Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-12 Design Review Board MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:37 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 Mel Howe Keri Thorpe, Planner Bill Rea, Vice Chairperson Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Scott Bechtle Lori Garden Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Mark Hufstetler Walter Banziger Visitors Present Chris Budeski Dean Burgess ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2012 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Rea moved, Mr. Bechtle seconded, to approve the minutes of November 14, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Howe abstaining. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Saddle View Apartments SP/COA #Z-12291 (Thorpe) 700 Haggerty Lane * A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the construction of nine 8-plex apartment buildings with 3 storage buildings and 1 exercise/office building on a site previously developed with improvements for the construction of 6 additional 15-plex condominium buildings. Two 15-plex condominium buildings have already been constructed. Chris Budeski joined the DRB. Mr. Banziger joined the DRB. Planner Keri Thorpe presented the Staff Memo noting the proposal was a resurrection of Thulin Condominiums which the DRB had reviewed and approved in 2005. She noted she had brought the old site plan and had provided the original Staff Report for the submittal. She noted that condition #4 included the construction of the retaining wall as being quality masonry and asked the Board for their specific recommendations. She stated there would be new drawings submitted later in the week to provide for the requested changes to the retaining wall; some of the conditions may be addressed prior to DRC Final Week review. She noted the Planning Director had the discretion to relax the conditions of approval. She stated Staff would also like recommendations for softening of the appearance of the retaining wall face. Mr. Bechtle asked if the contours just hadn’t been updated. Mr. Budeski responded Mr. Bechtle was correct and all he had done was set the finished floors; the maximum height would be eight feet. Planner Thorpe responded the Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee had met with the applicant earlier in the day and noted which sidewalks were being required to be installed and that Staff was supportive. She noted the landscaping plan did not repeat the landscaping around the perimeter of the existing 15-plexes on the site and asked for Board input. Mr. Budeski stated the applicant agreed with Staff regarding the height of the retaining wall and proposed a maximum height of four feet on two of the walls with a five foot planter in between to break up the wall. He stated the stepping down of the building was due to the slope of the site and the previous structures had been much narrower with only one bedroom units. He noted storage would be provided on site in addition to a workout/office building. Mr. Burgess stated the buildings were proposed with more depth to provide for no appearance of a backside of the structures so there were areas that were more tightly grouped. He stated the original buildings had staircases exposed on the fronts and the owner had requested internal staircases instead. Mr. Budeski added that all the parkland had been developed, but would need to be cleaned up. Ms. Garden asked for clarification that the correct amount of open space had been calculated. Planner Thorpe responded they had provided more than what was actually required; she added more amenities were included in the conditions of approval. Vice Chairperson Rea verified the location of the offices/gym structure and that the site was within the Entryway Corridor. Planner Thorpe noted the location and responded that it was within the Entryway Corridor. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the infrastructure had been installed. Mr. Budeski responded all infrastructure had been installed. Vice Chairperson Rea stated the elevation facing the Interstate looked like a big blank wall. Mr. Burgess__ responded the elevations would need to be revised as they had recently made changes to the renderings. Vice Chairperson Rea asked if the slope was too steep to plant. Mr. Budeski responded it was steep and it was already all vegetated with eight foot tall brush. Mr. Hufstetler asked if additional landscaping would be added to the corridor along the Interstate. Mr. Budeski responded there were some trees at the end of the parking lot would be included, but they would maintain the native vegetation elsewhere. Mr. Hufstetler asked if there were allowances for increased wildlife interaction with the applications. Planner Thorpe responded Staff did not really get into the protection of wildlife but those corridors that were more heavily vegetated would draw wildlife; she added there was a weed protection requirement that would be in place. Chairperson Pentecost asked if the footprint of the buildings would be equal to or less than the footprint area originally proposed for the site. Mr. Burgess responded each unit was had originally been proposed at approximately 1,000 sq. ft. Mr. Budeski responded that the number of units and density would be less while the overall square footage would be larger. Mr. Banziger thanked the applicants for presenting their proposal to the DRB. He stated he agreed with Staff regarding the connectivity, sidewalks, and landscaping. He stated the open spaces proposed seemed remote from the proposed structures and suggested more recreation areas be proposed on the site; bike path connections, seating areas, and other amenities in addition to the gym. He stated he agreed with Vice Chairperson Rea that the facades facing the interstate needed more careful design consideration and suggested not interfering with the native vegetation between the site and the Interstate. Vice Chairperson Rea reiterated that the northeast elevation of the proposed storage units was his concern with regard to their blank facades and added he was also concerned with the appearance of the retaining walls. He asked for clarification of the four to five foot height. Planner Thorpe responded the Municipal Code restricted the height to four feet in the front yard while the Design Guidelines had a maximum height of five feet, which was allowable in other locations on the site. Mr. Budeski responded that they were considering cast in place concrete that looked like rock. Vice Chairperson Rea suggested he would prefer to see real rock. Mr. Budeski responded real rock was expensive. Vice Chairperson Rea noted that the backside of the storage unit and the retaining wall were his major concerns; he suggested stepping the retaining wall in and out. Mr. Budeski responded a development he had done on N. 27th Avenue had included gables and fake windows with varied siding to break up the façade. Mr. Hufstetler stated he agreed with Staff recommendations and noted not much could be said about the site as much of it was already developed. He stated he thought it was important to respect the transition between adjacent uses