Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDESIGN MEETING NOTES 8/3/2017 - 17-00238 - 295 Ella Ln - Kenneth Square - Site Plan  Design Review Committee Meeting Kenneth Square – Approx. 814 N. Yellowstone Hwy August 3, 2017 – 12:30 pm Attendees Design Review Committee: Chris Mann, Rory Kunz, Jedd Walker Applicant: Bryce Dorion, Chad Shirley City staff: Natalie Powell, Nicholas Loosle The Design Review Committee is composed of a P&Z Commissioner (Rory Kunz), a City Council member (Chris Mann) or the Mayor, and a professional from the community (Jedd Walker). Several other individuals serve on the committee as necessary. The Committee may meet if there is a development issue that is non-conforming or differs from the Design Standards requirements that are stated in the City of Rexburg Development Code Ordinance No. 1115. The purpose of the Design Review Committee meeting is often to reach an amicable compromise for the applicant and the community. The subject property is on Approx. 814 N. Yellowstone Hwy and is zoned Medium Density Residential 1. The reason for holding this Design Review Committee meeting is as follows: From Development Code Ordinance No. 1115, MDR1, Section 3.7.160c: Eyes on the street. All building elevations visible from a street right of way shall provide doors, porches, balconies, and/or windows. A minimum of forty (40) percent of front (i.e., street-facing) elevations, and a minimum of twenty (20) percent of side and rear building elevations, as applicable, shall meet this standard. “Percent of elevation” is measured as the horizontal plane (lineal feet) containing doors, porches, balconies, terraces and/or windows. Trim, shutters, and other feature that are part of the items making up the requirement shall be included in the measurement. The standard applies to each full and partial building story. Detailed Design. All buildings shall provide detailed design along all elevations (i.e., front, rear, and sides). Detailed design shall be provided by using at least two (2) of the following architectural features on all elevations, as appropriate, for the proposed building type and style (features may vary on rear/side/front elevations): Dormers Gables Recessed entries Covered porch entries Cupolas or towers Pillars or posts Off-sets in building face or roof (minimum sixteen (16) inches) Bay windows, box windows and window trim (minimum four (4) inches wide_ Balconies Decorative patterns on exterior finish Decorative cornices and roof lines Changes in exterior texture or color An alternative feature providing visual relief, similar to previous options. Approval of what is planned can come from this Design Review Committee. Minutes – Natalie – introduces everyone around the table. Rory – states the purpose of the meeting. Turns the time over to Chad. 1. What chad is tyring to do 2. How we can fit it in the plan Chad – 13 4-plexes, they have an easement for a road to bring in. Going to stub utilities in to the end of the road. Not trying to see how many they can fit in the one space, trying to keep the spacing as far apart as they can to keep with fire safety. The project is 3 acres. Rory – the reason we’re meeting looks like the façade to the buildings don’t meet design standards. Natalie – the side elevation may be the one where the question is. Chad – Same floorplan and design they did for Sweetwater. 2 windows on each side of the building, wing walls, and stone wraparounds on the corners. The buildings are 37ft deep. Wing walls are to break up the monotony of the sides of the buildings, so they won’t look like army barracks. It won’t be just a big flat wall. Natalie – reads development code for MDR1 3.7.160 c. ii-iii, word for word. Eyes on the street, citing Val’s concern. Where it doesn’t prescriptively meet these requirements, the design board is here to give advice. Jedd – rotate the buildings a few degrees Rory – make the front elevations meet the street to bring it into compliance Natalie – would the right elevation end up facing a future project on the other side even if it were rotated? Rory said that it would still meet the 20% standard from the development code. Asked Chad if he’s thought of anything else to add to the buildings Chad – they’ve thought about adding overbuilds to the sides of the building. Chris – when a project moves into a new area many more follow. The city needs to set the standard on the first project so that the other projects that come will follow. We need to make sure we’re meeting the design standards. The city needs to make sure they won’t regret allowing them to go in 20 years down the road. Natalie – maybe they could dress it up with a landscaping plan along the back. Chad – Could do shutters along the sides of the window. Do something simple on the sides of the buildings without turning them. We can keep it with stucco on the sides and stone, spruce it up with shutters. Would be the only phase. Natalie – going to doll up the building and bring it back to the members of the board and turn in a landscaping plan? Jedd – clarifying that they’ve been talking about the sides not the front or back Chad – underground power will go to the project. No lift station. They’re bringing in the sewer to meet the existing sewer line. It’s been platted and zoned. Natalie says he still has to meet with the inspectors about final plat, mylar, letter from ITD needs to go to Keith. They also have to get through building plans and site review. Once he gets all that approved then he can apply for a building permit. Jedd – were the wing walls an attempt to meet design standards? Chad said they’re not, just what they’ve done before. Quinton – talking about building form in the design standards. Natalie – asks Chad to respond via email, and Natalie will ask the board for their final say. Quinton will take Chad back to the conference room to meet with the inspectors.