Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB-050813 MinDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, May 8, 2013 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:33 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  Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Doug Riley, Associate Planner  Mel Howe Courtney Kramer, Planner I/ Historic Preservation Officer  Mark Hufstetler Sally Thomas, Administrative Assistant II  Cristina Coddington   Lori Garden   Bill Rea   Walter Banziger      Members Absent Visitors Present  Scott Bechtle Susan Riggs, Intrinsik Architecture   Henri Foch, Intrinsik Architecture   Robert J. Pertzborn, Intrinsik Architecture   Troy Scherer, Design 5 Architecture   ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2013 MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, and Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of April 24, 2013 as presented. The motion carried 6-0 (Mr. Banziger arrived after this motion). ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Block M Residential Infill SP/COA #Z-13072 (Riley/Kramer) Black Avenue, Beall Street, Tracy Avenue, Lamme Street A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of two sets of ten attached, vertical duplexes on individual lots with related site improvements and including the demolition of three residential structures. Planner Riley introduced the project: Located north of Kenyon Noble downtown. Includes three existing residential structures. Zoned B-3 same as Main Street, in the NCOD. It is within the City’s Downtown Improvement Plan for the North Village District to bring more housing downtown. Planner Kramer: Design review was difficult since guidelines don’t touch on residential within the business zone. Used NCOD guidelines, everything was applicable and there were no conflicts. Conditions: Final color and materials palette. The materials are final and won’t move around. Mechanical equipment to be screened. Not much historic integrity in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is generally supportive of the application. Ms. Riggs: Design team very enthusiastic about the project. Project will be a great asset to the existing downtown fabric. Design inspired by row houses. Main elevation is 7 ft. above grade and lower level is 3 ft. below. It is part of a transition zone. It will provide 20 townhome homes with two-car garages. There are three types of homes with slightly below-grade flex space that could be a separate apartment or an in-home office. It will be subdivided so that each will be on its own lot. City Commission will review both applications. The site plan is flexible. It may be a phased development, starting on the southwest portion of the site because of infrastructure. The HOA maintains the perimeter to keep it looking unified. B-3 zoning allows cash in lieu of parkland which will provide improvements to a nearby park. Landscaping includes rooftop patios and small plazas near sub-grade units. Mr. Scherer: The project will set up and complement the neighborhood’s present architecture. The low-maintenance, simple maintainable landscape includes drifts of ornamental grasses. Recessed patios gives each unit outdoor space. It will include benches and bike hangars. The corner units have more yard space. Ms. Riggs: The project is in line with all City plans. QUESTIONS: Mr. Rea: Does the brick house have some value? Planner Kramer: In 1986 it wasn’t listed on the National Register. There are 10 demos in that neighborhood. Not all are historically significant and some are beyond salvaging. The Commissioners will review and approve the demolition of the three residences. Mr. Banziger: No questions. Ms. Gardener: What is the time frame? Is there open space? Ms. Riggs: Project will be built as they are sold. Phase I would start this summer, and if enough interest all three phases will be constructed at once. Planner Riley: Regarding open space, cash in lieu of parkland encourages this type of downtown residential development. Mr. Rea: The units to the north on Beall--was that an Intrinsik project? Ms. Riggs: Yes, Intrinsik and Comma-Q. The overall intent of this project is to mimic the original row house. Mr. Rea: Are there different colored doors? Ms. Riggs: Yes, this provides individuality. Mr. Rea: Do all units have elevators for accessibility requirements? Ms. Riggs: All have an option for the elevators. Mr. Foch: Individual lots and ground-level entry, provides accessibility if wanted. Mr. Rea: Do the units across the street have elevators? Mr. Foch: No. Mr. Rea: View triangles out of the alley? Ms. Riggs: Existing trees will remain if they don’t block visibility, although one tree will need to come down. Ms. Coddington : No questions. Mr. Hufstetler: Will the parking requirements change if the flex units become a separate apartment? Planner Riley: The garage parking fully meets the minimum required parking requirements even if the flex unit is used as a separate residential unit. Ms. Riggs: There are also 11 spaces on the street. Mr. Hufstetler: Is the alley one-way? Planner Riley: No it can be two-way and was designed to accommodate service and emergency vehicles. There