Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-30-2001 DRB Minutes DESIGE REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30,2001 MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairperson Jim Raznoff called the meeting to order and Secretary, Jennifer Willems, recorded the attendance. MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Jim Raznoff Dale Beland, Contracted Planner Joanne Noel Jennifer Willems,Recording Secretary Dick Pohl Bill Hanson Nichole Wills Dawn Smith VISITORS PRESENT Claudia Metzler John Myles Bill Kreager Jerry Williams Brock Williams B. "SUPER" DRB REVIEW 1. Baxter Meadows MaSUB PUD Preliminary Plat#P-0128—(Beland) 4598 Baxter Lane East * A Major Subdivision PUD Preliminary Plat Application to develop Phase I, 64.66 acres, into 144 lots for mixed use. 2. Baxter Meadows Zoning PUD Preliminary Plan - #Z-01204—(Beland) 4598 Baxter Lane East * A Conditional Use Permit Application for a Preliminary Plan Zoning P.U.D. to construct a mixed use development on 64.66 acres which is located in the Baxter Meadows Subdivision P.U.D. Mr. Dale Beland reviewed Phase I of the project, noting four issues previously identified by the DRB at the Informal Meeting. 1. Housing unit types—mixture of homes; 2. Maintenance of streets and alleys—snow removal, he explained the developer was ready to accept responsibility to clear the 20'alleys; Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 1 3. Maintaining affordability in the lower cost units. The applicant has expressed willingness to help maintain affordability by a letter of intent to the City Commission; 4. Broader description of streetscapes. Mr. Beland explained concerns of streetscapes and widths. Mr. Beland reviewed a letter from Ralph Zimmer, Chairperson of the Bozeman Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee. He stated he received an e-mail from the Parks and Recreation Board stating they wanted more description of the parks, etc. Mr. Beland stated Bill Kreager was concerned about the lighting and had questions on the response time for emergency help when needed. Mr. Beland stated Mr. Williams was ready to sell 5 acres of land to the City of Bozeman for a proposed public safety facility. Mr. Hanson asked Mr. Beland to run thru Exhibit I for clarification for the Board. Mr. Beland did a brief overview of Exhibit I. Mr. Pohl asked about the receipt of the materials submitted by the applicant. Mr. Beland explained why the materials were dispersed so inadequately. He stated the applicant had supplemented the original package to satisfy the requirements of the old code. He stated the new information had better information and details,but not significant changes. Mr. Beland explained the proposed turnabout on Baxter Lane. He stated the traffic study showed that Baxter Parkway became more important in moving the traffic impact off of Baxter Lane. He stated the applicant was proposing additional roundabouts, he pointed them out on a site plan. He stated there were five roundabouts proposed for the total project. Mr. Bill Kreager joined the DRB. He introduced the project to the DRB. He stated Baxter Meadows was not to be a box or isolated pods of development. Mr. Kreager presented a slide show and explained the layout of the project,reviewing the mixed use development. He explained the traditional neighborhood design, a senior community,jobs, hotel, street level retail, everything that makes up a neighborhood. He explained the different types of housing. Mr. Kreager stated the goals had to do with a regional park in the south portion of the 100 acre Gallatin Park. He stated there would be neighborhood parks and linear park linkages,walking and bike trails,riding trails, and an Equestrian Center. He stated an existing barn would remain as a community center. Mr. Kreager reviewed the Master Plan for Baxter Meadows. He showed a study for a parks design concept. He explained the use of the pond and fields, suggesting the different facilities would utilize the same parking,meaning more open space. Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 2 Mr. Kreager stated there would be plenty of opportunities for access to the 100 acre park. He reviewed statistics regarding open space, containing active and passive parks. Mr. Kreager reviewed the character of the neighborhood, noting that none of the homes in Phase I would have garages which would front the streets. Mr. Kreager stated all of the"high tech"opportunities would be a part of Baxter Meadows, noting alternative energy systems. Mr.Kreager noted there would be and urban center, dedicated as an urban village, with urban parks. He stated the first phase of the Urban Village Plan would contain seven different housing types and noted 45,000 square feet would be utilized as an equestrian center. He suggested the bed and breakfast would introduce optional accessory buildings. He reviewed