Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-1998 DRB Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FEBRUARY 24, 1998 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Vice-Chairperson Paul Gleye. He directed the secretary to take the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Mara-Gai Katz Ed McCrone Dave Skelton Lowell Springer Bill Hanson Kim Walker Jody Olsen Dan Kamp Walt Willett Andrew C. Epple Roger Cruwys Carol Schott Paul Gleye Henry Sorenson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 27 and FEBRUARY 10, 1998, MEETINGS Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked for corrections or additions to the January 27 and February 10 minutes, hearing none, he noted the minutes stand approved as presented. ITEM 3. FINAL PROJECT REVIEW A. Stoneridge Zoning PUD Preliminary Plan Review#Z-97176 - (Skelton) West of North 19"1 Avenue, between Durston Road and Baxter Lane and a parcel of land south of Baxter Lane, east of N. 19' - A Planned Unit Development Application to allow a mixed-use development along North 19`h Avenue Lowell Springer joined the DRB. Senior Planner Dave Skelton asked to continue this review to March 1 Oth to allow additional time to re-prepare the Staff report regarding recommended conditions of approval. (The server at the Carnegie Building was down and part of the Staff Report was lost.) Planner Skelton noted that the design objectives need to be fine tuned so they at least agree with the Zone Code and Subdivision Regulations. Staff is recommending that more work be done on the Architectural Guidelines to facilitate all future reviews of this area. He suggested that the DRB hold a discussion on the application, then at the next meeting, look at Staffs conditions and make its recommendation. Mr. Springer noted that a problem for him is a planned trip. He wants to have the discussion today to get input from this Board. He noted that Planner Skelton has some concerns about the Architectural Guidelines that he and Planner Skelton have to work out. He noted it was his intent that the Guidelines follow the Design Objectives for the North 19"' corridor. He wants conditional approval with a condition that Staff resolve the rest of the concerns. Planner Skelton noted that the sections in the manual aren't marked well and are difficult to Design Review Board Minutes-February 24,2998 1 follow. They reference to "for consideration refer to..." and the referenced material is nowhere to be found in the document. The "may's" and "should"need to be changed to "will" or "shall" to give some measure of commitment that the guidelines will be followed, if the architectural guidelines do not establish some character-giving features that will be common to the P.U.D. Mr. Springer commented that he has no problem changing the "may's"to "will's" and "shall's". He feels that he and Staff can compromise and resolve the concerns. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted there are several items in the Architectural Guidelines that need clarified. He noted the checklist refers to a theme, however, there is no theme given. He suggested that the DRB, Mr. Springer, and Staff need to agree on the language in the Guidelines. Planner Skelton noted that there seems to be an agreement that either DRB and/or Staff need to fine tune the Guidelines to be sure they meet the Zone Code requirements and the Design Objectives for the North 19t' corridor. Vice-Chairperson Gleye asked Mr. Springer if anyone in his office could sit in on the meeting next time, in his place, to which Mr. Springer noted there is not. Mr. Sorenson noted that he feels there is a need for another meeting to finalize the conditions and answer questions that members have. Mr. Cruwys doesn't want to see this review drag on beyond today. The discussion was put on hold. (After the discussion of the next project, this review and discussion continued.) Planner Skelton noted that the conditions weren't saved on his PC before the server went down. He noted that exclusive of the conditions and conclusions, the rest of the staff report is correct. He noted that it is up to Mr. Springer to decide as to how he wishes to proceed. Mr. Springer noted that the Board has seen the documents and, with help from Planner Skelton, can make the conditions be such that, with modification, can be worked out with Star He suggested the DRB decide on a recommendation, with conditions, to the Planning Board and City Commission and let him and Staff resolve any other problems. He reviewed the history of the application. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted this is a very complex case. He asked Mr. Springer what he needs from DRB. Mr. Springer noted he wants conditional approval so he can proceed with the two minor subdivisions. Then he will bring back the guidelines for their consideration. Planner Skelton clarified that the guidelines and P.U.D. Preliminary Plan have to be approved by the DRB and Planning Staff prior to the filing of the plat for the two minor subdivisions. Design Review Board Minutes-February 24,2998 2 Mr. Cruwys emphatically noted there should be more contiguous open space in the center of the project by eliminating some parking spaces and re-orientation of the buildings and the remaining parking spaces. Mr. Hanson noted that Mr. Springer is asking DRB to make a decision when it hasn't had a chance to discuss it fully. Planning Director Epple suggested the DRB hold a special meeting