HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-10 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:42 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street,
Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Mark Hufstetler David Skelton, Senior Planner
Scott Bechtle Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Randy Wall Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Jami Morris
Michael Delaney
Ileana Indreland
Tony Renslow
Karl Larsen
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2010
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Bechtle seconded, to approve the minutes of October 27, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Spring Creek Village Resort Concept PUD #Z-10290 (Skelton)
Northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue
* A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the UMU (Urban Mixed Use District) development of 31.0275 acres to occur in phases governed by development guidelines.
Chairperson Pentecost stated the DRB would be reviewing the proposal to allow the development to occur in phases. Planner Skelton clarified the Board would also be reviewing the proposal
with regard to design and the Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors. He added no motion would be necessary and all recommendations and advice would be forwarded to the City
Commission.
Jami Morris, Michael Delaney, Ileana Indreland, Tony Renslow, and Karl Larsen joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the application was similar
to the PUD process that Bozeman Gateway had gone through. He stated Staff had identified items that had been discussed at the DRC meetings so that when the formal application was submitted
a recommendation could be made. He stated he had not provided the previous informal review comments as the same items would apply; he
added there had been some revisions from the informal application with the concept submittal. He stated the applicant was proposing a five phase mixed use development with the initial
phase being located along Ferguson Avenue. He stated he had provided the Board with examples of how the pedestrian and vehicular movement would work throughout the site. Following
PUD approval, in lieu of a site plan the applicant would like to do sketch plans. Ms. Morris responded Planner Skelton was correct but there might be sketch plans submitted for future
phases.
Planner Skelton stated he had tried to break the proposal down into five components. He stated the ditch was really the only natural feature on the site; the watercourse continued north
to the Valley West Subdivision pond feature. He stated the Board might want to discuss what amenity would be included near the water feature on the site; he added he thought the applicant
wanted to leave an open waterway amenity instead of piping the ditch. He stated the public edge of Huffine Lane needed to be better recognized and noted the site would be the other
half of the west gateway into Bozeman. He stated there were some points of discussion regarding pedestrian and vehicular movement; a shared use path was called for in the PROST Plan
along Huffine Lane. He stated the applicant was proposing to install a bicycle pathway between the drive aisle and the proposed perpendicular parking though the DRC, RPAB, and GVLT
had concerns with the proposed design.
Planner Skelton stated the Bicycle Advisory Board felt that there were adequate bicycle pathways exclusive of any proposed in the drive aisle. He stated the UMU residential component
requirements would need to be met and the applicant had proposed phase 4 of the development be entirely residential though there had been some discussion regarding counting the proposed
lodge and upper level residential units toward those requirements. He stated the applicant was proposing a square public plaza on the interior of the site and Staff was concerned that
there was no open space or plaza areas proposed with phase 1 of the development. He stated the proposal was somewhat traditional in that the layout was a type of grid system and Staff
had suggested creating a hierarchy with the circulation system; the entrance points should be more emphasized to celebrate the entryways into the development. He stated there should
be a stronger emphasis on plazas and open space areas along the proposed main street. He suggested wider landscape islands along the promenade and the core of the UMU. He stated there
were expansion lots proposed with the development to allow the opportunity for someone to purchase an adjacent site if the original wasn’t large enough; he stated those could be dealt
with through the Subdivision Exemption review process. He stated Staff was concerned with the creation of a third storefront to offer a third side to each of the buildings. He stated
Staff was concerned with the perimeter parking as proposed. He stated the presence of the proposed parking lots along Huffine Lane countered the spirit of the Design Objectives Plan,
but Staff anticipated extensive landscaping in those areas. He suggested Staff did not want to see a retaining wall on the site and added it would be beneficial to shift block one to
the south along Huffine to prevent the parking lot from being a dominant feature along Huffine Lane; a half block offset had been suggested by Staff.