the veterinary office and community center. Mr.Kreager explained the street detail of Phase I. He explained the general variety of the village units. He stated the estate homes will have different characters but would be essentially the same homes. He explained the variety of the village and cottage homes and their characters. Mr. Kreager explained the townhomes would be gathered around an interior parking court. He stated the townhomes resembled mansions and would look like one large home containing four units. He explained the stacked units or condominiums would have a ground level entrance, and the live/work units would be located closest to the heart of the community. Mr. Kreager stated height would be one of the variances requested. He stated a tower would be implemented on the live/work units. He suggested the way the units blend together will be critical,noting on the west side there are three different housing types proposed and across the green would be the townhomes, condominiums, and the live/work units. Mr. Kreager suggested the community would be integrated. Mr. Kreager showed a"quilt"layout of the whole proposed plan. He suggested as the phases continue,the homes would mix together and will not be separate. He stated the"fabric"will be that of mixed uses. Mr. Kreager stated that in Phase I they are linking all housing types,parks, walking areas, small parks, and the mixed uses together, such as the Equestrian Center, the Veterinarian Office, and the Live/Work units, together. Mr. Kreager stated it was his goal to address the concerns of the DRB which were brought up at the Informal Meeting. He stated there will be strong covenants implemented to manage the community. He suggested affordability comes into play with the seven different housing types, with the mention of Habitat for Humanity. He stated the streetscape variety is illustrated with the Gallatin Green. Mr. Kreager explained the streetscape according to the housing,noting concerns about traffic safety with narrower streets. He stated statistically, it is easy to expect a narrow street to slow traffic. Mr. Kreager stated slower traffic would mean fewer accidents and the level of seriousness of the accidents. Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 3 Mr. Pohl had questions concerning the cottage area. He stated the access is only alley access. Mr. Kreager stated the project is a P.U.D. and explained the parking situation,noting all of the streets are open for parking. He stated the applicant has fully met the Code requirements. Mr. Pohl stated the streets are currently clogged with vehicles,making snow removal impossible. He noted he had concerns with the drive isle width. Mr. Kreager stated there would be a covenant that stated vehicles must be parked in the garage. He stated they would take care of snow removal in the alleys, and suggested parking problems would only occur on certain holidays. Mr. Pohl suggested access becomes critical. He stated he had concerns with parking, and vehicular access to the cottage area of the site. He noted he also had concerns with the roundabouts not really being a calming device. Mr. Kreager stated the turnabouts are designed for a semi to make it around. He stated they are true roundabouts. Mr. Pohl asked if the goal of the applicant was to make a true neighborhood, and if so,would there be a place for a school. Mr. Williams stated depending on the regional park,they would designate an elementary school site. He stated there is definitely a plan to have an elementary school. Mr. Pohl asked what the population would be at build out. Mr. Beland stated possibly 4,000 people for the entire 460 acre project. Ms.Noel asked if the traffic statistics were gathered in Bozeman. Mr. Kreager stated they were national statistics. Ms. Noel stated just because a road is narrow doesn't necessarily mean slower traffic. Discussion on a Builder Case Study continued. Ms. Smith asked about on street parking, if the applicant was proposing bike lanes, and access to the homes at Ferguson Avenue and Baxter Lane. Mr. Kreager referred the Board to Exihibt C in their packet. He noted there were certain streets with designated bike lanes as a regular part of the pavement, and that the streets with the most amount of traffic would have designated bike lanes. He stated Ferguson Avenue and Baxter Lane have a 10' wide bike combo on one side. Ms. Smith stated parking is not allowed on Ferguson Avenue, noting it is a collector street and asked if parking would be allowed. Mr. Kreager stated it is currently permitted. He explained how Ferguson Avenue would be treated. He stated traffic and life safety issues are critical when developing a neighborhood. Ms. Smith stated Ferguson Avenue will be used as an alternate to 19th Avenue. Mr. Kreager stated they are treating Ferguson Avenue as an interior street. Ms. Smith stated she didn't know if treating it as an interior street was the right thing to do. Mr. Kreager stated that statistics based on traffic studies show that the actual loads on the street are not anticipated to be that heavy. He stated when traffic reaches that level, things would change. Mr. Beland explained the load may not be as great as expected. Ms. Smith stated Ferguson Avenue is already a heavily used street. Mr. Beland stated the projection for Davis Street is showing as being able to carry loads as much as 10,000 vehicles per day. She stated she disagreed and had a concern with the homes fronting Ferguson Street. Ms. Smith asked why the construction of Ferguson Avenue to Dead Mans Gulch was not being constructed during Phase I. Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 4 Ms. Smith asked about Phases 1-5. She asked if the phases have the ability to exist by themselves if there should be a stall between the development of phases. Mr. Kreager stated the City is requiring them to have the infrastructure approved first and so in that sense the phase will function well. Ms. Smith asked if the applicant was adding any enhancements to the wetlands. Mr. Kreager stated the existing rights-of-ways of the wetlands will remain exactly where they exist now. He stated enhancement areas will include a 5 acre lake. Ms. Smith asked where the applicant proposed to build elderly housing. Mr. Kreager stated it is proposed all over,but in a residential area. He suggested the cottages may appeal to the elderly and would be throughout the community. Ms. Smith asked about the landscaping in the parks. She stated in the pocket park there is a need for very high maintenance. Mr. Kreager stated the pocket parks will be utilized as a front lawn. Ms. Smith stated the natural grass area will be a very active area for children. Mr. Kreager stated there will be natural grasses, and in those areas of the pocket parks are urban areas. Ms. Smith asked how the applicant proposes to enforce maintenance. Mr. Kreager suggested several different ways to enforce maintenance. Ms. Smith asked if there was any projected pricing for the units on the site. Ms. Claudia Metzler stated they do not have any set market prices,noting it would depend on the amenities to the home. Ms. Smith suggested the cottage and village homes are to be the most affordable. Ms. Metzler stated they will be extremely competitive to the current market. Mr. Williams stated the difficulties lay with the possibility of the expansion of Baxter Lane. He stated they could range in the$120,000.00 area. He stated some of the Equestrian Homes could be in the millions. Ms. Smith stated the cottage homes have no street access to the units in the middle, and asked if fire and medical people had concerns. Mr. Kreager explained there were no impediments in getting to the front doors of any homes. Ms. Wells asked for clarity on where the homes would be located. Mr. Kreager explained the layout of the homes. Ms. Wells asked for the speed set for Baxter Lane. Mr. Kreager stated it will be 20-25 mph with the roundabouts to slow traffic,noting Ferguson Avenue has intersections, and noted it could be a bit higher. Mr. Kreager stated statistics suggest it will be a slower road. Ms. Wells asked when the whole development would be done. Mr. Myles predicted 8-10 years, noting 2010 will be the beginning of Phase 6. Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 5 Ms. Wells asked if the multiple units will have their own entries. Mr. Kreager stated they will all have private entries,but subsequent phases may have apartment complexes with shared entrances. Mr. Hanson asked if the Equestrian open space would be fenced. Mr. Kreager stated there will be pedestrian trails and fences for safety issues. Mr. Hanson asked about the more dense areas, the condos and townhomes, and asked how the parking would work and about the size of the units. Mr. Kreager explained that everyone would have their own direct access with parking in their garage,behind their own garage, and on the street, suggesting there are no code issues. Mr. Hanson asked how they calculated how many cars would be on the street and if there will be assigned parking. Mr. Kreager stated it would depend on the size of the unit, noting they are anticipating every resident to have a single car garage in some cases, and some with double car garages. Mr. Kreager stated the condos have street parking on one side, the garage parking, and stack-up. He stated the live/work units have double car garages and street side parking. Mr. Hanson stated as a Board,parking is an issue. Mr. Kreager stated the Commission is very far sighted in that aspect. Mr. Raznoff stated he is curious about where we are today and where the City is in relation to other reviews and what is anticipated. Mr. Raznoff asked about fire and emergency access and if there is there access for a fire