Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20121016 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 16, 2012 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 601 E Hyman — Conceptual Commercial Design Review 2 616 E Hyman — Conceptual Commercial Design Review 9 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes October 16, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Ryan Walterscheid, Stan Gibbs, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, Cliff Weiss and LJ Erspamer. Commissioners not present were Jim DeFrancia and Keith Goode. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Sara Nadolny, City Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin thanked staff for the conference; he thought it was very valuable. LJ Erspamer said that he didn't see any Snowmass Planning & Zoning members in attendance. LJ distributed notes from a State employee who spoke about public meetings and agendas and LJ wrote something up and Jackie also did. Jennifer Phelan said that she was looking at January meeting dates and the 1St falls on the first Tuesday so when or do you want to add a second meeting to January. Bert asked what usually happens when the meeting falls on a holiday date. Minutes —Jasmine had some spelling changes to incorporate of the October 2nd Bert asked which minutes were the ones that he requested the changes. Jackie replied that they were in these minutes from October 2°d MOTION.- Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes from October 2nd with corrections from Jasmine; seconded by Ryan Walterscheid. All in favor, APPROVED. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Ryan Walterscheid said he worked in the building at 604 E Hyman directly adjacent to the project for the second hearing but he works in the basement and doesn't see any problem unless the applicant has a problem. Mitch said that he was fine with Ryan. Public Hearing: 601 East Hyman - Commercial Design Review LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on 601 East Hyman. Ron Garfield asked to speak first as part of the owners about a conflict of interest. Ron asked Jasmine if she was going to participate in the hearing tonight. Jasmine replied yes. Ron requested that she disqualify herself for prejudice against Garfield and Hecht and the evidence he has are emails that show she would be unfair and biased against this application tonight. Ron said that you have a quorum without her. Debbie Quinn asked Mr. Garfield how long ago were the emails. Ron replied recent within the last year or 2. LJ asked if they were public emails. Ron said that they could be made public but didn't want to embrace anyone here; he said that they 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes October 16, 2012 made this known to the City some time ago that it was unacceptable to have her participate in anything having to do with this application and the last time she wasn't here so he thought that they were okay on that. Debbie said that she would like to discuss it with Jasmine. Stan Clauson added that has an email from Jasmine to Jack Johnson who was a City Council member at the time and he did not have the date. Debbie and Jasmine stepped out of the meeting. Debbie said that she has spoken with Jasmine and Debbie has not had the opportunity to thoroughly vet the bias that you claim she thought that there comes a time when certain things heal that there may have been some misunderstandings in the past but it doesn't last forever however for tonight's meeting because Jasmine didn't participate in the first round she has agreed to step out for the second round. Debbie said that if it comes up in the future she wanted to take a closer look at what your claims are and see if enough time has passed because Ms. Tygre indicated that time has passed, that she doesn't have any personal bias in applications that she hears today. Debbie said if the issue comes up again she will have to look into it further and she has agreed to remove herself from tonight. Bert said that he would like to raise a possible conflict that he was on P&Z back in 2003 that a letter removed him from P&Z and it was written in part by Stan Clauson's office. Bert said if time doesn't resolve anything and he thought that he shouldn't be here for this hearing. Debbie responded that it depends on whether you feel that you cannot be fair and impartial. Bert stated that he felt the same as Jasmine that the timing settles it but that the rule tonight excuses Jasmine so he would do the same. Bert said that he was booted off P&Z once because of Stan Clauson. Bert said if this was a concern of the applicant then he was not comfortable sitting with this application. LJ said that we would continue with this application for 601 E Hyman as been remanded for public amenity portion or the Commercial Conceptual Design Review. Debbie Quinn reviewed the public hearing notices, mailing and posting and it appears that notice was given and added to Exhibit C. Sara Nadolny stated she was presenting with the applicants Stan Clauson and John Rowland. Sara said this hearing is regarding public amenity space that was unresolved at the July 3rd Planning & Zoning Hearing. Council remanded