Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3: 33 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Henry Sorenson Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Bill Hanson Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Joanne Mannell Noel Jim Jenks, Historic Preservation Planner Dick Pohl Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development Nichole Wills Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Dawn Smith Visitors Present Wayne Miller Ami Grant Dan Kamp Greg Allen Vanessa VanBeusekam Joby Sabol Molly Skorpik Shelly Engler Jack Mandell Philip Saccoccia Dave Sather ITEM 2. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Zone Code Amendments – (Saunders) ( Review Zone Code Amendments. Associate Planner Chris Saunders discussed the proposed amendments. Discussion followed on the definition of specific species for landscaping, parking diagrams, and commercial parking calculations. Planner Saunders noted staff is requesting help with the definition. Mr. Pohl suggested requiring less turf as it is a huge consumer of water while woody plants use less water. Planner Saunders explained the parking diagrams and the method used to calculate parking. Mr. Pohl suggested a resolution for the dead end parking lots is to remove one of the end parking spaces for turn around purposes. Planner Saunders explained the time line for the short term zoning changes. Planner Saunders explained the process and the need for suggestions from all advisory boards. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms. Noel seconded, to recommend the City Commission approach the writing of the code in a holistic fashion, to support the proposed positive changes, and to take a more holistic approach for rewriting the complete code. Ms. Smith noted a designated person to do the on-going long range planning is needed to continue the work of updating documents to bring them into compliance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Glenn and Mr. Hanson volunteered to write a letter, which specifically addresses the larger question, to the City Commission and present it to the Board at the next meeting. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW A. Story Mansion Concept PUD - #Z-02013 – (Morris/Finke) Willson Avenue A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to establish a unified plan for 9 residential lots on the 2.2 acre Story Mansion property. Joby Sabol, Dan Kamp, and Ami Grant joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the staff report. Historic Preservation Officer Planner Jim Jenks distributed a memo clarifying the letter from the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board. Planner Morris noted the recommendations on page 5 of the Staff Report were for DRB consideration as conditions to be recommended to City Commission for preliminary plan submittal. Ms. Noel stated she is strongly opposed to the concept as it makes a distinction between the house and the carriage house, and noted the two should be reviewed in concert with one another. She stated the restoration would not be enhanced by additional buildings. She stated the restoration should include the estate-like lawn, which has been historically regarded as the equivalent of a park. She stated she saw nothing being restored or preserved with this proposal, and the relationship between the house, carriage house, and lawn cannot be compromised. She stated she is opposed to the entire concept. (She presented her comments, then left the meeting for another appointment.) Dan Kamp, applicant’s architect, noted this wasn’t an ideal situation. He noted the property is vacant and falling into disrepair. He stated the fraternity had offered the property for sale to the City, SAE Alumni, etc, with no takers. He noted the applicants have been encouraged by the Planning Director to bring forth a concept plan for review by City staff and the DRB. He noted they have developed a plan that would make the property development economically feasible and preserve the house and carriage house. He noted the recommended staff conditions were delivered to them about two hours ago and are not acceptable to the applicant. Discussion ensued. Items under discussion were who owned the property, and the possible development plan available with site plan review. Mr. Kamp noted the buyers have not closed on the property; he and Mr. Sabol are representing the owner. Mr. Glenn stated if a home is constructed on proposed lot 2, it will destroy the visual effect of the spaciousness of the mansion property. He was concerned the visual openness would be compromised by the rear elevations facing towards the park. He suggested, since there are limited curb cuts for access to the lots, a drive-like alley through the site be installed to provide primary access to the new lots. He noted he didn’t feel the number of units across the street had to be mirrored by this property. He concluded by stating the property is conceptually owned by the public, and a trade off should be made by the applicant for a public park. He suggested incorporating some affordable housing be brought to the site with secondary units over garages. Mr. Kamp noted the alley approach was suggested at the Facilitated Meeting. He noted he appreciated the suggestion of living quarters above the garages, however, the neighbors may not be in favor of them. Mr. Sabol noted the applicant had offered to plant trees, for screening between the mansion and the new lots. These trees would be as large as the largest spade in the county could dig. He stated the trees would instantly screen the main house from the garages at the rear. Ms. Wills noted she concurred with Ms. Noel’s comments. She