HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-14 Design Review Board MinutesMINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, March 05, 2014
5:30 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at
5:30 p.m. in the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana and took the attendance.
Members Present
Michael Pentecost,
Chairperson
Bill Rea
Lessa Racow
Lori Gardner
Mark Hufstetler
Mel Howe
Walt Banzinger
Staff Present
Chris Saunders
Commission Liaison
Chris Mehl
Visitors Present
ITEM 2. MEETING MINUTES
FOR JANUARY 08, 2014
Bill Rea stated that the minutes looked odd. Chris Saunders replied there was a malfunction with the recording. Michael Pentecost called for Motion to Approve with
notation that there were errors. Seconded. Minutes approved with notation that there were errors.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Baxter Meadows Ph. 2E, 2F, & 5A Concept PUD Z14018 (Saunders)
Northwe
st of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Davis Lane
* A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to provide a mixture of commercial and residential uses (62 Townhomes, 1 Apartment
Lot, and 2 Commercial Lots) while being reviewed concurrently with a Pre-Application. (Continued from 2/26/2014)
At 2:49 mins - Chris Mehl introduced himself as Commission Liaison.
At
3:30 mins - Chris Saunders stated this is the first stage for this project. This project was looked at by the DRC on March 5 and comments were given. No formal action needed, more
advisory comments and suggestions for future formal PUD and Subdivision application. He gave a brief history of Baxter Meadows and then described the application in detail. It has three
different proposed characters: Northern portion – Ph 5A, proposing an all residential apartment building with no proposed density; Central Portion, which is portions of Ph 2E and Ph
5A, proposing townhomes with surroundings in the central greens; and the last piece, near Baxter Lane, is proposed for commercial uses with proposed elevations and layouts at conceptual
level.
Two biggest deficiencies identified:
1) Despite being a PUD, no explanation of how they will meet or exceed the minimum
standards. A lack of an explanation is a significant
omission in ability to comply with the Code and staff’s recommendation would not be favorable.
2) Townhome area in center – staff does not believe that conforms with the original
concept and it doesn’t conform with the existing zoning and planning that already
exists. Staff’s opinion is that the request is further than what staff would support. Staff would
support it if they are able to reconfigure it to a more mixed use.
Major design elements are private streets with unusual cross section which staff supports.
Recreation & Park Advisory
Board offered their opinions – not supportive of parkland location as shown.
A woman on the board stated she sits on the Baxter Meadow Design Board and wondered if that was going to
a problem. Chris stated he didn’t think so. She receives no compensation from them.
At 11:39 min – opened for questions
At 11:51 min - Bill Rea – Concerned about chopping up street
layout and parks - which direction will Caspian Ave go, to the north?
At 13:55 min – Mark Hufstetler – Does the City plan to have guidelines for this area to interface between multiple
property uses to enhance the visual and functional compatibility? Has there been any discussion about pedestrian connectivity (pathways and trails) between Ph 2 apartment complex and
parkland or between townhomes and parkland? Are the alleys for the townhomes considered public rights-of-way? Is the alley cross-section compatible?
At 18:01 min – Michael Pentecost
– Is there a reason they would go through this process and not indicate what they would do to meet or exceed zoning requirements? Did they think that they didn’t need to do that? Is
it a strong likelihood that we will see this again? Does this move forward to the Commission?
At 20:30 min – Chris Mehl – Since we’re moving to Master Plans instead of PUDs aren’t
we strongly discouraging of PUDs?
At 22:07 min – Open up for discussion
Bill Rea - Handle as informal.
Mel Howe - Concerned architecture looks like cookie cutter modules.
Bill Rea - Agree with Mel. Garages are predominant.
Encourage applicant to liberally interpret color guidelines. Avoid ‘brown town.’ Concern about phased project – lack of regulation or oversight in phases after Phase 1. Keep it from
becoming a desolate construction zone.
Lessa Racow – Agree with Mel. Concern about alley width and trees in alley width.
Mark Hufstetler - PUD still needs major work. Park layout is
not appropriate.
Walt Banzinger – Agree with everyone’s comments. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
Michael Pentecost - What are the ‘meet or exceed’ requirements? Will applicant
do the building themselves or is this just a subdivision open up to any builder to put up their own type of house? Will there be oversight?
At 37:30 min - Michael Pentecost – agree
with Board to have unique nature to design rather than cookie cutter design. Opportunity to do something a little better to enhance the area. End of discussion period.
ITEM 4. PUBLIC
COMMENT (15 – 20 minutes)
No public comment
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned.
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson City
of Bozeman Design Review Board_______________________________________________