this be remanded back for P&Z to make a final decision regarding the amount of public amenity space for 601 E Hyman. Sara noted to the commissioners that they have the option to reject Council's recommendation and retain the decision that was made on July 3rd or to open the hearing to discuss the public amenity issue; should 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 16, 2012 you choose to go forward with this issue the applicant has made some changes that will accommodate onsite public amenity space. MOTION: Ryan Walterscheid moved to reject the Council and go with the P&Z original approval. Motion died for lack of a second. Stan Gibbs said he was confused with the changes and would they be presented at final. Jennifer replied that they would and there were some changes. Stan Clauson did prepare a Growth Management application which includes a response to the Planning & Zoning recommendation that we study the increase in open space. Stan Gibbs asked what the language was from our last hearing. Sara stated that she had that language from section 2 from resolution 13-12 The approved public amenity space shall comprise a total of 13% of the total parcel. Proposed by the Applicant thus far is to provide 272 sf(6%) of the total requirement on-site, and to provide cash- in-lieu payment for the remaining 323 sf(7%). Prior to Final Design Review, the Applicant will further examine and study the public amenity space with the objective of increasing the on-site amount. Sara said that this was part of conceptual design review and should be nailed down at this time. Stan Gibbs said that we could either reject what Council said or we could come up with some number. Sara said that she could do the presentation and the applicant could present the new solution. Cliff asked for the specifics of why Council brought this back to us. Sara replied there were not a lot of specifics in that Council Meeting; it was just part of conceptual and should be done during conceptual. Stan Clauson stated that Council did not have any other issue with the Resolution but Council did have issue with the fact that P&Z did not set the amount of open space mitigation to be determined until final and they felt it should be locked down sooner at conceptual. Sara placed Exhibit D a letter from the Elks Lodge into the record discussing the project at 601 E Hyman should adhere to requirements to satisfy the require amount of public amenity space. Sara said originally as it exists now it contains 13% public amenity space and the applicant had proposed 6% onsite with 7% cash in lieu and the applicant has now proposed 14% public amenity space onsite. This is accomplished in a few different ways; in the previous design the front stair tower on Hyman Avenue was the prominent mass at fagade and the free market entry was recessed into the building which is circled in red on page 5 of the memo and the other entrance is on the Hunter; there has been some rearranging to the internal part of the building 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes October 16, 2012 where they have switched the rear elevator with the front stairwell; which opened up the front and expanded the public amenity space. It also gets rid of the pinch point at the front of the free market residential, so this is an improvement of the overall design and supports this design change. Sara said in the previous design the applicant was proposing a 2nd 3rd story overhang over the 1St story, it was about a 4 foot overhang with the new design the overhang has been reduced to about 18 inches and opens up more of the walkway to the sky and counts more towards public amenity space. Staff does have a bit of objection to this; we appreciate this overhang but feel that 18 inches doesn't quite provide the amount of variation that is needed here, the front facade would appear as a solid 3 story building, very massive. And this overhang does provide a distinct module that helps to reduce the perceived mass of the building. Staff recommends to reduce this overhang to provide more public amenity space and find a spot between that 18 inches and 4 feet. Sara said on the Hunter Street side of the building the applicant has pulled the building back about 4 feet from that sidewalk and the enhanced walkway has been wrapped around located within the property boundaries and increases what is considered public amenity space. Staff wanted the building back to the sidewalk on Hunter. Staff recommends to approve the plan to increase public amenity space with a slight increase to the overhang on Hyman and moving the building facade to the Hunter street sidewalk and if it does not meet the 13% public amenity that is currently onsite then there will be some cash in lieu to pay by the applicant at that time. Cliff said there was this glass facade that projects out. Jennifer said that previously we asked how much should the 2nd and 3rd stories cantilever over and was a good design solution because it breaks up the mass a little. Stan Gibbs asked if Sara did the calculation for the public amenity space to the Hunter Street property line given the same on Hyman. Sara replied that she hasn't done the full square footage of pulling it