Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-07_Cowdrey Towers Informal I-07022_20 Report compiled on October 10, 2007 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner SUBJECT: The Cowdrey Towers Informal Application, #I-07022 MEETING DATE: Monday, October 15, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission considers the comments from staff, the Design Review Board and the Planning Board, and provides the applicant with comments to assist them in preparing a formal application to proceed. BACKGROUND: Bechtle Slade, P.C. on behalf of Tracy Cowdrey has submitted an application for informal review. They are seeking comment and input from the Commission and various advisory boards regarding this project. The project is a mixed use project on approximately 16.16 acres between Baxter Lane and Tschache Lane due west of the Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse on the west side of Bozeman. The Development Review Committee reviewed this proposal at their September 12th and 19th, 2007 meetings. The Design Review Board reviewed this proposal at their September 26, 2007 meeting. The Planning Board reviewed this proposal at a public meeting on October 2, 2007. This parcel has been subject to two prior PUD applications and a minor subdivision. Other uses in the area include the Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, a hotel, chamber of commerce, restaurants, retail, and the Kenyon Noble Hardware and Lumberyard. The property lies within the I- 90/Frontage Road Class I Entryway Corridor. The proposed project will require many steps to review. The purpose of the informal review is to determine what process may be the most appropriate for the applicant to pursue in order for them to request approval for the type of development that is envisioned in the informal materials that were submitted for consideration. The area is currently designated as Regional Commercial on Figure 6-2 of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan as are the majority of the surrounding properties. The project property is zoned as “B-2” (Community Business District). The proposal may need to request a change to these designations to primarily Residential with some Commercial areas or a change to a Community Commercial designation through which up to 49% of the gross floor area could be used for residential uses. The applicant might also consider utilizing their existing land use designation and request a zone change to the new Urban Mixed Use District. Staff has identified some potential areas in the current design that do not currently conform to the standards within the Urban Mixed Use District (please see the attached Design Review Board memo that includes summary comments from DRC). The Urban Mixed Use District was only recently approved as a new zoning designation for the City; it has yet to be implemented. Per the applicant’s original narrative the project was to consist of nearly 1,000,000 square feet of residential, commercial, and office uses within 9 seven story buildings. The applicant has revised the proposal during the review after comment from staff and various Boards. The current proposal includes a large parking structure and six satellite mixed use buildings. The original proposed mixed of uses of 88% residential, 6% retail, 4% restaurant, and 2 % office has been revised to approximately 45-50 % residential with the balance in retail, restaurant, and office. 123 Report compiled on October 10, 2007 Commission Memorandum UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 1. Would you support this type, mix, and intensity of uses on this site and in the entryway corridor and this area of the City? 2. Would this site be appropriate for the Urban Mixed Use zoning designation? Does it appear possible to satisfy the zone map amendment criteria? Amendment criteria are in Chapter 18.70, page 70-2, of the Bozeman Municipal Code. 3. Would you support the potential maximum height of 96 feet for this site? 4. Does the proposal appear to be an overall benefit to the City as a whole? 5. Does the proposed development appear to be in accordance with the principles contained in the growth policy, especially Chapter 6? FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please feel free to email Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net if you have any questions. APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Staff memo to the Planning Board, dated 9-26-07 Minutes of the Planning Board’s 10-2-07 public meeting Staff memo to the Design Review Board, dated 9-26-2007 Minutes of the Design Review Board’s 9-26-2007 public meeting Aerial photo Applicant’s submittal original and revised 124 planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: Bozeman Planning Board FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner RE: Cowdrey Towers Informal, #I-07022 DATE: September 26, 2007 Bechtle Slade, P.C. on behalf of Tracy Cowdrey has submitted an application for informal review. They are seeking comment and input from many advisory boards regarding this project. The project is a mixed use project on approximately 16.16 acres between Baxter Lane and Tschache Lane due west of the Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse on the west side of Bozeman. This parcel has been subject to two prior PUD applications and a minor subdivision. Other uses in the area include the Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, a hotel, chamber of commerce, restaurants, retail, and the Kenyon Noble Hardware and Lumberyard. The property lies within the I-90/Frontage Road Class I Entryway Corridor. The proposed project will require many steps to review. The purpose of the informal review is to determine what process may be the most appropriate for the applicant to pursue in order for them to request approval for the type of development that is envisioned in the informal materials that were submitted for consideration. The area is currently designated as Regional Commercial on Figure 6-2 of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan as are the majority of the surrounding properties. The project property is zoned as “B-2” (Community Business District). The proposal may need to request a change to these designations to primarily residential with some commercial areas or a change to a Community Commercial designation through which up to 49% of the gross floor area could be used for residential uses. The applicant might also consider utilizing their existing land use designation and request a zone change to the new Urban Mixed Use District. Staff has identified some potential areas in the current design that do not currently conform to the standards within the Urban Mixed Use District (please see the attached Design Review Board memo that includes summary comments from DRC). The Urban Mixed Use District was only recently approved as a new zoning designation for the City; it has yet to be implemented. Per the applicant’s narrative the project is to consist of nearly 1,000,000 square feet of residential, commercial, and office uses within 9 seven story buildings. The approximate use allocation envisioned by the applicant is 88% residential, 6% retail, 4% restaurant, and 2% office. The project would include 7 public plazas and a 3,000 square foot pavilion to serve various uses such as live music and a farmer’s market. The parking for the project is proposed to be approximately 2’ subgrade and to occupy the entirety of the ground and possibly the second floor of all the buildings. Advisory boards which are also considering this application prior to City Commission consideration include: Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board. 125 Page 2 Questions for consideration by Planning Board include: 1. Would you support this type, mix, and intensity of uses on this site and in the entryway corridor and this area of the City? 2. Would you support the potential maximum height of 96 feet for this site? 3. Does the proposal appear to be an overall benefit to the City as a whole? 4. Does the proposed development appear to be in accordance with the principles contained in the growth policy, especially Chapter 6? Attachments: Applicant’s submittal Design Review Board Memo for the September 26, 2007 meeting Mailed To: Bechtle Slade PC, 705 E. Mendenhall, Bozeman, MT 59715 Tracy Cowdrey, 500 E. Kagy Boulevard, Bozeman, MT 59715 126 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 1 *** MINUTES *** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007 7:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the City Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, Chair Erik Henyon Caren Roberty Randy Carpenter Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Eric Roset Kaaren Jacobson Bill Quinn Members Absent: None Staff Present: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Andy Epple, Planning Director Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Chris Mehl Ron Slade Chris Budeski Neal Ainsworth ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing there were no members of the public wishing to give any comment, Chair JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 127 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 2 Seeing there were no corrections, changes or additions to the minutes, JP announced that the minutes of the regular meeting of September 5, 2007, are approved as submitted. