Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.27.18 DESIGN REVIEW MINUTES - Storage Units in MU1 Design Review Committee Meeting Household Warehousing & Storage – 261 N 1st E June 27, 2018 – 12:00 pm Attendees: Design Review Committee: Brad Wolfe, Bruce Sutherland Jedd Walker Applicant: Bret Stoddard, Johnny Watson City staff: Craig Rindlisbacher, Natalie Powell, Tawnya Grover The Design Review Committee is composed of a P&Z Commissioner (Bruce Sutherland), a City Council member (Brad Wolfe) 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 5th West and Main Street and is zoned Mixed Use. In a Mixed Use Zone, household warehousing & storage is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, but must meet the Commercial Design Standards. A Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on June 21, 2018. The reason for holding this Design Review Committee meeting is as follows from Development Code Ordinance No. 1115: PZ-Neighboring/Similar Projects Review RESUBMIT 06/14/2018 * Is the extent and nature of the amendment requested clearly described? A CUP request for storage sheds in a Mixed Use zone should be accompanied by elevation plans that would identify how the Design Standards of Section 4.7 are met. If the applicant is requesting to bring the building out to the street, then the requirements 0f 3.14.100 should be identified. 1. Section 3.14.100 a. A landscape plan is required that identifies the placement and type of trees, bushes etc. An irrigation system is required and should be identified on plans. b. "Elements that break up vertical and horizontal walls" are not provided. c. "High quality materials" are required on the wall facing the street. 2. Section 3.14.160 and Section 4.7. a. The wall facing the street is longer than 60' and does not have "a recession or recess" as per this section. b. "Animating features such as arcades, display windows, entry areas, or awnings" shall be "along 60% of the facade". c. "e. Entryways" "Each principal building on a site shall have clearly defined, highly visible customer entrances featuring no less than three of the following: i. canopies or porticos ii. overhangs iii. recesses/projections iv. arcades v. raised corniced parapets over door vi. peaked roof forms vii. arches viii. outdoor patios ix. display windows x. architectural details such as ...... xi. integral planters or window wells that... 2 Approval of what is planned can come from this Design Review Committee. The Design Review Board mitigates between the Development Code Design Standards prescriptive requirements and the intent of those requirements. Commissioner Bruce Sutherland welcomed everyone. He turned the time over to Johnny Watson to present. He wants to make some qualifying statements so that no one feels they are getting their feelings hurt. The Development Code has to be interpreted and enforced by the City. The particular zoning route may impose more restrictive rules for the Design Ordinance. The area for building and the surrounding neighborhood were identified. Staff felt long-term planning, the area will become multi-use housing next to the park. Currently it is not that way. In the CUP hearing, it was mentioned that the use was easily replaceable as were the other structures in the area to make that happen. The applicant does not feel they accomplish anything to adhere to all of the design ordinances for this area at this time. Bret Stoddard talked about the site plan. Light Industrial is surrounding the parcel. The buildable part of the lot is the green, grassy area. There is a strange shape of buildable area. The rest of the parcel is access easement. Johnny wants to talk about the front yard setback. If over 50% of the neighborhood is already built, in many of the other zones, you are required to match the existing setback requirements. The building to the north is set back 2- 1/2’ from property line. The Zoning Administrator has the ability to make decisions on the Development Code standards. City Staff can overrule the Zoning Administrator. The setback is tied to the design requirements, Zoning Administrator, Craig Rindlisbacher, seeks a recommendation. The judge-ordered easement is attached to several owners of this area. The access would have to be changed for the properties. The access easement applies to this property too. The sale of all the buildings tied to this easement and the current property would have to be purchased to change the situation. Water will go to the building, because there is an office with a bathroom. The drainage off of the buildings will be maintained on-site in landscape swells on the north side of the building. The first discussion with the Johnny Watson, the Architect, and the applicant examined housing on this lot. The Light Industrial around this parcel and the semis limited the use for this area because of the safety for those who would live in that housing. Changing from Mixed Use would change staffs’ plans for this area. The Comprehensive Plan and a Rezone could have been done to change to Light Industrial. However, this would contradict staffs’ efforts around the park. The Design Review Board can make concessions on the design. In Jedd’s mind, the building does interact with the street. The frontage is where most of the people will access the building. The building is 74’ long. There was conversation about the new building standing out from what is currently there. Natalie said in this particular, unique situation with the easements she feels the letter of the law does not work. Brad thinks there are extenuating circumstances in this situation. Mark Rudd was intending to build on this parcel. Just because he didn’t ask, doesn’t mean he couldn’t have received concessions. Craig said by building a building that belongs in Industrial Use, you set a precedence for those buildings in the future to match. Bruce said it is kind of a catch 22. Brad says we approve something like it or it stays as weeds. Jedd Walker said, the Development Code is balancing property rights. It is not fair to not be able to develop, because of the easement. If you make the parcel remain vacant, you are not balancing property rights. Brad said, it passed the Planning & Zoning Commission. This Board granted Valley Wide an exception on the high-quality materials. Today’s project is closer to town. Jedd doesn’t have a problem with the high-quality materials. Over the doors, there are awnings, which starts to break up the façade. Those awnings have a purpose. The vertical and horizontal siding helps break up the façade. A possible awning should be placed over the middle door. The landscape plan: they see the 4 trees and assume they will put in the boulevard strip. Some dwarf trees would have to be put in due to power lines. 3 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REQUIREMENTS: 1. A landscape plan would need to be shown for staff to review with the 4 dwarf trees. The plan should address the space between the sidewalk and the building. 2. The vertical and horizontal siding shown on the elevations should be built. 3. An awning to match those over the other doors should be added to the middle door and a side light should be added near the office door. 4. The entrance could be clearly defined by the side light. 5. Setback suggestion: The Board recommends keeping the building closer to the street and matching the setback of the current buildings. 6. The 5’ sidewalk should stay the same to match surrounding properties.