The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDESIGN REVIEW - 05-00305 - Mountain Archery4t MR 8/25/2005 1-11�N. CI -FI F f EXBUR..G j"IERICNS FURY CO,%\4UNffy Kevin Virgin 1439 North 3000 East Sugaz City., ID 83448 Dear Kevin, rO 19 East Main St PO Box 280 Rexbur& Idaho 83440 208-359-3020 Phone ext324 20a-359-3022 Fax valftisexhurg.id-Us www-rexburg.o Thank You for your patience with us as we i Rexburg for buildings that are under 2S,aQ0mplement the new Design Standards of the City of sq. ft.. Your efforts to obtain a working desig chati will �� L��.�l�d��❑je 4 wim ine ouncling code., the zoning ordinance and the new design standards are appreciatea. Aswith any change, those who are caught in the process experience different levels of frustration. tiVe apologize for any misunderstandings.. The Plannzng-1 honing and Design Standards Cammiiiee met with you concenaing the site plan and elevations on Augusi 24 and decided that they Would work with you on the Mountain Archery Building to meet the Spirit of the City of Rexburg Development Code but not to the letter, I have attached their findings to the back of this document., If you have any quest -ions, I can be reached at (208) 359-3020 ext, '24. Also, let me remind you to visit with our Permit TCathy Winters and to fill out a permit application. Vie Pwill need building plans., an energy review, structural and mechanical calculat' ions. Yours truly, Val Christensen Building Official Cc.- Shawn Larsen Winston Dyer Kurt Hibbuirt .3 (1A ) t E I It City of Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission Design Review Board Proposed Mountain Archery Building Minutes of Design Review Meetina August 24, 2005 In accordance with the City of Rexburg Development Code, Ordinance No. 926, a two lour meeting o� the Design Revielilil''V Biard was held an this date to review the subject development. Present were Gordon Smith the owner, Kevin Virgin the contractor and applicant, Scott Spaulding the design professional, Val Christensen representing the City of Rexburg staff, and the following duly assigned Design Review Board members who could attend: Winston Dyer, Joseph Laird, and Thayne Robinson. Background The applicant has been working with the City on submitfial of a Site Pian and elevation drawings of the proposed development showing design details dor a proposed building to be located adjacent to the southbound an -rami #� U5 Highway 2Q in the Valley View commercial subdivrsion, just southwest of the Main Street interchange. The building is to be a new facility for Mountain Archery which is intended to include both retail sales and training facilities. Basic design includes a steel building with mesal roofing and siding, with some architectural amenities on the exterior such as stone frim at the bottom, lob porticoes and awning, window and door trim, etc. Initial interaction with City staff began in the late spring. Subsequently the City adapted and passed design standards for buildings under 25, a00 ft.2, which normally would appy to the proposed structure at this location. The present proposal dais not meet the neve design standards in sever alrespects, chief among which is that it is primarilya metal building with vastexpanses of steel siding significantly devaid of architectural features on at least fiwo sides. Further, the building is targe dor the lot and thus the �►��E� �y dHU Pd[King. areas take up nearly all availabl-pace. The resulting site plan is therefore marginal in terms of lands caping and limited in areas where landscaping treatment required by the new standards can tie implemented. This, together with several deficiencies !n meeting the new architectural design standards for _buildings of the size created concern on the pari o� Staff reviewers and triggered .thneed for convening the Design Review Board to discuss the unusual circmstances associated with this proposal where the design standards changed in the midst of project development. The owner and contractor expressed serous concern over a change of standards an the middle of the project development process. Considerable architectural and engineering 1 I ga f•+-d�.,.,�,.r_ti,-f-r.s--- ��:�,+..�.:a,.•.•v.J.t..s_r�.t-..•a�....�� a � _..+�„t��••�}�,e--arc ti.r,. rf`—.�ati�-.�,�.. T._ .-.:-• JF+--YsJ_saavmmaYr'--��v �-Mc.ti-,•�e r��.y,.��y,.c�}. �•.