Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-1998 DRB Minutes (2) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 10, 1998 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Kim Walker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. She directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Visitors Present Roger Cruwys Mara-Gai Katz Chris Saunders Shelly Engler Kim Walker Walt Willett Jody Olsen Mark M. Roberts Ed McCrone Andrew C. Epple Marsha Youngman Henry Sorenson Carol Schott Mike LaBarre Bill Hanson Dan Kamp Paul Gleye Keith Belden Andy Stevenson Dave Hutchinson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 1998, MEETING Chairperson Walker asked for corrections or additions to the February 24, 1998, minutes. Mr. Cruwys asked to have added to the minutes on page 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 parking spaces.". MOTION: Mr. Cruwys moved to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hanson and carried 6-0. ITEM 3. FINAL PROJECT REVIEW A. Stadium Center Zoning PUD #Z-9811 - (Olsen) Southl 1'h 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. (Final of a two meeting review) **(This project was discussed second.) Dan Kamp joined the DRB. Planner Jody Olsen noted that PUD's are scheduled to be looked at twice by the DRB. Chairperson Walker asked if there was a change in the staff report. Planner Olsen noted that she had sent the staff report with this week's agenda. There was no staff report with the first review. Mr. Cruwys asked if the suggestions DRB gave last time are incorporated into the staff report. He'd have liked to have seen those suggestions graphically displayed. Mr. Kamp noted that at times the City Commission directs that the DRB or Planning Board see the project again. Mr. Sorenson noted that there was a lot of information the DRB wanted to see as the building plans will not come back before this Board. He wants to see how the building envelopes will be Design Review Board Minutes-'.March 10,1998 1 changed. Mr. Kamp noted that when he has made modifications to site plans during the review process in the past, they have been discouraged, and he has been lead to believe that same submittal is to be reviewed by the whole reviewing crew. Mr. Gleye noted that there were a number of concerns expressed last time and he feels that Planner Olsen has very accurately expressed them. He noted, however, there are too many conditions to send this project forward for further review. His preference would be for Mr. Kamp to respond to some of the conditions, redraw the plans for DRB review, and present the revisions at the next DRB meeting. The Board concurred that they want to see this application again in two weeks, if possible. Mr. Kamp noted he feels there are conditions that don't apply to the PUD and defeat the purpose of the PUD. Discussion followed on the requirements, resubmittal, and modifications being allowed. Mr. Kamp noted he has been discouraged from submitting additional, revised plans. He asked Planning Director Epple if that idea has changed. Planning Director Epple noted the rule is not hard and fast. Discussion followed on changes allowed. Mr. Kamp noted that he did come before the DRB with a conceptual plan and then made many of the suggested changes for this application. Discussion continued on what the DRB thought they would get from today's submittal. Mr. Sorenson elaborated on the changes suggested last time. Mr. Kamp noted that he was in agreement with most of the suggestions made at the last meeting. He feels that a few of the suggestions will become conditions to be taken before the City Commission. Mr. Kamp explained the conditions with which he doesn't agree, including the condition referring to footprints. He plans for them to be as proposed. He noted that the square footage of a building will be restricted by the parking spaces allowed for that building envelope. Mr. Hanson noted that some of the buildings cross lot lines. Discussion followed on where lot line crossing would be allowed. Mr. Kamp also disagreed with conditions#3 and#7, which refer to setbacks. Planner Olsen noted that Staff is concerned about the setbacks to ensure that buildings are set apart from one another. She noted there is one 8 foot setback should be 20 feet as it is the rear yard for that particular building. Mr. Kamp noted the building envelopes are not the building footprints. Discussion continued on setbacks, footprints,building envelopes, the fronting of each building with sidewalks, and the reasons for doing a PUD. Mr. Kamp elaborated on why the applicants are proposing a PUD -to create more open space and a trails system. Mr. Gleye asked how the DRB can review the project if they don't know what the buildings will look like. Mr. Kamp noted the Architectural Guidelines will govern how the buildings look. Chairperson Walker noted that she is confused by the building envelopes. She can't see if there is space between buildings or if the buildings are connected. Mr. Sorenson asked about condition #17. Planner Olsen noted Staff was concerned with the street/driveway crossings with the Design Review Board Minutes-':March 10,1998 2 pedestrian/bicycle paths. Mr. Kamp noted he had designed the pedestrian pathways by visualizing himself in the project and how he would move about in it. He discussed the design plans for the crossings. Mr. Cruwys suggested a way to incorporate the crossings in with the drive-lanes. Mr. Hanson noted he would suggest moving the pedestrian crossing away form the vehicular crossing. Planning Director Epple suggested that DRB see this project again in two weeks. He noted that would give Mr. Kamp a chance to revise his plans. Mr. Kamp noted he would be agreeable to that