will be no parking signage on each end of it. Mr. Hufstetler: What about City requirements for affordable housing units? Planner Riley: The Affordable Housing Ordinance is suspended by the City. The City performed a housing needs assessment approximately 6 months ago and they will revise the AHO using the assessment results. Ms. Riggs: The optional sub-level units would allow additional people to afford to live downtown. Mr. Hufstetler: The units are high quality but are very uniform. Different colored doors seem pretty minimal. Perhaps two to three designs? Ms. Riggs: The end units are turned so that there is more relationship to other houses. There are three different unit types, they’re not all identical. The block is only little more than half a regular-sized block. Mr. Foch: The design was inspired by row housing, nostalgia for brownstones, and the identity of the neighborhood. They looked at San Francisco’s “Painted Lady” houses with a color difference. Around the corner on Black Street is a successful example. They felt this is an appropriate response and forcing stylistic differences might not work. Every two buildings you can see straight through. Corners are like bookends. Mr. Hufstetler: A bit more internal variety may have helped. Mr. Howe: Great project. Likes the “Painted Ladies” scheme of San Francisco. Ms. Gardener: Can pedestrians walk between the twin units? Ms. Riggs: No but there is visibility through them. Ms. Gardener: What is the price point? Ms. Riggs: Not known yet. HOA fees will be a fair share basis. Mr. Foch: Will be built as pre-sold. These are built by the developer. Will be built as pairs. Ms. Riggs: They are designed so that there will never be a three-story unfinished wall during the construction phases. Chairman Pentecost: Does this have to go through final plat? Ms. Riggs: Yes, but phased final plat submittals. Chairman Pentecost: What’s happening with the rest of the lot? Ms. Riggs: All demolition will occur with the first phase, along with storm water and driveway paving. Site will be graded and seeded, unless it can be built all at once. Discussion: Mr. Banziger: Quite an interesting project. Likes the urban feel. Likes rooftop access. Disappointed to reference of brownstones, which typically have some backyard space which this project doesn’t have, particularly the studio apartments. Ms. Gardener: Great project. The price point will be crucial; people can buy a house across town for that price. Mr. Rea: Two major concerns: 1) Phasing. He is concerned that the houses may not sell. Need to commit to the project. They will be tearing down three houses and then might have two units with a driveway and grass. 2) Uniformity. The colorful houses on Black look high end, but these look like affordable housing. Ms. Coddington: She supports the project and downtown urban density. If it could incorporate affordable housing that would be great. Mr. Hufstetler: Impact of this block to the conservation overlay doesn’t concern him too much. The block is already seriously historically damaged, as are the neighboring blocks. Would be happier if the phasing were not an issue. Would be nice if the driveway was only half built until the second phase was underway. The rhythm won’t be as noticeable to people on the street and they would appreciate the neighborhood if they were more architecturally distinguishing. More variety would invite more permanent residents. The units seem soulless. Mr. Howe: Discuss the color more. Chairman Pentecost: Feels it lacks the energy that they (Intrinsik) are known to put into projects. MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, and Mr. Rea seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Block M Residential Infill SP/COA #Z-13072 with Staff conditions 1, 2 and 3 as outlined in the Staff report. Mr. Hufstetler: Would prefer a more detailed phasing plan, but not if the rest of the group disagrees. Planner Riley: What type of phasing plan is the DRB thinking? A phased landscaping plan? Boulevard trees? Ms. Riggs: The trees go in after the infrastructure. Mr. Hufstetler: What about asking for a specific interim landscaping plan? Planner Riley: The City’s typical revegetation plan is minimal and is largely seeding for erosion control and noxious weed management. The City does not have regulations or standards on the books to ask for more in terms of interim landscaping. Mr. Pertzborn: This may be an as-built project, and may need ground to stage, which would uproot the landscaping. Mr. Howe: We should be talking about the aesthetics of the project. Mr. Hufstetler: He would support adding a condition for landscaping for the project. Ms. Riggs: They want the rest of the project to look nice while the phasing is occurring. Grass would be fine. Gardens, trees and shrubs would not be practical. Planner Riley: Irrigation would be needed to successfully keep interim landscaping alive. Mr. Rea: Irrigating 3/4 block of grass seems wasteful. He wants landscaping but will not ask for a condition. The motion stands. The motion was approved 7 - 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.} No public comment was forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board