Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDESIGN REVIEW MINUTES 10/31/2014 - 14-00449 & 14-00450 - 311 N 1st E - The Roost - 12 Plex1 Design Review Committee Meeting The Roost – 437 West 6th South October 31, 2014 – 8:30am Attendees Design Review Committee: Thaine Robinson, Jerry Merrill, Brent McFarland Applicant: Jonathan McMullin City: Natalie Powell, Joel Gray Thaine Robinson opened the meeting. He explained that the Design Review Committee is composed of a P&Z Commissioner (Thaine Robinson), a City Council member (Jerry Merrill) or the Mayor, and a professional from the community (Brent McFarland). Several other individuals serve on the committee as necessary. Usually, the Committee meets 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 Design Review Committee reviews the project to see if it meets the intent of the ordinance and will try to come to a compromise with the applicant if possible. Natalie Powell clarified the reason for today’s meeting. The subject property is located in the High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) zone. The architectural standards in the HDR2 zone are intended to provide detailed, human-scale design, while affording flexibility to use a variety of building styles. From Section 3.10.160 Rexburg Development Code Ordinance No. 1115: a. Purpose. The architectural standards are intended to provide detailed, human-scale design, while affording flexibility to use a variety of building styles. b. Applicability. This section applies to all of the following types of buildings, and shall be applied during Site Plan Review described in Section 6.11: i. All uses except Single Family Detached c. Standards. All buildings which are subject to this Section shall comply with all of the following standards. Other building styles and designs can be used to comply, so long as they are consistent with the text of this section. An architectural feature may be used to comply with more than one standard. i. Building Form. The continuous horizontal distance (i.e., as measured from end-wall to end-wall) of individual buildings shall not exceed one hundred and sixty (160) feet. All buildings shall incorporate design features such as offsets, balconies, projections, window reveals, or similar elements to preclude large expanses of uninterrupted building surfaces. Along the vertical face of a structure, such features shall occur at a minimum of every forty (40) feet, and on each floor shall contain at least two of the following features: 1. Recess (e.g., deck, patio, courtyard, entrance or similar feature) that has a minimum depth of four (4) feet; 2. Extension (e.g., floor area, deck, patio, entrance, or similar feature) that projects a minimum of two (2) feet 2 and runs horizontally for a minimum length of four (4) feet; and/or 3. Offsets or breaks in roof elevation of two (2) feet or greater in height. ii. 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 features 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. iii. 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 (may vary features on rear/side/front elevations): 1. Dormers 2. Gables 3. Recessed entries 4. Covered porch entries 5. Cupolas or towers 6. Pillars or posts 7. Off-sets in building face or roof (minimum sixteen (16) inches) 8. Bay windows, box windows and window trim (minimum four (4) inches wide) 9. Balconies 10. Decorative patterns on exterior finish (e.g., scales/shingles, wainscoting, ornamentation, and similar features) 11. Decorative cornices and roof lines (e.g., for flat roofs) 12. Changes in exterior texture or color. 13. An alternative feature providing visual relief, similar to previous options Today the Design Review Committee needs to determine if this project meets the Building Form design standards. The roof is 82 feet long without any breaks in roof elevation and the first and second floors do not have any recesses, extensions or offsets. The site plan and elevations were reviewed. Jonathan McMullin stated that the building will be a three story 12-plex. The design is already very “busy” as it has several changes in colors and materials. Jonathan feels that adding any more design elements to this structure will take away from the look that they are going for. The basement floor will be 3 ½ feet in the ground with day-light windows. There will be rock incorporated, with a corrugated metal siding on both the dormers and the gambrel, wood shutters, change of color and several other architectural features. Everyone agreed that it is a “busy” barn-like design with great architectural features which are pleasing. However, it just doesn’t have any recesses or extensions to meet code and the roof line doesn’t have any breaks, which need to occur at the highest point of the roof. Jonathan suggested putting a cupola on the roof to break up the roof line. He also stated that there is a pitch change on both ends of the buildings that will help visually where it goes from a 3-12 to a 2 ½ -12 pitch. The Design Review Committee does not want to design the building for them but would offer suggestions – possibly have one or two cupolas at the ridge, at least 12 inches vertical per code, to give it a more appealing look and break up that long roof line would meet the intensions of the code. Thaine Robinson stated Jonathon has done a great job with all the color changes, material changes etc to the building. This is just what the board likes to see. It looks really good. 3 Brent McFarland reviewed the front “eyes to the street” elevation. The board agreed that this project meets the standards by providing sufficient doors, windows, shutters, trim, and change of color, texture and materials. Brent suggested landscaping in place of recesses or extensions as has been used in other recent design review meetings as a compromise. Discussion took place on the type of trees/bushes to be planted to break up the vertical face of the structure. Jerry Merrill suggested trees on either side of the entry way that would grow more round than tall & skinny. Staff would need to review and approve the final landscaping plan. Discussion took place concerning total green space. Jonathon stated he would increase his green space by adding a larger park/retention pond area in the southwest corner of the property thus accomplishing what the committee is suggesting. There are several large trees located there already. There was consensus of the Design Review Committee that the applicant would do something similar to a cupola at least 12 inches vertical on the ridge in order to break up the long roof line and add additional landscaping to break up the vertical face of the building. The applicants will submit new proposed plans to City staff (Natalie Powell) for review. The site plan and landscaping can be submitted on one sheet, and the information may be submitted by email. If staff finds the new submitted documents to be satisfactory, the Design Review Committee will also be satisfied. The Committee members thanked the applicant. Thaine Robinson said he very much appreciates Jonathan McMullin’s willingness to work with the committee to meet the design standards. Jerry Merrill and Brent McFarland agreed.