suggestion as he would like to present a written statement to the conditions and bring a revised plan. Mr. Kamp noted that condition#3 is a problem. Planner Olsen explained that Staff is mostly concerned about the front and side yard setbacks. Mr. Sorenson suggested putting drawings of the typical sidewalks, etc., in the guidelines. Mr. Cruwys noted that the sidewalks shouldn't change. Chairperson Walker noted that the plan and the guidelines don't agree. Mr. Hanson noted that the important criteria must be included in the guidelines. Mr. Kamp suggested that certain lots be conditioned such that they cannot be joined. Planner Olsen suggested allowing the combination of no more than two lots. Henry noted that could allow a very long building on some lots. Chairperson Walker noted that lengthy buildings probably won't happen due to the guidelines. Mr. Hanson asked if the parking lots will be installed with the buildings or initially by the developer, how will he require the amount of the parking to be built by each developer. Mr. Kamp doesn't see the configurations of the parking lots being changed. Planner Olsen noted that the proposed phasing is mostly for the installation of sewer and water mains and services. There will be smaller phasing done to create the streets and parking. Mr. Kamp noted that the roads and landscaping will be installed initially. The developer will put in each parking lot as each building is constructed. Mr. Kamp noted it is the practical way to constructed the parking lots to prevent their being torn up when the structures are being built. Mr. Cruwys concurred with Mr. Hanson on the installation of all the parking at one time. Mr. McCrone asked who will maintain the parking lots. Mr. Kamp noted the common ownership association will do it. Mr. McCrone noted that most of the conditions could be addressed in the covenants and guidelines. Mr. Kamp discussed his disagreement with Mr. Cruwys's suggested drawings. Mr. Cruwys noted he wants the center lot (#8) addressed and orienting the structures with Kagy Blvd. isn't necessary. Mr. Hanson asked Planner Olsen about Condition#10 referring to landscaping requirements. Planner Olsen explained that the landscaping of the specific lots needs to be addressed more specifically. Mr. Kamp agreed. Design Review Board Minutes-March 10,1998 3 Mr. Cruwys suggested eliminating the striping in the parking lots and the use of pavers texturing. Planner Olsen noted that she wanted Mr. Kamp to address the setbacks. Chairperson Walker moved, Mr. Sorenson seconded, that this project be brought back to the next meeting, with revised drawings being included in the packets. B. Bridger Peaks Town Center Concept PUD #Z-9819 - (Saunders) Northeast corner of North 19`"Avenue and Oak Street A Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development to allow B-2 (Community Business District) uses in the North 19`'corridor. B. Bridger Peaks Town Center Concept PUD#Z-9819 - (Saunders) Northeast corner of North 19t'Avenue and Oak Street A Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development to allow B-2 (Community Business District) uses in the North 19"corridor. (This project was discussed first on the agenda.) Mike LaBarre, Keith Belden, Andy Stevenson, Dave Hutchinson, and Shelly Engler joined DRB. Associate Planner Chris Saunders presented the application, noting Planning staff concerns: (1)the North 19'"/Oak Street Master Plan Amendment was written for a residential area, and need to be modified for this project. (2) The need for a Master Plan for the whole property including infrastructure. (3) The need for a true pedestrian area and not just a sidewalk. (4) Stormwater and snow storage are issues. Chairperson Walker asked if DRB had seen this application previously. It was noted that the application had been before the Board at the last meeting. Mr. McCrone asked for the location of the Farmers Canal. Planner Saunders pointed out the location along Oak Street and connects to the Walton ditch which continues north in a meandering way. Mr. McCrone asked for the location of the accesses, which Planner Saunders pointed out. Mr. Sorenson noted that if considering the other part of the property,he feels that the businesses will front onto the back of this project, which isn't in the best interest of that property. Mr. Labarre noted they plan to be back before this Board with a full submittal. He noted that they don't own the adjacent property, but have taken care to address how the two properties affect one another. He noted the other property will take access from Tschache Street. He noted driveways that might continue through to the other property. He noted they have proposed a pedestrian bridge over the Canal into the next property. Mr. Hutchinson noted why they had chosen the accesses they had. Mr. McCrone asked if this project depends on a boundary change,to which Mr. Hutchinson noted it did. Mr. Hanson asked what the open space requirements will bring to the application. Planner Design Review Board Minutes—Much 10,1998 4 Saunders noted there has to be more open space to meet code requirements and snow storage areas must be provided. There has to be a trade-off between the parking and buildings and the open space. Chairperson Walker asked if the setback from North 19"Avenue is adequate. Planner Saunders noted it is. Mr. Lebarre addressed the open space requirement, noting that the green spaces added to the taupe-colored spaces meet 24% of the 30% open space requirement. Planner Saunders and Planning Director Epple addressed the need for 5 foot wide sidewalks along buildings, what counts for open space. Planner Saunders noted if the project includes the whole property, part of the open space could be located in the