Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-2000 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000 COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET 3:30 P.M. 1"EM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Ed McCrone called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Ed McCrone Bill Hansen Katina Christopher Bob Bushing Dan Glenn Joanne Mannel Noel John Sherman Gene Graf Melvin Howe Dave Skelton Ken LeClair Dick Pohl Rob Pertzborn Jim Raznoff Tom Topel Henry Sorenson Culver Varnado ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Chairperson McCrone asked for corrections or additions to the minutes. He asked that page 4, next to last paragraph, first sentence, be changed to read, "Chairperson McCrone stated that creating downtown islands for parking would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhoods and downtown and he feels this proposal doesn't promote efficient land use." In addition, page 4, last paragraph, delete third, fourth, and fifth sentences. r. Pohl moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes of February 8, 2000 as amended. The motion carried 5-0. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2000 Chairperson McCrone asked for corrections or additions to the minutes. He asked that the first sentence, last paragraph of page 1 be changed to read, "Chairperson McCrone noted that for the Bozeman Inn/Santa Fe Reds project, the DRB suggested that the islands in parking lots be eliminated in the interest of safety." Page 2, next to last paragraph, second sentence, be changed to read, "Chairperson McCrone feels that the Board provides valuable information to the applicants and the City, however, the Commission isn't gaining insight from the DRB's thoughts." Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to approve the minutes of February 23, 2000 as amended. The motion carried 5-0. Chairperson McCrone reminded the Board to keep things quick, as the agenda was long. ITEM 3. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW CAT Revisions to Preliminary Approval#Z-98I88 - (Sherman) 30 Dead Man's Gulch ► Modifications to a preliminarily approved conditional use permit (CUP) application that has not obtained Final Site Plan approval. Minutes of March 21,2000 DRB Meeting --Page 1 Bob Bushing and Tom Topel joined the DRB. Urban Designer/Planner John Sherman presented the project noting that the Conditional Use Permit had been preliminarily approved by both the DRB and City Commission. The CAT tractor rental facility, approximately 15,000 square feet will occupy the lot from firth 191 Avenue to Simmental Way. Planner Sherman noted the previous submittal had tractors being .,isplayed towards North 19" Avenue, with the major concern being the display areas with large areas facing North 1911 Avenue. In December 1998 the DRB was concerned about how the display area could be screened. This was accomplished by mounding the area towards North 19" Avenue and installing privacy fencing. Mr. Bushing responded to the conditions of preliminary approval, noting this is the proposed mirrored image of the entire site, maintaining the screening. Planner Sherman noted that the facility has been "flip-flopped" to diminish the visual impact of the project on the North 19" Avenue Entryway Corridor. This proposal addresses the conditions placed on the previous proposal by the DRB. In addition, Planner Sherman noted that there have been modifications to the building materials by revising the facades including the elimination of the wainscoat/block on the East and portions of the South elevations. Mr Bushing noted the changes to the elevations of the building, replacing block with metal siding, results in a building that is easier to repair due to dings from tractors. He also noted the concrete block will be left in the front of building, only removing it from the shop area. Planner Sherman agreed that this concept lessens the impact on the North 191h Avenue Entryway Corridor. Mr. Glenn asked for clarification on the direction of the display area. Mr. Bushing responded that the proposed display area faces towards Simmental Way and I-90, which lessens the impact on North 19" Avenue. In addition, the natural grading allows for easier building, being closer to the underlying gravel bed. r. Bushing questioned the possibility of adding a berm to the North 19" side and subtracting some berm from the Simmental Way side. Mr. Sorenson questioned moving the display area onto the 50 foot greenway corridor. Mr. Bushing responded that they would drive tractors onto that space. Mr. Pohl questioned whether the display areas facing North 19th Avenue and Simmental Way would be elevated. Mr. Bushing responded that they would be raised, approximately four feet high, taking advantage of the natural slope. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping. Mr. Pohl asked about the irrigation to the native front lawn and manicured rear lawn. Planner Sherman responded that by code, all landscaping must be irrigated. Chairperson McCrone asked how many landscaping points the project received. Planner Sherman replied that he will double check to see if in compliance, or if more landscaping is needed. He also noted that when the project was flipped, some plantings were lost. Mr. Glenn questioned what the landscaping is intended to screen, and if it was cars, could the parking lot be moved from the front of building. Mr. Bushing responded that traffic would like to circle around the front of the building to enter the office as well as pick up small rental equipment. Mr. Glenn responded that by moving the building, so that parking is on the side, there would be less need for screening. Mr. Bushing explained that moving the building was not possible because that would not allow for the turning radii of the large trucks entering that area. Mr. Glenn responded that his concern was the building appears to be in a sea of asphalt. Mr. Bushing responded that a large area of the back lot is gravel allowing for track-mounted equipment. Mr. Pohl also suggested that the privacy fencing be non-translucent to screen the display area from viewing. Mr. Bushing responded that there would be no display area behind the fencing, rather that ea is reserved for tractor ingress and egress. Overall, Mr. Pohl approved of the size and scale of Minutes of March 21, 2000 DRB Meeting --Page 2 landscaping. Discussion followed regarding signage. Mr. Bushing and Mr. Topel questioned the possibility of having a nole sign on the corner of North 191h Avenue and Dead Man's Gulch, as well as a sign facing Simmental ay. Mr. Sorenson noted that the code encourages monument signs. Planner Sherman noted that monument signs have a five foot setback while pole signs have a fifteen foot setback. Mr Pohl noted that he prefers a monument sign and also noted there is little need for a sign, as the display berm is advertising. Mr. Glenn agreed that elevated platform is a sign. He suggested putting a sign on the berm below where the tractor is sitting, also noting that tractor sales aren't usually obtained by drive-by customers. Mr. Bushing responded that the majority of the business is rental. Mr. Topel added that the berm may not be an effective long-range display area, due to growing plantings. Mr. Bushing responded that without the pole sign, there would be no display towards North 19"Avenue. He questioned the possibility of angling the last two of four trees on Simmental Way behind the pole sign. Mr. Sorenson noted that it is not the best message to move trees in and out around signs. Planner Sherman responded that if they added landscaping around the base of the sign, then they could perhaps move the trees back. Mr. Pohl noted he would like to see the line of trees along the street maintained. Planner Sherman also noted the current signage exceeds the sign code, but the code allows for more height because the highway is higher, so it is possible to get half difference, or up to four additional feet, on the sign. Chairperson McCrone noted the landscaping around the sign will help with landscaping points. Chairperson McCrone questioned the spacing of the boulevard trees. Senior Planner Skelton responded that perhaps the tree spacing can be varied with design excellence. It was noted there should be a compromise in relationship to trees and signs. Chairperson McCrone noted the sign issue can be dealt with by Planning Staff. —hairperson McCrone asked for clarification on the previous approval. Planner Sherman verified that both .e City Commission and Planning Board have preliminarily approved this project. Planner Sherman also noted that this CUP has not obtained final site plan approval, and if the DRB chooses to accept the revisions, they can do so with conditions that will be checked off on the final site plan submittal. Chairperson McCrone noted that site design affects function. He also complemented the applicants on their use of the land and building into the land. Mr. Sorenson also noted that the proposal meets the spirit of the North 7" Avenue Entryway Corridor. He believes this is a good use of the land and a well designed project. It was moved by Mr. Howe, seconded by Mr. Sorensen, that these revisions be accepted as proposed. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW Firestone Building Informal#1-0014- (Sherman) 810 North Seventh Avenue An Informal Application for advice and comment on the proposed demolition of the Sunset Motel and construction of a new Firestone building. Rob Pertzborn joined the DRB. Planner Sherman presented the proposal noting his main concern is the west elevation of the building that faces the North 7" Avenue Entryway Corridor. Mr. Pertzborn noted this facility, being an auto facility, will have to apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Pertzborn noted this building is of stock design. He explained to the DRB that the area behind the 104-foot jade is intended for tire storage. Mr. Pertzborn noted he wants to remain within design guidelines and Minutes of March 21,2000 DRB Meeting --Page 3 noted he has left room in the design allowing for the required four foot jog to break up the long facade. He also noted he does not want to break up the facade on the west elevation with tack-ons. He sees the larger issue as the layout of site. Mr. Pertzborn explained there is a thirty foot access easement along the east property line which takes up the rear set back. He noted the mobile home park to the east will remain. The _)blern is bringing fifty-five foot semis onto the site. Planner Sherman noted the semis would be approaching from Tamarack Street into the parking lot. Mr. Pertzborn asked for recommendations. Discussion followed on the west elevation. Mr. Glenn suggested flipping the entry and adding an awning to make the building more street friendly. He also suggested adding a sidewalk. Mr. Pertzborn responded that they plan to install a sidewalk along North 7" Avenue. Chairperson McCrone noted the long facade is what jumped out at him as a problem; he agreed with Mr. Glenn that the applicant should do something to break up the facade. Mr. Sorenson agreed with Mr. Glenn, adding he feels the facade needs some transparency, a connection with North 7" Avenue, perhaps an awning, high windows, and soffits on the front to bring the facade down to human scale. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping. Mr. Pertzborn noted that the Montana Department of Transportation does not encourage boulevard trees along North 71h Avenue. He also noted that there are two crab apple trees which are over one and one half inch in diameter which will have to be removed. Mr. Pohl agreed. Mr. Pohl questioned the required screening behind the facility because of the mobile home park. Planner Sherman noted that the code requires screening because the adjacent use is residential even though it is zoned B-2. Mr. Pertzborn noted he will take that into consideration. Mr. Glenn asked if it is safe to assume Firestone will be moving out of the space on West Main Street. Mr. Pertzborn replied it was safe to assume there will not be two Firestone buildings. —'anner Sherman concluded that the main issues with this project are the front entrance, the screening of the ,)bile home park, the transparency of the front facade, and the North 7" Avenue elevation. ITEM 5. ONE WEEK REVIEW South Meadows Concept PUD Application #Z-A=(Skelton) Graf Street ► A Concept PUD Application for advice and comment on a 100 unit duplex condominium development on property zoned R-2 (Residential Single Family, Medium Density). Mr. Gene Graf, applicant/owner, and Ken LeClair, developer, joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton distributed conceptual plans and exterior elevations, and proceeded to present the project. The project consists of 100 condominium units on a 26-acre lot, zoned "R-2", which allows condos in the R-2 Zoning District only as part of a Planned Unit Development. The proposed 26-acre lot would be one of four lots created by a 4-lot minor subdivision, which Mr. Graf has also applied for. He noted approximately sixty-seven percent of the lot is maintained for open space, with thirty-seven percent being held as common open space. The building footprints occupy eighteen percent, and streets, approximately ten percent. It was noted that a PUD requires thirty percent open space, thus this project exceeds the required amount. Planner Skelton noted Planning Staff and the members of the Bozeman Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have met with Mr. LeClair and Mr. Graf. They have determined any additional parkland required with the 4-lot minor subdivision should remain as generally passive areas rather than active parkland, keeping it in a natural state, due to the project's proximity to Sourdough Trail. Ice Mr. Glenn had to leave early, he presented his comments to the applicants. One of Mr. Glenn's Minutes of March 21,2000 DRB Meeting --Page 4 concerns related to the lack of "traditional neighborhood design", noting that this plan proposes a semi- private open space rather than public open space, being that it is surrounded by front yards. He would rather see the space follow a traditional neighborhood design with park surrounded by public streets, like Cooper Park. Also, Mr. Glenn felt that the residences should have their front elevation facing the street, rather than rear elevation facing the