�era, work had gone into the development of the proposal thus far and they felt it was unfair to hold them strictly accountable for the new standards in the middle of the project they started planning and developing before the new standards were adopted. Afterdiscussion and review of the circumstances with the applicant and Staff the Design Review Board agreed that in this particular situation it wauId not be appropriate to strrctly enforce the new standard, but did ask the owner and contractor to e i were some things that coup be done, to bring the proposal closer to the new standard. Based on their stated willingness to consider reasonable chanes, a lengthy discussion ensued in reviewing the proposed design with respect to the recently adopted design standards dor buildings of this size. Review � Copies of the latest standards for, buildings under �S,+QQO ft.2 as contained ' Development Code 92G were distributed and reviewed on a section,by rn the new Deficiencies of tete current proposal in meeting the neve standards � S��t�°n iasis, discussion between the applicant and the Design Review Board were identified and compromise to determine which items could be dee was held to a spirit of circumstances and which items the owner andhis med acceptable under the present contractor would be willing to try and improve to come closer to the new standa-rds. Appreciation is expressed to the owner and his contractor far their willingness #o improve the design in several areas of concern, and also to the Design Review Board for their willingness to relax the standards in several areas where east and feasibilitywould be an issue considering the project s#artEd under a different sef of guidelines. Recommendations The following information highligets thy: agreements reached in the meeting : • The new design standards forbuildings under 25,000 ft.2 in size will not be applied absolutely, to this proposed development. The owner and his contractor 4 will make agood-faith effort as further outlined below to meet the spirit of several of the new design standards (visual attractiveness and appearance of the structure as both a community and a business asset). • The West elevation of the building essentially meets design standards bother than a large amount of steel siding) and will be acceptable as presently proposed. The North elevation of the building does not technically meet the new design standards in a portion of it, but the Beard felt these were ensugh aras elements and variation in presentation that it would be acceptable proposed. p presently • The fast elevation wised concern because as it ispresentlyfrom the new design standards and is highly visibleathePub��c� nosed it is far s it fronts the 2 on-ramp to the freeway. It was agreed that additional architectural treatment would be added by placing a sign near the upper portion of this side, a windnw near the sauM end, and a doorway with perimetE the building and a small roof on the wall above it. is wiling to accept the presentation of this side. r treatment like other doors on With these chanes, the Board . The South elevation also raised concerns because of vast expanses of steel siding with out any windows, doors, or other architectural tre t t fny kind creating visual character. It was agreed that additional architectural treatment would be added by placing a sign on the upper portion and some metal cut out appliques of animals associated with archery on the pardons of the side where there are not doors or windows. The appliques will be a different color from the siding and should provide an attractive focus for attention, greatly mitigating the stark "warehouse" appearance as originally proposed. - Since space for landscaping on the site is lim"Ited and the desire is to maximize this space wherever Possible, the applicant agreed to use aroil-out type brash receptacle in the near terra so the area normally committed to a dumpster could be used for beautification. The Board fell that using a 5 foot wide unrestricted sidewalk on the street front Of the property would be acceptable �s apposed to the six-foot width in the new standards. The 5 foot width will mach other sidewalks already constructed in this subdivision. • The standards cell for a green space next to the building and then,a sidewalk along publicly accessible sites of the building after that. The Board felt it would be acceptable to have tie sidewalk location�mmediatadjacent tv the buddin�n phis case as much of rt is covered by an awning and its dies into the�present design concepts of the building as presently proposed. • The Board expressed concern that the building and parking areas were using the vast majority of the site, leaving little opportunity for landscaping that would improve the presentation of the entire development. The Board did not Want to gel into specifics of what could be done but did request a concerted effort be made not only to designate landscape areas but also to indicate what kind of landscaping would be placed in them. It was determined that the applicant will prepare a landscaping concept and submit it to the Planning and Zoning Administrator or Chairman for further review and input. The new standards call for community features such as benches, transit shelters, flagpoles, bike racks, etc. Under the present circumstances the Board is willing to forego the need for installing community features if the other treatments described above, including a conceited effort toward attractive landscaping, are provided, 3