Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDESIGN REVIEW - 07-00102 - Walgreens - 164 E Main - Sale of bottled propaneCITY OF PLANNING & ZONING j REXBURG AMERICAS FAMILY COMMUNITY 19 E. Main (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x326 v5Ht9 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208-359-3024 w rexbura.oro comdev@rexburg.org Findings of Fact Design Review Standards Walgreen's 1. On April 14, 2005, Bob Sherry with Walgreen's presented a Design Review Application for review of the staff and Planning & Zoning Commission. The requested location for building is 164 E Main St. (on the corner of E Main St. and S 2°d E). 2. On March 30, 2005, Bob Sherry met with City Council and Commissioners to explain the design plan for Walgreen's. The Council and Commissioners expressed some concerns and some changes that would need to take place to comply with the City's design standards. 3. On April 13, 2005, Bob Sherry met with Mayor Larsen, City staff members, and the Design Review Committee to review the design of the building. 4. On April 21, 2005, Bob Sherry presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission a new design for Walgreen's that implements the design and structure of other Rexburg buildings. Some additions to the design were niches along the sidewalk of E Main Street where benches, tables and chairs will be placed. Mary Haley motioned to recommend that the commissioners send to the City Council the document that was written as minutes of the Design Review meeting considering the proposed Walgreen's development with the understanding to the Council that the Commissioners considered the Walgreen's development a one-time application for development; that there are some things that would be considered by everything uptown, but understanding that this development is on a particular piece of property that does not coincide with many other properties in Rexburg's Downtown Business District; that they understand that the work that was done on this was done as part of a subcommittee of the Planning & Zoning committee; that the subcommittee brought their concerns and resolutions to their concerns to the Commission who felt very good about what was brought to them. The Design Review board recommends to the full Planning and Zoning Commission that the Commissioners now send the subject proposal to the City Council for consideration for approval with conditions. The conditions are listed on page 5 of the Planning & Zoning Design Review Board Report. Mike Ricks seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. 5. On May 4, 2005, Bob Sherry presented to the Rexburg City Council the new design tor Walgreen's. Council Member Pugmire moved that we approve the site plan for Walgreens development at Main Street and 2"d East contingent upon the subsequent approval of the open questions relative to trees, bike racks, fences, lights, signage, and other street amenities brought to us by the Planning and Zoning that I failed to mention; Council Member Young seconded the motion; all vote aye, none opposed. The motion carried. City of Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission Design Review Board Proposed Walgreen's Development Minutes of Design Review Meeting April 13, 2005 In accordance with the City of Rexburg Development Code, Ordinance No. 926, a four hour meeting of the Design Review Board was held on this date to review the subject development. Present were Bob Sherry representing the developer, Judy Hobbs their real estate agent, Mayor Larsen, city staff members, Randall Porter of the Planning and Zoning Commission (as an interested party), and the following duly appointed Design Review Board members: Winston Dyer Joseph Laird David Stein Stuart Wells City staff began by reviewing parking issues on the entire block on which the proposed development is located. A prevailing problem is a lack of accessible parking for the cluster of businesses on the northwest side of the block (along Main Street). The proposed development will provide for its own appropriate parking, but will relocate some parking from an adjacent County parking lot to a new lot across Main Street to the north. While the proposed development will meet parking requirements, there will be a net loss of 21 spaces in the block, predominately from the "overflow" public parking use of the County's lot. This should be addressed in the future by looking at ways to facilitate those businesses creating functional public parking in a more accessible location. The Developers then presented the proposed development, incorporating changes that had been discussed after a public presentation and feedback several days previous. Focus was on architectural elements, colors, and landscaping. The Developers had closely studied buildings and historical documents for Rexburg and had tried to incorporate elements that would help the structure blend in better with its surroundings. Examples include using brick matching the Courthouse Annex (which is used in several other buildings downtown), arched brickwork, corner treatments like the Courthouse Annex, changing the green color on the awning to tone it down and better match similar colors already used on Main Street, etc. A brief field trip was taken down Main Street to observe some of these elements in existing buildings, such as the brick use and color, shades of green the awning could use, and architectural features of historic buildings. After the Board asked clarifying questions of the Developers, the Staff then reviewed with the Board how well (or not) the proposal matched up with the architectural design standards now required in the Central Business District zone by Ordinance No. 926 (pages 75-89 of the Code). Overall, the proposed development had done very well in matching up with nearly all the goals and objectives enumerated in the Code. Specific deficiencies pointed out by Staff include: Section IV Architectural Design Standards Article 1 Block Layout and Building Orientation -- the building is not located close to the street as recommended. Article 1.D.3 Building Orientation Standard --the proposal has off street