Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-12 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:34 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 Cristina Coddington Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Walter Banziger Page Huyette Visitors Present Matt Cotterman ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Rea moved, Ms. Huyette seconded, to approve the minutes of October 24, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Mahar Good Medicine Way PUD Concept Plan #Z-12269 (Saunders) 3601 Good Medicine Way * A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Application to allow the development of nine lots for single household structures with requested relaxations. Matt Cotterman joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting everyone was probably familiar with the location of the site and noted it had recently been annexed into the City. He noted the allowable uses in the Residential Suburban zoning district and that the proposal was for nine lots with an internal street and associated parkland with private open space. He noted there was a commercial parcel immediately adjacent to the south which had a zoning designation of B-1. He stated the balance of the property to the north and east was presently in the County and included developed lots with a variety of lot sizes. He noted the property itself was basically covered in grass. He stated he had provided Staff comments in addition to Development Review Committee comments from Staff. He stated parking would probably be located along the exterior perimeter of the street and would have a rural character along S. 3rd Avenue. He noted requests had been made for relaxations that were primarily regarding public infrastructure. He noted the character of the open space and general layout was what the DRB was considering; he added the neighbors were quite insistent that the site not connect Good Medicine Way and public comment had indicated as much. He noted Staff recommended pedestrian connectivity but it would rely a lot upon the adjacent neighbors. Vice Chairperson Rea asked what Staff had suggested for the public park area. Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of an area too small to be an active recreation park but could be utilized as the starting point for a walking/biking path or informational center. Matt Cotterman stated he had nothing to add to Assistant Director Saunders’ presentation. Ms. Huyette asked how parking would be affected on the proposed internal street as people would park in that location and cut across the site to get to the park. Assistant Director Saunders responded there would be six or eight cars along the street against the park, but there were currently no plans for a parking facility. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if lots 6 and 9 would be accessed from the internal street. Assistant Director Saunders responded the DRC had recommended access from the internal street. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the lots were smaller than those to the east. Assistant Director Saunders responded the lots were smaller. Ms. Coddington asked for clarification of the non-standard street sections relaxation that was being requested. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the standard street included a sidewalk, curb, gutter, and street of a certain width and they were asking for little less land to be used for the street itself. He added that the alternative would be to leave Good Medicine way alone instead of installing curb and gutter. Mr. Banziger stated he did not see a formal connection to the existing trail system and asked if there would be a connection included. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were two that were referenced and Staff was hoping a connection would be included on the internal street and would be picked up along the curve; he added there had been some discussion of a connection across the north. Mr. Banziger responded the connection stopped at the school on the west side of S. 3rd Avenue. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was currently no linkage. Mr. Banziger asked how the lot sizes compared to the ones to the north as the ones to the east were larger. Assistant Director Saunders responded the lots to the north were smaller than the lots on site; he added the ones to the east had a lot of topography to deal with on site septic. Chairperson Pentecost stated the applicant was requesting four relaxations and asked for clarification of some of the requests. Assistant Director Saunders responded that normally the standard for construction of a park was that a street needed to be on all four sides and they had requested that it not be the case in this instance. Chairperson Pentecost asked what physical constraint had caused the request for a less than standard right way width. Mr. Cotterman responded that there were no site constraints and they had requested the right of way be narrower at 54’ instead of 60’ and they had also asked for narrower boulevards which had not been supported by Staff. Assistant Director Saunders added that the request for narrower boulevards had not been supported due to the requirements of snow storage and boulevard trees. Ms. Huyette asked if there was any discussion of the phasing of the development. Mr. Cotterman responded the entire infrastructure would be completed in one shot, but the development of individual lots would be contingent on the market. Ms. Huyette thanked the applicant for presenting their project for review by the DRB. She stated the whole feel of the area transitioned once you were past Sacajawea School. She noted the County lots were rural by nature and the proposal seemed heavily developed and dense for the area; she asked if they had considered alternate layouts to present a more rural face to the community. Mr. Cotterman responded they had been encouraged by the City Commission to incorporate a more urban density, but opening up the perimeter could be considered though they were fairly small lots. Ms. Huyette asked if the original idea had been to provide more points of access. Mr. Cotterman responded it would be an easier layout if there were more points of access, but that had been discouraged. Ms. Huyette stated she had concerns with public access and interior traffic if the opens space became a jumping off point for the trail systems. She suggested laying out the open space to enhance the circulation would make it more useful. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he had nothing to add and it was unfortunate about Good Medicine Way not being connected to the site. He asked if it had been a City Commission decision but it had been based on the public comment. Vice Chairperson Rea stated he thought the proposal would work though he felt the project had been shoehorned onto the site. Ms. Coddington stated she agreed with previous DRB comments and noted she would encourage pedestrian connection on the site where possible. Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with Ms. Huyette as the site seemed like an island would b e created with no connection to the adjacent sites. He stated he also thought it was unfortunate that Good Medicine Way would not be connected. He suggested at least the sidewalk connectivity could be included to provide a safer way for kids to walk and ride to school; he noted there may be parking issues while people were trying to get to the park but there were a lot of trail system accesses in that location. Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification that a connection to Good Medicine Way would have provided a better site design. Mr. Cotterman responded it may not necessarily have been a better design but it would certainly have been an easier design. Chairperson Pentecost asked if there were requirements that provided for necessary connections. Assistant Director Saunders responded that there were requirements and the applicant was always encouraged to provide the street connections, but the primary argument advanced by members of the public in opposition to the connection had won out. He added he never expected Good Medicine Way to be anything other than a cul-de sac. Chairperson Pentecost stated his only concern was that if the good of the public had been compromised without the connection to Good Medicine Way. He suggested any connection to the trail system would be encouraged. Mr. Banziger suggested instead of two entry points off of third splitting into a “T” would allow for a future connection to Good Medicine Way if that ever became a right of way. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded that one access could be blocked during an emergency and suggested two accesses would facilitate emergencies best; he added there was a requirement for the number of accesses per number of lots. Ms. Huyette suggested playing with the open space location. Vice Chairperson Rea stated the connectivity to the trails would help his decision to approve the project once it had been formally submitted. MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Vice Chairperson Rea seconded, to forward the comments made by the DRB to the applicant. 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 6:17 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board