Planner Skelton stated one of the key concerns of Staff was the identification or treatment of proposed service areas. He stated the proposed locations of the refuse areas was a concern
of Staff as both service and refuse areas needed to be tied into the structures. He stated there had been some concerns from the Fire Department and Solid Waste Department regarding
vehicular turning radiuses. He stated it was healthy for the community and the development that the proposal contained three anchor sites. He reiterated that pedestrian facilities
and landscaping should be included at key intersections. He stated a concept plan did not typically have a lot of building design information but design would be discussed in more
detail in the Preliminary Plan submittal; Staff would need to see a lot more detail regarding building design. He stated the burden was on the applicant to provide good material and
design and there was a lot
of remaining work to do on the development manual. He stated the West Main Street Entryway Corridor had been discussed and there would need to be a conscience effort made by the anchor
tenants to provide a good presentation to the Entryway Corridor. He stated the intent of the UMU District was to encourage a mix of uses including industrial, commercial, and residential
aspects. He stated the applicant had expressed concern regarding following the minimum requirements of the UMU District as well as the Design Objectives Plan and had requested relaxations
to those requirements. He emphasized that when the Commission created the UMU District, flexibility for the developer had been one of their goals and a lot of flexibility was already
built into the UMU District regulations. He stated the site would be a test, but because it would be the first development of that nature the first phase of the development would be
critical.
Michael Delaney introduced his wife Ileana Indreland and stated he would like to provide some background on the site; they’d owned the property since 1987 and had gone through many iterations
of what they would like to see developed on the site. He stated Staff and their consultant, Dan Burden, had created the UMU District and the property was rezoned in 2008. He stated
an extensive design process had been undertaken while examples had been provided to them on similar developments that worked and those that had not worked. He stated every item proposed
had been intentionally included and were based on real developments that instituted the same feature or design. He stated the proposed block length was 200 plus feet as it would be
the heart of the development; the plaza area would be utilized for ice skating, concerts, and a variety of other things year round. He stated all roads would need to lead to the heart
of the development and those roads would need to be emphasized; you have to be something to somebody, failing which you are nothing to nobody. He stated the rear of the buildings would
appear to be the front of the buildings and would all be beautiful. He stated the two major north-south connections would be alleyways where 90% of all the deliveries would be made
to establishments. The trash receptacles had been proposed to be located on the perimeter of the site to prevent odors as there would be a lot of bars and restaurants on the site.
He stated the site had been designed for pedestrians and would include multiple midblock crossings and vehicles would be secondary; he added the bicycle paths could be eliminated per
the Bicycle Advisory Board recommendation. He stated the buildings had been oriented to shelter pedestrians from the onslaught of 25,000 cars per day on Huffine Lane. A biking/walking
linear park system had been proposed for the perimeter of the site that would include sheltered areas, recreation areas, and a see-thru fence that would set the development apart. He
stated he agreed with all of Staff’s aspects but had requested a relaxation to allow one story structures with a minimum of 25 feet in height. He stated the proposal would create a
safe and intimate environment. He stated the most important ingredient was the assurance that each building would be individually owned; the project had been based on ownership, individuality,
and safety. He stated everything proposed could be proven to have worked and he would be happy to provide examples of that; he added if mistakes were made in phase 1, they could be
improved in phase 2 so that every phase would be better and more desirable for the community at large. He stated an important ingredient would be where the sun would be hitting the
site and they had done a study to provide the maximum light exposure; the expansion lots were there to provide three sides of glass on each adjacent structure though if one owner bought
both adjacent structures they could absorb the expansion lot. He stated he hoped the site would grow like Main Street to the west from the east; their money would be put into the first
two phases.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he was concerned with the traffic flow and circulation through the site. He surmised it would be roughly 800 feet to the heart of the site and asked how the applicant
would respond to the idea that someone would be driving through an 800 foot long parking lot. Mr. Delaney responded that until Mr. Hufstetler had seen the arrangement, he would not
know how well it would work; the more convenient the experience of arriving and departing would enhance the shopping experience. He stated
he did not want a sea of parking and everything had been designed around safety and a natural orientation grid pattern that would promote traffic calming as well as the institution of
raised crosswalks. He stated they had not earmarked any big box tenants to be located on the site but had instead intended small businesses to occupy the site. Mr. Hufstetler stated
he sensed that the only dedicated bike lanes would be around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Delaney responded there would also be bike lanes on the north-south connections. Mr.
