Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-1997 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice-Chairperson Paul Gleye called the meeting to order and directed the secretary to take the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Mara-Gai Katz Kim Walker Dave Skelton Todd Smith Roger Cruwys Walt Willett Andrew Epple Rich Noonan Paul Gleye Ed McCrone Carol Schott Lowell Springer Henry Sorenson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 AND AUGUST 26, 1997, MEETINGS Chairperson Gleye asked for corrections or additions to either set of minutes. Mr. Sorenson corrected page 5 of the August 12 minutes, the last line to read "not recommend". Hearing no other corrections or additions, the Chair noted the minutes were approved as amended. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEWS A. Ohmont Office Building Site Plan Modification Z-9723A- (Olsen) 710 West Mendenhall Street - A Modification to an approved Minor Site Plan/Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations to allow professional office/retail businesses to replace the approved restaurant. Todd Smith joined the DRB. Planning Director Andrew Epple presented the application to modify an approved Minor Site Plan to convert a single family residence into a restaurant on the first floor with an apartment in the basement. The project was approved and most of the site improvements have been completed. Planning Director Epple noted the applicant has applied to modify the restaurant portion of the structure by converting it into office space. He noted that the opinion of Planning Staff is that condition#4 should be eliminated, since it dealt with screening of roof top mechanical equipment associated with the restaurant. Mr. Smith noted the biggest change is modifying the front porch into a shorter entry/dormer. Mr. Smith asked that condition#4 be omitted. The DRB members had no other questions. Mr. Sorenson moved to conditionally approve the application with all of the previous conditions, except omitting condition#4. Ms. Katz seconded the motion which carried 4-0. Design Review Board Minutes-September 9,1997 1 ITEM 4. CONTINUED REVIEW A. Stoneridge Subdivision Developmental Guidelines -(Skelton) Conceptual review of the developmental guidelines for the Stoneridge Subdivision PUD. Senior Planner Dave Skelton reviewed the guidelines. He exhibited the location of the development on the N. 19th Avenue/Oak Street Corridor Master Plan land use plan. Mr. Springer joined the DRB. Planner Skelton reviewed the architectural design elements with a suggestion that more emphasis be given to the use of plazas. He noted there are three pedestrian circulation systems in the N. 19th corridor. Mr. Sorenson asked about the curvilinear pedestrian path. Planner Skelton demonstrated the greenway corridor which includes 120 feet for roadway with 50 feet of greenway on each side of North 19th Avenue. He noted there is to be a curvilinear trail along the corridor. Mr. Sorenson noted he liked the connection between the trail, park, and stream corridors. He noted the plan emphasises the linear park, which he likes. Parcels of land are surrounded by open parkland space. He suggested perhaps tying together the green areas with Rose Park. Mr. Springer noted he has suggested to Mr. Cape that a nice, formal entrance to the linear park across from N. 20th could be incorporated. He noted the walkway along N. 19th will be just a nice entrance into Bozeman, as he feels there will be very little foot traffic occurring there. He thinks pedestrians will use the linear trail for foot traffic. He hopes people will enjoy walking through the greenways then enjoy doing park things in the park. Mr. Cruwys asked for the locatrion of Rose Park. Mr. Springer pointed it out on the Master Plan. Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked Senior Planner Skelton what is expected at this point from DRB. Planner Skelton noted the Planning Department is asking for comments and recommendations from the DRB to assist the developer in preparing the application for P.U.D. Preliminary Plan Review of the project. Ms. Katz would support making the linear trail more defined. Also she was not sure how the pathway reaches into the park. Discussion followed on how the trails will pass through, how the wetlands will be determined and how the development will accommodate that area. Ms. Katz asked if the path would be usable for skiers. Mr. Springer noted they are suggesting a granular surface, not paved, so bikers can use,but not as a speedway along Catron Creek. He continued that this surface should be usable for skiing. Planner Skelton emphasized that the architectural guidelines are what needed to be discussed. It is important to know how they will interact with one another. Mr. Cruwys noted it seems that there is too much detail shown on the Master Plan. He suggested Design Review Board Minutes-September 9,1997 2 developing a framework with overlays for inserting the details. He suggested extablishing nodes for development to establish the framework. He asked to see more detail on how the development of the nodes will happen. He sees this as a segmented plan. He suggested carving some ponds if the Fish and Game will allow. Mr. Springer noted that the Fish, Wildlife and Parks have told him that the ponds would fill with sediments and algae. Mr. Cruwys noted that could be overcome with pumps, etc. He suggested designing a framework, then a framework within a framework. Ms. Katz concurred with Mr. Cruwys. She feels that the devlelopemt should fit the linear trail, park, and greenway. Mr. Springer noted the area adjacent to the east side of Rose Park is swampy and they aren't sure how much they will be able to develop it. Mr. Sorenson concurred with the two previous DRB members. He was concerned