Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-1999 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1999 MEETING NOTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Ed McCrone called the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. and dithe secretary to the attendance. He noted there was not a quorum, however, an in ormaldreview would be held record and an informal recommendation be given. Members Present Members Absent Ed McCrone StaffStaff—Present Visitors Present Mara Gai Katz Debbie Arkell Dick Pohl Joanne Mannell Noel Mike Potter Carol Schott Jack Schunke Henry Sorenson Kim Walker Steve Olson Bill Hanson Dan Glenn ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MAY 11, 1999 The minutes will be acted upon at the next meeting. ITEM 3. REGULAR AGENDA A. Baxter Creek Business Park Zoning PUD #Z-9939 - (Arkell) West of Billion Auto Plaza, north of U.S. 191 A Planned Unit Development Application to allow the development of an eight lot subdivision for commercial uses. (Continued from May 11) Jack Schunke, Mike Potter, and Steve Olson joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the application. Mr. Schunke indicated the location of the project, Bronken Park, and the relevant streets on an aerial photo. Mr. McCrone asked for further discussion of the issues brought up during the Concept Plan review. Planner Arkell noted there were issues with access, a trail easement, and open space; discussion followed on each issue. Planner Arkell reviewed the list of deviations, the reasons for them, and Planning Staffs support/nonsupport for each of them. (The Staff Report is on file in the Planning Office.) Planner Arkell reviewed the project's Development Guidelines for signs, perimeter buffering, architectural features, and lighting. She noted that Staff recommends approval with six conditions and reviewed them. Mr. Pohl suggested the sidewalks be curvilinear, to which Planner Arkell responded they are proposed to follow City standards, however, they could meander. Mr. Pohl asked how the vehicular flow will move through the development and how service and delivery will be handled, and noted that the delivery services need to be considered so the trucks don't block streets or parking. Discussion followed on the permitted uses and deleted uses for this PUD. Mr. po}fl Design Review Board Minutes-May 25,1999 1 noted the planting areas are very narrow for group plantings to have movement. Mr. Potter noted that the building foot prints will likely be one-half or less of the building envelopes, therefore, allowing the planting areas to be more substantial. Mr. Pohl complimented the design to restore the meandering creek and supported Staffs findings. Mr. McCrone asked about the construction of the roads in such a high water table area. Mr. Schunke described the process and noted the City's Engineers have complimented them on the way the roads were constructed thus far in Valley West. Planner Arkell noted that there will be a note on the plat recommending basements not be constructed due to the high ground water. Mr. McCrone discussed the size of the building envelopes, the open space dedication to Bronken Park, and required setbacks when commercial property is adjacent to residential districts. He asked who would serve on the project's design review committee. Mr. Potter noted the committee would be composed of the Developer until there are other owners, then an association will be formed to decide issues. He discussed the basis for the building designs and the standards that are included in the Architectural Guidelines. He noted that the developer is motivated to put together strict covenants that will protect the property values and the adjoining property owners. He added, the Planning Office will review all building permits for the project. Mr. McCrone noted the guidelines have to be tight enough to regulate the design of the structures. Planner Arkell noted that condition#5 j covers the covenants and that the City is to be made a party to the provisions. Mr. McCrone noted that pictures and drawings are helpful in determining the acceptable designs, however, he note the Guidelines shouldn't to be too specific. Mr. Pohl suggested adding the structural guidelines from other projects to give samples of forms. Mr. Potter noted that in the Valley Commons PUD, the Guidelines are too specific, which create difficulties when they market the lots. He discussed the lighting styles,the elimination of the signage guidelines, the directory type signage on US 191, and the establishment of a theme for signage at the entryways to the project. He noted design of the service entrances will be up to the individual owner, but will fit within the building envelopes, and are required to be screened. Mr. McCrone asked Mr. Potter to address Staffs conditions. Mr. Pohl asked for further discussion of the retention/detention ponds, the pedestrian/trail crossing over the street and the need to designate the crossing with different pavers. Mr. Schunke noted the plan is to allow no parking on the streets. Planner Arkell noted the enforcement will be done by the property owners association. Mr. Potter noted that parking needs to be in parking lots next to the business and not on the street. Mr. Schunke noted they feel good about the amount of parking they have proposed. He discussed the parking peak hours for various uses. Mr. Potter noted that they have deliberately kept the ratio between square footages and parking fairly high on purpose. He noted Mr. Pohl's suggestion for curvilinear sidewalks is well taken, however, they weren't proposed as those types of sidewalks have not been well received by other reviewing agencies within the City. It was agreed that a crosswalk should be installed where the trail crosses Competition Drive. Jack Schunke noted retention/detention ponds for the subdivision streets will occur in Open Space areas and the ponds for each lot will be located on each lot. Design Review Board Minutes-May 25,1999 2 Mr. Potter asked to address the permitted uses, noting they started with the B-2 uses, eliminated uses themselves, with Planner Arkell, and now with the DRB. He noted it makes sense to follow the design of Billion Auto Plaza, and still have diversity. Planner Arkell noted the uses she cut weren't compatible with auto related businesses. Discussion followed on which uses could be compatible to auto related businesses. Planner Arkell suggested Mr. Schunke limit the uses to low traffic-generating retail uses (100 ADT/per acre max.). Mr. Potter suggested that a list still be developed. Mr. Olson asked how the uses would be enforced. Planner Arkell noted they would be enforced during building permit and business license review. Mr. Potter suggested having the list and adding other uses tied to the 100 ADT/acre as a guide for other businesses. Mr. Schunke suggested adding the 100 ADT's would be counted for those trips off-site. It was agreed that certain uses suggested to be deleted by Staff be left in. Mr. Pohl asked if there is the capability to aggregate the lots and rearrange the parking. Mr. Potter noted they would have to submit an amended Plat to do an aggregation. Planner Arkell noted a statement could be added to the guidelines to allow the aggregation of lots. Mr. Potter stated he is concerned with setbacks, and that he disagrees with Staffs recommendation for setbacks. Discussion followed on the width of the setbacks, and the value of the proposed donation of open space to Bronken Park. Mr. Pohl noted he is comfortable with the layout presented by the applicant. Mr. Schunke elaborated on the restoration of the stream. Mr. McCrone noted the parking appears adequate for commercial buildings, and noted that he'd like to see the setbacks as proposed as he is in favor of the trade-off of open space for an addition to Bronken Park. Mr. Olson was concerned with the requirement for a sidewalk along U.S. 191 as Billion Auto Plaza has none and the rancher to the west has no intention of putting in one, therefore, he'd like to see some requirement for the sidewalk to be constructed when it will connect with another sidewalk. Mr. Pohl noted that trails are established in pieces, and asked if the sidewalk could be installed to the same quality as the trail. Planner Arkell indicated the application was submitted with the six foot sidewalk, so that was how it was reviewed. Mr. Pohl indicated someone has to start the sidewalk construction, and this walk will connect with the creek corridor trail. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Design Review Board Minutes-May 25, 1999 3