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.