stated she had hoped the mansion would become a community center. She noted she was concerned the proposed development would become the “snob block” of the southside. She stated she would not support this particular development. She suggested the structure be preserved and the open space dedicated to the community. Mr. Kamp noted he and the applicant agree; however, it just isn’t economically feasible. Ms. Wills asked for the state of the interior of the mansion. Mr. Sabol noted the first floor is in fantastic shape, including the original light fixtures and wood trim; however, the basement and upper floors are in disrepair. Ms. Wills asked if the open space is proposed as park or part of Lot 1. Mr. Kamp noted it is part of lot 1, with deed restrictions for it to remain as private open space. Mr. Sabol discussed the possibility of the open space having public use easements. Mr. Hanson stated he understood the predicament; however, there was no guarantee the main structure would be remodeled by whomever purchases it. Mr. Kamp noted the current proposal included the sale of Lot 1, with restrictions that neither the mansion nor the carriage house could be destroyed and the mansion must be preserved. Mr. Hanson discussed grants for the renovation of the mansion, which were based on the project as a whole and would unlikely be granted once the property is subdivided and developed. He suggested the representatives visit with Herb Dawson at the State Historic Preservation Office. He noted another issue was the number of driveways with ingress/egress from Grand Avenue. He stated he would support an alley-like drive behind the homes. He stated he would support deviations for several items if the alley were included, smaller bungalow homes, and the elimination of the house on Lot 2. Ms. Smith asked for an architectural review sheet from Planner Jenks. Chairperson Sorenson noted that it would be difficult without a more concrete submittal. Ms. Smith stated that in her mind, the 26 lots ceased to exist when the building was constructed for the purpose of the mansion. She stated she would be in favor of alleys with hammerheads at the ends; however the number and the size of the homes are too great. She concurred with the elimination of Lot 2. She noted the home/mansion in Lot 1 had very little privacy. She suggested eliminating part of lot 6 to provide more privacy for Lot 1. Mr. Kamp discussed the possible development of the property if not developed using a PUD. He noted the reality was that the economic status made the preservation of the mansion difficult. Mr. Pohl applauded the approach used; however, smaller and fewer homes would better meet the Bozeman 2020 community plan. He concurred with the elimination of Lot 2 or at least scaling down the proposed home. He liked the alley access proposal. He felt buffering was important for controlling the competing elements of the new structures with the existing mansion and carriage house. He liked the suggestion to include living units over the garages. He suggested a public historic period garden in the open park area. He concurred with the recommendation to restore the mansion. Mr. Sabol asked for a definition of “restoration” and the degree of restoration. He noted the recommendation in the staff report was too harsh. Mr. Kamp noted restrictions were proposed for the exterior of the building while requiring it to be restored with the interior as much as possible. Chairperson Sorenson thanked the applicant for offering an alternative site plan proposal. He noted it was reasonable to construct the homes prior to restoring the mansion, economically. He stated the preliminary footprints show craftsman-style houses, which are in keeping with the neighborhood. He suggested the applicant request deviations to locate the garages at the rear of each lot. He concurred with the removal of the structures on Lot 2, if economically feasible. He suggested the installation of a Caragana hedge. He noted the restoration of the mansion would be an asset to the whole block. He stated he would support renovating the carriage house; however, the mansion should be restored. B. Lowe’s Preliminary Plan PUD – #Z-02021 – (Morris) * South Tschache Lane, North Baxter Lane, North 19th Avenue A Preliminary Plan PUD Application to develop 39.99 acres into 10 building sites for retail and restaurant establishments on property zoned “M-1”, and “B-2”. Philip Saccoccia, Keith Belden, Jack Mandell, Wayne Miller, Molly Skorpik, Dave Sather and Shelly Engler joined the DRB. Assistant Planner Jami Morris presented the staff report. She reviewed the requested deviations. She was requesting direction to determine whether the applicant had met the concerns the DRB expressed during the concept review. Mr. Pohl asked for the locations of the signage, which was indicated on the site plan. Ms. Smith asked for clarification on the proposed lantern-type lighting. Planner Morris explained the code requirements. Ms. Smith asked what percentage they are over on parking spaces. Mr. Belden said less than 10%. Ms. Smith asked what percentage they are requesting over the allowable signage. Planner Morris calculated and presented the percentage. Mr. Hanson asked if shared use was considered in calculating the parking. Planner Morris indicated the shared parking available. Mr. Hanson asked if there is an opportunity to decrease parking stalls and install buffering. In response to Mr. Hanson who asked if Tschache Lane would be signalized, Planner Morris noted that would be determined by MDT. Ms. Wills asked if there was any provision for signage on the buildings. Mr. Miller noted signage was proposed on the rear elevation of the building. Mr. Belden, applicant’s