Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-02 Design Review Board Minutes.docDESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2002 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Henry Sorenson called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Henry Sorenson Karin Caroline, Assistant Planner Jim Raznoff Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Dan Glenn Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Bill Hanson Dick Pohl Visitors Present Matthew Killian Eryn Mikelson Dave MacDonald Lowell Springer Reid Lesley Ryun Anderson ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW A. StoneRidge Center MaSP/COA - #Z-02001 – (Caroline) 2002, 2040, 2055, 2011 North 22nd Avenue ( A Major Site Plan Application to develop 2.27 acres into four single level, multi-tenant office buildings, and necessary site improvements. Assistant Planner Karin Caroline presented the Staff Report and reviewed several conditions. She stated that condition #8 should read that the applicant shall work with the adjoining property owner for installation of landscaping. She asked for advice from DRB on conditions #9, 16, 17, and 18. Mr. Pohl asked if there was an opportunity to tie the two parking lots between buildings A and B and the lot to the south. Mr. MacDonald suggested adding a pedestrian walkway to allow pedestrian access between the lots. Chairperson Sorenson asked if a plan could be submitted that shows the relationship of the current project with the surrounding developments. Planner Caroline noted she has the plans upstairs and will get them during the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Springer stated the color rendering doesn’t show the true colors as the new program doesn’t print what one sees on the screen. He stated the neighbors wanted the buildings next to their houses rather than parking lots, and they even requested there be no windows looking out over their backyards. He stated he was not in favor of the addition of a nonfunctional entrance as the neighbors would look at it as an intrusion into their privacy. In response to Mr. Glenn, Mr. MacDonald noted they are trying to be good neighbors and not lose votes at the Commission meeting. Mr. Glenn stated he would rather see the parking lot located towards the rear of the lot rather than the building. He stated although the parking would be screened near the street as proposed, he suggested minimizing the amount of parking visible from the street. He stated he would rather see the buildings and parking lots flipped so the parking is behind the buildings (buildings C & D). Mr. Springer noted it is difficult to do that suggestion due to the width requirements for drive accesses and parking areas. Mr. Glenn noted the 104’ of solid asphalt is unacceptable to him. Mr. MacDonald noted the lots are owned by four separate people, who usually want an entrance from the parking lot with a sign over the door to identify the business. Mr. Raznoff commented the on the lengthy elevations, stating the north façade on building D, the northeast elevation of B, and the northwest facade on building C need enhancement with a roof change or the addition of unused doors. He noted doors to the park for buildings C & D probably would be used. Mr. Springer concurred. Mr. Raznoff noted the DRB’s job is to make the development the best it can be. He suggested the inclusion of connecting sidewalks to the development to the south would be a good idea. He noted the on-street parking should be counted and used. Mr. Pohl noted the long fronts could present better with slight modifications or articulations. He concurred that flipping the buildings next to the park so the buildings would front on the street would create a better presentation from the streetscape. He suggested a crossing zone across North 22nd Avenue to the south to encourage pedestrian usage. He noted he doesn’t agree with backing out of a parking lot when the lot is full, and suggested using the last space as a turnaround area. He noted the landscaping screening doesn’t seem adequate for residential adjacency. Mr. Hanson noted the buildings are “shoehorned in” with the required parking. He suggested that the street parking be counted, thereby freeing up the project. He noted there needs to be some articulation of the building facades. He reemphasized the parking along the street be taken into consideration for parking calculation. Chairperson Sorenson commended the architectural style of the buildings, and noted the colors are not a problem. He stated that false entrances are not functional. He suggested adding a bullnose over the windows to break up the facades. He noted the structures are facing the parking lots, when they should face the street. He suggested modifications to the structures to add pedestrian amenities, including shared entrances. He stated he is in favor of reducing the parking to reduce the area of paving. Mr. Glenn offered a solution with a “U” shaped parking lot on the south side, and the buildings to the north flipped to the street. Mr. Raznoff stated he is in favor of multiple low monument signs to identify the buildings. Planner Caroline reiterated the possible recommendations she had heard throughout the discussion. Mr. MacDonald noted that the business owners to the south of this project like having their own front door. He noted that an architectural amenity on the outside of the building could be added to the entrances. MOTION: Mr. Hanson moved, Mr. Pohl seconded, to recommend approval of application #Z-02001 with the conditions as outlined by staff, and modifications to condition #9 to read one small monument sign per building, condition #16 to read that the northwest elevation of building B add some articulation to better relate to the street, and condition #17 read with articulation on the long facades (not false entrances); add condition #20 to provide a pedestrian connection from building A to the office complex to the south, and condition #21 to modify parking between Buildings A and B to only single drive aisles and count parking on-street parking spaces as part of the required parking calculation. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved to amended the motion, Mr. Pohl seconded, to add condition #22 to flip/flop Buildings C and D to address the street and incorporate a courtyard-like entrance to gain access to the parking lot area behind. The amendment carried 3-2, with Mr. Pohl, Mr. Glenn, and Mr. Raznoff voting for and Mr. Hanson and Chairperson Sorenson voting against. MOTION: Mr. Glenn moved to amend the motion, Mr. Raznoff seconded, to have the final site plan come back to DRB for review prior to final site plan approval. The amendment carried unanimously. The motion carried unanimously. B. Design Objectives Plan Update – (Saunders) ( Review Design Objectives Plan Update. Reid Lesley, Matthew Killian, Eryn Mikelson, Ryun Anderson joined the DRB. The students presented the status of rewriting the Design Objectives Plan (DOP), reviewed the research completed on the questionnaire, and asked for input from the DRB. Mr. Killian noted they plan to use more examples and more graphics. Mr. Glenn noted that the DOP repeats the same things over and over again, such as, how to address the street. He suggested the students attend DRB meetings and take copious notes. He suggested using models from Seattle and Boston to see how the rules, etc., are depicted. He noted the use of examples from other communities with visuals would be helpful in a group meeting. He suggested using a visual preference for elements that are opposite each other to help people decide what they like. Chairperson Sorenson noted the DOP come into play when existing buildings are modified or new buildings are proposed. He explained the deviation process. Mr. Hanson noted he has done some research on communities that have just rewritten their codes. He suggested if the group is doing a questionnaire, it is difficult to get productive answers. He suggested putting together a succinct set of questions. Mr. Glenn noted there is an attempt to residentialize every structure in the entryway corridors. He suggested eliminating the suburbanization of the entryway corridors. He noted the wide setbacks, height restrictions, etc., limit the urbanization of the corridors. Mr. Hanson stated a decision to be made was whether they just modify what we have or do they write a new one. Chairperson Sorenson noted one of the factors that DRB struggles with is the massive parking lots between the big box stores. He noted there is a need to create an environment that is pedestrian oriented. Mr. Pohl suggested doing a random sample rather than just sampling the development public. Mr. Hanson suggested using Mithun in Seattle as a resource for cities that have recently rewritten their design guidelines. Mr. Killian noted the task is to update and upgrade the document. Chairperson Sorenson suggested reviewing the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and determine if the DOP does what is intended. C. Zone Code Amendments – (Saunders) 1 of a 2 week review. ( Review Zone Code Amendments. To be continued. ITEM 3. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Henry Sorenson, Jr., Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board