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Informal Application #I-07022 (Cowdrey Towers) - An Informal Application for advice and comment, on behalf of the owner, Tracy Cowdrey, and the representatives, Bechtle-Slade, PC, on the proposed construction of nine seven-story mixed-use buildings and related site improvements. The property is legally described as Lots 3-6 of the Saccoccia Minor Subdivision. (Krueger) Staff Report: Associate Planner Brian Krueger characterized this application as a complex one that does not fit into the code as it exists today. As a result, staff has discussed the possibilities of growth policy revisions, involvement in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan update process, and various zoning designations. He noted that those issues, along with four questions on which staff is seeking guidance, have been submitted in the memo included in the Board members’ packets. Associate Planner Krueger noted the subject property lies just east of Lowe’s. The 16-acre parcel consists of four lots within a minor subdivision that is overlaid by the Lowe’s PUD as well as the Saccoccia PUD. The property has a land use designation of regional commercial and is zoned “B-2”. Because it is located in close proximity to North 19th Avenue and I-90, the area has been envisioned as accommodating larger regional scale retail, educational facilities and medical facilities. He indicated there is a small wetlands area in the corner of the subject property. The Associate Planner noted this proposal is conceptual and general. The proposal is for about 1 million square feet of space, constructed in nine seven-story buildings. The original application included a mix of uses as follows: 88 percent residential, 2 percent office, 6 percent retail and 2 percent restaurant. The “B-2” zone, however, does not contemplate residential development; and staff has not previously seen this type of development proposed within that zone. He noted the plan includes a retention pond and intensely tall buildings, potentially up to 96 feet in height. He stated that this parcel contains a significant amount of common open space for the planned unit development, and this proposal substantially reduces that amount of open space. The Associate Planner stated that the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board have reviewed this conceptual plan and, as a result of comments from those boards, the applicant has revised the plan. Those changes include a reallocation of space and the construction of a parking garage rather than the common parking area under most of the buildings. Associate Planner Krueger stated the Design Review Board was generally in favor of the conceptual plan, although its discussion was limited to the architecture. He noted that the Development Review Committee’s comments are included in the staff report, and generally revolve around setbacks and whether this is appropriate in the “B-2” zone. He indicated that the Planning Board comments will be combined with the comments from those bodies and included in the information forwarded to the City Commission for consideration at its October 15 meeting. 128 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 3 The Associate Planner asked the Board to enter into a general discussion and posed the following four questions: (1) would you support this type, mix and intensity of uses on this site in the entryway corridor and in this area of the city; (2) would you support the potential maximum height of 96 feet for this site; (3) does the proposal appear to be an overall benefit to the city as a whole; and (4) does the proposed development appear to be in accordance with the principles of the growth policy, particularly Chapter 6? Planner Krueger noted that the tallest downtown buildings are 78 to 80 feet in height; and under the unified development ordinance, the proposed 96-foot tall buildings are possible. He then indicated that through the new urban mixed use zoning designation, this proposed type of development could be done. Questions for Staff: Responding to Chair JP Pomnichowski, the Planner stated that when the Lowe’s and Saccoccia PUDs were considered, the entire property was included even though the Saccoccia PUD was to be phased. He noted that some of the open common space requirements for the Lowe’s site were moved to the adjacent lot, and much of the common open space designated on the parcel currently under consideration was for the entire PUD. He stated the options available to the applicant at this time include cash-in-lieu, moving the open space within the PUD, or providing the open space off-site on an adjacent parcel. He cautioned that the subject PUD now has multiple ownerships; and there are applications currently in the pipeline for development of other parcels. Responding to additional questions from Chair Pomnichowski, Planner Krueger stated the setback requirements for the Walton stream/ditch must be met and, if the applicant proposes to impact the wetlands, a revised permit may be required. He then indicated he does not anticipate another planned unit development would be overlaid on the two existing PUDs; rather, he suggested it would be more appropriate to conform to the design requirements of the urban mixed use district under the existing PUDs. He acknowledged that this could require a zone map amendment and potentially a growth policy amendment. Responding to Brian Caldwell, Planner Krueger stated the subject property lies within the I-90 entryway corridor, and confirmed that the applicant may request deviations but cautioned that they are limited to 20 percent above or below the listed standard. Ed Sypinski asked if the applicant will be able to meet parkland requirements for the residential component of the development. Associate Planner Krueger described that as a looming issue, along with meeting the requirements of the workforce housing ordinance. He noted that options include cash-in-lieu, providing those amenities off-site, or providing them on an adjacent parcel. He stated the applicant may request credit for other on-site improvements, and stressed that those requests are subject to review by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and approval by the City Commission. Responding to Ed Sypinski, Planner Krueger stated that this is where the discussion begins on whether the community is ready for this type of development in a regional commercial zoning district, and acknowledged that it may be discussed further during the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan update process. He noted one of the issues to consider is whether other larger commercial users have 129 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 4 developed in this area in anticipation of more commercial uses and not encountering conflicts with residential development. Ed Sypinski noted it is important to consider potential conflicts between commercial and residential uses, particularly those pertaining to noise, traffic and lights. Brian Caldwell noted it would be interesting to see the calculation of density proposed. Kaaren Jacobson asked if Lowe’s has beeping trucks all night long, citing the northeast quadrant of the community as an example of those potential conflicts. Associate Planner Krueger noted that the applicant has responded to some of those issues by putting a parking structure along the street frontage adjacent to Lowe’s. He then recognized that this is an issue to be further considered in designing of the site. Applicant Presentation: Ron Slade, Bechtle-Slade Architects, thanked the Planning staff for being cooperative and creative during this informal review process. He stated that significant design revisions have been made in light of comments previously received from the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board and acknowledged that, because of the scale and magnitude of this project, additional redesigns will be needed. He noted the revised plan includes a 45-percent residential component. He stated that, because of the high groundwater table, the underground parking has been eliminated and a parking structure added; and the result is to lower the height of the buildings. He noted that this allows a more pedestrian feel. He then indicated that the parking structure will help provide a buffer from Lowe’s, but he had not previously considered the potential of beeping trucks at night from the commercial development. He stated the applicant will seek the highest level of LEED certification possible for the buildings and drew attention to the green roofs proposed, noting that it is the applicant’s intent to provide a green outdoor space for every unit possible. Mr. Slade stated