Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11,2001 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Acting Chairperson Bill Hanson called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the Secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Dan Glenn Joanne Noel Jami Morris, Assistant Planner Bill Hanson Jim Raznoff Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner Dick Pohl Henry Sorenson Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dawn Smith Andrew Epple, Planning Director Nichole Wills Jennifer Willems, Recording Secretary Dale Beland, Contracted Planner Visitors Present Pat McFarland Jeremy Michael Cory Don Albrecht James Lenon Dave Cecich R. Dale Beland Claudia Metzler Brad Ebel Dick Stefani ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2001 & AUGUST 14, 2001 MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved,Mr. Glenn seconded,to approve the minutes of July 24,2001 as presented. The motion carried unanimously 5-0. Mr. Pohl noted changes to the minutes of August 14, 2001. On page 5,paragraph 5, the minutes should read, "Mr. Hicks stated the boulders would be placed in a natural fashion. Mr. Pohl stated the Norwegian Maple, as stated by Mr. Hicks,was actually called the Norway Maple". Instead of, "Mr. Hicks stated the boulders would be placed in a nature fashion. Mr. Pohl stated the Norway Maple, as stated by Mr. Hicks, was actually called the Norwegian Maple". Mr. Glenn noted a change on page 6,paragraph 10. The minutes should read, "Mr. Glenn suggested the applicant look at the"new student housing adjacent to the Hedges building", and not"Mr. Glenn suggested the applicant look at the"Hedges"building on campus". 1 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr. Pohl noted a typographical error on page 10,paragraph 4. The minutes should read, "Planner Skelton stated the storm water flows eastward, is detained, and then spills into the 100' swale which drains to the north under the interstate", and not"Planner Skelton stated the storm water flows eastward, is detained, and then spills in to the 100' swell which drains to the north under the interstate". Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Glenn seconded to accept the minutes as presented with the corrections as edited. Mr. Pohl commended Recording Secretary, Jennifer Willems, on doing such a terrific job with the minutes. ITEM 3 PROJECT REVIEW A. Old Bob Wards Expansion COA/ADR#Z-01157—(Morris) 2320 West Main Street �k A Certificate of Appropriateness Application to construct a 4,125 sf addition to the south side of the existing building, and related site improvements. Gene Cook, Lowell Springer and Jesse Sobrepena joined the DRB. Planner Jami Morris stated the conditions of approval still stood except for conditions 6, 7, and 10 which had been taken care of by the applicant and approved. She noted that conditions#14 and#15 had been addressed. Mr. Hanson asked Planner Morris to review the conditions listed in the original Staff Report. Planner Morris reviewed the original conditions and noted the roof top mechanical equipment and the color pallet needed to be shown on the site plan. She reviewed the lighting, noting the lighting on the canopies needed to face upward. She also reviewed the wainscot scheme. Mr. Glenn asked for a site plan. Planner Morris stated the applicant did not resubmit a site plan as the plan itself had not changed. Mr. Springer suggested the project would be good for the community and that the design had taken positive steps. He stated they had explored alternative ideas in reference to comments from the Board and applied them to the project, noting the front of the building had taken on a whole new look, the second entrance stood out, and the higher parapet mechanical equipment had been screened. He noted the curved portion on the front of the building became its own element which placed emphasis on the entrances. Mr. Springer stated it had been a positive process and felt they had addressed the concerns of the DRB. Mr.Hanson stated there were 15 conditions,noting four of the conditions staff felt had been addressed. He asked if the applicant was comfortable with the remainder of the conditions. 2 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Ms. Smith stated she liked the improvements, noting the entryway had been greatly improved by the lighting. Mr. Springer noted the existing roof remained but the fagade had changed. Ms. Wills asked if a west elevation had been submitted and asked if the Board had seen a west elevation. Mr. Sobrepena stated there was not a west elevation submitted,noting the west elevation was almost the same as the east elevation. Mr. Springer stated the west elevation was hidden by another building. Ms. Wills asked about the awnings on the east and west sides of the building. Mr. Sobrepena stated the awnings interfered with the detail on the roof. Ms. Wills suggested there was a definite improvement from the last time the Board reviewed the project. She asked about the color pallet and asked if the awnings would be fabric. Mr. Springer stated the awnings would be fabric. Mr. Pohl stated great improvements were made and felt the recess entry was a great improvement which would facilitate people well. He suggested the applicant had ignored comments about the parking and stated rows of compact parking was not a wise approach. Mr. Sobrepena stated the architectural changes were made and the site plan changes will be reviewed. He suggested the parking could be standard and reduced by a few spaces. Mr. Pohl stated he felt the applicant had done a good job. Mr. Glenn stated he was unclear about the front elevation and about the height of the awnings. He noted he felt the awnings were too tali and were lifted above the window. Mr. Springer stated they wanted to isolate the curved element, and to emphasize the difference, they brought up a statement of entrance and main focus of access. He stated the height was the height which worked the best. Mr. Glenn stated the awnings were not related to the windows well. Mr. Sobrepena suggested the awnings could be lowered. Mr. Springer disagreed and stated he would like to see the awnings remain in the place depicted due to appearance from further away, noting the awnings are more for look than function. Mr. Glenn suggested putting up an entry canopy or awning now that the canopies were located over the windows. He suggested the emphasis is reduced over the entry and would like to see something extending over the entryway. Mr. Glenn stated a recess entry does the function of covering the entry but unless the recess is defined there is no edge to it. Mr. Springer stated they were trying to define the recess entry with relief. Mr. Glenn asked if they were keeping existing curbs. Mr. Springer stated they were. Mr. Glenn stated the sidewalk was narrow and the parking comes right up to the building and he would like to see a skirt between the building and the parking area. He suggested making the sidewalk 6', noting cars hang over onto the sidewalk and makes an unviable flow. Mr. Sobrepena stated there are curb stops with a 20' space. Mr. Springer stated they could start from the curb and go 18' and incorporate landscaped islands. He stated they are pretty much stuck with the curb that exists. Mr. Springer would agree to adjust the curbs if there was enough room. Mr. Glenn suggested there would be enough room for wheel stops. 