next Tuesday to discuss the conditions that Planner Skelton will redraft. Mr. Springer noted he is not asking for any density bonus out of the PUD. He had asked for a private street in Minor#1, which DRC is supportive of. He asked for a private street in Minor #2, which DRC convinced him to do a public street. He argued that the North 19th entryway corridor guidelines should be conditions enough. Ms. Katz noted that she felt that the tone of the previous meetings was that the guidelines would be enough. She is concerned about the levels of designs proposed. Planner Skelton reviewed the types of conditions that he had drafted by discussing the rest of the Staff Report. He noted that there must be a stronger commitment for doing the landscaping guidelines if there is no commitment on the part of the developer to implement stronger architectural guidelines. Mr. Sorenson noted his concerns are about planning what happens in the sites. He complemented Mr. Springer on the design of the area. He has trouble that the park-like ambiance hasn't been created. There needs to be more green space. He was looking for a clustering of buildings. Mr. Springer asked him to look at it in the contest of being near an arterial on the east side and a waterway to the west. He noted there is no room to cluster buildings in the linear area, however, he appreciates the comment. Mr. Cruwys noted that the waterway could be the open space with the parking on the other side. Mr. Sorenson continued with a discussion on the precedent setting project that this is. Planner Skelton noted that a common shared setback may be one simple solution. Mr. Cruwys noted the horse is sort of out of the barn. There is little flexibility in the southern minor subdivision. He summarized that the DRB had encouraged the development of a framework within which the development could proceed. Vice-Chairperson Gleye suggested that even though the conditions aren't there, the groundwork for them is given in the staff report. He feels that the DRB could grant conditional approval and allow the project to continue. Planner Skelton noted that the Architectural Guidelines have to be approved before the final plat can be filed. He suggested that the DRB may or may not choose to agree with the changes that Staff will recommend in the staff report to the Planning Board and City Commission. Design Review Board Minutes-February 24,2998 3 Mr. Hanson asked if Staff will pursue the land use patterns and the character giving features. He asked if the minor subdivisions can be approved before the plat is filed. Planner Skelton noted the guidelines have to be approved and the plat filed before the minor subdivisions can be approved. Mr. Springer noted that he is comfortable with the conditions that Planner Skelton and he have discussed. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted that the decision of the DRB can be made and have no affect on the guidelines effectiveness. Mr. Sorenson explained the critical spaces and nodes. He feels they are big issues. Planning Director Epple noted that one way to handle it is to give conditional approval today and that all issues in the Case Analysis be addressed and incorporated into revised guidelines and plans, which will be approved by this Board. MOTION: Vice-Chairperson Gleye moved to proceed as Planning Director Epple described. Mr. Hanson asked when the final approval will be given. Planning Director Epple noted that the applicants have up to three years to get final approval. Mr. Springer complained about having to participate in the improvements to the intersections of N. 19`hBaxter Lane and N. 19`h/Durston Road. Planning Director Epple noted that one of the things that they have to do is to file an approved set of Architectural Guidelines. Mr. Springer noted that the credibility of this board is at stake. He will take a negative recommendation before the City Commission, if necessary. Ms. Katz noted that negative recommendations have happened before. Mr. Hanson noted that there is information not included and that the DRB is not privy to it. Mr. Cruwys reviewed the statements in the staff report referring to the DRB. Planner Skelton noted that Staff is concerned with the screening of the backs of the buildings that back onto North 19`h. He noted that the conflicts with the entryway corridor are basically roof pitch. MOTION CONTINUED: Mr. Willett seconded the motion which carried with a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Hanson, Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Willett, Mr. Cruwys and Chairperson Gleye voting aye, and Ms. Katz voting nay. ITEM 4. PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW A. Stadium Center Zoning PUD #Z-9811 - (Olsen) Southl 1"Avenue and Kagy Boulevard A Zoning Planned Unit Development Application for a commercial complex that will allow the reduction of setbacks between the parking areas and the proposed private internal street. (First of a two meeting review) (This application was discussed between the two discussions of StoneRidge.) Dan Kamp joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jody Olsen presented the application noting this is a preliminary review and a recommendation will be made at the next meeting. She noted that Mr. Design Review Board Minutes-February 24,2998 4 Kamp has used the constructive comments from the Concept Plan Review before the DRB and incorporated them into this proposal. She reviewed the areas on which the