Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 7 Dec 5 CDB mtg summaryPage 1 of 5 February 7, 2023 RE: 19028; The Ferguson Farms II PUD and Preliminary Plat Review by the Bozeman Community Development Board, acting as the Bozeman Design Review Board and Planning Board, on December 5, 2022. Interested Parties: As you are aware, the City’s Community Development Board (CDB) met on December 5, 2022 to discuss the land use and design proposals of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) and the accompanying Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Plat (PP) pursuant to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.230.040 for the P-PUD and Section 38.240.140.A.2 for the PP. The Board voted unanimously, 8 to 0, to approve the following Motions. For the P-PUD: “Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 19028 and move to recommend approval of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development application to the City Commission with the exception that the Board does not support the staff findings for Deviation No. 10 and the Board does not approve the deviation that would allow 100 percent surface parking along street frontages, and further subject to staff-recommended conditions and all applicable code provisions and further subject to the determination on Article 4 standards modifications by the Director of Transportation and Engineering.” Below please find a brief summary of Board Member comments on the proposed P-PUD. After extensive discussion on the P-PUD application, the Board did not have comments on the PP but voted unanimously to recommend approval of the subdivision to the City Commission. Please forward these comments to relevant members of your design team. If you wish to discuss the CDB comments with Department staff, please let your Development Review Coordinator know and she can schedule a TEAM meeting with the appropriate staff. If you intend to incorporate some of the CDB suggestions into the project design, please let me know so we can assist you in submitting amendments for our review through Project Dox. To date, there has been no public comment submitted. We have tentatively scheduled City Commission review of the P-PUD and PP applications for their March 7, 2023 meeting. This will be a public hearing and action items on their agenda. If you choose to revise plans to respond to the CDB comments, we will need copies of the revised plans to review for code compliance and then to include in the staff report to the City Commission. Please submit those as revisions in Project Dox as soon as possible. Page 2 of 5 If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 406-582-2285 or your Development Review Coordinator Diane Tolhurst at dtolhurst@bozeman.net. We thank you for your time and presentation at the CDB meeting. Sincerely, Susana Montana, Senior Planner Ferguson Farm II December 5, 2022 Meeting CDB Notes Board Members in attendance: HH (Henry Happel); JP (Jerry Pape); NO (Nicole Olmstead); JM (Jennifer Madgic); CE (Chris Egnatz); AB (Allison Bryan); BE (Brady Ernst); PGM (Padden Guy Murphy) CDB?= when taking notes we did not get the name of the Board Member commenter ************************************************************************************* CDB ? to staff: relaxations for landscaping, will the PUD come back to CDB, separated lots for parking, will the skybridge be part of the minimum requirements for final plat or phased?, clarify bike parking is covered or not and how distributed if not within 100 feet. Identify scope of projects where DRB reviews projects. 7:05 pm CDB ? to applicant: JP – concern for integrated structured parking and separate parking garages differentiation and being clear what is being completed. HH – More inward looking project that typical seems to be in application materials, is that fair? Look and feel along Huffine, Fallon? Tyler – no existing drawings or design requirements. CE – How many parking stalls are shown on plan not under buildings? Tyler - 883. No commitment to underbuilding parking at this time. CE – Building heights shown on elevations map, why tallest buildings in NW corner? Tyler – stepping up away from Huffine, lots of iterations in project development, may have structured parking in those buildings. CE – Curious that highest building nearest the shortest adjacent development on N, Where are views along pathway with tall buildings along skybridge. Tyler – breakpoints along street and open spaces. CE – Design review panel process in documents, how to approach implementation? When will embellish in future? Tyler – Form A, Form B, want to provide latitude for design, still looking for cohesive design options. AB – Did consider housing? Tyler – No, lots of housing in vicinity. Rooftops now in area to support commercial. JM – Housing follow up, is lots in vicinity but good opportunity for urban lofts and mixed use, live-work; can change over time? Tyler – zoning would allow but administrative steps required, e.g. park land. CE – Valley West, Bozeman Pond, Valley Unit in vicinity – residents go in cars out on evening, see local options for services and need for connectivity to the north to the existing residents. Tyler – skybridge, shared use paths, roundabouts Page 3 of 5 BE – PUD- Above and beyond required: How beyond the existing UMU code for supplemental use requirements if no residential, how assure mixed uses. Tyler – changing standard to overall 30 acre site % rather than individual lots within development. BE – Requiring site wide must have mixed use – Tyler – yes, 70% cap remains on entire development. BE – Height relaxations – what types of building types and uses justify the extra height without the structured parking. Tyler – internal heights floor to floor be better with extra 5 feet. BE – What six story uses. Tyler – could by any allowed use BE – Bike racks proposed on bike racks or just the two covered sites. Tyler – Integrated with street tree placement along all streets. BE – 100% surface parking and owner stated intent to elevate pedestrian experience. What is most pedestrian oriented street hierarchy? Tyler – Valley Commons Drive is lead with back in parking , round abouts, skybridge separated from street for pedestrians. BE – Valley Commons drive with big parking areas, how does a block long parking lot elevate the pedestrian experience? Tyler – Hard to balance with providing parking on such large