Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-1995 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Roger Cruwys John DeHaas Maire O 'Neill Staff Present: Therese Berger Lanette windemaker Patrick Morris Dave Skelton Debbie Arkell Visitors Present: Sandra O'Donnell Steve Tucker Ken Zickovich Bill Klenn Roger Berna Dick Prugh Cliff Chisholm Bob Lee Don Hannah Garth voigt Bernard Bissell Betty Litle Terry Lonner Martha Lonner Jim Bangs Nancy Hildner Robert Dougherty Thomas Garnsey Ken Ryder Project Review 1. O'Donnell COA Roger Cruwys moved, seconded by Maire O 'Neill, to approve the proposal with staff conditions . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . 2 . Klenn COA Roger Cruwys moved, seconded by Maire O'Neill, to approve the proposal with staff conditions . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 3 . Hellroaring Homebrew COA Roger Cruwys moved, seconded by Maire O 'Neill, to approve the proposal with staff conditions . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 4 . Berna COA Z-9543 Planner Windemaker reviewed the proposal and noted adjacent developments . She read the seven proposed conditions of approval and noted the requested revisions to the site plan. Planner Windemaker indicated that minor changes should be made to condition #3 due to the fact that the placement of the fire hydrant will eliminate the possibility of the installation of trees on the western side of the driveway. She said that, given the traffic circulation to the pumps, more landscaping would not work on the eastern side of the driveway. trees . She added that, due to concerns of the Montana Department of Transportation, there may be some shifting of the required boulevard trees . Cliff Chisholm voiced concern that the application was accepted as complete when the site plan is difficult to read and there are no building elevations . Roger Berna explained that the cedar siding on the existing structure will be replaced with metal siding to match the addition. John DeHaas remarked that he would like to see elevations to know how the roof line will match the existing structure and what the locations of the windows and doors are. Cliff Chisholm explained that it is difficult to make decisions about how the building will look without adequate plans from which to base any decisions . Kim Walker agreed. Roger Cruwys asked if the parking stalls at the northwest corner of the site would be eliminated. Planner Windemaker responded that the applicant only needs three parking spaces in that corner of the site so that section of the site plan will be revised to meet code. Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by John DeHaas, to table the project until May 9 , 1995 to allow the applicant to submit elevations and to address the issues relating to the site plan. 5 . Bon Marche COA Z-9542 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and noted that the applicant has reservations regarding proposed conditions #1 and #3 . She explained that since the existing light pole fixtures are 5 nonconforming, they will need to conform with Section - if they are to be moved. She added that the Planning Director has determined that the referenced section should be applied to the subject project. Planner Arkell stated that if the poles are not going to be relocated, they can stay as is . Dick Prugh remarked that the gentlemen working on the project was under the impression that the applicant didn' t have to worry about landscaping. He explained that the site has to be repaved because of the relocation of the utilities . The issue of the landscaping and fixture requirements, he continued, has become troublesome for the architect in representing the owner, as the owner did not anticipate having to make such improvements . Kim Walker asked if owner objects to providing landscaping. Dick Prugh responded that the relocation of the utilities and the paving has already created a greater expense for the owner. He indicated that the owner is opposed to not being able to use the same light fixtures . Kim Walker confirmed with Planner Arkell that Tire Rama, The Last Detail Car Wash, and Security Bank all have conforming lights . Planner Arkell explained that when she met with the architect, there was no indication that such a large portion of the site would be disturbed. She explained that the parking area is now not only going to be repaved, but regraded. Dick Prugh responded that they are only repaving areas where paving currently exists . Maire O'Neill commented that the issue is not a design issue, but a procedural issue. Planner Arkell said she discussed with Planning Director Epple whether the applicant could appeal the subject conditions and he has indicated that any appeal would be appeal of his administrative decision. She added that the proposed changes are beyond the percentage where a 20% deviation would accomplish anything. Roger Cruwys questioned the locations of the landscaped areas . Planner Arkell explained that the parking lot islands were proposed as striping only. Roger Cruwys remarked that he doesn' t feel it is unreasonable to add curb, gutter and landscaping. He added that other developments have had to adhere to the code or apply for variances . Kim Walker confirmed with Planner Arkell that, per code, a development can ' t have more than 100 feet of parking without provision for landscaping. Maire O 'Neill asked how reasonable is it to expect that the owner take responsibility for paying for the new lights . Kim Walker commented that the lights will be there for a long time and she feels the changes should be made now to comply with code. John DeHaas remarked on the unsightliness of the Main Mall complex. He suggested that if the Main Mall project were coming before the Board today, the DRB would not approve it, considering inadequate site improvements . He continued that he feels new lighting and landscaping will add character to the Bon Marche section of the mall . Kim Walker expressed satisfaction with the design of the addition. Maire O 'Neill suggested that, given the level of mis - understanding, the city could