street; he also suggested narrowing the streets, to become more of an alley. Mr. Ulenn's second concern with the project related to the proposed zone code amendments; specifically the garage location amendment. Mr. LeClair responded that the public will not see the garages, as they will be orientated towards the private driveways. Mr. Graf noted he has only seen one new development that didn't have garages in the front. Senior Planner Skelton noted the key element for residences is not the garage; the home should be the dominant feature on the face of the private street. Mr. Glenn's third concern was the street pattern. He would like to see a grid, perhaps a curvilinear grid. Mr. Graf responded that reconfiguring would lose open space. Mr. LeClair noted the open space in the center of the lot is not useable space, rather wetlands. Senior Planner Skelton requested that the applicants maintain an open mind with regards to grid/curvilinear design. He also requested the DRB members to keep in mind that the applicant needs to respond to the many physical features in this area (i.e, wetlands, watercourses, existing Graf Street, adjoining properties), which will make it somewhat difficult to implement many of the "traditional neighborhood" and smart growth elements that the community is considering. Planner Skelton also commented the proposal is not a single family dwelling unit subdivision, but a condominium development, which takes on a different character and orientation of building sites. The applicants addressed the Board. Mr. LeClair noted the scale is misleading as there is more open space than there appears to be. He also noted the open space in the center of the lot was a creek bed in the 1950's. Mr. LeClair noted the housing market has evolved and that consumers want two-car garages with no stairways [i.e. single-story]. Many home buyers are older and the market is moving toward single story construction. He noted that the two-story center unit in a triplex is the last to sell because there is no market 'r these housing types. Even younger people are now beginning to look for single-story residences. Mr. .;Clair also noted that many of his older clients have moved from historic neighborhoods into his condominium developments where they are not responsible for much maintenance, and they retain a sense of privacy and security. The applicants have been successful with this concept by building the proposed housing types and downsizing the square footage. Discussion followed regarding construction materials. Mr. LeClair explained to the DRB they would be using hardboard siding that is low maintenance, and a pre-finished textured roof system that lasts 25 to 30 years, rather than shake shingles which are low performing and tend to deteriorate quicker. They wish to keep the natural look and install significant amounts of more mature vegetation than what is required. Mr. Pohl inquired on the average setback. Mr. Graf responded that the shortest set back is 75 feet and that the longest is 100 feet from Sourdough Trail. Responding to Mr. Pohl, Mr. LeClair stated they would be doing more landscaping than fencing, reserving low fencing to prevent dogs, children, etc., from intruding or escaping. Discussion followed regarding the infrastructure and trail linkages. Mr. Pohl inquired about the fourteen phases and when the infrastructure was going to be installed. Mr. LeClair responded that the streets will be constructed as the project develops, but will need to be installed in the early phases. He continued, the fourteen phases are more for the contractor's phases for construction. Senior Planner Skelton noted that the only collector in this area is Graf Street, which will tie the surrounding area with Goldenstein Lane and South 3`d Avenue. Mr. Howe questioned if Staff was happy with fire exits and sidewalks. Senior Planner Skelton responded that pedestrian circulation is an integral element of planned unit developments, and comes quite often with DRC during its review. Mr. LeClair noted they have chosen not to construct sidewalks Minutes of March 21,2000 DRB Meeting --Page 5 because the general attitude of property owners is that they prefer not to maintain sidewalks, rather, they prefer to maintain more landscaping. Mr. LeClair noted that they typically build private streets wider than the required standard so owners can walk on the private street (28 feet vs. 24 feet). Mr. Pohl noted his concern with lack of public access without sidewalks. Senior Planner Skelton noted that Staff generally aluates a pedestrian circulation system as a hierarchy of pedestrian routes that include trails, pathways, sidewalks, and bike paths. He stated with the 4-lot minor subdivision, Staff has discussed with the applicant the use of east/west streets as a pedestrian linkage with