buildings. Mr. Bitnar explained there were two structures and added there was considerable repetition in the architecture. He stated there would be stone on the exterior with a wooden interior. Chairperson Smith asked if the top floors would be separated. Mr. Bitnar responded they would. Chairperson Smith stated she was not comfortable with the 75 foot height and asked how the difference in heights of the buildings would appear. Mr. Delaney responded the site elevation varied and would screen taller structures from Main Street. Chairperson Smith stated she thought the driving force behind the proposed penthouses was the view. She stated her only concern would be putting an additional two buildings at 75 feet in height. She asked if the interior courtyards would have vegetation. Ms. Caroline responded there would be vegetation. Chairperson Smith stated she struggled with the height. Mr. Bitnar stated the client’s funding would determine the height of the structures. Chairperson Smith asked if the applicant had spoken to the N.E.N.A. (North East Neighborhood Association) group about the idea. Mr. Delaney stated they would have a meeting with N.E.N.A prior to a formal submittal. ITEM 5. INFORMAL REVIEW A. Hastings Shopping Center Informal #I-03044 (Skelton) 1601 West Main Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on façade renovations, parking and landscaping improvements, and new retail space. Lowell Springer, Jeff MacPherson, and Eric Nelson joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report, noting the applicant proposed a four-lot MiSub. He stated North 15th Avenue was a collector street in the Transportation Plane and Staff would recommend a 25 foot front yard setback along North 15th Avenue as required by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that it would probably be necessary to provide a comprehensive sign plan with the formal submittal. He stated the proposal was generally in compliance with the parking requirements and Staff would support a relaxation in parking if DRB recommended it. He stated the key issue in terms of pedestrian circulation was how the area between the off-street parking lot and the multi-tenant structure would be treated. He stated staff recommended enhancements of the landscaping features along the building facade. He stated there was a need to discuss the relationship between pedestrian circulation off site and the ability to provide ample means of safe pedestrian circulation through the parking lot. He suggested defining some of the accesses with scored pavement or striping. He stated there should be ample separation for a two way driving aisle between the structures and off-street parking lot for the drop off and pick up of patrons of the shopping complex. He stated the applicant would need to verify if a deviation was necessary if they wish to pursue the proposed height of the pylon sign. He stated the applicant has made a conscious effort to enhance the façade and he thought the applicant had effectively addressed the main entrances into the tenant spaces. He stated the proposal was a substantial improvement to the existing structure. Mr. Springer stated the applicant was excited about the proposal because the site needed updating to keep it current in Bozeman. He stated they used natural materials, such as; dry-vit, wood, and masonry to enhance the facades and break the lengthy elevations. He noted the applicant proposed extending the existing sidewalk out 20 feet using colored asphalt or pavers with landscaping every so often. Mr. Springer stated he would like to compromise with Staff to maintain some of the nearest parking for the older folks who are patrons of these businesses. Mr. Springer stated double loaded parking best utilized the asphalt. Mr. Nelson stated there was a shared parking agreement for parking stalls in front of the leased spaces on the site. He added he appreciated the suggestions, but was concerned that a decrease in parking would cause a two or three month battle with Albertsons over the loss of eight parking spaces. Chairperson Smith asked if the parking calculation included the future development of the soon to be created lots. Planner Skelton responded it was. Chairperson Smith stated she generally did not support parking up to the sidewalk. She asked Planner Skelton about fire lanes. Planner Skelton responded the DRC had reviewed the proposal and thought there was ample circulation and would closer at the proposal with the formal application. Chairperson Smith suggested alternative locations for parking with a node for “pick up and drop off.” Chairperson Smith asked if McDonalds was under the same ownership as Hastings. Mr. Nelson responded it was under separate ownership. Chairperson Smith stated the parking in front of the Hideaway Lounge was poorly arranged and offered suggestions to remedy the issue. She stated she agreed with Staff on signage and added she was concerned the proposal was too bland. Mr. Springer responded the colors would look better in the final submittal. Chairperson Smith stated she was concerned about the extensive use of Dryvit. She asked if there would be any landscaping near Main Street. Planner Skelton stated Staff would recommend the area is further landscaped. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant would be required to relocate the recycling facilities on the site. Mr. Nelson stated they would eventually just ask the City to remove the bins or incorporate them into the site. He added there was no incentive to keep the recycling bins there. Mr. Livingston stated he thought this was the most unsafe parking lot in town and noted the proposed alterations to the parking lot would really structure circulation. He asked if the lot was to be resurfaced. Mr. Nelson stated resurfacing was a possibility but there would have to be careful consideration due to the toxicity of the underlying earth. Mr. Livingston suggested placing plantings in strategic locations to cut down on the sun’s radiation. Mr. Nelson stated a uniform covering for the windows has been proposed as a way to decrease the ultra violet radiation. Mr. Springer stated the vertical breakup and functional shade would be more inviting to retailers in the shopping center. Mr. Livingston stated he liked the corner features and gable forms. He stated he had to be convinced that wood was appropriate for a commercial development. He added he would like to see something stouter and more commercial. Mr. Nelson stated they were working with a radio station to sponsor a contest to rename the site. Mr. Howe stated it was about time the site was improved and he agreed with previous DRB members’ comments. ITEM 6. DISCUSSION ITEM A. UDO Orientation & Training (Saunders) Associate Planner Chris Saunders presented various aspects of the U.D.O. to the DRB. ITEM 7. 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 at this time. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m. _____________________________________________ Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board