Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-14 Design Review Board MinutesAGENDA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2014 5:30 P.M. :07 Seconds ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER Board Members Present: Michael Pentecost, Chair Bill Rea Lessa Racow Mark Hufstetler Mel Howe Walt Banzinger Staff Present Brian Krueger Commissioner Chris Mehl Members of Public Cordell Pool, Stahly Engineering Scott Dehlendorf, Cannery District Partners :17 Seconds ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT • Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Development Review Committee, not on this agenda. Three minute time limit per speaker. • Individual items will have a public comment period at the end of Committee discussion. No public comment forthcoming :25 Seconds ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2014 Motion and second to approve minutes of July 23rd. Minutes approved unanimously. :29 Seconds ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Cannery Concept PUD Z14175 (Krueger /Johnson) 101 East Oak Street This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 1 of 4 A Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application to allow the development of proposed phase 2 of the PUD consisting of 2 new buildings, with associated parking and related site improvements. :30 Seconds Planner Krueger asked for a quick roll call for the minutes. 1:42 minutes Planner Krueger introduced Scott Dehlendorf, applicant and Cordell Pool, Stahly Engineering, representing the applicant. He then presented the staff report for the Cannery PUD stating this is an opportunity for the City to identify compliance with the guidelines of long-range planning policy and City Code and an opportunity to provide input. This is an historic area of Bozeman that includes sections that are not annexed. Relaxations would be focused on two things – setbacks and lot frontage. This project will tentatively be heard before the City Commission on August 25th. 32:39 minutes Planner Krueger completed the staff report and answered questions from Board members. 32:59 minutes Mr. Banzinger asked if there any jurisdictional issues with the County. He also questioned if Community Development is OK with the proposed setback relaxations on I-90 and Oak St. He stated the design appears to follow established precedence. Planner Krueger responded that the applicant plans to annex the properties into the City at some point in the future and that staff was in general support of the relaxations. 38:34 minutes Ms. Racow asked about a fence line or buffer between I-90 and the parking areas. Mr. Pool responded saying there is an existing fence and a 30’ high hill near the railroad tracks. 40:42 minutes Mr. Howe had no questions. 40:46 minutes Mr. Hufstetler asked if the City extended Oak St to the east, would additional lanes be added to the west side and, if so, would that affect this project? Planner Krueger responded that Oak St is an arterial street and not a local street, and explained the differences and stated there were no plans to extend Oak St. to the east at this time. Mr. Pool stated they did allow for a wider right-of-way in this project. Mr. Hufstetler asked about the zoning of the property to the west of this project and about specific architectural guidelines in place from the Northside PUD. Is there any procedure in place to collaborate with County planning on this project? Does the applicant plan to get rid of the metal siding on the Cannery Building? The reply was, yes, they are. 53:14 minutes Mr. Rea asked if a mid-street pedestrian crossing on Oak Street would get a traffic signal or is it a crosswalk? Is there anything planned by the City on Rouse for pedestrian connectivity? 56:27 minutes This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 2 of 4 Chair Pentecost asked what dictates how many access points would be planned for the 162,000 sq ft of potential development? What is the time frame for the phases? Will the developer design and build the pad sites? Why is there no residential component? 1:04:36 hr Commissioner Mehl spoke to the Oak St extension to the east. Why are we talking about setbacks from the Interstate, which is County land, but not talking about a site plan? Will the City planning staff pursue meeting more often with the County planning staff? What is the ratio of parking per building? 1:14:09 hr Chair Pentecost closed for Planner/Applicant questioning and opened for Board discussion. 1:14:13 hr Mr. Banzinger appreciates hearing the informal and the opportunity to comment. He is supportive of staff’s comments, positions and everything they presented. He likes the concept and believes it’s appropriate for the area. He would like to see more greenspace, trail connections, bus connections, pedestrian orientation, and gathering spaces on site. He would like more mixed use added. 1:17:02 hr Ms. Racow agrees with everything Mr. Banzinger said. She commends the applicant on the nice parking lots and encourages them to apply that to the rest of the development. She is concerned about the survival rate of canopy trees in the bioswale area. She stated it can be very difficult for trees to survive in that type of condition. She’s excited to see this happen and commends them for a job well done so far. 1:18:21 hr Mr. Howe commends the proposal and imagines that this will be an aesthetically attractive project and supports it. 1:19:11 hr Mr. Hufstetler echoes the above comments. He likes the project and the irregular rhythm and unusual feel. He thinks the design of the individual buildings will be key to how the development succeeds. He likes the industrial feel of the buildings and encourages architectural diversity with an industrial feel with a variety of textures on the buildings. Overall, he likes the project. 1:21:28 hr Mr. Rea commended the existing project. He stated he has some grave concerns about it because of another PUD in town which had specific, thick design guidelines but turned out completely different from what was originally planned. He sees a potential for things to go terribly wrong in building pads N, K, J, and I. The combination of odd shapes with outside designs along the view shed could be disastrous. He loves the fact of saving the street wall and completely supports minimizing the Oak St setback on the County property and along I-90. He supports the long parking runs and the bioswale combination. He’d like to see some thought put into the NE intersection and the Rail/Trail stating it’s not far enough away from or close enough to the intersection. He likes the clapboard siding on Building F. This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 3 of 4 1:27:31 hr Chair Pentecost echoes the other comments. He talked about the site access. With about 500 parking spaces and only two exits onto Oak St makes him uneasy for 5:00pm traffic. He strongly agrees with Mr. Rea about the design guidelines. Creativity can be stifled and the development can be dragged down if design guidelines get too heavy-handed. Allow the design line to be crossed. He gets good public comments on what is currently there. He supports the lot area width, yard setbacks, access frontage for lots, access spacing, parking areas and landscaping. 1:32:33 hr ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-3203 (TDD). This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD). Page 4 of 4