Hufstetler stated it would be difficult to keep bicyclists off of the sidewalks. He stated he had noticed the outlined lots were close to a standard dimension and if different types
and scales of development were to be encouraged, a less symmetrical lot plan might be necessary. Mr. Delaney responded they had and would consider less symmetrical lots sizes, but in
reality, the first 50-60 feet of the retail spaces would be most critical for the businesses; he added that the expansion lots had also been instituted to allow for the installation
of elevators between buildings. Ms. Indreland added that some buildings would be pushed back further on the lot and there would be an outlined vocabulary in the design. Mr. Hufstetler
asked if the applicant intended to encourage a residential component outside of the proposed condo project in phase 4. Mr. Delaney responded that condo site did not have as much utility
as the commercial portions of the site and had been earmarked as residential development; the more eyes on the main street, the safer the development. He stated he did not want to force
the buyer to build a condominium but rather to encourage residential development. Ms. Indreland added that the narrow widths of the lots would encourage second or subsequent stories
to be developed. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant could be encouraged to relocate the street system to lessen the grid system. Mr. Delaney responded that moving the block would
disrupt the artery through the development; there would be dead spaces instead of a core pedestrian connection. Mr. Hufsetler suggested the artery could be less straight and square
while being more flexible. Mr. Delaney responded that the curvilinear street they had originally considered had caused more issues. Ms. Indreland responded the straight, linear main
street worked and has withstood the test of time. Mr. Delaney responded Mr. Hufsetler’s experience was different than everyone else’s but the linear concept was designed for the lowest
common denominator. Mr. Hufsetler asked if, as the developer, Mr. Delaney saw the amenities that would be developed throughout the site such as light posts, etc. Mr. Delaney responded
all the amenities would be geared toward the pedestrian and it would be impossible to make the development ugly or they would be all over the buyer’s ass; all the designs would be reviewed
prior to the sale of the site. Mr. Hufstetler stated he got a sense they were trying to isolate the development from all of the streets around it and did they think it was a good thing.
Mr. Delaney responded they wanted to emphasize the site was a place all its own and it would be interconnected to the adjacent City as well as a feeling of warmth and friendliness.
Ms. Indreland stated they want to keep a connection to the original use of the property as a horse farm with designs of that nature to give a sense of place. Mr. Delaney added that
the interconnectivity of the future medical campus as well as the Ridge development would be improved by the development. Mr. Hufstetler asked how far in feet it was between the lots
fronting the proposed main street and how it would compare to the width of Main Street. Mr. Delaney responded the width of the street would be about the same.
Mr. Bechtle asked about the design of the proposed fencing around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Renslow responded it would be like the split rail fence depicted on the first page
of the submittal materials. Mr. Bechtle asked if a golf course was a permitted use on the site. Planner Skelton responded golf courses were typically a Conditional Use. Mr. Bechtle
asked if a relaxation was being requested to allow the golf course as a principal use instead of a conditional use. Planner Skelton responded Mr. Bechtle was correct. Mr. Delaney explained
that the golf course would not be a typical golf course and would include a driving range, bar, restaurant, etc. Mr. Bechtle asked where the fronts of the buildings were proposed in
phase 1 of the development. Mr. Delaney responded the buildings would front the main street through the development. Mr. Bechtle asked if other roads were arteries. Mr. Delaney responded
that whichever roads went to the park were the arteries; the hierarchy would be achieved by landscaping, lighting, etc. Mr. Bechtle asked about the applicant’s thinking in making the
trash receptacles the focal points of the perimeter of the site. Mr. Delany responded they had been located in those areas as it would be easier for a truck to come and pick them up;
he added they would be enclosed. Mr. Bechtle asked if half of the frontage along Huffine would have parking. Mr. Delaney responded the parking would occupy roughly half of that frontage.
Planner Skelton added that there was only a fifty foot setback along the Highway right of way. Mr. Bechtle stated he was confused as the DOP stated that the buildings should be right
up on the green edge and asked if the setback was a requested relaxation. Mr. Delaney responded it was one of the requested relaxations. Mr. Bechtle asked if the lodge would be raised
in elevation. Mr. Delaney responded it would be raised two feet higher and setback a little bit more to provide an intimate lodge experience and a sense of separation. Mr. Bechtle
stated that mixed use language did not seem to mean mixed use within the same structure. Mr. Delaney responded that part of the debate was which uses to include in which locations.
Mr. Bechtle asked if residential would be allowed on the ground floor. Mr. Delaney responded that no residential would be allowed on the main floor except the lodge use, but phase
4 of the development would be completely residential.
