Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutDevelopment Code - What We've Heard So FarMcCall In Motion Development Code What We’ve Heard so Far The McCall Development Code (Titles 2, 3 and 9 of the City Codes) will be a significant tool for implementing the updated Comprehensive Plan and achieving plan goals. In addition, a general update to the Code provides an opportunity to consolidate and streamline project review and approval processes; evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of current substantive regulations; and consider modernizing and re-organizing the Code to make it easier to read, understand and administer. This is a recap of the March 1 Code workshop discussion, and an invitation to review the workshop materials, report on other related discussions there, and provide us with your thoughts, input and suggestions. Tell us what we heard right and what we missed. Based on this input and the Code Assessment that Logan Simpson is currently preparing, we will develop recommended Development Code revisions implementation strategies for a more focused discussion at the public open house on April 26. During the March 1 Code workshop discussion, we discussed four main categories of Comprehensive Plan goals that could be achieved through Development Code updates. These categories and discussion items include the following: • Protect McCall’s natural environment and community character • Manage McCall’s built environment to complement the natural environment and community character. • Protect McCall’s scenic resources, and • Support a sustainable City economy For each of these, we posed a series of questions and offered potential Code strategies for discussion, they included: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL: PROTECT MCCALL’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER Discussion: Are additional protections for the City’s tree canopy warranted? Should native vegetation be preserved to the extent practicable? Could the protections for waterways, waterbodies, wetlands and wildlife corridors be consolidated in the Code to streamline application reviews? How can green building principles be implemented in McCall? Potential Strategies: • Clarify the natural features mapping requirement for PUDs and consider applying site analysis to more categories of development projects. • Broaden the site design requirements for hillside developments to cover other sensitive lands and features such as wildlife corridors, wetlands and riparian areas. • Implement a native vegetation protection/replacement program to maintain McCall’s forest environment • Consolidate the “environmental” considerations of development applications to streamline the review and approval process. • Incentivize energy efficient building of residential structures • Require open spaces to be contiguous and functional for recreation, views, habitat and/or other purposes. What We Heard: Some level of additional Code direction would be appropriate to protect McCall’s natural environment, which is a key component of what it means to live and work in and visit McCall. A concern is that not every parcel in the City has the same importance, and the regulatory program must be flexible enough to acknowledge and accommodate those Development Code differences. The cost of compliance with additional protective regulations should also be taken into consideration. Keep the balance among preserving environmental values, fire protection and property rights in mind. Streamlining review and approval processes is a good thing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL: MANAGE MCCALL’S BUILT ENVIRONMENT TO COMPLEMENT THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER Discussion: The size, design, landscaping, parking, site improvements, and other features of the built environment can have either complementary or conflicting effects on the City’s natural resources and setting. Potential Strategies: • Codify portions of the Design Guidelines for some areas of the City and some project types – i.e. commercial, multi- family, industrial • Establish building footprints and envelopes for structures in sensitive areas – i.e. forested areas, the lake shore, riparian areas, and view corridors What We Heard: Again, some level of additional Code direction would be appropriate to ensure that future development is complementary to McCall’s natural environment. Site design requirements should be flexible in order to allow for alternative design solutions that meet the Plan objectives. Structure design requirements should avoid high levels of specificity, while providing guidance, and also offer flexibility in meeting the desired outcomes. An observation was that some current City Development Code regulations may actually be counter-productive in terms of achieving this Plan goal. Structural design requirements for single family residential development can be problematic, in that they begin to impinge on property rights. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL: PROTECT MCCALL’S SCENIC RESOURCES Discussion: How could current strategies (design guidelines and scenic route regulations) be enhanced or expanded to better protect McCall’s scenic resources? Potential Strategies: • Identify iconic views and key vantage points in the McCall area • Provide additional guidance on how to avoid harm to “Views of, from, or across a lake or river” (3.7.023 (C)(1)(e)) • Codify design guidelines regarding structure visibility in scenic and visually sensitive areas What We Heard: The design guidelines, overall, are resulting in more environmentally sensitive and aesthetically pleasing development in McCall. However, a concern is that “good design” is in the eye of the beholder, and design review can introduce too much uncertainty in project review and approval. Clearer guidance, while retaining flexibility, would help. A focus on desired outcomes and where they are important, rather than how to do it, would be preferable. Examples, palettes, building envelopes, preferred materials, etc. can be useful. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL: SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE CITY ECONOMY Discussion: Is place-making the key to McCall’s long-term economic sustainability? Are current standards and guidelines supporting effective place-making? Is commercial design enhancing business development and success? Should the CBD area be redeveloped? Are public spaces and events connecting well with business activity? Potential Strategies: • Focus on historic preservation maintain mountain town character in the CBD • Develop a commercial shoreline overlay to support mixed uses, interaction from public and private spaces, and incentivize access to Payette Lake • Adopt form-based structure/site regulations in the CBD, rather than numerical standards, in order to allow for flexibility in uses while preserving the mountain town character - i.e. structure size, configuration, and site placement rather than units per acre • Consider different development and design standards for commercial and industrial uses What We Heard: The CBD is a gem, but current City Development Code regulations may be actually inhibiting the kinds of development and redevelopment the City is looking for. Support for a form-based approach to development in the CBD was expressed. Again, flexibility in project site and structure design is sought, but there is general acknowledgement that one or two “bad” projects could be very damaging to the CBD. Two opinions on residential development in the CBD were McCall In Motion expressed: 1) go vertical (taller buildings) and mixed use (more residential) away from the Lake to get more residents and street life in the CBD area; and 2) restrict building height to preserve the historic, old town feel. Industrial uses definitely need their own set of standards, minus pedestrian accessibility and landscaping. OTHER CODE INPUT Non-conforming uses: The concern was expressed that current City regulations seem to be focused on eliminating the non-conformance, which creates a disincentive to rehabilitate and maintain a number of the City’s iconic older residential structures, and creates other complications. Non-conformity regulations can be revised to accommodate uses and structures that should be retained, without opening the door to inappropriate new development or redevelopment. Logan Simpson will propose Code amendments to resolve this conflict. Similar provisions in different parts of the Code: The current Development Code contains provisions for site design, structure design and design guidelines, but they are located in multiple different locations. The Residential and commercial development guides are very helpful, but perhaps the Code could be organized in a similar manner. Reorganization of the Code can be considered. Need for Planning Commission review: A question was posed as to whether some review and approval processes could be made administrative, without the need for public hearings. Evaluating project review and approval processes, with an eye toward streamlining and simplification, is part of the Code update process. Flexibility in application of Code standards: A concern was expressed that some numerical Code standards may be too limiting, and that qualitative standards or the option to vary a numerical standard given specified conditions could result in better project design. A form-based approach to regulations in the CBD may address much of this concern. Other opportunities may also arise during the Code review and update process.