a significant outdoor performance venue is proposed within this mixed use live/work lifestyle center. He envisions young professionals, empty nesters and even families living in this development. He noted the first two stories of the buildings are to be pushed forward to the street edge and constructed in a very historic and traditional manner. They are to be brick, with the upper levels to be stepped back and more contemporary in design and materials. He indicated that the buildings are to be constructed with the pedestrian in mind. He concluded by voicing a willingness to respond to questions. Questions for Applicant: Responding to Kaaren Jacobson, Ron Slade stated the retail will be primarily located on the ground floor. He noted that 20 percent of the space must be retail, which is about 107,000 square feet. Randy Carpenter asked the applicant to respond to the four questions that Associate Planner Krueger has prepared. Ron Slade stated he feels high-density vertical mixed-use development is good for a number of reasons. He noted that, while the subject area is zoned for regional commercial development, he feels there is too much land zoned in that manner, and that this site will lend itself well to the proposed mixed use 130 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 5 development. He cited Reserve Street in Missoula as a frustrating failure as an arterial street and voiced his interest in preserving Bozeman as a unique place cherished for its lifestyle. He acknowledged the economic benefit that the community reaps from regional commercial development but stated he feels a significant architecturally sound high-end lifestyle center will also enhance the area and the overall community. He voiced his frustration with the vehicular orientation of development along North 19th Avenue and stated he feels a node of this type of development within the regional commercial zone will be a welcome relief. He noted the building height is currently at 86 feet, although he acknowledged that the height might increase a little. He stated that with today’s software, it is possible to build a replica of the existing buildings and topography and add the proposed structures to see how they will impact the area and adjacent properties. He believes the project will benefit the overall city for a number of reasons, noting that it precludes some sprawl by providing 1 million square feet of development on very few acres. He noted the current zoning would allow the same level of impact in a one-level big box retail center. He concluded by stating that the urban mixed use zoning designation is designed to foster this type of project, and was developed independent of this project. Further responding to questions from Randy Carpenter, Mr. Slade stated the mix of uses under the current proposal are 45 to 50 percent residential, or approximately 230 dwelling units; 35 to 40 percent parking; and the balance in a combination of retail, commercial and office. He anticipates the retail and offices will be located on the lower levels with residential development above. He then turned his attention to the square footage breakdowns, noting 119,580 square feet will be commercial, 21,524 square feet in restaurants, 56,203 square feet in offices, and 428,128 square feet in residential. He stated that, because of the mix of uses, the applicant will seek a reduction in parking requirements, noting the proposal includes 965 spaces. He turned his attention to the residential component, noting that it includes 32 one-bedroom units, 158 two-bedroom units and 40 three-bedroom units. A penthouse level is included in the plan. He indicated that workforce housing has not yet been addressed; however, he suggested that that requirement may be met through an off-site development. He turned to the issue of open space, noting that this development will not encroach into the wetlands although it might encroach into the flexible open space. He asked that consideration be given to the urban plazas and open spaces as well as the entertainment venue and the green spaces provided on the various roof levels. Responding to Kaaren Jacobson, Mr. Slade stated that the green space on the roof will be for use by the residents, not just for the views. He noted that a lot of water will be collected from those green decks, which do a lot to keep the buildings warm in winter and cool in summer. He then expressed his pleasure in being involved in a project where LEED certifications are being sought, noting that solar farms will be included on the roofs. Public Testimony: No public comment was received. Discussion: Chair Pomnichowski asked that the four questions identified by staff be the framework for this discussion. Brian Caldwell voiced his support for a site plan with deviations under the current zoning designation. He expressed his concern about changing the zoning designation to urban mixed use, noting that unintended consequences could result. He noted that some of the architecture along North 19th Avenue 131 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 6 looks like, and could easily be accommodate, second stories for office space. He supports the type of opportunities afforded under this conceptual plan within the community. He appreciates the redesign, which includes the parking garage, since it is a good way to shield residents from Lowe’s and vice versa and to provide an acoustic barrier. He also appreciates the intent to provide a pedestrian feel and to address the massing of buildings by stepping back the upper levels. He concluded by encouraging the applicant to proceed with a site plan and deviations for this project. Erik Henyon voiced his support for this project, stating he likes the mix and intensity. He indicated that he could support either the site plan process or changing to the urban mixed use zoning designation. He feels that the principles of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan are achieved and that the project provides a sense of place. He finds the height acceptable in this area, since it is located adjacent to the interstate and does not restrict the viewsheds from residential development. He likes the idea of higher- density residential development in this area. Caren Roberty stated she likes the decreased percentage of residential development, noting that anything over 49 percent is too much. She feels this application includes too much development for this site; and she is very concerned with the potential of parkland and affordable housing being provided off-site. She has trouble visualizing the proposed building height and definitely does not support the potential 96-foot height. She is also concerned about the visual impacts that this development might have on the three-story senior living development to the south. Ms. Roberty questioned whether the City is ready to support this density of development, particularly with the demands it would place on infrastructure and fire services. She concluded by stating she likes the concept, with its mix of residential and commercial uses, and the buildings with the top floors set back. Randy Carpenter stated he finds a lot of positives in this application. He noted that land consumption can be reduced by going up, and this application can result in a reduction in vehicle miles of travel. He suggested that workforce housing be provided within this project, particularly since many of the nearby uses create a demand for that type of housing. He also appreciates the reduction in surface parking under the revised plan. He then turned his attention to the downsides, the first of which is impacts on the downtown. Others include the contrast of scale with neighboring uses, potential conflicts with neighboring uses, and the type of mix and intensity of development. He acknowledged that height can be effectively dealt with through design. He noted that, while the applicant is saying all of the right things about design and pedestrian scale, the City’s zone code is not form based. He stated that, conceptually, he finds there are a lot of upsides to the project, and noted that the intensity and height can be addressed by design. JP Pomnichowski encouraged the applicant to find the easiest application process. She has no problem with a residential component on this “B-2” zoned parcel; however, she is concerned about the traffic numbers for this site. She is glad that the underground parking has been eliminated and that the floodplain will be accommodated. She noted that when the urban mixed use zoning designation was proposed, it was for a specific project and a specific site; and she feels that this site will also accommodate that type of use. She noted this site has boundaries and similar uses adjacent to it, the scale seems manageable, and the use is compatible. She feels the use is logical on this site, and the I-90 corridor overlay provides good design standards. In general, she finds the concept is great, and she expects the workforce housing to be provided on site rather than elsewhere. She likes the human scale at