straight up. LJ said there is an ambiguity in this saying you want to create the public amenity space and yet bring up the building to the sidewalk on the Hunter Street; how do we decide these things. Jennifer said if you look at the guidelines you have to find that the application meets enough of the guidelines to approve it; you can look at different guidelines to looks at like the change to the west entry has improved adding more open space. Jennifer said Council was looking for what the 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 16, 2012 pedestrian amenity should be; come up with some direction to the applicant tonight. Ryan said it seems that what was presented to us originally other than the entry to the private unit is more to the staff liking because the Hyman Avenue side is setback with a larger cantilever and the Hunter Street side is actually closer to the sidewalk. Stan Clauson said that they did provide a conceptual approval on the 30th of July, submitted a GMQS application on the 10th of August; what you see before you is what was provided in the growth management application. Council met in August and requested a definitive increase in public amenity space if there was going to be an increase. Stan Clauson said the public amenity space may have been too much and there is a compromise point. Stan Clauson utilized power point to show the original proposal and the new proposal with 595 square feet of public amenity space existing on the site today. Stan Clauson said that 272 square feet were part of the original approval and now 630 square feet of the revised proposal and it is 14%. Stan Clauson showed a power point of other green walls. Stan Clauson said the overhang maybe less than 4 feet and the glass ornamentation may be eliminated as well at final and the Hunter Street has a much wider sidewalk. U said that he was surprised that you didn't want the overhang and now staff wants it put back. Jennifer said when you move it to an 18 inch overhang it doesn't differentiate the 2nd and 3rd story of the building and it is more of an architectural read of the building versus the cantilever issue. Cliff wanted to make sure he understood the public amenity space was at 3.2% in the first rendition so now there is 14%. Stan Clauson said it was 5+% in the one that P&Z approved. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: Stan Gibbs said the overhang could be deleted as far as he was concerned and the 2nd and 3rd stories could be differentiated with materials and it doesn't have to stick out. Stan Gibbs said staff was correct with the Hunter Street side and isn't that useful as an amenity space and given the extra width of that sidewalk he would be 6 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 16, 2012 happier with the building coming out to the sidewalk or you could go out to the screening; he said it doesn't make it any more appealing. Ryan said that he was fine with what was proposed and he was fine with what was originally proposed. Ryan said he liked the increased amenity. Cliff said he wasn't clear as to why extend the FAR toward Hyman. Jennifer answered that when you are designing a building you want to maintain your street edge and so one of the things the design guidelines talk about is maintaining your street edge having pockets of amenity space. Jennifer said the amenity spaces were the entryway to the private residences and an accent to the_fagade of the_ building. Cliff said where was the site line moving the building out towards Hunter Street. Jennifer replied it was up to P&Z to bring the building up or let it remain back further from Hunter Street. Cliff said that he is flexible where to see the sky and he doesn't understand why bring the building up toward Hunter. Cliff said that he approved this project as well last time and he is bothered by the elevator shaft but he likes what they have done creating that separate entryway. LJ said he was against moving the building toward Hunter Street and the overhang he didn't know what kind of dimension you could put in there but 13% was required and 14% is over. Stan Clauson said it would be nice if we could come together and have a consensus. Stan Gibbs said the question should be did they achieve some additional amenity space and how much is it so we can come up with a number; the question is it useful amenity space. Stan Gibbs said pulling the overhang back achieves 80 or 90% of the amenity space which is valuable; on the Hunter Street side the sidewalk is already wider so the building could stay. Stan Gibbs asked if they had the measurements of the sidewalk. Stan Clauson said it was an 8 foot sidewalk on Hunter and on Hyman it is narrower. Ryan proposed to keep the building footprint and cantilever out whatever you want. LJ asked what he meant by cantilever. Ryan said the 2nd and 3rd floors; we would go back to 4 feet. Ryan said that he didn't want to give them a number. Cliff said that affects that. Ryan said he did not have a problem with the cantilever. Jennifer said that it has to be this cantilevered element but you are agreeing to keep the footprint. Ryan said keep the footprint and allowing up to a 4 foot cantilever. Stan Gibbs said that the simplest