3 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr. Hanson stated the awnings at the front entry needed to be implemented to punch the entry out more. He agreed that the height in the image seemed too high. He asked if the awnings were lighted. Mr. Springer stated they were not,just functional. Mr. Hanson asked how they planned on handling the mechanical screening. Mr. Sobrepena stated the existing roof top equipment was screened and explained how. Mr. Springer stated they expected to have to re-address the screening. Mr. Pohl asked if there would be sides which slope in to screen the mechanical equipment. Mr. Springer stated there would be. Mr. Sobrepena stated the parapet wall would screen any new equipment. Mr. Springer stated the relief and the same cross section will fit into the look of the building. Mr. Hanson stated the project would be a good,positive addition. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved, Mr. Glenn seconded, to approve the project with all of the conditions attached except those met which included, condition#7, #10,#14, and#15,including an additional condition to lower the awnings to meet the tops of the windows and a second condition to address the total site parking,not to include compact stalls. Mr. Glenn moved, Mr. Pohl seconded to amend the motion to extend the front sidewalk or have it widened and also to add a condition to increase the definition of the entry. Planner Morris suggested that condition#6 could remain a condition, leaving no need for an additional condition to increase the definition of the entry. The amendment carried unanimously 5-0. The original motion carried unanimously 5-0 as well. B. Brookside II CUP#Z-01126-(Morris) 2100 West College Avenue �k A Conditional Use Permit Application for the construction of one 18-unit and three 12-unit apartment buildings as a Zoning Planned Unit Development. Dave MacDonald and Lowell Springer joined the DRB. Planner Jami Morris presented the original site plan. She noted the project went before the City Commission and the Commission asked that the project go before the Design Review Board again. Planner Morris stated the applicant had made modifications to the entryway which had been a concern. She noted there was a recommendation to flip-flop the buildings and the parking so the buildings surrounded the open space. She stated,with the alternative site design another drive approach would be added. 4 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Planner Morris stated the parking would be placed in front of the building, along College Avenue, this would eliminate the possibility of using the existing building for recreational purposes. Mr. MacDonald believed the DRC would have concerns with the house remaining. Planner Morris stated the current site plan shows the house,but it could be eliminated and the space used for open space,but she would contact Building and the Fire Marshal for comment. Discussion on the parking lot continued. Planner Morris asked for comments from the Board and if the new plan was acceptable. Ms. Smith asked if the applicant had the conditions or suggestions that were made. Planner Morris reviewed the conditions from the last meeting. Mr. Springer stated there was no motion made for the conditions and so the DRB would need to read the text of the minutes. Planner Morris read the section in the minutes that pertained to the conditions. Planner Morris outlined the comments and concerns from the previous meeting, such as the potential for the existing house. She noted Mr. Pohl's concern about adding additional landscape islands, stating the applicant would have to incorporate more landscaped islands anyway according to code. Planner Morris stated there was potential need for a fence on the north side of the property, which was an issue, and surrounding neighbors would like to see a fence. She noted two Board members wanted to see the three buildings surround the open space. Planner Morris stated Mr. Glenn had discussed issues on activating the ground floor and that he would like to see more attention to the fagade facing the public. She added another concern had been the need for an outlet to the open space area for pedestrian traffic. Planner Morris noted another recommendation was the variation of color and stated the applicant still had not addressed that. Mr. Glenn had suggested the facades that face the University needed to be articulated more and that each unit on the ground floor have its own door. Planner Morris noted additional dormers were not necessary but that the existing ones be aligned. She reviewed landscaped conditions and noted she was looking for a landscaped plan matching building one. Mr. Springer stated the site plan elements and one of the big problems in which he heard was that the parking in the middle of the last or original proposed site plan, separated the large open space from two of the buildings completely. He stated he got the feeling that the DRB wanted that to be totally open space. He stated saving the trees became less of a priority. Mr. Springer stated the open space had been evenly distributed for every building. He stated they used the third existing access and have one of the buildings parking right in front of it. 5 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11, 2001 Mr. Springer stated they tried different versions and were limited on how to make everything equal. He noted the elevations and treatment of the buildings and that staff recommended the dormers become aligned they made them steeper and aligned them with the decks so the dormers would not look out of perspective with the decks. Mr. Springer stated they went to masonry dryvit siding, eliminating shingles. He stated the expression is that the base is masonry stucco, which separated the rest with a wide belly band from the siding. Mr. Springer noted that where the building comes out further than the normal building line, they brought the same roof line out to articulate a shaded entrance to the roof and give relief. He suggested gables over the decks would conflict with the hip of the building. Mr. MacDonald stated the elevations were different. Mr. Springer noted they did an extension of the roof and incorporated it on the first level,which articulated the frame and feel of wood siding. He stated the front has a full story of masonry across the entrance and the whole story to keep the fagade a bit different. Mr. Springer continued with a discussion on the materials of the building