Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 20-00705 - Development Code Amendment - Commercial Design Standards #20 00705 Ordinance Amendment – Development Code Commercial Design Standards September 9, 2020, An application was received for an Ordinance Amendment for the Development Code Commercial Design Standards by the City of Rexburg in behalf of the Design Review Commmittee. November 19, 2020, the draft for the Commercial Design Standards was received and Staff Reviews were assigned. December 2, 2020, Staff Reviews were completed. December 14, 2020, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published on December 22nd and December 29th. June 15, 2020, An official notice of the hearing and public hearing instructions were mailed to all adjacent property owners within 350’ of the parcel. January 7, 2021, Alan Parkinson, presented the application to the Planning & Zoning Commission. 6:35PM – (20-00705) – Development Code Ordinance Amendment – Commercial Design Standards. A committee of community members has proposed these amendments to the Commercial Design Standards. (action) – Alan Parkinson, City of Rexburg Applicant Presentation – Alan Parkinson – When we were going through a Design Review Committee meeting, recently on a building, the Committee requested an update to the Commercial Design Standards. They recommended a committee be established to go through the Commercial Design Standards to determine how this section of the Development Code could be improved to apply to today’s building trends. Rory Kunz from Planning & Zoning, Chris Mann from City Council, Jedd Walker from BYU-I, Dean Kunz, who owns a landscaping company, and Johnny Watson, a local Architect, met together in 2-3 different sessions to come up with the draft that is being presented the Commission tonight. The group feels this proposal is a better fit for the community and the standards we see in building today. Commissioner Questions: David Pulsipher asked what was removed from the Design Standards. It seems like the requirements are more of a move to general requirements verses specific requirements. The “Roof Variations” section was removed. Is the language strong enough to allow for attractive buildings? Alan said Staff feels this language will be strong enough, but allow the architect to come up more freedom for design. An example was presented for the requirement of two features, which came up with the East Idaho Credit Union, like a clock tower or water feature. There are many credit unions on N 2nd E and we do not want a clock tower on each one. This was overbearing Staff was told and did not fit the purpose of what was trying to be accomplished. Some businesses did not have large enough lots to put two significant features on their lot. Other changes called out specific finishes on buildings, such as no metal siding. Metal siding needs to be defined. Now there are many options from corrugated metal siding to extremely high-tech metal finishes. The purpose is to use high-quality materials. Corrugated metal and delta-rib are not ideal. The code has been opened up to allow people to come in and show what meets that need. The changes are encouraging creativity for today’s architectural designs and materials. Sally Smith asked if the “entrances” section was removed and the “entryways” section is covering this part of the building. The “entrances” section has been moved to a different position in the code on page 8. Alan said we are working with Municode to clarify the green text as new text or as a moved section. We have had the same problem with the P.U.D. draft submitted from Municode to the Commission. Look to see, when something looks removed, if it shows up in a new section. Similar items were consolidated in the same area for ease of access to information on a topic. Sally Smith has the same question about the materials on the exterior. Do any material requirements remain? Alan said developers will need to show you what they are doing and if there are any questions as to if the standards are met, a Design Review Committee will be called to meet what the community determines is acceptable. Aaron Richards asked who usually serves on the Design Review Committee. Jedd Walker, an architect with BYU-I; an architect from the local community, sometimes Johnny Watson; someone from Planning & Zoning and a City Council person. Chris Mann has served on the Committee several times. The driving forces were not to lessen the design standards, but to allow for ever-changing architectural design. Designers are doing things with materials we did not think about 20 years ago. We want to make sure the buildings look good, without stifling the advancement of styles, allowing the use of materials we did not consider. Rory Kunz says the changes allow them to adjust to changing trends. Alan said to him corrugated metal is used for roofs to put on his sheds for his cows and pigs, but there are some creative ways the corrugated metal is being used in high-end homes. Our code used to say “predominant exterior building materials as well as accents visual from the street or public parking shall not include the following: 3. Pre-fabricated steel panels.” Sally Smith asked about cinder block as an allowed material. This material is dominant in chicken coops and dairy barns. Alan said Madison High School uses a cinder block design, with patterns and colors, which make it acceptable. Sally asked about the “teeth” in the ordinance; she says these items have been removed. Kristi Anderson read 6.00.060 Exterior Materials and Colors “Exterior building materials and colors should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods.” In addition, the colors have to be neutral. Alan said if Staff does not feel the standard is met, the design is sent to the Design Review Committee. Kristi asked if this opens up the city to lawsuits, because the decision is based on opinion. Rory Kunz reiterated what Kristi read about the design being compatible with the design of the neighborhood. This sentence sets some standards, because the allowed design is based on what the neighbors are already doing. If you are building a glass house in the middle of a neighborhood of stone houses, this may not be the appropriate area for this home. The decision would be left up to the Design Review Committee. Bringing in the Commission, City Council and community members allows an unbiased decision to be made and to mitigate any legal liability of the City. If Alan was arbitrarily saying we allow this and we will not allow this, and they are the same thing, then the City could get in trouble. The Design Review Committee allows the mitigation of that design. An example would be the new Field House at the High School. The Field House did not meet the design standards of the neighborhood, mainly because the school set the design standards for the neighborhood. Landscaping and paint requirements were required by the Design Review Committee to break up the view from the street. This is an example of something the Committee has the leeway to do. Jim Lawrence referenced Building Form on page 2, (which may be an example of what we are talking