require the new lights but allow the applicant some time to acquire the budget. Planner Arkell responded that, as it stands, the applicant simply cannot keep the nonconforming lights without a variance. Dick Prugh remarked that he would like a letter from the city regarding its authority to require code compliance in the subject proposal . He questioned what circumstances, for example, a broken water line, would require an entire property to conform with code. John DeHaas commented that the Board is not here to review what is procedurally understood or misunderstood by the applicant. Planner Arkell remarked that she feels there are enough changes to the site to require the applicant give a little bit back. Roger Cruwys moved, seconded by Maire O'Neill, to approve the project per staff conditions with an additional requirement that either the Planning Office provide a letter to the applicant explaining the code requirements or that the applicant proceed with requesting a variance. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 6 . Sundance Springs Z-9538 / P-9517 Planner Arkell reviewed the project and noted that the DRB received a staff summary focusing on the Development Guidelines as submitted by the applicant. She noted several letters from the public all of which express opposition to the project due to concerns regarding development on wetlands, the sizes of the lots, traffic impacts, wildlife and habitat, and storm drainage. Planner Arkell explained that the project will utilize city sewer and water and noted the proposed 20 ' wide private drives . She explained that the public streets are proposed to be 24 ' wide and that although there will be no curb and gutter, there will be sidewalks on both sides of all the streets . John DeHaas remarked that he feels that curb and gutter are essential and that the reduced street widths would be a public safety concern as well as allow no parking for recreational vehicles or functions. He said that the site is very sensitive and the proposal leaves a lot to be desired. He continued that the affordable housing may not necessarily be affordable. Roger Cruwys commented that he agrees with the issues John DeHaas has discussed and voiced concern that many of the items of concern outlined in City Commission' s concept review have not been addressed. He remarked that he feels the applicant has used a standard engineering approach to a pretty sensitive piece of property. Roger Cruwys noted that overall layout hasn' t addressed concerns regarding clustering and questioned the allowable density. Planner Arkell explained that the minimum number of lots allowed on the proposal is 147 or one per acre and that the applicant has the potential of obtaining a 30% density bonus . Roger Cruwys remarked that he was under the impression that density bonuses were considered through excellence of design. Kim Walker commented that it is important to see alternative road widths, especially considering the goal of maintaining open space. She asked the applicant if affordable housing was the intention from the beginning or if it was sparked from the desire to achieve a density bonus . Don Hannah responded that the project has a long history and that what is before the Board is a distillation of many groups ' concerns . He said that he believes that if someone doesn' t create affordable housing voluntarily, it will not happen. He explained that in order for him to do affordable housing, he has to ask for a density bonus . Don Hannah commented that he got a strong feeling from DRC and City Commission to provided affordable housing and that he has come up with a design that is low profile as well as low impact . Kim Walker remarked that she doesn ' t feel affordable housing is appropriate to consider it for every subdivision in the valley. She said that she would rather see the lots designed more cohesively. Don Hannah argued that he received the most vague feedback from DRB, however City Commission was very clear in regards to affordable housing. Roger Cruwys agreed with Kim Walker and indicated that affordable housing is inappropriate in the development. He continued that he agrees with the smaller road standards if public safety and parking are considered as he would rather see more open space than asphalt. He added that he is not totally satisfied with the layout. Maire O'Neill remarked that she would hesitate saying that affordable housing is not appropriate for the site as that is a very elitist view. She indicated that she would have nothing against the idea of an affordable housing component. She continued that she thinks the problem is that people feel that affordable housing will be ugly and noted the HRDC project on 4th & Peach as an example of a very nice affordable housing development. Maire O 'Neill said that if reduced road standards are viable as far as fire access is concerned, she feels less asphalt is better. Cliff Chisholm commented that he doesn' t feel that DRB should comment on the issue of affordable housing. He said that the affordable housing section seems arbitrary and doesn' t integrate itself very well with the rest of the development. John DeHaas said that he would rather see the affordable housing dispersed throughout the development. Bob Lee commented that they have looked at the question of optimum lot sizes, and noted that a developer cannot sell 1/4 acre lots for the same as 1/2 acre lots on a square footage basis . He continued that 190 1/4 acre lots will not get the same return as 147 1/2 acre lots. Don Hannah added that 1/2 acre lots provide the most flexibility in terms of open space, reduced infrastructure, more tax dollars to the city, closeness to the city, and higher revenues . Cliff Chisholm inquired about the status of the open space in terms of access and ownership. Planner Arkell explained that her understanding is that the open space is owned by the Homeowner' s Association and the major trails are essentially private property. Cliff Chisholm remarked that it is important that park areas are accessible to the public. Don Hannah indicated that he has been considering dedicating