and the treatment of the fagade. He stated they addressed the concerns without changing the configuration completely. He noted they could change the location of the entrances on the lower level and make the ground level active. Mr. Springer stated they would not like to change the entrances but would to please the DRB. He stated the parking worked out similar as previous numbers indicated,but with a slightly different configuration, and the same numbers. Ms. Smith asked if the front parking lot would meet parking requirements. Mr. Springer stated it would. Ms. Wills asked Mr. Springer why the two existing structures were being removed. Mr. Springer stated they had to be removed to make room, and in the old plan the Fire Department would like the lot and house sprinkled because of the separation requirements. He stated sprinkling an old house was cost prohibited. He suggested it was a diminishing return for a business plan. Ms. Wills stated on the revised site plan there were handicapped entrances to the east and west buildings but not to the north and south. Mr. Springer stated they had met the requirements for the handicapped spaces. He stated tenants would have equal opportunities in the other units. Mr. Pohl stated on the previous plan he was impressed with the ability to keep the trees and asked what kind of significant loss will happen on the new plan. Mr. Springer explained that there was only one major spruce which would have to be taken out. Mr. Glenn stated, for the record, Cottonwoods have a 300 year lifespan. Mr. Hanson stated there were two different types of brick. Mr. Springer stated there was only one brick type which was a slump block. He explained the purposes of a slump block. Mr. Hanson asked if the project was in a dark color of brick. Mr. Springer stated they would like to see a wood color. Mr. MacDonald stated they were limited in color because of the slump block availability. Mr. Hanson asked what the dimensions of the brick were. Mr. Springer noted the brick was 4x16 in size. 6 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr. Hanson stated the site plan presented did not show the size of the units. Mr. Springer stated there are 2 and 3 bedrooms. Mr. Hanson asked about the dumpster locations, he noted their position. He stated there were no dumpsters for building 3. Mr. Springer stated the dumpster was located behind a tree. He stated time was a factor on the project. Mr. Hanson asked about parking issues. Mr. MacDonald stated the parking lot was almost completely utilized. He suggested there were no problems getting a parking place. Mr. Springer stated there were 8 vacant spots with the structure full and noted it was early so everyone was still there. Mr. MacDonald stated there were a lot of bicycles in the lot. He noted there is a phenomenal amount of bicycle use on the shoulder of College Street. Mr. Hanson asked about handicapped accesses and he suggested the applicant look into that. Mr. Springer stated it depended on which document the Board was going to use. He stated if it is necessary they will do it. Ms. Smith stated she is struggling with the new site plan. She noted positive changes in the accessibility in the open space to all of the buildings,but that it was not concentrated all in one area. She liked the changes to the exterior of the building, suggesting putting more on the first building. Ms. Smith noted concerns with the third access. She stated there was a lot of stacking at the drive way entrances. Ms. Wills stated she struggled with the parking lot which faced College Street. She commended the effort the applicant had put into the plan. Ms. Wills liked the variety of the material and suggested the rear building needed more material variety, and suggested trim boards or flower boxes to add interest to the facades. She suggested window divisions like on the upper gables. She suggested the rear elevation would look good with the belly band continuing and material definition to the back side. Ms. Wills noted the handicapped requirements needed to be addressed. On the revised plans she noted she had a problem with the two-way parking, suggesting it was very tight and congested. Ms. Wills suggested possibly moving the dumpster area. She stated the sidewalks seemed two narrow, and suggested a wider sidewalk or greenspace area. She noted more entries could not be applied to the project but suggested a central area with benches and planters. Ms. Wills stated the circulation was driven in the entries. Mr. Pohl stated he was pleased with the evolutions of the buildings but had concerns with the site plan. He noted the old site plan worked better in reference to the outdoor spaces. He expressed his concern with the parking lot that faces College Street and that the center parking area is still a problem. He suggested flipping the building and the parking lot and making the front face College Street. He stated one building would then be surrounding by parking. He does not favor the solution, suggesting it takes up so much open space. Mr. Pohl stated the flow of the parking lot makes at least one spot very vulnerable. He stated the west side is constricted as well. Mr. Pohl stated the dumpster island could be moved to make the flow easier. He stated the west end compact parking is an issue and needed to be adjusted. He noted he was pleased with the building facades and noted he preferred the previous site plan to this one. 7 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr. Glenn stated he just did not understand the revised site plan. He noted the plan is the exact opposite of what the Board was trying to accomplish. He found the site plan odd. Mr. Springer noted he thought they were responding to Mr. Glenn's comments and issues. He noted he never had a problem with the site plan. He stated previous comments that he made were on the architecture and he would like the cabin structure to remain and would like to see the complexity of retaining older structures. Mr. Springer again noted Cottonwood trees have a 300 year life span and felt eliminating it would be a mistake. He stated the elevations are definitely an improvement. He still wanted to see ground level units and if that was not going to happen then he would like to see the rear of the building have accesses to the rear open space. Mr. Springer asked about building separation laws. Mr. MacDonald explained the separation laws. Mr. Springer stated there could be entrances right out the back. Mr. Glenn stated he would like to activate both the front and the back. He stated that some of the architectural issues had been met and would like to see the ground level worked on more. Mr. MacDonald stated they would like to have some of the buildings related off of the parking and stated because the parking,people would feel free to go out in that specific area. Mr. Glenn suggested treating this parking area a bit different. He suggested a plaza in the portion of the parking