DRB may want to comment. Mr. Cruwys asked which setbacks will be relaxed. Mr. Kamp noted the front yard setback would be 25 feet if it were a public street. He noted that parking would encroach into internal setbacks. Mr. Sorenson asked about the building envelopes. Mr. Kamp noted that the envelopes don't necessarily mean the footprints of the buildings will be that large, the size of the envelopes was to allow for different orientations using the design criteria. Mr. Sorenson asked if the parking shown is what is required. Mr. Kamp noted it is and explained the parking will determine the size of the buildings as there is no other space for parking. Mr. Cruwys asked if the parking in a PUD is relaxed. Planner Olsen noted that it could be, if it was determined that the circumstances deemed it. Mr. Cruwys was concerned that the structures being built would not be seen again by the DRB, as Planner Olsen explained. Mr. Kamp noted that the developer is also concerned that too many lots would be aggregated and a very long, large building constructed. Discussion followed on the Architectural Guidelines. Mr. Hanson asked what were the developer's thoughts on doing the improvements, i.e., will they all be done before selling the lots. Mr. Kamp noted they plan to install the streets and landscaping in common areas and sidewalks. Mr. Hanson noted that a buyer could combine two lots and change the configuration of the parking lots. Planner Olsen noted that couldn't occur without the project coming back to the Planning Office for further review. Mr. Kamp noted that the builder will have to make his building fit into the envelop and be small enough for the parking spaces allowed for that envelop. Mr. Cruwys asked Planning Director Epple if a subdivision has to be submitted with a PUD. Planning Director Epple noted the Zone Code states that the PUD and the subdivision are to be reviewed concurrently. He noted that sometimes more detail than is needed is submitted. He concurred that once the application is approved, that is what should be built out. If there are significant changes made, those changes will be reviewed by this Board and perhaps the Planning Board. It may even take the whole hearing process. Discussion followed on the parking configurations, landscape islands, design guidelines, and building pads. Ms. Katz concurred with the idea of adding the landscape islands and abandoning some of the parking. She commented further on the landscaping and parking configuration. Vice-Chairperson Gleye complimented Mr. Kamp on the Architectural Guidelines, noting that they are very complete. He asked who were the potential clients and what were the possible uses. Mr. Kamp noted insurance companies, attorneys, a real estate company, and a medical group have all expressed interest. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted for those kinds of uses, the long Design Review Board Minutes-February 24,2998 5 building sites aren't very well designed for offices. Ms. Katz disagreed noting she works in a structure that is elongated and it works very well. She noted the guidelines support the plan as a whole, and makes it easy to give articulation to the structures. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted that the color requirement is rather boring. He suggested thinking about other colors. He is concerned about the angles of the buildings in lots 3, 4, 5, and 6. They are inconsistent with the existing neighborhood to the north, and the rest of this project. He suggested that they maintain the pattern established across the street. He'd like the buildings to conform with the rest of the area. Mr. Willett noted he disagrees with Vice-Chairperson Gleye. He feels there is just enough difference in color to create interest. Discussion continued on the angles, patterns, open space, and landscaping. Mr. Sorenson noted the dichotomy is striking and causes some disharmony. He is concerned that the landscaping around the buildings may not really happen. He asked how close to the lot lines each building can constructed. Mr. Kamp noted that is dealt with in the guidelines. He noted that the landscaping will be the most powerful along the sidewalks and the parking areas. Mr. Sorenson continued that lot 3 has a probable building envelope that too large. Mr. Kamp noted they are trying to oversize the envelopes to allow the developer flexibility in designing the structure. He noted that he maybe needs to be more specific in requiring a minimum number of plants in each island or planting area. Planner Olsen noted that the parking allotments will dictate the size of the buildings. Mr. Cruwys suggested using a wider variety of trees. Planning Director Epple noted there is flexibility in the Code for PUD's and the arrangement of the plantings is also flexible. Mr. Hanson suggested language that prevents one developer from buying several lots and building a huge structure. He asked if he had a certain tenant in mind for building #4. Mr. Kamp noted it is of interest to one of the owners, however, there may be a need to reconfigure it. Vice-Chairperson Gleye noted that the discussion will continue next meeting. Planner Olsen noted she will send a memo with her conditions in the next packets. Mr. Kamp noted he will bring a color rendering next time. ITEM 5, ADJOURNMENT There bein no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Paul Gleye, e- hairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-February 24,2998 6