site, screening surface parking, connections through lots to break up space. JB – Relaxation 21 loading berth, mentioned wider alley for allowing passing space, accurate? Tyler – alley section 28 feet wide, normal is narrower. JB – Trash dumpsters not in alleyway? Tyler – pointed out consolidated locations. NO – Emphasizing pedestrian experience without created street scape with buildings. How to emphasize walking in alternate locations such as along N-S. Skybridge seems quite a big effort, what commits it to be constructed so people will use it and experience. Tyler – Big thing for project, tourist destination, highline in NYC. NO – What happens if skybridge doesn’t happen and what will still encourage people to go N-S? Mike D – alleyway between buildings which allows for seating and shelter when needed along ditch corridor, bridges E-W over ditch. Alcohol liquor license special deal with state makes easier to have restaurants without having to pay 1MM for license. Spread operations hotel option. NO – Building height relaxation associated with specific lot or entire PUD. Tyler – all lots. BE – Skybridge section diagram, trees shown. Buildings to abut on sidewalks, eliminate existing trees? Mike D – Yes all to be removed, age, hazards, move ditch and replant with other riparianish trees to not conflict with skybridge and builds. Could possibly connect from building 2nd floor to skybridge. BE – landscape plan at ground floor or at skybridge level? How to get light under skybridge for vegetation. Mike D – Works as N-S with sun coming in from south during day. BE – Skybridge concrete paving, any plantings? Mike D – yes, planters, wood flooring sections, benches for sitting and relaxing. Questions end. NO to staff – Parking only lots, what happens if structured parking comes later? Will need to look into that issue, not prepared to answer at this time. CE – What voting on? PUD and relaxations as bundle, plat contingent on PUD ultimate approval Motion: NO – per PUD SR. JP 2nd. NO – hard to see how will work, reliance is on street frontages and if not being implemented then raises important questions, esp. re parking areas. Page 4 of 5 JP – Expect more from PUD process, long development, different characteristic than many with commercial and STR. No doubts on standards, or commercial district, key concern is novelty on skybridge and not fair comparison to examples like Highline and Salesforce which are much more extensive. More designed and engaging sites. JP – Concerned on functions of development, not just appearance. Success in Ferguson Farm to west but consistently very hard to park. Need to consider how to incorporate structured parking and drop condo garages. Need to have places for people to come from outside and park and then promenade or will cause great frustration. JP – Density to center is better, less likely to impact on others. BE – Good layout with roundabouts, agree with SR on #18, Do not agree with SR on 100% surface parking #10, Not seeing how #10 is a better solution with just landscaping screening on surface parking. BE – No downtown in west Bozeman, transition into this along Valley Commons Drive but 100% surface parking takes away walkability. Esp. not one in middle, ways to provide parking other ways with decks or other options and still engage street front. BE – ok with height relaxation, neighborhood feel stops at 5 story, want to be able to yell up to top floor, but is commercial area. BE – Skybridge interesting idea but not enough, seems sterile, needs more engaging and park like structure. Encourage some mixed use and lofts to create engaging district. Supports walkability. AB – Skybridge needs to be rethought, size is too small to achieve intended outcome. AB – Agree with not approving #10 AB – Agree with idea of more height in center rather than on edges. Could be a better development. JM – Like the overall vision and spirit. Support with appropriate landscaping choices. JM – Agree with BE on no 100% parking, surface lots kill the feel they are trying to accomplish. Support decked parking approach. JM – Work in residential component. JM – Agree with Skybridge being rather sterile, has potential to accomplish more with additional work. JM – Supports angled back in parking. Supports no minimum parking required. JM – Agrees with SR re #18. CE – Like the vision, functionally 85% there, biggest issue is parking with mix of walkable and sea of parking. Works in Downtown due to high population proximate but not the same on this site. Not enough yet density here so will need to park. Walkability relies on ability to get to the site which here will be mostly cars. Time to start stacking parking. JB – Not support #10 and 18, will support rest. JP – channels PGMurphy in support of less parking. Need to think of how to innovate with parking structures to provide more than just car storage. HH – Supports direction and creation of new destination as described by applicant. Also agree with other comments re parking #10 will be detrimental. HH – Applaud skybridge, think it can be made better. HH – Support permanent residential in the development. People permanent present will also support look and fee. HH – Ways to express recommendations to City Commission. 1. Listen to presentation, 2. Modify motion, 3. Say JM tell other commissioners. Page 5 of 5 HH – Amending motion – add at end of motion “and also subject to the design review board’s belief that deviation #10 should not be approved, that the design review board believes the project would be approved by multi-story parking one deck above ground parking on site to deal with some of the parking requirements, that some additional residential development should be included, and that the skybridge should be substantially landscaped.” JP – suggest changing to one deck above ground. HH accepted. JM – 2nd. JP – wondering whether the effort in the skybridge would be better spent on the ditch corridor. REI stream side example in Denver. If skybridge isn’t larger than questionable value. BE – Don’t need the entirety of the amendment, JP and CE concur. Vote on amendment – failed. NO – Amending motion – SR motion except for recommendation to approve deviation #10. JB – 2nd CE – Not addressing the entirety of parking question and on-site parking, not addressing on-street correct? Vote on motion by NO – passes 8-0 Preliminary Plat: JP – move per SR with commentary. CE 2nd Vote on motion – passes 8-0.