truck. Mr. Kreager stated trucks will not reach and where they can not reach they will have hydrants. Mr. Raznoff asked about the Homeowners Association and if it is the legal guide for parking issues. Mr. Kreager stated yes it would be and explained where the parking would be located. Mr. Beland explained the degree of the proposed variances for lot coverages, setbacks, and building heights, compared to the code. Comments of Staff. Mr. Pohl complimented the whole proposal. He would like to see the homes mingle more but maybe just not in Phase I. His main concern was with the access. He is concerned also about forcing people to use their garages, suggesting there will not be enough parking. He stated to make a success of the work/live places there may be the need for more parking for possible customers. He likes the open spaces. He asked if the planting species will be reviewed and stated he would question some of the choices. Mr. Pohl stated the alley access only in the cottage area is a concern. Ms. Noel stated her concern is primarily the segregation. She would support more mixing. She stated there are five separate neighborhoods, and sees a hierarchy in the way the homes are laid out. She felt there could be a potential problem. Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 6 Ms. Noel stated the variances for lots are in the smaller and lower income homes and stated they are too densely packed in and need back yards. She stated assuming people do not want large yards is misguided. She stated the cottage homes area, language lumping together students and senior citizens suggest higharchy. Conceptually she had a profound concern of the layout, even with the roads and the streets stating they create boundaries between the homes. Ms. Noel stated on Bozel Street, the neighborhood looks down alleyways and the views are to the backs of the homes and alleyways where in an estate homes they don't. She agreed there needed to be more parking and more access besides alleyway access. She stated there needed to be more of a mandate on the parking in the garage. Ms. Noel noted the access for visitors will be a problem also, so will snow removal. She stated there are safety issues. She suggested if a house catches on fire there is a risk because emergency vehicles are not able to access the homes. She stated having a common park as a front lawn will not be that well received. Ms.Noel stated she would not agree that the housing styles are varied. She stated the homes seem very close in design and suggested it could pose a problem. Her biggest issue was the segregation of the blocks. Ms. Noel stated she did not feel that the segregation issue has been addressed. She stated she sees an analogy between housing and democracy with the way the houses are laid out. Ms. Smith stated the plan does propose a variety of living situations. She also strongly supports the regional park. She stated as far as the development itself, clustering is a good thing but this is a bit more than clustering in some areas, suggesting there is too much density. Ms. Smith stated with the cottage homes,maybe alley access is not the right thing, they need more easy accessibility for parking and emergency. Ms. Smith suggested no homeowner would like to maintain a 10 foot sidewalk. Mr. Kreager stated there is a boulevard area from 71/2 to 10 feet. Ms. Smith stated she is concerned about the feeling of segregation. She suggested it is one use to a whole block, and suggested mixing other homes with the cottage homes. She is concerned about the maintenance of the parks, suggesting a Homeowners Association may fail. She stated the different homes seemed similar especially in the cottage homes. She suggested more variation. Ms. Wills commended the presentation. She liked the idea of adding the roundabouts, and noted the development as a whole with the units and parks is nice. She commended the thought that went into the development. Ms. Wells stated there could be more integration with the parks. She had problems with the alley accesses and the parking situation. She stated the bike lanes on the sidewalks may not be a good idea. Ms. Wells stated she had a problem with the location of the elderly complex designated elderly people. She would like to see them more integrated. She stated the alleyways in Bozeman work well when there is an alleyway and a street. She suggested snow removal on a 10' sidewalk would be difficult to enforce. She suggested considering the sidewalk snow removal and lawn care be done by the developer. Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 7 Ms. Wills stated she had a problem with the variances and the setbacks noting they are extreme. Mr. Kreager stated all of the properties have large sideyards. He suggested the homes all have traditional back yards. Mr. Hanson stated it is hard to get the deeper feeling of the project. He stated the Board responds to issues as they know them. He suggested Bozeman has never seen a development of this type, it is new ground. Mr. Hanson stated he tried to get a texture for what will be when the project is built out. He complimented the design and suggested the complex will have a wonderful living environment. He stated in the previous review he commented on the intermingling of housing types. He suggested a perception standpoint he has gotten over the aspect of comparing homes to income. He stated the project would be a completely different living experience. Mr. Hanson asked, do we push the buildings to the street or should the open space be shared? He suggested the trade off is the downsizing of the lots to make these types of homes more sellable. He asked the Board: do we support or not support the variances for the setbacks? Mr. Hanson stated he would support the variances and the project. He suggested the elements of the complex work well together. He stated emergency access needs some discussion. He stated if the water lines are laid out correctly,hydrants will be satisfactory. Mr. Hanson stated the benefit is the additional fabric of the live/work areas,the equestrian center, and the park. He suggested the vocabulary and the fabric will hold together. He suggested it is hard to make decisions on such a large project. Mr. Hanson stated he is very supportive of the project and the issue is that setback code was not designed for a development of this type. Mr. Raznoff stated he concurred with Mr. Hanson. He noted the denser housing pattern in the cottage homes area reminds him of how parking was handled, suggesting people just can't park in front of their homes. He had concerns with the type of parking patterns which are unenforceable. He suggested homeowners will adapt. Mr. Raznoff stated this could be an example of where the 2020 vision statement is pointing to. He would support the variances asked for, for the proposal. He stated in the yard areas,there needed to be areas for barbequing and clothes liens, etc. He suggested the tradeoff for smaller yards for open space he would support. Mr. Raznoff stated a concern is that there is one Homeowners Association per phase, or per block. He stated he is concerned about how the Homeowners Associations will be formed. He is looking forward to supporting the project. Discussion: Ms. Smith asked if the Board was voting to approve the entire P.U.D. Mr. Beland stated it is just for Phase I, and suggested considering implementing conditions. He reviewed comments and concerns of the DRC. Mr. Raznoff suggested looking at lot lines of the dense areas and explained the outdoor living space. Mr. Williams explained the use easement. Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 8 MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved,Mr. Raznoff seconded, to approve Phase I of Baxter Meadows with the variances as identified in Exhibit I. Discussion: Mr. Pohl stated his concerns with the rear lot setback, suggesting the turning radius is not adequate. Mr. Hanson explained the functionality of the width of the setback. Ms. Noel stated that Mr. Hanson was assuming the space would always be empty between the alley and the garage. Mr. Pohl suggested there needed to be more width of the setback. Ms. Smith suggested the variances requested were extreme and stated she would feel comfortable making slight variances. Mr. Hanson suggested the Zoning Code did not have a development like this in mind when it was adopted. Discussion on the affordability of this type of housing continued. Mr. Williams suggested he was trying to accommodate the request for affordable housing. MOTION: Mr. Pohl moved to amend the motion, Ms. Noel seconded the amendment, to require a rear yard setback of 5 feet, for the cottage style housing only. Discussion: Mr. Pohl suggested to accomplish the 5' setback, the applicant could reduce a couple of lots and encroach onto some of the green space. The amendment to the motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Hanson in opposition. The vote on the original motion with the amendment resulted in a 3-3 vote,with Mr. Hanson, Mr. Pohl, and Mr. Raznoff in favor and Ms.Noel, Ms. Wells, and Ms. Smith in opposition. The Board agreed to forward no recommendation to the City Commission due to a tie vote. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Ms.Noel seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. tR noff, 'n Chai rsrYReview Bo Design Review Board Minutes—October 30,2001 9 ATTENDANCE ROSTER OCTOBER 30, 2001 Those persons attending the Bozeman Design Review Board meeting are requested to sign the attendance roster. PLEASE PRINT neatly and legibly. NAME /� ADDRESS (lu kS t 9,2 f qQ�,a, 2. 7j y c c,�c (�v�r �`l�t<�J `2 1/6 vr,/1�,,� �1•�, r SY/0 r V 5. 1 6. \ rea ► {hvlln . - le w 7. 8, 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.