Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.14.2020 Design Review Meeting -MHS Field House - Response1 Design Review Committee Meeting (20-00277) MHS Field House – 2300 University Blvd. May 14, 2020 – 12:40 pm Attendees Presiding: Planning & Zoning Chairman, Rory Kunz The Design Review Committee is composed of a P&Z Chairman (Rory Kunz), a City Council member (Mikel Walker), and a professional from the community (Jedd Walker). Applicant: Johnny Watson, Madison School District, Brent McFarland City staff: Tawnya Grover, Alan Parkinson Purpose: 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. 1200. The Design Review Board is established to review design standards, landscaping, and site plans when requested. The purpose of the Design Review Committee meeting is often to reach an amicable compromise for the applicant and the community. Location of Property: The subject property is on 2300 University Blvd. and is zoned Public Facilities (PF). The reason for holding this Design Review Committee meeting is as follows: From Development Code Ordinance No. 1200, Commercial Design Standards: • 7.00.050. Entryway “Each principal building on a site shall have clearly-defined, highly-visible, customer entrances featuring no less than (3) three elements of the following….” • 7.00.060. Exterior Materials and Colors. Exterior building materials and colors should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods. “Predominant exterior building materials shall be high-quality materials including: brick, wood, sandstone, other native stone, tinted, textured, concrete masonry units, stucco, EIFS, Dryvit, or materials that are designed to appear as wood, except vinyl.” • 7.00.060.e. “Exterior building materials, as well as accents visual from street or public parking shall not include: smooth-faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels without mitigating surface treatment, pre-fabricated steel panels, vinyl siding.” • 7.00.100.a-b. Roof Lines. Variations in rooflines should be used to add interest to and reduce the massive scale of large buildings. “Roof lines that are visible from a city street, public way, or any facility or parking lot used by the general public shall be varied with a change in height every one hundred (100’) linear feet in building length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable roofs, hip roofs, or dormers shall be used to conceal flat roofs and roof top equipment from public view. • 7.00120.a. Facades: Wall projections or recesses. Facades should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform, impersonal appearances of large commercial buildings and provide visual interest that will be consistent with the community’s identity, character, and scale. “Developments with a façade over sixty (100’) feet in linear length that are visible from a city street, public way, or any facility or parking lot used by the general public shall incorporate wall projections or recesses a minimum of two (2’) feet in depth and a minimum of eight (8’) contiguous feet for each sixty (60’) feet of length and shall extend over twenty (20%) percent of the façade. Developments shall use animating features such as arcades, display windows, entry areas, or awnings on at least forty (40%) percent of the façade.” Berm and trees have been added as per the conclusion below. BAM, JRWA 2 Chairman Rory Kunz asked for the location of the Madison Field House. Location of the tennis courts and new field house were identified. Part of the Field House will face the stadium. The major structure of the building is built of steel panels, delta-rib. East Elevation will be viewed from 12th W. The above sections of the code were reviewed. Since the building will be seen from the newly built stadium, the design and materials of the stadium were discussed. The stadium is entirely brick. The school is also brick. The same standard and materials should be used on this building as well. However, the materials of the school and its buildings do not reflect the character of the neighborhood and the materials used in the residential construction adjacent to the property. A metal building does not match the brick theme the school district has used at this location up to this point. The school district should be held to the same standards as other builders. T he following elements were reviewed by the group in the Development C ode : 7.00.030. Back and Sides (See Entrances) The rear or sides of buildings often present an unattractive view of blank walls, loading areas, storage areas, HVAC units, garbage receptacles, and other such features. Architectural and landscaping features should mitigate these impacts. a. Facade Faces Residential. Where the facade faces adjacent residential uses, an earthen berm shall be installed, no less than six (6') feet in height. 1. Landscaping of Berm. At a minimum, the berm shall contain a double row of evergreen or deciduous trees planted at intervals of fifteen (15') feet on center. b. Additional Landscaping. Additional landscaping may be required by the Planning and Zoning Commission to effectively buffer adjacent land use as deemed appropriate. Objectives of the Design Standards were reviewed. a. The design standards will help stabilize and possibly increase property values by providing investors assurance that property adjacent to theirs will be meet minimum design standards. b. Design standards will promote a more interesting City and better create a "sense of place." c. A community with an expectation of high quality development will attract businesses and employers that feel the same about their companies, thus perpetuating a higher quality community that promotes quality business. d. Understanding these standards and applying them initially will ensure a shortened approval process. Johnny Watson arrived – Economics with the school district are the governing factor. When you are talking this size, there could be a $2-3 million difference in building costs. The school district is trying to be economical. The group is concerned a precedence could be set with the approval of the building. Brent arrived. He was asked about the landscaping planned around the building. The school district is planning on sod around the perimeter of the building out to the road. A standard needs to be maintained within the neighborhood. The school district set the standard with the brick on the school and completely covering the stadium. Brent answered, two years ago, this would have been a white bubble out on site. A lot of work has been done in design talks to get where we are today. Form follows function. The wainscoat is currently 7’4” above the foundation. 3 The whole building is 28’ tall. The intent is to accommodate some indoor tennis courts. The window shown is a transluscent panel. Jedd has always felt the roof line requirement and the wall projections are arbitrary and should be removed from the code. This encourages sloppy architecture when something is pinned on to the building to meet the requirements. Regulation of materials is also foreign to me. He has seen buildings that are well designed using pre-fabricated steel panels. He takes issue with our own Development Code; it does not promote good architecture. The building proposed is like the one over by the Junior High. Buildings are going to be built around this building and it won’t necessarily be seen if the planned Commercial along 12th W is developed. The building is on a private road. Brent says it is difficult to show on the elevations, but there is a change in color and design on the elevation of the building. There is a change of color in the paneling at break 4 and break 10 and the profile of the paneling will change. The same brick used on the stadium will also be used for the wainscoat on the Field House. The main entrance area will use a solid cover of some of the lighter color of brick. On the adjacent walls, there is a design of lighter or darker greys. There will be door canopies at entrance/exit doors. Johnny Watson stated there are very few standards that adhere to the Design Standards black and white. The Standards have absolutely nothing to do with good and bad architecture. On the East side, how much additional cost would be incurred to create a berm on the side of the building parallel to 12th W? Two rows of alternating trees are also mentioned in the code. A previous rendering was shown with taller wainscoat, greater size of translucent windows. Standing seam roof. Planned metal materials were discussed. Materials will be low-reflective, neutral or subtle or earth tone colors. Galvenized is not an option for materials the city is looking at. If the group requires the berm and trees, it would offset the design standards that are not being met. (7.00.030.a.1.). 15’ makes the trees really close together, especially with a double row. This makes the trees about 7-1/2 feet apart. The group proposed increasing the spacing. 30’ between trees, but 15’ spacing between trees for offset. The Site Plan was reviewed. CONCLUSION: • Berm and trees as per 7.00.030.a.1. will be required along the East side of the Madison Field House building. A double row of trees planted centered on the berm, but spaced 30’ between trees in the same row, offset with 15’ between trees in alternate rows for the length of the building. • Roof line change, use of metal pre-fabricated paneling, and change of wall projections and recesses were waived. These elements in submitted elevations on pg. need to be maintained. Berm and trees have been added as per the above conclusion. BAM, JRWA 4