the street level and is pleased to hear the parking structure is to be located adjacent to the street, providing a buffer between this and the adjacent commercial use. She concluded by stating she feels the conflicts between the existing commercial uses and this development can be mitigated and 132 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 7 encouraged the applicant to proceed. Kaaren Jacobson stated she feels this is an appropriate location for the urban mixed use zoning designation, noting it promotes a sense of place and would provide for a little city within a city that is appropriate for Bozeman. She likes the plaza and pedestrian access and all of the commercial and retail space. She is also excited about the applicant’s interest in pursuing LEED certification. She noted that, regarding the building height, she has no problem with the potential 96-foot height. She concluded by stating that, while it would be good to provide the workforce housing on site, she could accept it being located off site. Bill Quinn stated he supports the proposal as described and finds it is good for the area and will help to change the character along North 19th Avenue in a positive manner. Caren Roberty noted the workforce housing ordinance is descriptive, but also gives the applicant the ability to design a plan for a specific project, and encouraged the applicant to follow that option and provide the housing on site. Chair JP Pomnichowski concluded this agenda item by thanking the applicant for the opportunity to review this plan and noted that it will be considered at the October 15 Commission meeting. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-07038 (Meadow Creek Subdivision Phases 3 & 4) - A Major Subdivision Pre-Application on behalf of the owners, Canvasback, LLC, and the representatives, Madison Engineering, LLC, to allow the subdivision of 61.27 acres into 144 lots for single-household development and 3 lots for multi-household development. The property is legally described as E ½, NE ¼, NW ¼, Section 23, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger) Staff Report: Associate Planner Brian Krueger noted that this pre-application is for subdivision of 61.27 acres into a total of 147 lots, 144 of which are to be detached single-household lots and 3 of which are to be multi- household lots. The subject parcel is Phases 3 and 4 of Meadow Creek Subdivision, and is located west of Genesis Business Park, south of Stucky Road and north of the extension of Graf Street; and the southeast corner of this property touches the northwest corner of Phases 1 and 2. He noted that the property has been preliminarily approved for annexation and a combination of “R-3” and “R-4” zoning designations. He noted that, while a lot of stream corridors were located in the first two phases, those issues do not exist on this property. Planner Krueger stated the applicant is proposing a modified alignment for South 27th Avenue to avoid the existing household that is not a part of this subdivision; and staff is generally supportive of that alignment as long as it meets engineering needs. He acknowledged that this change in alignment can act as a traffic calming device, although it does cause a few problems with some of the subdivision design. He indicated that Phases 1 and 2 have a significant park area at the north end, and a small expansion of that area has been included as part of the parkland proposal for this application. 133 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 8 The Associate Planner stated a laundry list of staff concerns has been included in the memo to the Board, a few of which he highlighted. Those include the need for an additional east/west connection, the need for larger multi-family lots to accommodate the minimum density for the “R-4” zoning designation, an additional mix of uses in the “R-3” zone, additional diversity in housing types, and the lack of restricted size lots and workforce housing. He noted that some alleyways are proposed; and staff recommends that alleys be provided throughout the center area of the subdivision to better accommodate separation of utilities. He also noted that where alleys are provided, staff recommends access be provided from them. The Planner stated that, even with the park area proposed within these phases, the applicant is short of parkland for the development and will be asking the Commission for credit for the waterways and corridors in Phases 1 and 2. Also, the applicant is not proposing a neighborhood center within these phases but is asking that the Miller Park in the middle of Phases 1 and 2 be accepted for these phases as well. He noted that a fairly significant commercial node is anticipated across the street. Associate Planner Krueger noted that the bend in South 27th Avenue results in a conflict with the lot layout, and staff has recommended the alley right-of-way adjacent to the street be eliminated. He indicated that a median has been proposed at the south end, as an extension of the median for the ditch further to the south, and staff has recommended that median be eliminated. The Associate Planner stated the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board has reviewed this pre- application but is withholding comment until more information is available. He noted the Board is generally supportive of considering the proposal since there are significant and different parks available in Phases 1 and 2, providing different opportunities for recreation. He stated an e-mail from the Gallatin Valley Land Trust raises concerns about a trail connection to the sliver of park proposed at the south end of these phases, ensuring connectivity throughout the subdivision. Questions for Staff: Erik Henyon requested that, when considering subsequent phases of a subdivision in the future, the Planning Board members be given copies of previous phases; Associate Planner Krueger responded that staff will request that information from the applicant in the future. Responding to questions from Erik Henyon, Associate Planner Krueger stated staff is working on how to implement the new workforce housing ordinance and coordinate it with the requirement for restricted size lots. He noted the workforce housing ordinance is very flexible and allows the applicant to propose a plan for meeting this ordinance. Responding to questions from Ed Sypinski, the Associate Planner stated that Stucky Road and Graf Street are the primary east/west roads in this area, and suggested that another east/west road just north of the Bennett house would provide better connectivity. Responding to Kaaren Jacobson, the Associate Planner confirmed that the small park area with these phases will connect to the existing park in Phases 1 and 2 that is currently being developed. Responding to Caren Roberty, Associate Planner Krueger stated the density requirement for the “R-3” zone is met by the applicant’s proposal; it just doesn’t include the mix of housing types that is anticipated under this zoning designation. 134 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 9 Applicant Presentation: Mr. Neal Ainsworth, applicant, noted a tremendous amount of open space, trails and ponds have been included in Phases 1 and 2 and noted that during consideration of those phases, he asked that he be given credit for those amenities as future phases are developed. He stated that Phases 1 and 2 contain 202 acres while these phases contain just over 61 acres. He indicated that the park in Phases 1 and 2 has two active soccer fields and those phases will have the community center. He assured the Board that the walking trails in Phases 1 and 2 will tie to trails in Phases 3 and 4. He also noted that workforce housing will be provided on site, although he recognizes the challenges of constructing lower priced housing on the south side of town. Mr. Ainsworth stated that his consultants have addressed many of the comments received to date. He noted, however, that alleys pose some difficulties in the layout of the center portion of these phases. He concluded by stating it is their intent to work with Capstone in developing the multi-family lots on the northern portion of the site, similar to their development in Cattail Creek Subdivision, and indicated the target price point for those units will be $200,000 to $220,000. Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, stated they are considering making larger blocks on the north end of the site. He noted that they are also looking at converting some of the “R-3” zoned property on the south end into duplex to four-plex lots, leaving the core area as single-family residential. He expressed concern with the proposed requirement for alleys, noting that on one hand affordable housing is desired but on the other hand additional land is being required for alleys. He questioned whether alleys are really important, citing areas of the community without alleys that work well. He understands the desire to separate public and private utilities, but cautioned that putting in alleys will result in shallow lots. Mr. Budeski noted that the neighborhood center in Phase 1 contains about 8 acres. He then acknowledged that the median on the south end of these phases is not needed because the ditch terminates before it reaches the property line; it was included to reflect the road design in Phases 1 and 2. He assured the Board that trail connections will be provided for connectivity to the water corridors and trails in Phases 1 and 2. He then asked that the wetlands be counted toward the parkland requirements for these phases and indicated that additional amenities are being planned for that area. Mr. Budeski indicated the applicant is working with the Bennetts, who own the adjacent property. He assured the Board that the bend in South 27th Avenue to avoid their home and outbuildings will be constructed to meet engineering standards. He noted that he is also working with the Middle Creek Ditch Company to ensure that water is not cut off to any water user. Questions for Applicant: Responding to Brian Caldwell, Chris Budeski stated that since a commercial node is planned at the intersection of Kagy Boulevard and South 19th Avenue, only residential development is planned within this subdivision. Responding to Caren Roberty, Mr. Budeski stated that a mix of 30 percent single-family and 70 percent multi-family housing is anticipated in the affordable housing component of this development, as anticipated under the ordinance. He indicated the multi-family units will be located in the “R-4” zoned 135 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 10 area, and the single-family units will possibly be constructed in a duplex townhouse format on a zero lot line to create a larger appearance that better fits into the neighborhood. Responding to Eric Roset, Chris Budeski estimated that a total of seven lots will be lost with an additional east/west connection. Responding to Kaaren Jacobson, Chris Budeski confirmed some of the lots along South 27th Avenue, where it bends around the Bennett property, will be double front lots. He indicated that the lots will actually front on South 28th Avenue, but the houses will be architecturally designed so they essentially have two fronts. He then stated the alley has been eliminated and four large lots provided. Responding to Randy Carpenter, Mr. Budeski stated these two phases fall within the radius from Miller Park, so a neighborhood center is not required within these phases. Responding to questions from JP Pomnichowski, Mr. Budeski stated the alley bulb on the south remains because direct access from South 27th Avenue is not allowed. He then indicated the Middle Creek Ditch Company maintains the ditch that runs from the south; and that ditch splits just south of this property. He indicated that the ditch to the Bennett property will be located within the median of South 27th Avenue; and that ditch will be eliminated when the Bennett property is developed. He noted that steps will be taken to ensure that downstream users on both ditches are not impacted by this development. Further responding to JP Pomnichowski, Mr. Budeski stated that the water rights in Middle Creek and the on-site wells will be changed at the appropriate time; however, at this time, those rights remain in agricultural use. Further responding to JP Pomnichowski, Mr. Budeski stated that another firm is doing the floodplain delineation, and the preliminary plat will not include any encroachment of lots into those areas. Public Testimony: No public comment was received. Discussion: Erik Henyon noted he is willing to accept the loss of alleyways; and all of the other issues he had have been addressed in this presentation. Brian Caldwell suggested that, rather than a 60-foot right-of-way for the streets, consideration be given to the possibility of a 45-foot right-of-way for local streets and a 20-foot right-of-way for the alleys, which would reduce the additional amount of land required to provide alleys. He then proposed that the Bennett property be viewed as a potential site for a small neighborhood commercial development or a public building, such as a church. He concluded by encouraging the applicant give further consideration to providing alleys in this subdivision. Erik Henyon stated he feels it is alright for different sections of town to have different character. He then noted he does not recall if Phases 1 and 2 of this subdivision were designed with alleys, but 136 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 11 suggested that Meadow Creek Subdivision be developed as a complete subdivision. Eric Roset noted that, as a homebuilder, he recognizes the immense cost of providing alleys and the attendant increased costs of those homes. He acknowledged that alleys do have a place, but he does not find that they are needed in this subdivision. Caren Roberty voiced concern that if the east/west alleyways are eliminated, the blocks will be more than 400 feet in length. Randy Carpenter stated he strongly supports alleyways for a number of reasons. He noted that alleys allow houses to be located closer to the street, and those areas with alleyways tend to be more valuable. He concluded by stating that he would like to see more alleys than there are at this time. JP Pomnichowski stated that, generally, she likes this plan, but indicated it would be helpful to see the phases under consideration in context with the other phases. She noted it is the Board’s duty to ensure that each phase complies with the code, and this plan does not include enough parkland or a neighborhood center. She encouraged the applicant to show how all requirements are met for each phase. She then indicated she does not like alley bulbs and is glad to see the northern one has been eliminated. She finds that in some instances alleys are appropriate and, in context of this project, she feels the layout is acceptable. She finds that South 27th Avenue will be a nice parkway with its bend and median. She acknowledged that, while the Bennett property might be a nice neighborhood center, the applicant cannot plan property that he does not own. She is relieved that no crossings of the wetlands are proposed. She encouraged the applicant to ensure that all of the necessary steps are taken to address the existing wells, the ditch and bridges. She voiced her appreciation for the open space, parkland and trails providing connectivity. She concluded by encouraging the applicant to massage the plat to accommodate the comments that have been received. Kaaren Jacobson stated she agrees with staff recommendations and appreciates the changes that the applicant has made. She is a strong proponent of alleys, and agrees that good trail connectivity must be provided. Chair JP Pomnichowski concluded this agenda item by thanking the applicant for the opportunity to review this pre-application and noting that it will be considered by the City Commission at its October 15 meeting. 2. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Update Chair JP Pomnichowski announced that the update process is about to begin with focus groups, citizen panels and public meetings. She noted that the Planning Board members have received a book bringing forward all of the questions to be addressed during this update process, and Clarion has been retained to assist. She noted that the citizen panels will begin on October 25, and on December 1 the first large public meeting is to be held in the meeting room at the Library. She stated that after the first of the year, more land use panels and a public meeting will be scheduled. She indicated that any questions regarding this process should be forwarded to Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders or Associate Planner Jody Sanford. 137 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 12 ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Selection of Vice Chair. Chair Pomnichowski noted that Dave Jarrett’s resignation has left this position vacant and asked that it be filled. Randy Carpenter nominated Erik Henyon to serve as Vice Chair. All Board members voted to approve the appointment of Erik Henyon as Vice Chair. Request for additional information. Randy Carpenter noted that he has previously requested additional contextual information be provided to the Planning Board members. He suggested that this could be provided electronically, and stated it would be much easier to consider an application if the surrounding land uses and developments were readily available. Chair Pomnichowski cautioned that, while that information might be helpful in providing a context for considering an application, each application must be considered by itself and on its own merits. Brian Caldwell noted it is important to take a larger view of the entire area when considering a specific application, particularly at the pre-application stage. He suggested that adding links from the Planning page of the website to the GIS information could be helpful. Randy Carpenter noted that the ovals circling specific area were extremely helpful, but asked that the comments and questions be color coded to match the circles to which they apply. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Board at this time, Chair JP Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 138 planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner RE: Cowdrey Towers Informal (#I-07022) DATE: September 26, 2007 Meeting Background/Proposal Planning Staff is hoping to obtain informal comments on the Cowdrey Towers Informal. The proposal includes property that is located on lots east of the Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, which is zoned as “B-2” (Community Business District). The lots encompass the entire area east of Lowe’s to the Walton Ditch and from Baxter Lane to Tschache Lane. The site in question lies within two PUD’s, the Saccoccia PUD and the Lowe’s HIW PUD. The site is also within the Class I, I-90 Entryway Corridor. The underlying Bozeman 2020 land use designation is Regional Commercial. Per the applicant’s narrative the project is to consist of nearly 1,000,000 square feet of residential, commercial, and office uses within 9 seven story buildings. The approximate use allocation envisioned by the applicant is 88% residential, 6% retail, 4% restaurant, and 2% office. The project would include 7 public plazas and a 3,000 square foot pavilion to serve various uses such as live music and a farmer’s market. The parking is proposed to be 2’ subgrade and to occupy the entirety of the ground and possibly the second floor of all the buildings. Planning Staff Comments The proposal has been considered the last two consecutive weeks at the Development Review Committee to receive informal comments. Following that review, Planning Staff offered the following comments on the proposed design: 1. Site: a. Approximately 16.16 acres. b. With the limits of the I-90 Class I Entryway Corridor. 2. Development Review Process: a. Site Plan Application: Required for individual buildings or cluster of buildings. b. Certificate of Appropriateness (COA): This project will require a standard site plan application. The site falls within the I-90 Class I Entryway Corridor which would require a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). Depending upon site thresholds this project may be subject to review by the Design Review Board. A Planning Director decision would apply if no deviations are requested. c. Growth Policy Amendment: The property is currently designated Regional Commercial. Only up to 49% of project square footage would be allowed to be residential under the 139 Page 2 current land use designation. If a higher percentage of residential is needed an underlying growth policy designation of Community Commercial may be requested, although this area may not be large enough to be designated a Community Commercial node. d. Participation in the 2020 Plan update. Potential to participate in the process and discuss other designation for the property. e. Zone map amendment. Urban Mixed Use District (UMU) may be possible with some redesign and use allocation with the current underlying land use designation of Regional Commercial as UMU is allowed in that designation. The other option would be to leave the zoning B-2 and pursue a Community Commercial land use designation. f. Modification to the PUD(s). Lowes HIW PUD. Saccoccia PUD. This would be required to reallocate PUD open space and add residential use as a specific use identified within both PUD’s. g. Phasing Plan. Would be required with any site planning submittal. 3. Building Height: a. Base Height in the B-2 District is 38 feet with the current roof pitch depicted is 38 feet. b. Per 18.18.060.B.3 the building height could be increased to 57 feet(+50%) as the property is implementing the Regional Commercial Designation. c. Per 18.18.060.B.4 the height could be increased an additional 17 feet (+30%) to a maximum of 74’ with the current roof configuration with a Conditional Use Permit. A deviation may enable up to an additional 20% in height. d. Base height in UMU zoning with structured parking is 80’. An additional 16’ could be requested through a deviation process with a Certificate of Appropriateness application. 96’ potential exists. 4. PUD Open Space: a. Current PUD open space shown on the lots must remain on the lots unless transferred to another lot within the development that is owned by the applicant or removed through b, below. b. PUD open space may be reconfigured or cashed out. Would require the approval of the Commission as a major modification of the PUD. See 18.36.090.E.a.(b).i-iv. c. The Lowe’s PUD within the Saccoccia PUD allocated open space for Lowe’s throughout the Saccoccia PUD. No areas specific to Lowe’s specified. Applicant would be responsible for the Lowe’s PUD open space. 5. Zoning: a. The current zoning for the project property is B-2. b. Urban Mixed Use zoning may be a possibility, but would require a ZMA. c. UMU allows up to maximum 70% single use. The residential use component could be no more than 70%. Primary use on ground floor shall be 75% non- residential. Parking for residential is considered a residential use. d. UMU would allow additional height with a deviation. Up to 20%. e. UMU potential conflicts: i. FAR floor area ratio of not less than .75. Don’t know what the proposed FAR is. ii. Maximum setback: at least 50% of the total building frontage which is oriented to the street shall be placed within 10 feet of any minimum required separation (setback) from the property line. iii. Parking garages on the ground floor are not allowed to count towards the required 50% frontage. iv. District shall be surrounded by perimeter streets unless precluded by topography. The development would not be surrounded by perimeter streets as depicted. Would the drive aisle be considered a street? v. Building transitions: Buildings over 3 stories in height within 50 feet of another zoning district not including the width of streets shall have a stepped façade on the 140 Page 3 side facing the other district. The portion of the façade in excess of three stories shall be stepped back not less than 25% of the height of the initial three stories. Project would have B-2 zoning adjacent to the west. Buildings on west side may need to be stepped back away from Lowe’s. 6. Open Space, Residential on site. a. 150 square feet per dwelling unit in active recreation space. 7. Parkland: a. Applies for residential component. b. Urban hardscaped areas on site may be allowed to be counted towards parkland if they meet the requirements of 18.19.070.H. 8. Workforce Housing: a. Applies for residential component. 9. Drive Accesses: a. The drive access point appear appropriate in size and location. b. All drive accesses will be subject to review and approval by the Development Review Committee (DRC) during as part of a formal application. 10. Use: a. The residential use would be a modification to the PUD’s to add residential use. b. The proposed mixed of uses would not currently be allowed under current zoning and land use designation, see above. 11. Setbacks: 18.30.050: a. Unified Development Ordinance: B-2 zone. i. Front yard: 7 feet is required for buildings; 25 feet for parking and loading areas. ii. Rear yard: 10 feet for buildings and 10 feet for parking and loading areas. iii. Side yard: 5 feet for buildings; 8 feet for parking and loading areas. iv. Special setbacks: Class I Entryway Corridor requires a 50 foot building setback. The setback would be from Baxter Lane. v. Setbacks shall be from the property line or right of way line, whichever is greater. vi. Project may have more than one front yard. b. Unified Development Ordinance: UMU zone. i. Front yard: 0feet is required for buildings; 0 feet for parking and loading areas. ii. Rear yard: 0 feet for buildings and 0 feet for parking and loading areas. iii. Side yard: 0 feet for buildings; 0 feet for parking and loading areas. iv. Maximum building setback: at least 50% of the total building frontage which is oriented to the street shall be placed within 10 feet of any minimum required separation (setback) from the property line. v. Special setbacks: Class I Entryway Corridor requires a 50 foot building setback. The setback would be from Baxter Lane. vi. Setbacks shall be from the property line or right of way line, whichever is greater. vii. Utility easements may require building and parking setbacks if present. 12. Landscaping: 18.48: a. TBD. 13. Parking: 18.46: a. TBD. 14. Entryway Corridor, Design Objectives Plan: For All Properties: a. See the Design Objectives Plan (DOP) for Entryway Corridors at pages specified. b. Page 23—Organize the public edges of a site to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Parking areas do not provide visual interest to pedestrians. 