area. Mr. MacDonald suggested they could do an imprint on the asphalt, a stamped asphalt area. Mr. Hanson stated he agreed with Mr. Glenn in the direction he was taking. He stated the site plan showed no usable open space which is a real concern. He stated the open spaces need to draw people to them. Mr. Springer stated he did not like the revised plan as much either. Mr. Hanson suggested potentially reducing the parking stalls in the rear of the project to open up more space. Mr. Hanson stated Bozeman is one of the few places that required three spaces per unit. He stated in this project he would support a reduction in the number of parking stalls to create more open stalls. Mr. Glenn stated if the applicant went 2 to 1 on the two bedroom units, it would eliminate twelve stalls. Planner Morris stated the project is a zoning PUD and if the applicant is asking for a reduction in parking then the project would have to be re-noticed. Mr. Hanson stated this project is a PUD and as a PUD the applicant has the ability to ask for a reduction in parking to tie the elements together. Mr. Springer stated by reducing the parking they could save two trees. Mr. Glenn stated there were a lot of students with no cars. He stated he would like to see parking reserve and build only what is needed at this point,with an overflow area. Mr. Pohl asked what the ratio of parking was. Mr. Springer stated it was 3 to 1. Mr. Hanson stated reduction in parking is a legitimate approach to help the site plan. He concurred with Ms. Wills about the detailing in front, that it needed to be brought around the back. He stated if you allow people into the back area, it would be utilized. Mr.Hanson stated the issue of the fence perimeter was unclear. Mr. MacDonald stated that the City Commission wanted to see the site broken up from existing sites. He stated some of the existing shrubs and hedging could be saved. 8 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr.Hanson stated the beauty of the log structure is that it added neighborhood fabric amongst the buildings. Mr. Springer stated the log cabin would be a part of the amenity project. Mr. MacDonald stated there are some problems because the project will be rental units. Mr. Glenn asked if there would be an on site manager. Mr. MacDonald stated they were still determining that. He stated he had the impression that the cabin was to be removed. Mr. Springer stated the building could stay because it was existing,but a lot of work would have to be done to make the building acceptable. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved, Mr.Pohl seconded to approve the project with conditions 1-9, with the addition of three conditions; 1) add rear entries to all buildings at the point of entry at the stairway, 2)the owner seek the reduction of parking to one per bedroom for more open space and if the reduction is not approved,then the parking surface be treated as stamped pavement, and 3) and to revert to the original site plan. Ms. Wills asked about site discussions and Mr. Pohl stated they were covered by previous conditions. The motion carried 4-0,with Ms. Smith abstaining. C. Dunbar Building Informal -#I-0139—(Caroline) 450 East Main Street&23 South Church Avenue ak An Informal Review Application for advice and comment for the future development of a 13,640 sf retail/office building, four 2-bedroom condominiums above the garage structure,with 20 additional parking spaces. Jami Lenon and Dave Cecich joined the DRB. Planner Caroline introduced a plan which showed a sidewalk with no detention ponds. She reviewed the Staff Report, noting the project went through DRC Informal. Mr. Pohl asked about the driveway access onto Babcock Street,he stated it seemed close to the intersection. Planner Caroline stated that east of Rouse Avenue,Babcock Street turned into a local street and there was no concern about the access. Ms. Smith asked if the street trees and lighting would be continued on Church Street. Planner Caroline stated it would. She noted they may look for alternative lighting. Mr. Glenn asked about the 23 parking spaces under the building. Planner Caroline stated the spaces would be for the 10 condominiums, and the rest for the consumers. Mr. Cecich explained the parking spaces in relation to the units. 9 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr. Lenon further clarified the issue on the approach onto Babcock Street. He noted it was a one way street and was not affected by Church Street. He stated a site plan issue that related to building design on the Dunbar building on the corner,noting they would support the idea that a vision triangle was not necessary because it is a controlled intersection. He stated there was more of an impact with the street trees and lighting and they would be seeking a deviation for the vision triangle. Mr. Lenon noted the style would be similar to the Jacob's Crossing Building. They preferred to put the housing back off of the street. Mr. Cecich explained the majority of the applicants, so far, had been people with no children and liked the idea of being downtown. Mr. Glenn stated he was excited about the Jacobs Crossing Building. He stated thoughts on the Dunbar building and asked why there was a walkway connector. Mr. Lenon stated it was not as desirable, and the windows on Jacob's Crossing would then require design change. He stated there was not a demand for additional office space as much as there was for retail space. Mr. Glenn stated since the windows are there and if there is use for the upper portion, it would create a greater tie and noted the upper elevation needed more thought. He stated the big issue he had was the proposed South Church Terrace building. Mr. Glenn stated that proto-type, elevated above a parking lot was not a desirable building type. He stated the problem was that that type needed some active frontage on the street. He suggested ground level activity. Mr. Glenn suggested pushing the storage units back to 12' running the length,then use the 12' for a ground level entry with a stair well entry, treating the project like townhouses. He suggested it would create a ground level relationship with the units and eliminate the problem of a building sitting up on a big blank wall. Mr. Glenn suggested depressing the building % a level, suggesting the upper levels would improve the project. He stated it would improve the units and the street frontage. Mr. Cecich stated there preference would be to depress the building as well. He stated it will end up being a surface parking lot. Mr. Glenn suggested re-dispersing the ground level. Mr. Cecich stated then the prime entry would be off of the street,then the property would become one level townhomes. Mr. Hanson liked the project, suggesting it will be a positive addition to downtown. He liked the way the Dunbar Building stepped down. He stated the connection between the two buildings still needed work,he suggested making it transparent. Mr. Hanson stated he liked the idea of the townhouse concept wrapping around the complex. He stated if it was a town home there would be no need for the elevator. Mr. Hanson stated the site triangle issue, he would be in support of and there would not be as big of a problem with trees and lighting. Mr. Lenon stated the intersections were on the Highway Departments schedule to receive a traffic light, and then there would be no requirement for a site vision triangle. Mr.Pohl stated he had no problem with the site vision triangle. Planner Caroline stated the applicant can build right to the property line. She explained what the street vision triangle entailed. 