Chairperson Pentecost asked if in the UMU residential was required on each lot, block, building, or what. Planner Skelton responded the residential component was required to be dispersed
evenly through each phase to achieve the 20% of the gross area of each phase of development. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the DRB would have to interpret a gray area with regard to
the institution of residential elements on the site. Planner Skelton responded there would be a gray area and Mr. Delaney would need to provide a superior design to meet the requirement
if the residential component could not be achieved in any one phase. Mr. Delaney added he did not agree with the 20% requirement for each phase as opposed to the entire development
but they were still attempting to comply with those requirements.
Mr. Banziger asked if any sustainability initiatives had been included in the development. Mr. Delaney responded the #1 arrangement for sustainability was to build a walkable development
and to reduce the carbon footprint; thousands of people live in the area of the site and an urban mixed use village would reduce the footprint of the development allowing multiple things
to be done in one trip. He stated all the buildings would be heavily insulated and would have wells at their disposable for air conditioning and heating purposes. Mr. Banziger asked
that with the amount of parking and hard surfaces were heat affects, drainage, and green spaces being addressed. Mr. Delaney responded that in the City most streets cambered to the
gutter, theirs would camber into the center of the street which would include basins to collect street runoff; all roof drains would connect to French drains throughout the development.
Mr. Banziger stated the heat affect had not been addressed. Mr. Delaney responded there would be less asphalt in the development and all the roofs would be as efficient as possible
and would likely be white in color. Mr. Banziger asked Mr. Delaney how he had incorporated the ideas from California into the proposal given the differences in climate such as snow.
Mr. Delaney responded some of the parking lot might have to be used temporarily for snow storage if there was a huge snow event, but the snow would be removed as necessary throughout
the site; he added the shady side of the building might have heated sidewalks to help mitigate the ice.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he appreciated the amount of effort and academic thought that had been put into the proposal. He stated his biggest concern with regard to the proposed layout
was the rigidity of the plan; the property was not rectilinear and contained a strongly curved element so that the proposed configuration seemed to shoehorn the structures onto the site.
He stated he thought it would do the plan well to break out of the grid system mold and vary lot sizes as well as provide visual interest to the streetscapes; it would make it more
appealing for him to visit the site. He stated he had some concern
about the length of the proposed streets; for something like this to be successful they would need to be pulled into the site and more open, visible gateway would point a person to the
street instead of inducing someone to go around the street. He stated another issue of concern was that the parking was not screened from Huffine Lane and the entrances to the site
were not emphasized. He stated he shared Staff’s concerns regarding the narrow expansion lots possibly being used as alleys. He stated he was concerned with how the project would be
staged over time; 3% open space was proposed with the first phase of the development while more would not be seen until nearly the end of the project. He stated he was also concerned
about the availability of residential development in the first phases of the construction and suggested integration of the residential components within each phase of construction.
He stated the project had the potential to be very successful, or the potential not to be successful.
Mr. Wall stated he appreciated all the work that had been put into the project. He stated he thought it looked like the applicant wanted to do the right thing. He stated he understood
what the applicant was trying to accomplish but he was concerned that he could not see where the design guidelines were being exceeded to allow the requested relaxations. He stated
he was concerned with building locations, pedestrian & bike circulation, outdoor public spaces, natural vegetation, and the Entryway Corridor requirements. He read some excerpts from
the DOP regarding continuity, edge of buildings, and landscaping. He stressed bringing the buildings forward and shielding the parking from Huffine Lane, but he could not think of any
place else that had a fence around its perimeter; the development would be distinctly different than the surrounding developments. He suggested he saw a traditional linear grid, lot
and block subdivision and did not see any of the opportunities for amenities. He stated he agreed with the Bicycle Advisory Board that no bike lanes should be included on the main artery
streets. He stated the items of concern all tied together and were connected to the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan which gave Bozeman a higher quality of life. He stated
he wasn’t sure about the ditch and how it would be treated on the site. Mr. Delaney stated there were very few examples of buildings along an Entryway Corridor being set close to the
street and those buildings did not have a viable retail component; he added the vast majority of the frontage of Smith’s on both sides is parking lot. Mr. Wall stated another of his
big concerns was waiting until phase 4 before there were significant parkland or open space areas.