141 Page 4 c. Page 23—Locate a building entry near the sidewalk edge with an entry plaza and landscape, when feasible. d. Page 23—Buildings shall be positioned to fit within the general setback patterns specified for the corridor. e. Page 24—Develop an outdoor public space as a focal point for the site. f. Page 24—Decorative surface materials and landscaping should be integrated as design features. Landscaping requirements on page 77 of the DOP for the Greenway Corridor are required for this parcel. g. Page 26—Link the various functions and spaces on site with pedestrian ways in a coordinated system. h. Page 27—Clearly define a key pedestrian entrance into a site development with distinctive landscape elements. i. Page 27 Enhance a key pedestrian way at a street or drive crossing. Use decorative or textured paving to identify the crossing point. This should be utilized for pedestrian crossings. j. Page 31—Minimize the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site. k. Page 31—Use shared drives to access parking areas when feasible. l. Page 33—Position service areas to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses. m. Page 34—Landscape design. No landscaping information submitted. n. Page 39—Building design. Innovative new designs that draw upon regional design traditions are preferred. o. Page 41—Develop the street level of a building to provide visual interest to pedestrians. The sides of specialty stores should incorporate windows and display cases over at least a third of the façade area. p. Page 42—Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures seen traditionally. q. Page 45—Using sloping roof forms to reduce the perceived scale of a building is encouraged. A flat roof/parapet wall roof design would be appropriate in this location with additional street level articulation. r. Page 46—Use traditional building materials for primary wall surfaces. s. Page 51—Sign Design Guidelines. 15. Other comments: a. Section 18.38.050.F requires all mechanical equipment to be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the roof form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant materials. Location and details must be shown on a formal submittal. Utility service entrance (electric, gas, phone, cable, etc.) areas shall be screened from any public street. b. Section 18.46.040.E requires a bike rack detail must be noted on the site plan. The bike racks shall be appropriately located outside of the snow removal areas and shall not conflict with the handicapped parking. Location and details must be shown on a formal submittal. c. Section 18.42.170 requires a photometric lighting plan for all on-site lighting including wall- mounted lights on the building must be included in the Preliminary site plan submittal. A manufacturer’s cut sheet of the lighting fixtures is required to confirm compliance of all on site and building mounted luminaires. d. Section 18.42.170 discusses trash enclosures. Temporary storage of garbage, refuse and other waste materials shall be provided for every use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned town house or condo units, in every zoning district, except where a property is entirely surrounded by screen walls or buildings unless alternative provisions are made to keep trash containers inside the garage in which case an explanation of how trash is dealt with shall be provided in the written narrative accompanying your final 142 Page 5 site plan. The size of the trash receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use and approved by the City Sanitation Department. Accommodations for recyclables must also be considered. All receptacles shall be located inside of an approved trash enclosure. A copy of the site plan, indicating the location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Division prior to final site plan approval. (i.e. written approval from local waste services for the removal of solid waste and/or provisions for screening of collection areas shall be provided with the final site plan). Location and details must be shown on a formal submittal. Design Review Board Input Staff would provide the following questions for DRB consideration: 1. Would you support this type, mix, and intensity of uses on this site and in the entryway corridor and this area of the City? 2. Would you support the use of the entirety of the ground and possibly the first floor in all the buildings as parking only? 3. Would you support the potential maximum height of 96 feet? 4. Would you support the general architectural language proposed? 5. Does the bulk and scale of the northernmost building (closest to Baxter Lane) cause any concern? The Commission will be reviewing the proposal at their October 15, 2007 meeting. Encl: Applicant’s submittal materials Sent To: Bechtle Slade PC, 705 E. Mendenhall, Bozeman, MT 59715 Tracy Cowdrey, 500 E. Kagy Boulevard, Bozeman, MT 59715 143 Design Review Board Minutes – September 26, 2007 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Christopher Livingston Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Elissa Zavora Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Walter Banziger Visitors Present Scott Bechtle Beau Mossman Chris Budeski Randy Twist Jeff Good Henry Kurasaki Brian Tobiczyk Dave Jarrett ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2007. MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of September 12, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. INFORMAL REVIEW 1. Cowdrey Towers Informal #I-07022 (Krueger) East of Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of nine, seven-story mixed-use buildings and related site improvements. Scott Bechtle and Beau Mossman joined the DRB. Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Memo noting which boards/commissions would be reviewing the proposal. He stated the DRB would be reviewing the Entryway Corridor criteria of the submittal. He stated there were two PUD’s overlaying the site; adding that the current land-use did not fit with the proposal. He stated the proposal would be a mixed-use project and had ~80% of residential development included. He stated Staff would like direction on the review process for the formal submittal of the proposal and comments on the proposed design. 144 Design Review Board Minutes – September 26, 2007 2 MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Ms. Zavora seconded, to allow the applicant to present revised drawings of the proposed development. The motion carried 5-0. Mr. Bechtle stated the applicant had spoken with Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders to begin the process of Informal Review and revisions had since been made to the original proposal to exclude the underground parking and commercial uses on the ground floor. He stated he had reduced the amount of proposed residential development to less than 70%. He stated he had driven by the site and was contemplating what their proposal would feel like from the street; adding that the applicant wanted to open up a view of the project from the street. He stated parking would be provided in each building for the residential components and there would be separate parking structures for the commercial elements of the development. He stated the appearance of the project would create a downtown look and the parking would be screened with windows; adding they thought it would be better if the project had a street level appearance. Mr. Mossman added that moving the largest building next to the rear elevation of Lowe’s would cause the development to present itself better. Mr. Bechtle stated that the applicant had taken a green approach to the proposed roofs and they were looking into LEED certification. He stated he thought it would be a great use for the area and would add activity. He suggested it would make sense to have residential development next to commercial development; adding that building vertical instead of out would be a good approach. Mr. Rea asked for clarification on where the residential elements of the proposal would be located. Mr. Bechtle explained. Mr. Banziger asked the architectural and landscape character of the street facing the rear of Lowe’s. Mr. Bechtle responded the scale would be kept down and it would be broken up without any stark views. Mr. Banziger stated his concern was that two stark walls would create the perception of an alley. Mr. Bechtle responded that the rear of the structure would be more oriented to services and would not have the same character as the front of the structure. Mr. Banziger asked if the proposal had been modeled after a Reston Town Center in Virginia, for instance. Mr. Mossman responded it had not and the approach had been to provide more of a residential Oregon feeling with elements from downtown Bozeman. Mr. Bechtle added they had first defined the spaces in the structures and then worked out the spaces between the structures. Mr. Howe asked how long it would take until the development was completely built out. Mr. Bechtle responded the client would like to build one after another structure until it was complete, but the time frame would ultimately be based on economics (he suggested a few years time and a possibility of 20 years). Ms. Zavora asked if the applicant was intending all the buildings be mixed residential and commercial. Mr. Bechtle responded that was the intention. Ms. Zavora asked the purpose of the trees proposed in the boulevard. Mr. Bechtle responded they were meant to be street trees in the boulevard. Mr. Mossman added they would also be screening the parking. Ms. Zavora asked if each structure would have a green roof. Mr. Bechtle responded they had not defined whether or not green roofs would be used; adding that spaces too large would cause a feeling of emptiness and green roofs and balconies would soften the structure and its height. 