10 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr. Pohl applauded the applicant. He liked the fact that there was a public pocket park and would favor minimizing the walkway and keeping it open. He suggested the west elevation of the building needed more architectural detail at the ground level. Mr. Pohl asked about the ramp structure. Mr. Lenon stated that structure was subject to change. He stated there is a property line that cuts across the Dunbar Building property, which was the former property line. Discussion on parking continued. Mr. Pohl asked if the parking garage was a two way system. Mr. Cecich stated it was. Mr. Pohl suggested the entrance needed to be looked at, noting it was narrow. Mr. Cecich stated it was a 14' alley now. He stated the parking would be secured and more convenient for people to go out onto Babcock Street. Ms. Wills stated the project was a great addition to the east side of Main Street. She stated the walkway did not connect the two buildings and suggested the walkway may not be needed because of the plaza below. She suggested the walkway, if needed, could be an open breeze way. Ms. Wills asked what the screening material for the parking garage was, for elevation one. Mr. Lenon the screening is a wall and the parking is totally enclosed. Ms. Wills suggested individual access from the east side would be a benefit to the structure with the townhouse concept. Ms. Smith stated the project is exciting and stated it was a shame that the buildings could not be put together. Mr. Cecich stated he did not want the buildings to look like a fort and that is why he went with the walkway, to break up the buildings. Mr. Glenn stated he would like to see a link at the street face, to keep the street wall feeling like a continuous street wall. Ms. Smith stated she did not feel the walkway was necessary and liked the idea of the pocket park. She asked if there was useable outdoor space to the east or west side of the Terrace Apartment. Mr. Lenon stated there was on the west side of the plan. Ms. Smith stated it would be nice to have the open space on the Church Street side because then there could be interaction with the street level. She liked and disliked the townhouse idea. She stated that six doors may be weird on Main Street and stated by keeping the parking garage open with an artistic element, it would not impact the public or tenants. She liked the concept and felt the plan would be successful. Mr. Lenon stated the walkway was not meant to be a physical access to the building. Building discussion continued. 11 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 D. Bridger Engineers Office Building MiSP #Z-01170—(Morris/Skelton) Informal Review 2150 Analysis Drive �k A Minor Site Plan Application to construct a 6,960 sf office building. Larry Pierson, Ed Matos, and Brad Eble joined the DRB. Planner Morris explained the proposal. She stated she would address the disabled space and landscape areas. She stated the applicant wanted comments from the Board and to have items addressed now,but could come back before the board. Mr. Matos presented the Board with color drawings of the site and building. Mr. Pierson stated they have passed the tech parks internal review. He stated he has approached the project in a couple of unique ways. He stated in elevation, it is hard to read the entryway. Mr. Pierson stated the approach was two fold. He stated this building had a presentational challenge and to define a streetscape for the tech park. Mr. Pierson stated they looked at the building in relationship to the tech park and on scale and definition. He stated the building is received as a Firm, an Engineering Building. He looked at the structure as a building with honest materials,minimal,with ground and split face block. Mr. Pierson showed an example of the materials of the building. He noted the rear two-story had a dark band, and the other building had a buff base. He stated the materials anchored the building and the ground block will achieve a sophisticated look and with durability for an engineer's project. He noted there are metal awnings for detail and the color resembled that of the golden gate bridge. Mr. Pierson stated the curtain wall systems represented the entryway sequences. He stated the detail will be a non- painted aluminum detail. He suggested the materials were very substantial and the pallet is honest at that level. Mr. Pierson apologized for the color pencil coloring. He stated there is a reverse water table detail that runs horizontally in the building,which is a 2 %2 to 3 inch white band,which delineated the ground and upper levels. Ms. Smith stated she liked the project and the north elevation, noting the wall is basic. She suggested adding a metal awning over the door. Mr. Pierson stated the building has variations. He stated they debated the awning. Ms. Smith stated the awning would not have to be such a dominating feature like that over the main entrance. She stated the parking lot is not square and she liked that,but there was a lot of asphalt that is just taking up space. Mr.Matos stated they have the island and then 26' feet to the end of the parking stall. He stated they would like to have it 20' but it would require a variance and decided not to go for the variance. Ms. Smith stated there is unnecessary asphalt. Mr. Matos stated the island needed to be there for landscaping and vegetation. Ms Smith suggested raising the island 2 %2 feet. Mr. Pierson stated the problem with that would be snow removal. Mr. Matos stated they could raise the island to make it more dominant. Ms. Wills concurred with Ms. Smith and would like to see more awnings. She stated she had a problem with the different block colors of the building. She asked if the building was in phases. 