parking and a driveway between the street and the building, contrary to the recommendations. Section V Downtown Lighting Standards Article 5 General Standards and Criteria, Roadways/Street Lights, Section G Photometric Layout -- a detailed lighting plan had not been submitted, but Staff felt that a deferred submittal would be acceptable in view of the present focus on other more prominent issues. The Board then deliberated the strengths and challenges of the proposal with respect to the Code. Chairman Dyer began with a philosophical discussion that the new design standards should be treated similar to engineering specifications which are intended to produce a certain end result, performance, or quality. Therefore they should be taken as a means to an end rather than as absolute rigid requirements. In that sense, and with the complexity and interaction of all the various design standard elements for this particular proposal, it wouldn't be practical or advisable to take everything as a strict absolute -- there could be some flexibility where justified as long as the end result was substantially consistent with the intended outcome and negative elements were properly mitigated by other advantages to be created or provided. Commissioner Wells indicated this proposal was analogous to a farmer leasing out a portion of his land to another. In such a case there would certainly be a discussion about the intended outcome and the general conditions in the operation of the lease, but the landowner would not be expected to provide his equipment and resources to the lessee or to otherwise guarantee his success. It would be up to the lessee to achieve the desired outcome under the general terms and conditions. Discussion then focused on the main concern, the building being set back off the street contrary to the design standard recommendations. Various rationales were discussed for being able to do so at this particular location and in this particular circumstance, particularly if other mitigation could be achieved to offset this concern. Randall Porter then further discussed further possible architectural treatments with the - - - Developer including using brick arches in the side and back walls, rounding windows in the "tower" portion of the structure (above the entrance), using cornices to break up square edges on the roofline, etc. Such treatments could be used to help the building further blend into its surroundings and. diminish the effect of being set back from the street. Other discussion touched on the brick pedestrian walkway, the jog in the proposed alley alignment, landscaping elements, signage, and creating a "sense of place". Concerns This was a particularly challenging review both for its complexity and being the first of its kind under the new Central Business District Design Standards. It also is the center of significant political discussion with some factions of the community favoring the advantage of economic development it represents with less emphasis on design standards, while others are more concerned about precedent and potential future impact on the look and feel of the rest of downtown Rexburg. The primary concerns identified and discussed by the Design Review Board include: The proposed structure being set back away from the street. This is in conflict with the recommended design standards, but the Board felt that it could be mitigated under the right circumstances and conditions (discussed hereafter). Precedent. There was a deep concern that if this structure were allowed to be set back from the street, then other franchise or prototypical stores attempting to locate elsewhere on Main Street in the future would desire or demand similar treatment. Such developments would be significantly out of place in other areas where all the buildings were up on the street. For this reason, the setback should not be considered short of strong justification and appropriate rationale that would apply uniquely to this specific location and circumstance and nowhere else (discussed hereafter). Alley alignment. The proposed jog in the realigned alley is not conducive to its function and facilitating access to other businesses and establishments in this commercial block. Possibilities exist for realigning the alley further to the west, but are outside the realm and power of the Developer. Buffering. It was noted the areas to the east and south are residential and appropriate buffering should be provided to separate the commercial use (with its traffic, noise, lighting, etc.) from the adjacent residential properties to avoid potential nuisance and diminution of value. Rationale Discussion then turned to how these concerns could be addressed or mitigated sufficiently to consider the proposed development. Goals and objectives as stated in the new Code were carefully studied in this regard. The following rationale and justifications resulted from this investigation and discussion: Transitional location. This particular property sits at the East end of Main Street and is quite literally the transitional piece of property between three different zones -- the single-family residential areas to the east and south, the highway business district to the north along 2nd East, and the central business district to the west along Main Street. As such, this particular piece of property is truly unique -- the zones on three sides (the north, east, and south) actually require a setback of buildings off the street for the aesthetics and appearance of the zone. Only to the west are buildings required to be set up on the street. A setback from the street can justifiably be considered at this unique location because of its transitional setting. Precedent can be avoided because of the uniqueness of this location; anywhere else in the central business district on Main Street (except perhaps at the far west end) all the surrounding setbacks will be zero and there would be no justification for allowing a setback of a proposed new development. Design Standards. There are quite a number of recommended design standards in the Code and this proposed development meets all of them except the setback from the