the trail/pathway systems along Matthew Bird and Sourdough Creeks. Mr. Raznoff questioned why Graf Street is being used as a major arterial to South Yd Avenue and Goldenstein Lane, and if this street plan has gone through other agencies and been addressed. Chairperson McCrone noted that the DRC addresses these issues. Senior Planner Skelton added that DRC will be requesting that the applicant submit a traffic impact analysis with the preliminary plat to assess the impacts to the areas' transportation system. As this property is not located in one of the communities' "traditional" neighborhoods, it is going to be difficult to implement a grid system of streets that will connect with adjoining properties due to the limitations imposed by the existing physical features. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board does not want to have a street(s) crossing the Sourdough Trail. The Advisory Board also preferred to see major pedestrian trails on the north, east, and south sides, as well as to develop internal trails that will connect with Sourdough Trail. Mr. Pohl also noted there is a lack of pedestrian connections with Sourdough Trail. Mr. Graf responded that it would be possible to connect to the Trail with some sort of linear connection throughout the project. Mr. Pohl suggested the possibility of a bike/pedestrian lane rather than a true sidewalk. Mr. Graf noted that the public park is integrated by the Sourdough Trail and the road. Mr. Sorenson responded that the exclusivity of the parkland in the center of the lot gives an unfriendly feeling to those from other neighborhoods since `'ere is no parking nor sidewalks. Mr. LeClair also noted a security issue with opening the area to .;urdough Trail; however, it is the intention of the applicants to have a connection with the trail. The 75 foot set back helps open up the area, allowing pedestrians on the trail to access portions of the open space area, but the applicants are concerned that the general public may tend to encroach into the private areas and private lawns. Mr. LeClair added that they are not set on exactly 100 condominium units and they could perhaps eliminate a condo or two to provide a link with Sourdough Trail. Discussion followed regarding open space, wetlands, and an area master plan. Mr. Graf noted that although the plans do not show it, Graf Park, consisting of seven to ten acres, is located within walking distance to the north; therefore children have access to a "true" park. Mr. Sorenson appreciates the idea of wetlands in the central area and agrees with Mr. Glenn that the open space in the center is privatized, rather than public land. Mr. Sorenson also observed that the idea of pedestrian-friendliness has perhaps not been addressed with this Concept plan. He noted that since the applicants' control a significant amount of land in the 4-lot subdivision they could perhaps create a master plan, as is possible with a PUD. Mr. Raznoff noted that by looking at this lot as part of a whole, with a master plan, the applicants can incorporate trail linkages. He advised the applicants not to close out the possibility of linkages to the west, south, Sourdough Trail, and Sundance Springs with the first phase of the project. He would like to see how this phase relates to the big plan with the other three lots. Mr. Sorenson also noted that with an area master plan, the applicants could incorporate amenities into their situation that would pay off in the end with less turn over [of property owners]. Chairperson McCrone noted he thinks the applicants have used the land very efficiently, utilizing and maximizing open space and not necessarily equally dividing the space around each house. `scussion followed regarding the appropriateness of a condominium development in a region of the Minutes of Match 21,2000 DRB Meeting --Page 6 community that is considered "upper end" single family dwellings. Planner Skelton asked the DRB members if they are comfortable with the proposed condominium development with single family uses in lots 2, 3, and 4. He asked if the DRB members are comfortable with the current land use patterns proposed within the 4- lot minor subdivision and this condominium development. Chairperson McCrone raised the idea of smart owth with respect to the PUD process allowing varied uses of land. He noted the applicants, instead of moving to the outskirts, have used this land efficiently, alleviating the problem of "unsmart" growth. Chairperson McCrone stated he enjoys seeing smaller and larger residences mixed together, such as the mixed housing in this proposal. Mr. Pohl agreed that mixed density is appropriate in this area. Mr. Sorenson noted it would be helpful to have visuals to incorporate the current development with the neighboring developments in order to see how