12 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11, 2001 Mr. Pierson stated it was a one shot building process. She stated the buildings share a glazed entryway which are connected and would not break up the buildings with the different color pallets. Mr. Pierson stated they would have a floating awning structure to screen property behind it and as a scaling devise for the composition. Ms. Wills stated it would be nice to penetrate the exterior fagade with the interior elements. Mr. Pierson stated the structure does penetrate the exterior of the building. He stated there are two layers of detailing. Mr. Pierson stated they have penetrated the wall with the details making it structural to the interior. Mr. Pohl concurred with Ms. Wills in that he would like to have more compatible components to the building. He would like to see the parking reworked, suggesting a one-way system to reduce the isle space, creating a larger island in the center. He suggested the staggered stalls on the end could be problematic. Mr. Pohl stated a number of things with the parking need to be re- addressed and he would like to see another study of the parking. He felt there was to much asphalt. Mr. Matos suggested if they go to the one-way design, there would have to be diagonal parking. He stated they wanted to reduce the asphalt and asked for suggestions for the variance. Mr. Pohl suggested there had to be a better solution. Discussion on the parking issue continued. Mr. Pohl stated the arrangement of the plants was done in a shot gun format. He would like some organization in the landscape scheme. He stated he would like to see a smaller pallet of plants that are organized instead of the proposed approach. Mr. Hanson concurred with Mr. Pohl on the parking situation. He suggested a variance to encroach into side yard setbacks instead of a variance to reduce parking. He suggested looking at alternate schemes. Mr. Hanson stated the sketch reflected the glass element entry, and the handicapped parking stall was jammed into the site. He stated there were two elements to the building. Mr. Hanson asked if they looked at turning the element for a better sense of entry into the building. He stated the dynamic form would help the entryway. He suggested having the material the same size block on the base and the upper block. Mr. Hanson suggested changing the block size. He stated he did not mind the color of the block. Mr. Glenn asked what the story on the streets was. Mr. Matos stated there is parking on the streets. Mr. Glenn stated there are 16 spaces of perimeter parking around the site. Planner Morris stated perimeter parking may be possible. Mr. Hanson suggested adding relief to the project with the parking. 13 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Discussion on the entryway and parking continued. Mr. Pierson stated he would like to be concrete in responses to the comments from DRB. He stated he felt confident in some aspects of the project. He noted two colors for the buildings were appropriate and form and detail bridge the buildings. They do not want the buildings uniform. Mr. Pierson stated one building represented a vertical and one represented a horizontal form. He stated the elevations show the chrome poorly. Mr. Glenn stated the DRB did not suggest going to one color. Mr. Hanson gave material suggestions to the applicant. Mr. Hanson stated for the final application, the applicant needed to bring in graphics and detailed sketches. Planner Morris stated this was a formal application and the project is part of a PUD. Discussion on the project returning to the DRB continued. Mr. Hanson stated the Board felt that the parking did not flow well and constricted the building, causing entry problems. He and would like to see relief,more greenspace, and better access. Mr.Glenn would not like to see any parking on site. Mr.Hanson suggested bringing the project back as a Consent Item. E. Baxter Meadows Phase 1 Concept PUD#Z-01168—(Beland) 4598 Baxter Lane East 7k A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Application for Phase 1 (65 acres) of a 460+ acre development. Mr. R. Dale Beland stated the project was very significant since it represented a major proposal for a neo-traditional,mixed-use community,with a potential build out of up to 2,000 dwelling units. He noted that the application was submitted under"fast track"ordinances. He highlighted important sections of the staff report and explained the proposed mix of various housing types and densities. Mr. Beland explained the mixed units and uses. He then introduced the applicant and his team. Mr. Jerry Williams, Mr. John Myles,Ms. Claudia Metzler, and Mr. Brock Williams joined the DRB. The project discussion was held over the conference phone for Ms. Lisa Folkins, Mithun architects and planners, in Seattle, Washington. Mr. Myles presented a slide show which reviewed the project vision, elements, and Master Plan of the site. He explained the phases of Baxter Meadows and the densities. 14 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 He stated the estate type homes would have less density, to the east is transitional density with transitional homes,neighborhood mixed use, and linear trails south to north. He explained the connections of the linear trail system. Mr. Myles reviewed the waterways,wetlands to the northeast, the proposed enhancement via creation of the lake and the pond system, and water elements in the estate area. Mr. Myles reviewed the Park Design Concept,which would include playgrounds, trails, and parks. Mr. Myles reviewed the typical residential view of the site. He noted the orientation of house to sidewalk,porches,pedestrian activities, and neighborhood commercial ideas to include landscaping. He stated the objective is to provide for new types, styles, and mixtures of housing, and commercial uses to reflect changing consumer and lifestyles. Mr. Myles stated there would be seven different housing proposals in Phase I. He stated there would be a bed&breakfast, a community center,veterinary office, and equestrian center. He noted there was a transitional area from estate homes to traditional homes, and to village homes in a denser scenario on Baxter Lane. Mr. Myles stated a more dense area would include cottage homes and parks, oriented to streetscapes and sidewalks which front parks. Mr. Myles noted the main elements in the first phase are the neighborhood greens, one-way traffic, and parking. He stated the condos are north on the plan, with street access from sidewalks to all living units or stacked flats, noting the units have incorporated garages. He stated the townhouse units have access from the back and push the facade to the street. Mr. Myles reviewed street details, explaining the importance of the details and how they express the fabric of the neighborhood. He reviewed the estate home layout,the size of the lots and the density. He noted one of the estate homes would be a bed and breakfast. He showed a carriage house in conjunction with a carriage house on the slide. He reviewed the sizes of the traditional homes that have a higher density. Mr. Myles showed pictures of streetscapes with garages on the side nodes. He suggested they would follow PUD guidelines. Ms. Folkins stated they would include design guidelines in the first phase preliminary plan. Mr. Williams stated the houses shown are designed by Mithun. Mr. Myles reviewed slides of village homes,their design, and size. He suggested the placement of the homes and the incorporation of different design styles will be worked through with Mithun. Ms. Folkins stated there are three styles of village homes and three styles of the cottage homes. 