engineer, commended Planner Morris for her time and work on the project. He noted they have looked at several renditions of this building and the current orientation allows adequate landscaping for screening. He described other orientations that had been explored. He discussed the questions presented in the staff report. He noted they will be required to install Tschache Lane, to the east, and they will install the street trees. He stated that the improvements to Baxter Lane will require the installation of street trees also. Mr. Miller described the proposed elevations, noting the color board was not set in stone and they are willing to change the red colors. He stated the deviation for building height was for the front element only. He asked that the deviation for building height be recommended for future builders for entry features in the subdivision. Ms. Engler discussed the landscaping, especially the east portion that is to remain in agricultural uses. She asked for clarification of condition #3 which recommends other landscaping elements to prevent traffic from racing through the parking lot. Planner Morris clarified the recommended elements. She noted staff was uncomfortable with the conceptual plan for the outlying structures. Mr. Belden noted they plan for a more defined PUD that requires site plan review for all future construction. Mr. Pohl stated he is generally pleased with the development of the project, and liked the Baxter Lane elevation, but would like to see the roof element extended back a few feet. He stated he had no problem with the openness of the parking lot. He noted he would rather see the emphasis placed on the exterior of the parking lot surrounding it with greenery. He suggested additional landscaping on the center pedestrian aisle, with the street trees planted at the same time through the whole project for symmetry of growth. He noted there is possibility for displaying products in the park area. He suggested heavier buffer landscaping at the rear of the building as well as near the display of products. Ms. Smith suggested narrowing the access to the south of the Lowe’s structure. Mr. Belden noted there will be speed bumps installed in several places. Ms. Smith asked that pedestrian walkways be wider passageways. She stated she is opposed to the increase in signage over the 20% allowable with a COA, and wanted a reduction in wattage in the parking lot lighting. She stated she would support a height deviation for the whole PUD. Mr. Hanson noted he reviewed the project holistically. He asked if the parking will be developed around lots A, B, and C. The answer was no. He stated that building A is located on a very important corner and should be surrounded with landscaping not parking. He commended Planner Morris for the thoroughness of the staff report. He suggested removing two stretches of parking at the entrance with landscaping added in their place. He commended the applicant for the end result. Ms. Wills noted the elevations are great. She stated she supported the height issue, signage variance, more street tree plantings, the addition of kiosks, and the location of future building sites. She encouraged the applicant to extend the pedestrian nodes to the future developments. She received clarification on several questions. Chairperson Sorenson asked how traffic will flow near the large product pickup. Mr. Mandell explained the traffic flow. He suggested a method to slow traffic at the primary entrance while enhancing the pedestrian access. He asked why the foliage is segregated. Ms. Engler stated she tried to do a variety of species; however she was willing to vary the plantings. She gave the rationale for the design. Mr. Pohl stated he supported the grouping of the trees. He was more concerned with the placement of the red beside the blue on the building. He suggested using the softer colors behind the blue. He commended the applicant for the thorough presentation of the packet. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to approve application with staff conditions #1-9, with the addition of #10 - street trees to be planted on both sides of North 15th Avenue in phase 1; #11 - the islands at the south end of the parking lanes be widened with increased landscaping; #12 - deepen the entrance roof façade to no less than 10 feet if feasible; #13 - deviations “a,” “b,” “c,” and “e;” #14 - reduce the front end parking at the southeast end intersection at Tschache Lane and increase the landscaping; #15 - enhance the pedestrian/plaza area at the entrance; and #16- develop the park with usable public features. Mr. Hanson asked the rest of the Board for their opinion on the omission of the three monument signs. Mr. Hanson noted he is in support of the sign deviation. The Board Members determined the combination of signage as proposed was better than three or more monument signs. Ms. Smith noted she was trying for consistency with other recent projects. Planner Morris described the allowable monument signage if deviation “d” is omitted. Mr. Saccoccia noted they were trying to address the signage in a clean fashion. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved; Mr. Pohl seconded to amend the motion to approve deviation “d” as part of the proposal. Mr. Pohl stated without the deviation, there could be a proliferation of signs. Ms. Wills stated she supported fewer signs, but didn’t support the larger signs as proposed. Mr. Hanson noted the total package was not more than is allowed by code. The amendment carried 4-1, with Ms. Smith against. The motion carried 4-1, with Ms. Smith against. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Henry Sorenson, Jr., Chairperson Design Review Board