Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-2000 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000 COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET 3:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Ed McCrone called the meeting to order at 3:43 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Ed McCrone Melvin Howe Katina Christopher Russell Skelton Dick Pohl Joanne Mannel Noel Jami Morris Hal Rainey Jim Raznoff Dan Glenn Chris Saunders Henry Sorenson Bill Hanson ITEM 2. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Aspen Motors CUP #Z-0021- (Morris) 920 West Main Street ► A proposal to replace a gas station with used car lot. The lot is currently in operation under an STUP. Mr. Russell Skelton and Mr. Hal Rainey joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the staff report, including ADR staff recommendations, and distributed a letter from neighbor that stated her desire to keep the chain link fence, rather than installing a hedge. Staff supports the project, noting the four conditions indicated in staff report. Chairperson McCrone noted that the property previously operated as a service station, and the use hasn't changed. He asked for clarification on necessary deviations. Planner Morris explained that the review process was necessary since it is for the operation of two separate businesses, one of which is a conditional use and fitrther explained the deviations. Chairperson McCrone noted this proposal is a major improvement he doesn't feel proposed use is much different than previous use. The Applicants asked for a recommendation of what to put in lieu of a fence. Chairperson McCrone noted that screening from residential areas is important and that there are code regulations for screening along property with residential adjacency. Mr. Raznoffnoted that resident ingress, through gate in her chain link fence, to her garden is through the applicants property. Mr. Pohl noted his concern that in future, hedge will not be sufficient for screening; he felt a six foot high privacy fence is crucial in addition to a planting in form of the fence, although this is not the wish of current resident. Mr. Sorenson concurred with Mr. Pohl on the privacy fencing. Mr. Raznoff asked for clarification on the location of the privacy fence in relationship to the hedge. Planner Morris responded that the fence would be to the south of the hedge. It was also noted the Co-op fence is located on the applicants property. Discussion followed on the landscaping. Planner Morris noted the MDT does not approve of the proposed Thornless Honey Locust and the City Forester has recommended Black Ash as a replacement Minutes of March 28,2000 DRB Meeting--Page 1 species. Mr. Pohl noted there are many ash in Bozeman and he would like to see more diversity. Chairperson McCrone noted that for deviations to be approved, there are often trade-offs with landscaping and design. He noted landscaping points above and beyond the requirement helps the DRB to recommend approval to the City Commission. Planner Morris noted she would check the landscaping points. Mr. Pohl complimented the applicants on their landscape plan; he thinks it will enhance display area and noted it is an improvement on what was previously there. Mr. Sorenson questioned why the applicants proposed paving the entire boulevard, rather than installing grass. Applicants responded that they would like to see grass grow, but in the event they are unable to maintain the grass, could they pave the entire boulevard. Mr. Pohl concurred with staff that grass in the boulevard is the preferred option, and feels that with appropriate irrigation and maintenance, turf should be able to grow in that space. He noted that if grass is not possible, pavement would be acceptable, but adequate tree well space must be provided for the boulevard trees. Mr. Sorenson noted awkwardness of handicap space. The applicant explained how the van accessible parking space/drop-off area ended up where it is. Mr. Sorenson suggested adding a landscaping island near the handicap drop-off. Applicant noted space is a factor. Mr. Pohl noted that this area would be a great place for signature trees, aspens. Mr. Raznoff noted that for a pedestrian the landscaping island would be in the way, but agrees that it could help with traffic circulation. Applicant noted he could add sidewalk in that area instead of landscape island. Mr. Pohl questioned staff and applicants on circulation. The applicants explained the circulation flow. Mr. Sorenson noted small retention area. Mr. Skelton responded that the size of the retention area is not Iarger than it was previously, but the small size is sufficient for the site. Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Sorenson seconded to approve the recommended conditions as furnished by Planning Staff, to include the modification of condition# 1 that should read grass instead of gravel in the right of way. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Sorenson moved, Mr. Raznoff seconded to approve the CUP based on recommendations that were just approved. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 3. ZONE CODE REVISIONS - (Saunders) - continued 0. Review of proposed amendments to the provisions relating to design review. Discussion on setbacks; concluded changes were directed by Commission. Noted Historic Mixed Use District has a lot of potential. Chris noted it is an available zoning designation, neighborhood can come with petition, go thru standard ZMA review process. Noted was originally proposed for use in north and east sides of town. Discussion followed on the size requirements of trees. Mr. Pohl noted there was a reference to 2" caliper trees on page 120. Planner Saunders noted minimum standards changed from 1" to 1-1/2". Mr. Pohl was concerned that the jump from 1-1/2" to 2" results in price increase by$100 per tree. He feels this expense discourages residential property owners planting trees. It was also noted the City Forester has final say in boulevard tree species. Discussion followed on the changes to the PUD chapter. Planner Saunders noted rather than listing Minutes of March 28,2000 DRB Meeting--Page 2 submittal information two times, the information is listed in the general site plan submittal criteria, and states to refer back to this section for PUD submittals, eliminating redundancy. Chairperson McCrone questioned if the amendments simplify the process; Planner Saunders noted that there are not significant changes in submittal requirements since PUDs are a version of a site plan, but the principal change is to simplify the PUD process. He noted under the proposed changes when applying for a PUD the zone code, in it's entirety, is binding, but the applicants have the opportunity, through the deviation process, to deviate from the code up to the standard, allowing applicants to maintain flexibility and do creative things. Planner Saunders noted that future applicants will need to provide an explanation only for the deviations from the code, rather than an explanation for everything as is currently required. He noted these changes should decrease paperwork, allow the applicants to be more creative and allow the applicants and planning staff to focus on what is unique. The amendments will also provide a better review because of time previously spent on redundant information. Planner Saunders concluded these changes will increase predictability, reduce the volume of information to be submitted and the corresponding expense, make it easier for the public, Staff, Commission, and Applicant to use the process. Chairperson McCrone noted underlined changes in public notification requirements for commercial changes in use. Planner Saunders replied this particular change was public-directed. Planner Saunders noted the proposed amendments will go before the City Commission on Monday, April 3 at 7:00 p.m. He also noted that there will be further changes in the fall after the completion of the Bozeman 2020 Master Plan update. Chairperson McCrone reminded the Board members to make recommendations and pass them on to City Commission and Planner Saunders. ITEM 4. MINUTES Chairperson McCrone edited noted Item 7, 3`d paragraph to delete "that they don't like." Mr Sorenson noted changes to Item 6, page 4, next to last paragraph, delete 4' sentence, replace it with"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 plot to make the most of the potential of the site." He also added the word"public" before uses in the 5' sentence, same paragraph, as well as deleted preschools and daycares and replaced with "trails and other public services" It was moved by Mr. Pohl, seconded by Mr. Raznoff to approve the minutes, as amended. The motion carried 4-0. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:13 p.m. Ed McCrone, Chairperson Design Review Board Minutes of March 28,2000 DRB Meeting--Page 3 ATTENDANCE ROSTER MARCH 28, 2000 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.