thing is that they should just meet the 13%; you have to think about how important it is to you. Cliff asked is 36 inches of cantilever is too much; he said he didn't want a building footprint change; if you change cantilever there is a public amenity space. Stan Clauson said if we had the number of 10% amenity space. Cliff said that 2 of us want to 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes October 16, 2012 keep the new footprint and we both realize that if you start messing around with the cantilever it changes your amenity space. Stan Gibbs said we give them a % and they have to do that; that is the question we have to come up with the % of the amenity space. Jennifer said that we should stick with the footprint that is the area that the amenity is to be reduced is in the canopy so you are looking at a 21/2 to 4 foot width and the length is 40 feet. Ryan said they have met code and he didn't think that we should go back and say we would go with a little less than code; he said he is still okay with masses the building above because the amenity has been met with this and the overhang is okay because you get relief from the elements over the entries. Debbie said that we are talking about onsite public amenity space there are options in the code that are permissible for you to decide such is cash in lieu so any reduction by counting the 13% could be met by cash in lieu. MOTION: Ryan Walterscheid moved to approve the proposal in front of us with the additional leeway that if any cantilever of the 2nd and 3d floors extends out to 4 feet they need to pay the cash in lieu difference. Keith Goode seconded. Roll call vote: Stan Gibbs, no; Cliff Weiss, yes; Ryan Walterscheid, yes; LJErspamer, no. Tied vote, no action. LJ asked Debbie if it was just no action. Debbie replied that you could do another motion. LJ said he wanted it closer to 13%. Stan Clauson said if the maximum canopy were reduced to 3 feet then you would be closer to 13% and it would probably be 121/2%. Stan Gibbs said that he was having trouble with the whole approach that we were taking and he thought that P&Z should be talking about a number for amenity space; fixing a footprint even with the flexibility of an overhang he doesn't think that is the right approach to take. LJ asked Stan Gibbs if he liked the square footage. Stan Gibbs suggested that there should be more flexibility to pick a number that we all feel is correct and let the applicant come back with a final design that meets that number or whatever way they feel like it. Stan Gibbs said that he didn't think that we would do that under a conceptual design review and say that you have to have this footprint and you could change some aspects of the building amenity space but we wouldn't fix the footprint. Stan Gibbs said we were supposed to be picking an amenity number and not footprints. Jennifer said the whole plan of conceptual is to decide where the box is; the size of the box. Stan Gibbs said if they came to conceptual and had 17% let's say, and came at final with 12% we would ask what happened to the other 5% we didn't say that was acceptable. Jennifer said we may not have the % nailed down but you have a footprint that you have agreed to and the only % that might change is an overhang. Stan Gibbs said they may have agreed to it today but you get into designing a building and as I said look how much it has changed from where we 8 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes October 16, 2012 were 2 to 3 months ago. Stan Gibbs said that he was having a hard time with this particular process; if you want 12% fine let's just have a resolution that says 12%. LJ said 12% onsite and a cantilever up to 3 feet and that is acceptable; he said that he was willing to change his vote now with 121/2% and they mitigate that other 1/2 MOTION: Ryan Walterscheid moved to approve the proposal in front of us with the additional leeway that if any cantilever of the 2nd and 3 floor may extend out to 3 feet and that these be no less than 12%% public amenity space on site for 601 E Hyman. Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Stan Gibbs,, no; Ryan Walterscheid, yes; cliff Weiss, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 3-1. Public Hearing: 616 E Hyman — Conceptual Commercial Design Review LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 616 East Hyman — Conceptual Commercial Design Review. Jenifer Phelan supplied legal notice as Exhibit F to the staff memo and Debbie Quinn has reviewed it. Jennifer said it was the same block as the project that preceded this application; the applicant is Furngulf LLP. Jennifer said the representative was Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning and the property is in the C-1 Zone District on a 6,000 square foot lot. The application is to add, expand and remodel the existing building; the existing building is 2 stories with a basement and contains commercial net leasable space. The second story is setback from the front fagade of the 1St story and there is existing public amenity space on the southwest corner of the property and parking in the rear along the alley. The proposal will use the existing footprint on the basement and 1St floor