15 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr. Glenn asked about variation of color and detail in the houses. Ms. Folkins stated not at this point,but there could be. She noted there are twenty village homes with nine different elevations and colors. Ms. Folkins stated a lot of variety confuses buyers. Mr. Myles stated cottage homes were the most dense type of home. He showed pictures of elevations,colors, and textures. Ms. Wills asked if the homes were to be built first and then sold. Mr. Williams explained the houses are built first but are oriented accordingly. He showed cottage home elevations. Mr. Myles showed illustrations of four townhomes, living elevations, and stacked flat units. He reviewed the live/work units and showed pictures of them. He then reviewed the equestrian center elevations. Mr. Beland stated the project was in the informal stage as a concept review. Ms. Smith asked if there would be fencing around the estate homes. Mr. Williams stated there would be post and pole type fencing, one fence type for the whole neighborhood, some of which will be required. Ms. Smith asked what the theory of the cul-de-sacs was for the townhomes. Ms. Folkins stated the townhomes are larger homes,noting they tried to cluster the units for more open space. Mr. Glenn asked if there would be continuity similar to a farm-like context, from one estate to another. Ms. Folkins stated there are three different types of homes with a country row and a trial. Mr. Glenn asked what happened to the ILX plans. Mr. Williams stated when they brought the presentation to the city there was no Zoot Enterprise or ILX planned. Mr. Glenn stated it eliminated a big hole and is much better than previous proposals. He asked what neighborhood commercial will be.Mr. Williams stated it would be downtown Bozeman and he gave examples. Mr. Glenn asked if there would be a Main Street. Mr. Williams stated they envisioned a round about and showed where Main Street would be. Ms.Folkins stated the green would be the heart of downtown. She stated they have allowed for a corporate use to the north. Mr. Glenn stated he had seen earlier proposals. Mr. Glenn stated that it was a great improvement over what had been previously proposed. He liked the regional park proposal,wrapped by public road, and much more viable in relationship to the residences and the park. He suggested the overall idea was great. He noted his number one concern was that the project is a leap-frog development compared to the city. Mr. Glenn stated in terms of vehicular circulation, even though there is an internal grid,if the applicant overlaid the grid onto the Bozeman grid,it still followed a previous development, Valley West. He stated there was a similar problem; the grid did not tie into the development. 16 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 He suggested the arterial system ends up taking jumps,not allowing thru traffic,it interrupts traffic flow. Mr. Glenn gave examples of massive congestion in Bozeman, giving reference to 11 th Avenue and Willson Avenue. He stated the only way to replace the grid was to have twelve lanes of highway every one mile to replace what is lost,the flow thru of traffic, then the roads would become highway like. Mr. Glenn suggested the applicant was trying to treat Baxter Lane more like Willson Avenue. Mr. Myles explained the street plan and the boulevard. Mr. Glenn stated he was worried about the amount of traffic channeled onto the site. He also had a concern with mixed housing and mixed types of income. He stated there are multiple types, like a traditional neighborhood,the big picture show clustered neighborhoods. Mr. Glenn explained the neighborhoods existing in Bozeman,noting the segregation of uses. He stated the actual core of a neighborhood would show a mixture of traditional, cottage, estate, and village homes. Mr. Glenn stated corner lots are more viable for larger homes with smaller homes in between. He stated the building types separate the natural type of scale. He would like to integrate pieces of the plan, less segregated. Mr. Williams stated integration would cost more. He suggested it takes away productive growth and significantly changes the cost of homes. Ms. Folkins stated the market does not accept such a mixture of housing unit types. She gave examples of mixed homes. She stated that an estate home would not be acceptable next to an apartment home. Mr. Glenn stated people are buying expensive homes next to lower income homes as the market has shown here in Bozeman. Ms. Folkins stated the desire of the developer was to mix the development but the lots will not sell. Mr. Glenn brought up the question of affordability. He suggested the need to accommodate people who make less money. He applauded the fact of the range of homes but asked if there was any effort to bring subsidized housing into the development. Mr. Williams stated there was an effort and if they had to provide 10 percent affordable housing, it would decrease the value of the property. Mr. Williams stated they will have affordable housing. He stated the issue was to provide affordable housing; the question is how would the housing be subsidized. Mr. Glenn stated there are ways to subsidize housing. Mr. Glenn explained his opinion on subsidized housing. He stated we do not want to create segregation at this level. Mr. Glenn suggested having an alley unit or second smaller apartments within single-family homes to, create an affordable layer. Mr. Folkins explained there was room to create a bungalow scheme with a detached garage in the alley with a unit above. She also referenced homes for Habitat for Humanity. She stated the bungalows will be developed in Phase II. Mr. Williams explained the carriage units. Mr. Glenn stated he would still like to see the homes integrated. Mr. Hanson stated he was familiar with Mithun Design. He explained an issue he had and agreed with Mr. Glenn about the segregation. He stated the housing components will be successful and the density becomes an issue because the land becomes more valuable. Mr. Hanson stated that on a functional standpoint,he applauded the alley aspect. He stated the closeness of the structures was a concern to him. He asked where certain types of recreational vehicles would be parked. 