with the finished quality of the plan. He asked how much infrastructure will be installed in the initial proposal. He suggested design ideas for the interior street,the end building, and the residential areas. Mr. Springer noted he is having a difficult time creating examples of exhibits that will work in every location of this development. He is concerned that someone will try to place a building in an improper place or try to use all the design elements on one building,making it ugly. Planner Skelton interjected that we are looking for a unified plan for development of the project. Staff is not looking for a particular architectural style or theme, but instead for character-giving architectural features that will make a good impression along the entryway cooridor. One of the key issues is the orientation of the buildings to North 19th Avenue. The guidelines need to establish parameters for development of the corridor and need to provide the architectural expertise for a developer who has no expertise, including the amenities to encourage superior design. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted the DRB could perhaps steer Mr. Springer in the direction of creating a framework for superior design for the entryway into the City. He suggested separate sections for the various things the document does. Such as the homeowners association items, the development standards that are required, and third separate out the design guidelines. If an item can be measured, it isn't a guideline. He suggested that Mr. Springer define the overall character of the areas, then define the relationship between them. He suggested defining the character of each building area and setting up guidelines for each area. Lastly,he suggested items for architectural guidelines. He commended Planner Skelton for his comments in the staff s memo. He suggested using overlays to show the layers of development. Mr. Springer noted he has used layers to produce this development to the point that the owner wants to define lot sizes. Mr. Cruwys explained his suggestions. Mr. Springer noted the reasons that they didn't present the plan that way. Ms. Katz noted that looking at lots and their design is a site plan issue. Planner Skelton suggested Mr. Springer take the entryway guidelines and apply them to this area. He noted that this is an opportunity to go beyond those guidelines. Ms. Katz noted Lowell needs to make a commitment to a Master Plan. Design Review Board Vliautes-September 9,1997 3 Mr. Sorenson suggested every site should benefit from the plan and each site needs to function on its own. There is a need for a layer to show the fundamental items such as clustering, then different designers/developers can use those fundamentals to develop a site. Mr. Cruwys noted that the framework needs to be developed, then the lots are created around the framework. Mr. Cruwys suggested the applicants be given more flexibility in the 50 foot setback to allow a less rigid alignment of buildings and parking and a more fluid"in and out"green space with an opportunity for"pocket"parks and more open space. Discussion followed on the N. 19th guidelines and the framework that could be developed. Mr. Sorenson suggested the guidelines encourage the sharing of parking. Vice-Chairperson Gleye suggested making an automobile oriented area on the north end. He noted there is a decrease in scale as one travels south. He wondered about a rationale for why the development is happening as it is. Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked if the 30% open space requirement could be located in one area. Planner Skelton noted it could. Mr. Springer noted if there is too much large scale or small scale development,one starts to want relief from that. He noted that the way to present the development may be to use layers to explain how they interact. Planner Skelton commented that one disadvantage Mr. Springer has had is the burden that the City has placed on him to set the tone for the corridor, since this is the first development under the North 19th Avenue/Oak Street Corridor Master Plan Amendment was finalized. Planning Director Epple noted the tone of the discussion is to show the development with layering to help the public and the Planning Board understand the development. In Summary Mr. Springer noted that for the review process to be clear, he needs to start with his starting point and show how he progressed. Mr. Springer discussed how the guidelines have developed and how they have changed with the finalizing of the document. He plans to use general sketches for models. Mr. Sorenson suggested using a montage of photos to give ideas of the generalities. Discussion followed on what to include, how to depict it, and how to break it down for each area. Mr. Springer noted he is very satisfied with the discussion and the suggestions given him by this Board. ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Orientation/Work Session with City Commission(9-22-97) Planning Director Epple discussed the meeting with the City Commission. It will be a training session on the Design Objectives Plan and an exchange of ideas on the role of the DRB and Commission based on a framework presented by Senior Planner Skelton and himself. Mr. Sorenson noted he needs the meeting to start at 4:15 as he is teaching a class until 4:00. Vice- Chairperson Gleye noted he won't be here that day. Planning Director Epple suggested flip Design Review Board Minutes-September 9, 1997 4 flopping the Planning Board and DRB meeting dates 22nd for the 29th and noted he will investigate the trading of dates. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no er busin the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Paul Gleye,Vice-Chairperson Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-September 9,1997 5