these things fit together. He likes the idea of mixed use, but would like to see, visually, how it fits in. Senior Planner Skelton responded that there is a significant portion of adjoining property in this area that is currently undeveloped. Thus, there is an opportunity here to design the desired land use patterns in this area. Chairperson McCrone noted there is a significant difference between SFRs and condominiums. He also noted that the City can't do these sorts of projects in isolation, rather, the City has to work in conjunction with the County. Senior Planner Skelton noted the consensus seems to be that the mix of uses is healthy, the density is appropriate, but the project lacks needed trail linkages. In general, the DRB feels comfortable with the scale and density of the project. Mr. Sorenson added that the overview of the entire property is the most important aspect and perhaps a modified grid pattern is possible and there should be room for that type of thought. The topography of this lot is the most erratic of the larger parcel. Deviations from a grid might be appropriate in such situations. It would be best to plan the general infrastructure of the larger to make the most of the potential of the site. He noted that an overall plan is lacking in terms of public uses such as trails and other public services. He stressed that an overall plan is the most efficient way to obtain the best use out of the project. Mr. Howe expressed his joy in seeing housing that isn't in the 1/2 million dollar range. .;nior Planner Skelton requested the DRB's input on the idea of cul-de-sacs in general, the concept, and how it serves the community. The DRB concluded that private cul-de-sacs are a good idea. Chairperson McCrone noted that the DRB would be willing to meet with City Commission to talk about these design issues. Senior Planner Skelton stressed the importance of DRB meeting with the Commission regarding grids, cul-de-sacs, traditional neighborhoods, and other design issues that address the "smart growth" elements. Mr. Sorenson noted there are problems with a true grid and the design needs to maintain flexibility and provide for innovative design. He recommended a limited use of cul-de-sacs, perhaps circles with green space instead. Chairperson McCrone noted that the Concept PUD is an informal application and that a Preliminary and Final PUD applications will be returning to the Board in the near future. Senior Planner Skelton noted that there are three separate applications, with the PUD being the only one to return to the DRB. Mr. Howe credited the design architects who have looked at all the different questions and parameters, and have made some good choices. Mr. Graf noted every time they have participated in the design review process, good things have come out. Senior Planner Skelton thanked the DRB for their valuable feedback. For the Betterment of the DRB: Senior Planner Skelton noted it would be healthy for the Commission to hear the design thought process that the DRB went through on this project, as well as sit in on the process during the preliminary plat review of the PUD. Chairperson McCrone added that a member of the DRB needs to be present at City Commission �etings to present the view of the Board. It was noted by Mr. Graf that two DRB members should attend Minutes of March 21,2000 DRB Meeting --Page 7 the Commission meetings, as not to give a one-sided or condensed viewpoint. Senior Planner Skelton and Chairperson McCrone stressed the importance of the DRB meeting with the City Commission to stay involved with the "smart growth" elements that are proposed with the zone text amendments. EM 6. ZONE CODE REVISIONS - (Saunders) ► Review of proposed amendments to the provisions relating to design review. ► Comments to Zoning Commission Board are due today! Chairperson McCrone stressed that this is one of the most important issues the DRB has reviewed, as zoning is a property owners' only guarantee about what he or she is buying into and by changing the zoning ordinance, the DRB could potentially be undermining what people had originally bought into. Chairperson McCrone inquired of the history of the Zoning Ordinance and these amendments. Associate Planner Chris Saunders explained the history of the Zoning Ordinance, beginning with the disbanding of the joint City-County Planning Board and ending with the Amendments to the Permanent Zoning Ordinance. He noted the City Commission would like to see some changes in the Ordinance and that these changes will take place in three steps. The first step is the adoption of a Permanent Ordinance, which occurred on March 20, 2000. The second step is to make specific changes to the Permanent Ordinance, directed by the Commission. The third step is updating the Growth Policy and Master Plan and incorporating