about) where we cross out the distances, which is now defined as “large expanses of uninterrupted surfaces”. Is this going to be specific enough language to be consistent? Are we going to forget when someone comes in with a 120’ uninterrupted distance, that we let a previous building be approved with a 150’ uninterrupted distance. Is this covered with the Design Review Committee? Alan said the way the process is designed to give Staff a chance to review the design, as a first look. If Staff does not like what they see, then Staff will request a Design Review Committee. If the Applicant does not like what the Staff says, he can ask for a Design Review Committee. Staff is looking at the patterns in the community. Northpointe is an example of a design verses the neighborhood. For someone who wants to build next to Northpointe, the standards accepted for the Northpointe building will be a measuring tool. Staff immediately identified the Field House for Madison High School as having design issues; the building did not match the Development Code standards. The Applicant argued they believed the standard had been met. The proposal went to the Design Review Committee, because the Applicant and Staff could not come to a consensus. The Committee has more of an unbiased community voice on what designs match. Creative solutions come from a Design Review Committee. Jim Lawrence said this discussion helps him to understand the Design Review Committee. The Design Review Committee is almost like an arbitration. He asked the Commissioners to speak directly into their microphones to make it easier for him to know what is going on in the meeting. Alan said Staff could ask for a Design Review Committee as well. When the Development Code dictates 50’ or 125’, this also creates some challenges. It was simple for them to say I only did 99’, so I do not have to do the requirement. Vince Haley asked about the decision for the trees and shrubs for Walmart. This is regarding the columnar trees obstructing the sight triangle. The columnar trees are being restricted to maintain safety. Columnar trees can be used internally in the lots. Vince confirmed this is the reason for 3.02.100.B to be included. Alan said the sight triangle is a standard in our code. 3’-10’ height should be clear of obstruction for view for all land measured 15’ from a corner or street access along the property lines to form a triangle. Rory Kunz arrived at 6:45p.m. Roll Call. Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence. Commissioner Questions for Staff: Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Kristi Anderson asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. None. Chairman Kristi Anderson reviewed the public hearing procedures.  Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Kristi Anderson asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:59p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Vince Haley said releasing the restrictions on one side, also releases the restrictions on the other and allows more freedom. He is in favor of moving forward on this. Aaron Richards likes the direction this is headed; allowing the Design Review Committee to have a heavier say then the black and white print. This allows the commercial design to be more fluid as has been indicated, as trends change, and as neighborhoods evolve. He is in support of the amendment. Rory Kunz said the fluidity in the decision-making process allows more ingenuity and creativeness, giving opportunity as things change for businesses and people to come together and make good decisions. He is also in favor. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Commercial Design Standards amendment to the Development Code, because this is better for the community and makes the Design Review Committee process more simple., Action: Approve, Moved by Chairman Rory Kunz, Seconded by Vince Haley. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 11). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, John Bowen, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. January 20, 2021, Alan Parkinson presented the application to City Council. Ordinance No 1251 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Design Standards, Landscaping, and Screening #20-00705 – Alan Parkinson Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained the Design Standards, Landscaping and Screening needed to be updated. The Design Review Committee was tasked with the updating the design standards, they determined the proposed changes are a better fit for the community and in line with the standards we see in building today. One of the changes is the type of building material being used, such as metal. The previous standards didn’t allow for metal to be used; however, the current design of metal is more appealing. He mentioned one the previous design standards for credit unions was to have a clock tower but with the amount of credit unions in the city that was an issue. Discussion regarding some of the other changes to the design standards. Council Member Mann said he had the privilege to serve on the Design Review Committee. The building design standards change over time and the materials used also change. The new standards will place more responsibility on the architect to build to the design standards similar to the neighboring properties. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson mentioned the other members of the Design Review Committee. Those member are Rory Kunz from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Jedd Walker from BYU-I, Dean Kunz Landscaper, John Watson local Architect. Council Member Walker moved to approve Ordinance No 1251 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Design Standards, Landscaping, and Screening and consider first read; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora None Council Member Johnson Council Member Mann Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe Council President Busby The motion carried February 3, 2021, the application was 2nd Read before City Council. Ordinance No 1251 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Design Standards, Landscaping, and Screening #20-00705 – Alan Parkinson Council Member Mann moved to approve Ordinance No 1251 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Design Standards, Landscaping, and Screening and consider second read; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora None Council Member Johnson Council Member Mann Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe Council President Busby The motion carried February 17, 2021, the application was 3rd Read before City Council. Ordinance No 1251 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Design Standards, Landscaping, and Screening #20-00705 – Alan Parkinson Council Member Wolfe moved to approve Ordinance No 1251 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Design Standards, Landscaping, and Screening and consider third read; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora None Council Member Johnson Council Member Mann Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe Council President Busby The motion carried