almost 24 acres to the public as part of Phase I and noted an area to the northeast of the site. Maire O'Neill remarked that the Open Space Management Plan does not show trails through the subject area. John DeHaas suggested that public access through the area may be detrimental to wildlife. Cliff Chisholm commented that he would like to have some assurance that, if the area is to have public access , that there are some trails. He confirmed with the applicant that the proposed trails would be implemented in Phase I but paid for through and SID. Roger Cruwys suggested that an open space access easement be provided through Rain Roper Circle. Planner Arkell explained that with a PUD Subdivision, that 15% of the 30% open space has to remain public open space. She indicated that City Commission was looking for clustered development with clustered open space. She continued, that the 1/2 acre lot sizes make it hard for the developer to achieve the required densities . Roger Cruwys said that he would like to see more high density clusters . Cliff Chisholm commented that although he is not in a position to question the developers marketing scheme, he feels that smaller lots with greater amenities would yield the same profits . He said that he would like to see the dedication of public parkland as well as some of the property held as common private land. Kim Walker confirmed that if the park is dedicated to the public, the city would need to maintain it. She voiced concern that the City may not have enough funding to maintain more parkland. Bob Lee explained that the first choice option is to provide public easements on common privately owned land. Kim Walker said that she would feel more comfortable leaving any dedications to the developer. Bob Lee explained the setbacks and the intended purpose of providing more usable open space. Roger Cruwys remarked that he would like to see even building envelopes on the lots . MOTION - Kim Walker moved, seconded by Maire O'Neill, to forward the project onto City Commission with no formal recommendation of approval or denial, and the concerns as expressed by the individual DRB members. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. Maire O'Neill remarked that the proposed year yard setbacks, if enforced, give strength to the density. She voiced concern that much of the development will occur on areas with high ground water levels . She said that she would like the Architectural Guidelines to be more explicit and provide graphic material . Planner Arkell indicated that DRC will require a geotechnical survey of the soils . John DeHaas said that he agrees with Maire O 'Neill and feels that the proposal does not address a lot of concerns . He suggested that the affordable housing not be clustered into one little area. Cliff Chisholm restated support for the narrower street widths, if public safety considerations are met, as agreed upon by most of the Board. He agreed that the Architectural Guidelines should be more specific and suggested more clarity in regards to public trails and the possibility of public parkland dedication. Kim Walker remarked that she agrees with the reduced road standards and supports public easements across privately owned open space rather that dedicated parkland. She indicated support of the front and year yard setbacks, and the project on the whole as a positive approach to developing a sensitive piece of property. She added that she feels that a trail system should not necessarily wind through the proposed open space area as it would be a detriment to wildlife. Roger Cruwys indicated that he is not in favor of the layout and would like to see a meandering road system to achieve a greater feeling of openness throughout the development. He questioned whether affordable housing is necessary. He commented that he, too, is in favor of the open space remaining privately owned with public easements. He continued that he would like to see more of City Commission ' s and staff ' s concerns addressed. 7 . Garnsey COA Z-9544 Planner Skelton reviewed the proposal passed out color photos of the garage to be demolished. He indicated that he feels the application is a conscious effort by the applicant to enhance and maintain the property. Planner Skelton noted that the garbage enclosure will have to have to be located at least 10 ' off the alley right-of -way and the applicant has agreed to that change. He noted the proposed copper tubing proposed on both the 4 ' and 6 ' fences . Cliff Chisholm moved, seconded by Kim Walker, to approve the proposal with staff conditions . The motion carried with an unanimous voice vote of the members present. 8 . Mahurin COA Z-9546 Planner Skelton reviewed the proposal and explained that the north yard is considered a side yard so what was previously noted as a deviation is not. He noted the proposed deviation requested by the applicant to encroach into the front yard setback along West Cleveland Street and explained need for an the additional deviation of the 2 story playhouse which encroaches into the 8 foot side yard setback at the northwest corner of the property. He indicated that he has received two letters from neighbors in support of the project . Ken Ryder explained that the owners were told that the playhouse would not need to meet setback requirements . Planner Skelton noted the mature hedge obstructing the playhouse from adjacent developments . John DeHaas said he has no objection to rebuilding the garage. He confirmed that it will have an interior staircase. Kim Walker moved, seconded by John DeHaas , to recommend approval of the proposal with the two deviations per staff conditions . Maire O'Neill voiced concern regarding the massing of the addition as the ridge line of the existing will match the proposed. Dave Skelton explained that the proposal is considered an attached garage and is considered one structure. He said that the proposed changes seem to counter-balance the asymetrical axis of the structure' s roof form. Maire O'Neill confirmed that the loft area would be used for storage. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present.