those goals and objectives into the Zoning Ordinance. Planner Saunders noted that the purpose of this revision is to drop items that referenced the former Jurisdictional area, make changes in definitions as required by law, simplify the code, and to make changes as directed by the Commission on such items as yard set backs, garages, and others. Planner Saunders provided explanations for the proposed changes noted in his memo dated March 6, 2000, —hairperson McCrone expressed his concern that the City Commission is taking this opportunity to change =s in the Code that they don't like. Planner Saunders responded that most of the changes are problems that have been previously identified. He noted the changes directed by the Commission are the set backs, home occupancy, and PUD process simplification. Chairperson McCrone had many questions and felt the Board should take the time to discuss these issues. Mr. Pohl began the discussion on landscaping issues. He noted that on page 115 that the definition of "berm" includes vegetative groundcover. Mr. Pohl noted that groundcover does not necessarily have to be of a vegetative quality. Planner Saunders responded that the intent is to discourage visual gravel piles. Chairperson McCrone also noted that the landscaping scale seems too restrictive. Planner Saunders responded that the code further clarifies this issue. Mr. Sorenson asked the purpose of an "artificial lot". Planner Saunders responded that this provision is in place when developers are working with large lots and utilizing only a small portion of the lot. The purpose of this definition is to use the functional part of the lot so the developer is not required to landscape the entire area. Mr. Pohl noted some typos in the spelling of several species. He noted that the one inch caliber should be changed to one and a half inches at the bottom of page 205. Mr. Pohl also questioned whether it is necessary to require an exact mix of grasses, or rather suggest a mix "such as...". Mr. Pohl reiterated his earlier concern regarding "native/drought tolerant" species on pages 121, 136, and 205. Planner Saunders informed the DRB that the City Forester will be changing the tree list from permitted tree species to prohibited tree species. Planner Saunders also noted Staff would like to change the entire landscaping point system to make it easier, but research is necessary before such a significant change. Minutes of March 21,2000 DRB Meeting --Page 8 Mr. Pohl also noted there were several references to the now defunct "A-S" Zoning District. Planner Saunders thanked Mr. Pohl for pointing them out. Members questioned Planner Saunders on several topics, including usable open space and the definition of jen space, accessory buildings, nonconforming structures, and the deletions to the PUD Chapter. Regarding the Site Plan review process, Mr. Sorenson noted there are times when a large project comes before the Board, it's often difficult to review, as many have not been through the Informal review process. He questioned Planner Saunders if there is some way of requiring an Informal DRB review during an early stage of a project. Chairperson McCrone noted developers who fail to go through the Informal review process end up with many conditions from the DRB. Planner Saunders explained the modifications to 18.54, PUD. He noted with the deletions to the PUD text, a PUD maintains flexibility, but is simplified for submittal purposes. He mentioned that with a PUD, the developer can request a variance or deviation up to the deletion of the standard. Planner Saunders reminded the DRB members that this will not be the last time this issue comes before them. He noted that written comments are very much appreciated, and reminded the members of the Board that feedback is due to the City Commission by Thursday, March 23, 2000. Chairperson McCrone encouraged the DRB to make written comments and pass them on to the Commission and Planner Saunders. Mr. Sorenson noted that it is difficult to put this in perspective, as there are many questions that need to be clarified. Planner Saunders noted the web page has everything on this topic up to date, including any memos he has written regarding the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson McCrone requested Planner Saunders' attendance at the next DRB meeting to continue this discussion. He agreed. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT *nce there was no further business to come before the Board, Chairperson McCrone adjourned the meeting 6:57 p.m. Ed McCrone, Chairperson Design Review Board Minutes of March 21,2000 DRB Meeting --Page 9 ATTENDANCE ROSTER MARCH 21, 2000 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS i'7 r 4. 7 < -tr"c-' 5. G -77 6. i 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.