17 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Mr. Hanson stated, considering the density, snow removal would be a problem. He stated in the end the complexes would be beautiful, and functionality of the environment is a concern. Mr. Hanson stated the grand scope of the project is ambitious. He would suggest keeping in mind how people live and the differences they might see. Mr. Hanson suggested it was an issue the developer and owner needed to keep in mind. Mr. Williams talked about storage in a commercial unit with retail above. He stated the townhome area could have common storage units below the apartments. Mr. Hanson stated he was not attacking the design, but was reflecting on what he recognized as the lifestyles of the people in the area. He suggested relaxing the density in the cottage home area and suggested that the only other area for storage was on the street. Mr. Hanson stated that storage of vehicles on the street would be a downfall. Mr. Myles stated the village homes would have some storage in the back yard with a fence for screening. Mr. Hanson suggested people like their elbow room because they have seasonal equipment. He stated that snow removal will be a real issue for the developer and it needed to be addressed. Ms. Folkins suggested there were oversize garages in the cottage and village homes. Mr. Glenn stated he just wanted the applicant to review this. Mr. Hanson stated he would support a more relaxed standard of the covenants. Mr. Epple stated the City Commission had already endorsed relaxed covenants. Mr. Hanson stated traffic impacts on the streets would be a hurdle. Ms. Wills stated she was excited to see the live/work unit and suggested it would be more effective in the downtown area. Mr. Williams stated there will be a sales park in Phase I to show different housing types. He expected the live/work units would be in the downtown area. Mr. Myles stated the access will go to the equestrian center and the other to the south for transition. Ms. Wills asked about the linear park and if there was public access to the park. Ms. Folkins stated that there were public parks which would lead into the linear parks and connect all the way through. Ms. Wills stated she felt strongly about the mixed housing. She suggested this project was a stretch for Bozeman. Ms. Wills stated she liked the mixed use of the retail area, and other mixed uses in Bozeman. She stated the mixture also mixes cultural uses. She would like to see more integration instead of clusters. Ms. Wills stated she thought the plan was nice and felt the images and the pictures were well done. Ms. Smith thanked the applicant for such a detailed presentation. She disagreed with Mr. Glenn on the leap-frog issue. She stated by the time Harvest Creek is done it will be adjacent to the regional park. Ms. Smith reviewed the project area and the surrounding areas and stated she felt the areas will mix together. She stated she felt arterial roads are arterial roads and neighborhood streets are neighborhood streets. She stated the traffic belongs on the arterial roads. 18 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Ms. Smith concurred that grouping the housing types would be beneficial. She suggested smaller area over the site. She explained her ideas of mixing the units. Ms. Smith explained that the hotel area is a large open space on the plan. She liked the idea of narrowing the intersections. She stated people fly thru the intersections and she liked the idea of narrowing the intersections as a form of traffic control. Ms. Smith suggested a deed restriction on the accessory unit on an estate home to satisfy affordable housing. She asked about bike lanes on the major roads. Ms. Folkins stated there will be bike lanes implemented on Baxter Lane, Davis Road, and Oak Street and in the community,to separate children from traffic. She stated she did not feel their proposal was that far away from a duplex as far as the parking issue. Ms. Smith stated she hoped the regional park worked out and suggested it would be a huge asset for the development and the community. Mr. Glenn asked if Williams Brothers was building the entire project. Mr. Williams stated he was. Mr. Glenn stated as far as economics, this project was adding value to the community, having small contractors build small homes and larger contractors build whole blocks. He suggested it is a way to build a local economy. Mr. Williams will sub-out construction work on the homes. Ms. Smith stated Durston Meadows neighborhood had a strong idea of ownership. Mr.Williams stated they are trying to build affordable housing in Bozeman. He suggested the price goes up when things change. Mr. Williams stated the City has been great with the"fast track"review of the project. Ms. Wills asked how the building types worked in Durston Meadows. Mr. Myles stated there were nine styles, five of which became popular. He stated people were allowed to pick a house and then upgrade. Ms. Wills stated that people found living in a single-family residential area, said that it was a blessing. Mr.Hanson suggested the applicant go back to the drawing board. The project will come back as a full PUD so the Board will see the project again so he suggested taking the comments and concerns and integrate them into the plan. He suggested integrating the homes, creating a richer fabric, suggesting it will not impact the cost. Mr. Myles stated it comes down to the foot print. Mr. Hanson stated if the applicant reduced the cottage homes by two,then a couple of smaller homes could be implemented into the plan. Ms. Folkins stated there was lot size issue, a more affordable home with a smaller lot. Mr. Glenn suggested interspersing traditional homes on the site. Mr. Hanson stated the applicant is responsible for taking the comments and make a richer fabric. Mr. Glenn stated the distinction between the homes would not be as great. He gave examples of very distinctive homes in the Bozeman area. He suggested there is a rhythm of entries. Mr. Glenn stated economic segregation is an important factor. 19 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11,2001 Ms. Folkins clarified the dimensions on the cottage homes and the village homes. She noted there is variation in the homes and she would like to show the Board a streetscape. Mr. Hanson stated the size of lot makes it the denser home. Mr. Glenn stated there are homes on this size of lot(40 x 60),but they are intermixed. Mr. Williams stated there is a true difference in lot sizes. Mr.Hanson stated there is a need to break up the home and mix them up. Mr. Williams stated the square footage of the cement pads are the same, it is the floor plan and architectural design that make up the difference in square feet. Mr. Glenn stated the applicant needed to be careful about the amount of variation. Ms. Wills would Iike to see streetscape pictures. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Glenn seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Bill Hanson, Acting Chairperson This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator,Ron Brey,at 582-2305(voice)or 582-2301(TDD). 20 Design Review Board Minutes-September 11, 2001 ATTENDANCE ROSTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME ADDRESS J,3-�Q /%t,11 [q 2. � ' Y M(UM-15( W. Cap CrGG s-t' 3. 004Y a� �Q�r�,2 F c.+� Z t (1� L CoLL S i 4. 5. 6. rJ�- 7. �'°IC U (��a I'Y zl�� �U &Y 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.