Mr. Bechtle stated he agreed with Staff recommendations and thought Staff had done a great job identifying those concerns. He stated there were some similarities in attempting to create
a space and the requirements of the DOP; he added there was an opportunity to create a great internal space without turning the back of the development to Huffine Lane. He suggested
pulling one of the buildings back toward Huffine might also provide the opportunity to provide light to the grouping of buildings while creating the sense of place in the earlier phases.
He stated he thought it would be dangerous to have bikes right behind cars and suggested a wider sidewalk could be instituted that would allow for both bikes and pedestrians. He stated
he saw the UMU District as a commercial layered, pedestrian friendly development with residential units on the second levels such as live-work structures would provide. He suggested
he wished phase 1 was combined with phase 2 to allow for developed public gathering areas. He stated it seemed like downtown worked because they made a straight edge without holes and
he wondered if the breaks in the proposed structures would work. He suggested investigating moving the service and trash areas to be better integrated into the buildings instead of
being placed on the perimeter of the site. He stated he did not know how he felt about the fence. He stated he was concerned with the phasing of the proposal as phase 1 did not stand
very well on its own. He stated he thought it was great how much thought the applicant had put into the proposal. He stated there was an opportunity to create the third anchor of
the development along Resort Drive to keep an edge on the corner and address Huffine Lane. Mr. Delaney asked if the primary east-west main artery should be curvilinear or if a straight
block would make them feel more safe. Mr. Bechtle responded he did not mind the proposed organization if
there some way to guide a person to the center of the development. Mr. Delaney responded phases 1 and 2 could be combined. Mr. Bechtle responded he still thought pulling a building
forward and opening up either end would define the heart of the development.
Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with many of the Board’s comments, particularly Mr. Bechtle’s. He stated it was obvious a lot of thought and research had been put into the proposal.
He stated he agreed with Staff’s comments and recommendations. He stated he had struggled with the residential quality though he recognized the strong commercial qualities in the proposal.
He stated he did not see a lot of places that would accommodate pedestrians. He stated he did not see play spaces or recreational areas that would support a family residential quality.
He stated he thought the sustainability issues had been addressed but he did not see how the snow removal plan would work without boulevard space between the roadway and sidewalks.
Mr. Delaney responded the snow could be thrown into the greenway as it was not utilized during the winter. Mr. Banziger responded many people still used those areas but they could
be utilized for snow storage areas if they didn’t block pedestrians. He stated he was not seeing where there were bike parking facilities as well as their paths through the site. He
stated that he had started thinking about the design and it seemed to be a proposal instituting barriers instead of connecting to the developments around it; he suggested he was not
sure it was the right move not to be interconnected to the larger community. He suggested a transparent border needed to be instituted that would invite people into the site; the perimeter
fence would indicate that the community was gated. He stated if the square was hidden, he did not see how it would be an invitation for people to come to the site. He suggested the
service areas should not be faced toward the community. He stated he thought the proposal had a lot of good concepts such as the park in a central area and suggested smaller versions
of that could be scattered throughout the development.
Chairperson Pentecost stated he concurred with previous DRB comments. He stated he agreed that the trash containment locations should be investigated. He stated he loved the idea of
eyes on the street, but he was not seeing the residential component throughout the development. He stated he was strongly supportive of the residential component being instituted throughout
the site. He stated he thought the bike circulation through the site also needed looked at. He stated he agreed with Mr. Banziger that the fence seemed to detour people from the site
instead of drawing them onto the site. He stated he agreed with Mr. Banziger that there should be visibility of the plaza from Huffine Lane. He stated the building orientation would
be a challenge with regard to how the rear of the structures would be addressed. He stated he was supportive of a shorter block length and width. He stated there was a strong case
for solar energy if the building height was 25 feet as requested. He stated the DOP indicated the green space should be developed as construction occurred. He suggested developing
certain future building areas as park spaces progressively while removing the previous parks and moving the parkland forward.
Mr. Banziger added he did not have a problem with the proposed rectilinear layout. Mr. Hufsetler added he would choose neither the curvilinear or rectilinear layout if he had the choice
but instead organic evolution of the design.
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.}
Seeing no general public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pentecost closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
________________________________
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board