145 Design Review Board Minutes – September 26, 2007 3 Chairperson Livingston asked if there was a platted roadway on the site. Mr. Bechtle explained that there would need to be boundary relocation so that street easements and services could be located in that location. Chairperson Livingston stated that there were two percentages involved with the residential portion of the development and asked Planner Krueger to explain. Planner Krueger responded that there was 49% residential development allowed in Regional Commercial and the Urban Mixed-Use District called out 70% or less residential components within the development. Ms. Zavora stated she liked the revised proposal that placed the largest building near Lowe’s and she liked the balconies and the idea of the green roofs. She stated she was happy to see the applicant had gone above and beyond by proposing more than four inches depth for the green roof and including trees. She added that she was supportive of the proposal. Mr. Rea stated the City seemed to be pushing for a denser core in town and less sprawl; adding that the parkland requirements would be more difficult to achieve and suggesting more flexibility with regard to those requirements. He stated the parts of Portland that were more diverse and contained more of a mixture of uses were more prosperous; suggesting that the applicant provide for a more diverse group of people with mixed-use development and not necessarily workforce housing. He stated he thought the applicant should think carefully about the phasing plan for the development of the site as the surface parking could possibly be there for awhile before anything else was built. Mr. Bechtle responded the public space would be part of the first phase of development as it would be important to the success of the proposal. Mr. Rea suggested the applicant take into consideration the neighboring parcel to the east to provide pedestrian and bike connections. Mr. Mossman responded that had been the client’s intent. Mr. Rea stated he would love to see a streamline bus node included in the proposal and some sort of conditioned, heated transit center. He stated with a project of this size the applicant should look into LEED certification and added that storage areas might be a good idea. Mr. Banziger stated he was intrigued by what the applicant had presented. He stated he liked hearing that the there would be screened parking and he agreed with Ms. Zavora regarding the institution of green roofs and with Mr. Rea regarding diversity in uses. He stated anything in there would be temporary and could become a permanent structure and suggested designing each structure as a permanent structure. He cautioned the applicant not to present the appearance of an alley and they take into consideration the connection of bike and pedestrian paths and their connections to the shopping centers to the south and west. He stated he liked what he was seeing in the proposal and he was supportive of the project. Mr. Howe stated he was excited to see the project as Bozeman would certainly economically benefit from its development. He stated he could see why the workforce housing might need to be off site, but he wished it were otherwise. He stated he thought it would be nice to see the proposal in a later stage. Chairperson Livingston stated the proposal appeared to be moving in a good direction based on the revisions that had been made since the DRB had received their packets. He stated the 146 Design Review Board Minutes – September 26, 2007 4 applicant had addressed many of the pedestrian and street level issues that Staff had been concerned with. He stated there would not be enough housing for the proposal to become a node in and of itself and there would be people driving from across town that would need parking. He noted that he had recently been in California and had discussed load reduction and re-use energy strategies with Arup and Associates; adding that these methods could be easier than working with LEED. He stated the proposal was moving in a very good direction but would be a massive project with many considerations. Mr. Bechtle responded they had been working with someone from LEED and would continue to do so. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Gallatin Center Lot 12 Mods to FSP #Z-07204 (Skelton) Northwest of Max Avenue and Cattail Street * A request to consider modifications to an approved Final Site Plan for Lot 12 of the Gallatin Center Subdivision. Chris Budeski, Randy Twist, Jeff Good, Henry Kurasaki, and Brian Tobiczyk joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the development of Lot 12 in Gallatin Center had been conditionally approved as the applicant was uncertain of the tenant in the buildings; adding Kohl’s would be the tenant in the structure. He stated the larger parcels to the southwest would be residential development and the orientation of the structure was in context to those residential developments. He stated the exterior elevations addressed the original presentation of the facades of the structure and directed the DRB to review the proposed change of footprint which would cause the structure to be narrower and deeper. He suggested there would be only two issues with the proposal; i.e. the primary entrance to Kohl’s and its pedestrian scale, and the presentation of the structure to the surrounding residential developments. He stated the design had been modified to address Staff conditions and the applicant was prepared to comply with those conditions in concert with the original approval. Mr. Rea asked for clarification regarding the west 10 feet of the east façade and pedestrian circulation in that location. Mr. Budeski asked that the front 10 feet be used to maintain to the integrity of the circulation. Planner Skelton responded he had no problems with that request and would discuss it further with the applicant. Mr. Kurasaki presented to the DRB a rendition of the proposed entry to Kohl’s and explained the materials that would be used. He stated the materials would match the existing structures on the site and porcelain tile would be used for the gateway in the front of their entrance. He stated the change in materials and depth would be obvious along the entry. He stated there would be a raised planter bed and trellis to provide a pedestrian scale to the proposal; adding there would be grade level planters and trees in some locations. Mr. Rea asked what the south elevation would look like. Mr. Good explained the materials and schemes that would be used on the south elevation as it would be broken into thirds; adding that red, standing seam metal would be used for the roofing. He stated the awning’s would be 147 Saccoccia Minor Sub 407 Common Open Space BAXTER LN N 19TH AVE I NTE R S T AT E 9 0 H WY TSCHACHE LN SIMMENTAL WAY SACCO DR BOOT HILL CT RAWHIDE RDG PATRICK ST N 14TH AVE N 15TH AVE I NT E R S T A T E 9 0 H WY Cowdrey Towers Informal ¯ Baxter LaneN. 19th AvenueSubject PropertyCity LimitsTschache Lane Lowe's HIW Bridger Town Center Stoneridge Square 148 d:\memo02.082307.narrative.doc Page 1 705 East Mendenhall, Bozeman Montana 59715 406.587.2518 406.582.0287 fax www.bechtleslade.com info@bechtleslade.com MEMO TO: City Commission FROM: Ron Slade, Bechtle-Slade PC PROJECT: Cowdrey Mixed Use MEMO DATE: August 24, 2007 The Cowdrey Mixed Use development proposes nearly 1,000,000 SF of residential, commercial, and office uses in a highly amenitised, architecturally refined, contemporary, urban environment. Significant efforts shall be assigned toward creating a destination type retail and entertainment district with an art and music performance venue. At project completion, 9 – 7-story mid-rise condominium buildings will define a high density, well landscaped, and refined live/work community. Parking will be provided primarily below grade in a common structure. The fist phase of project construction and implementation would begin following regulatory review and approval by the appropriate agencies; and completion of architectural drawings. The following was information requested by Brian Krueger via letter received by Bechtle Slade PC dated August 22, 2007: • The approximate use allocation envisioned for the project is as follows: a. Residential 88% b. Retail 6% c. Restaurant 4% d. Office 2% • The project includes (7) public plazas and a 3000 s.f. pavilion to serve various uses (e.g. live music, farmer’s markets). • Bechtle Slade requests specific guidance relating to the height of the building and whether our proposed design is acceptable under current zoning guidelines. 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164