other portion of the property. Discussion followed on the parking requirements. Mr. LaBarre noted that they are about 20% over on parking spaces. When asked if they could give up any spaces,he noted it would depend on where they were to give them up. Mr. Sorenson asked about retaining ponds and softer areas, would they group them or will they become a buffer from the rest of the City. Mr. LaBarre noted that visibility of the signs for this type of business is paramount to the businesses. He noted that the retention ponds might be located in the corner, then noted locations where other retention ponds might be located. Mr. Sorenson noted that landscaping areas within parking areas is cooling in the summer. He noted that the areas tend to become torn up when snow removal takes place. He discussed the aesthetic value of the landscape areas being larger. He suggested maximizing the landscape areas. Mr. LaBarre asked if Mr. Sorenson was suggesting eliminating some of the small areas and aggregating them into fewer, larger areas. Mr. Sorenson asked Planning Director Epple to explain the landscaping requirements. Ms. Engler gave an overview of the landscaping proposed. She also has suggested that the islands be more massive. She noted that the buildings are setback more than the 50 feet required. Mr. LaBarre noted that the blueprint is not accurate, the most accurate plan is on the table. Discussion ensued on the landscaping areas. Chairperson Walker noted that the lack of landscaping in the interior wouldn't be noticeable until one has entered the parking lot. Ms. Engler noted they plan to emphasis the greenway with berms, curvilinear walkways, and other features. Mr. Cruwys commended Ms. Engler on the explanation of the intent of the landscaping. He noted that the stormwater runoff will hopefully be handled correctly. He wants to see more, larger planting islands in the interior of the parking lots. He strongly suggested increasing the space between the parking lot and the driveway. Mr. LaBarre noted the location of the supermarket and the plan to include landscape screening where there are blank walls. Mr. Cruwys noted there are a lot of good things happening in the plan. He strongly suggested the use of substantial berming along the corridors, putting in real planting islands not just painting rectangles on the pavement, putting in more islands. He noted the more the verticality seen in a parking lot, the better. Planner Saunders noted that landscaping is required every 100 feet in Design Review Board:Minutes-'.March 10,1998 5 parking lots. Planning Director Epple noted the need for a written to request a relaxing of the standards, which would be presented to this body, Planning Board, and City Commission. Chairperson Walker asked for concerns of the DRB other than landscaping. Mr. Gleye noted there are many excellent things about this plan, noting several. He noted that a grassy sward could direct the customers to the entryway of the business. Mr. Hanson noted the pedestrian access could be a nice addition to the parking lot. He suggested reducing the parking and increasing the open space. He noted it is an interesting proposal. He likes the way it addresses the corner. He asked where the 12 foot drop in elevation occurs on the property. Mr. LaBarre indicated the area as Planner Saunders described it. Mr. Sorenson noted that the elevations as shown are commendable. He reiterated that there is a need for more green space and suggested locations. He suggested using the run-off pools as reflective pools rather than be shunted to the rear of the buildings. Mr. McCrone noted they have made excellent use of the North 19`h Avenue guidelines. He concurred with Mr. Cruwys's comments on landscaping. He noted that extending the green space would discourage vehicles from cutting across the parking Iot. Mr. Cruwys noted that the applicants need to be sure the streets, landscaping, and signage are compatible with the property across the street. He suggested a theme be developed for the intersections and along North 19`h Avenue. Chairperson Walker asked if the applicants had more to present. Mr. LaBarre noted the drawing is in addition to what the Board has and they have a materials sample board. He explained the processes they have used to develop this project and the materials planned for use. He noted that the buildings on the perimeter will governed by a set of guidelines that contain colors, materials, roof treatments, outer wall coverings. Mr. Sorenson asked if a business such as McDonalds would be able to live with those types of guidelines. Mr. LaBarre noted they would work with that type of business, however that business may not want to work with them. Chairperson Walker asked if the structures being submitted would come back before the DRB. Planning Director Epple noted that usually they will not, if there is a particularly difficult submittal, it could come before the DRB. Mr. Gleye noted that the color scheme is commendable. He likes the quasi historical character. He suggested that brick facades not be used and propose something more in character with the rest of the project. Mr. Hutchinson noted they have problems with the lighting condition. He noted the lighting standards are too low and very inefficient. Planning Director Epple noted that City Commission has strongly adhered to the code requirement. He wouldn't encourage them to seek a variance for Design Review Board Minutes-March 10,1998 6 taller light standards. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Mr. McCrone moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 6 - 0. The meeting w4ss ad' o 7v ed at 6:00 p.m. Kim Walke , Chairperson, Design Review Board Design Review Board Minutes-March 10,1998 7