street issue and accompanying parking in the front. It was felt that with the use of the architectural elements discussed with the Developer, the setback could be mitigated by constructing a building that would better blend in with surrounding buildings in terms of architectural treatment and colors, and thus would also help preserve historical context. Streetscape. The Hudson Report identified the lack of streetscapes in the downtown area as a weakness. The proposed development with its landscaping screening the parking area in front of the building, lighting, and signage would present an attractive streetscape and "sense of place". Further, the pedestrian and transit amenities to be provided (e.g., pedestrian benches and alcoves, bike racks, pedestrian pathways, future transit shelter, etc.) meet or exceed all of those stated in the Code. All of these elements are considered beneficial and are far beyond any required in the past, prior to the implementation of design standards. Downtown Development Framework. An outgrowth of the Hudson Report was the identification of a development framework to be pursued as a revitalization blueprint for the Downtown area. Significant elements of this have been taken directly into the new Code on page 72. Several of the eleven desired elements (as applicable) will be provided by the proposed development as follows: - Define and focus development on target markets -- the proposed development specifically targets an enhancement to the downtown business district. rd - Build a sound parking system for employees, customers, and visitors -- the proposed development not only provides all its own required parking but also offers an improvement for adjacent parking by constructing a new parking lot north across the street from the Courthouse Annex serving the government offices and adjacent businesses. Build a pedestrian and cycling pathway network linking key downtown nodes -- the proposed development becomes a node by virtue of its location at the end of Main Street and provision for benches, bike racks, and pedestrian ingress/egress. Undertake infill, adaptive reuse, historic preservation, and urban renewal - - the proposed building will replace an aging structure with a new one (renewing the property), increase the use of the downtown area, and (with the negotiations now afforded by design review) reflect historical preservation through architecture styles, materials, and colors to better blend in with the historical context of the downtown area. Design the place of downtown for America's families -- the proposed development will be a strong anchor at one end of Main Street creating a sense of place, providing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle gathering, and providing an attractive landscape and presentation adding to the community appeal. Emphasize Rexburg's rich heritage -- the proposed development will reflect the historical look, color, and presentation of the downtown area, the place where it all started. Recommendation In consideration of the willingness of the Developer to accept proposed mitigation, the meeting of the vast majority of the goals and objectives for design standards as set forth in the new Code, the thorough study and deliberation of the Design Review Board and City staff, and the findings of fact as set forth above, the Design Review Board recommends the full Planning and Zoning Commission send the subject proposal to the City Council for "consideration for approval with conditions". The conditions for approval should consist of the following elements as a minimum (subject to further staff review and acceptance): Architectural elements including the following: - use of brick matching the style and color used on the Courthouse Annex - brick archways in the side and back walls of the structure - corner treatments similar to those used on the Courthouse Annex - matching the color of the awning to other colors used on Main Street - arching or rounding of windows and consideration of cornices in the "tower" area above the main entrance (and elsewhere as appropriate) 5 - use of limestone (similar in appearance to rhyolite used in early buildings) in the lower masonry areas of walls facing the streets Landscaping plan as presently shown including the following important elements: - screening the parking area from the adjacent streets - providing alcoves, benches, bike racks, future transit shelter area, and pedestrian access - providing trees and vegetation as shown in the renderings - providing a monument style sign on the corner denoting entrance to "the downtown area of America's Family Community" - reconstruction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks - moving the northerly pedestrian brick walkway back to the original location near the store entrance (for improved safety) Lighting plan as required by the Code; demonstrating conforming elements, features, and lighting levels Buffering the south side of the property with a brick wall (or other approved means) of sufficient height and construction to provide an effective buffer between the commercial and residential land uses Store signage consistent with the existing sign ordinance (no freestanding signs in downtown area) Conclusion The new Code's design standards have provided a marvelous mechanism for being able to sit down with the Developer and negotiate additional features and mitigation that will enhance the development and provide greater compliance with Rexburg's goals and objectives far beyond anything possible under the earlier ordinance. The Developer is to be complimented for their efforts to meet these goals and objectives by studying historical Rexburg, the downtown area, and the new Code -- and being willing to negotiate mitigation and desirable enhancements with the Design Review Board. The foregoing information, developed consistent with the new Code requirements and recommended processes, will provide a sound basis for a reasoned and justifiable decision concerning the proposed development. Appreciation is expressed to all participants for their willingness and efforts to make the process meaningful and very successful!