through the use of additional landscaping elements, specifically on the corners, to soften the visual impact of the site. He noted it would be nice to see a little more pedestrian connectivity and noted he agreed with Mr. Banziger that there as really only one area available for use; he suggested placing something cool somewhere to draw people to use the outdoor amenities that was visible from the inside as well such as a picnic or play pavilion with an outdoor architectural element to tie into the architectural elements. Mr. Banziger noted that he had been referring to including a social gathering area of some sort. Mr. Budeski suggested there were a couple of areas that could be enhanced to provide those amenities and he agreed with Board comments. Mr. Bechtle clarified that the parking areas and utilities had already been installed and that had been what limited the design and asked if they had considered re-grading the site. Mr. Budeski responded he had not considered re-grading the site as the owner had wanted to retain the parking as installed. Mr. Bechtle suggested considering re-grading as he thought it might be such a heavy cost thought the water/sewer reset might be costly; there may be an advantage to the investigation. Mr. Budeski responded he would bring it up with the owner and see what they wanted to do. Mr. Bechtle stated he knew everyone wanted storage and recommended dressing up the storage building façade to keep in character with the other buildings; he suggested the units could be smaller and located in the corridors within the buildings and using the proposed storage locations for enhanced landscaping. He stated it would be nice to have landscaping at the entries and closer to the southeast side where most of the density would be located. Mr. Budeski stated he agreed and would ask the question of the owner. Mr. Burgess responded that the owner was excited about the parking lot as it had already been installed, but he would also be interested in a cost estimate as Mr. Bechtle suggested. Mr. Budeski responded the site had just enough parking as it was proposed. Mr. Bechtle suggested more landscaping to buffer the retaining walls and suggested a phasing plan be included if the buildings were being completed two at a time. Vice Chairperson Rea added he liked Mr. Bechtle’s idea of rethinking the grading of the site. He asked what would happen if building I, J, and K could be combined in a three story building. Mr. Burgess responded a three story structure was not as marketable; the owner had been told it was a possibility, but had not moved forward with the design. Vice Chairperson Rea suggested a more dense design in that location could provide more open space areas. Mr. Budeski responded that if the two end buildings were three story structures, one building could be eliminated altogether. Vice Chairperson Rea added there were real economic benefits to providing a higher density. Mr. Hufstetler stated he would be supportive in the reduction of the number of buildings as well as the cookie cutter appearance of the development. Mr. Budeski responded he would consider the revisions and speak with the owner. Ms. Garden noted there was no landscaping provided around the structures themselves and asked for clarification of the requirements. Planner Thorpe responded that what had been approved in the original application had all been installed; those trees proposed in proximity of the parking lot were extra and she had included a “soft” condition of approval to install more landscaping to continue the previously installed landscaping around the new structures. Ms. Garden suggested more trees around the proposed buildings and in the open space areas. Mr. Budeski responded that the owner would not be averse to including more landscaping. Chairperson Pentecost stated he had only one comment and it was with regard to the proposed architecture. He stated the end view would only be seen when coming from the Interstate and he thought the façade that was being presented was really weak. He stated he was supportive of previous DRB comments, but he was most focused on the proposed material palette and the blank façade. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Rea moved, seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for Saddle View Apartments SP/COA #Z-12291 with Staff conditions of approval as amended by the DRB, striking the language “where possible” from Staff condition of approval #4, the addition of condition #12 “the applicant shall provide an elevation of NE façade of the storage units between buildings B and C to be approved by the Interim Planning Director, and condition #13 “the applicant shall provide a revised architectural design with additional refined elements and distinguishing architectural features in a revised elevation plan for all of the proposed buildings to be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to Final Site Plan approval”. Mr. Bechtle suggested if the grading of the site was to be modified the Board would also need to review the new grading plan. Vice Chairperson Rea stated the site was one of the more visually obvious sites on the way into the City and they didn’t know what the retaining walls would look like or the proposed architecture of the structures. Mr. Banziger added that there were a lot of changes the Board wanted to see. Mr. Budeski responded it would be a month delay when the owner wanted to break ground in the spring. Chairperson Pentecost suggested the revised materials could be reviewed digitally. Mr. Howe noted that no final decision could be made and the public hearing requirements would be compromised if the Board reviewed the materials digitally. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Hufstetler concurred that he thought the DRB need to see the project again as there were so many issues that needed corrected. Mr. Budeski suggested he liked the idea of sending out the revisions electronically. Mr. Bechtle suggested meeting a week earlier than normally scheduled or instead on January 2, 2012. Mr. Banziger stated he didn’t see the concern with the delay of the project. Mr. Budeski responded that the comments needed to be to the Planning Director 10 days prior the decision being due; he reiterated that after receiving the comments there might not be a need for another meeting. Mr. Burgess stated he was not certain it was conceivable to get the revised drawings completed next week and he knew that the owner would not be available the rest of the week. Mr. Budeski asked if the Board would please open and continue the item to the next meeting of the DRB. MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Bechtle seconded, to open and continue the item to the next meeting of the DRB. Mr. Budeski noted they wanted to keep the same theme for the site. Chairperson Pentecost responded that they did not need to throw out the whole design, just make the proposed better. The motion carried 6-0 with Mr. Howe abstaining. 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.} There were no items forthcoming. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m. Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board