and expand the second floor lot line to lot line and include 1 affordable housing unit on the 2nd floor and 3rd floor free market unit. The rear of the building will be redesigned to include a trash area and code compliant parking spaces. Jennifer stated it was under the floor area allowance of 2.5 to l; which is 15,000 square feet; it is also under the floor area caps for commercial and affordable housing and making sure the free market unit will also be under the floor area caps. Jennifer said that conceptual commercial design review focuses on a number of aspects: the street and alley system, where the building should be parallel to the street with the primary entrance toward the street. The proposed building meets these guidelines and the site currently contains existing public amenity space that is approximately 7% or 430 square feet and it is permitted to be maintained; the design meets the guidelines because it is street facing and subordinate to the 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 16, 2012 building front. Jennifer said with regard to building placement the building is not changing; it maintains the ground floor footprint which meets the guidelines. Jennifer used power point to show the trash and utility areas; the guidelines request the area be laid out linearly adjacent to the alley and this is rotated and slightly smaller than what is required but it was reviewed by the Environmental Health Department and they feel this is providing adequate space for trash and recycling need of this building so this will be recommending approval by community development. Jennifer said with regards to building height, mass and scale most of the 2nd story is at the property line the only part of that setback is beyond the footprint of the public amenity space; the 3rd story is setback approximately from the front of the fagade of the building. The building as proposed today is approximately 40 feet at the highest point along Hyman; currently the C-1 Zone District allows for 36 feet which may be increased through Commercial Design Review to 40 feet. Staff doesn't believe the increase in height for the 3rd story is warranted; the building is not a civic building so the overall recommendation is at final Commercial Design to bring down the height to not exceed 36 feet. Cliff Weiss said he was trying to understand the grandfathering of public amenity space; they are maintaining a part of the building. Jennifer replied that they are maintaining the ground floor and basement and consider it legally established and conforming; if they were scraping the whole property then it would trigger a review at the current requirements. U said he had the same question; if I change out a sink and the building inspector comes in and requires everything to be brought up to code; why is that different. Jennifer answered that is not true; if you go in and have non-conforming stairs you can replace them but you are not required to change the egress of that stair. Ryan stated that it is only if you touch it. U said he misunderstood his friend. Cliff said that on pages 4 & 5 of the memo the height of each floor since you are recommending that we reject because the overall building is above 36 feet. Jennifer said 2nd and 3rd stories are 9 feet high and at final is when you are talk about height levels. Bert asked how does the trash level change this. Jennifer replied that this will go to Special Review at final commercial but she already spoke to Environmental Health about the trash area because the dimension was supposed to be 20x 10 and we are looking at 19x8; so it is a pretty minor difference. Bert asked if it was something that we could change our code to match. Jennifer replied it was something that they could look at. 10 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 16, 2012 Ryan asked after we review today where does this go. Jennifer responded well it gets a call up to Council had hopefully it will not be remanded back to you and then you will see it again for Growth Management and Final Commercial Design. Growth Management is for an allotment for the free market and the square footage of the Commercial and Subdivision because you are creating multiple units. Ryan said then it goes back to Council for subdivision. Cliff said Jennifer Number 2 of your recommendations and he gets the height but not the rest. Jennifer said the height is one dimensional standard, the setbacks are any; she said that Mitch and she have been working together and there is a little bit of difference in the free market floor area so it will need to be rectified. LJ said the 2nd floor was lot line to lot line; does that mean it overhangs. Jennifer said it was cantilevered except for the amenity space. Mitch Haas introduced Les Rosenstein, Andy Wisnowski and Bill Poss. Mitch used power point to show the neighborhood; their building which was in the middle of the block. The building will cantilever over the back and it doesn't change the footprint on the ground level. The walkway to the back door was wider than it needed to be so we expanded the trash service/utility into that area so they are at 8.11 feet by 20 feet. The entrance atrium stays there and the fichus tree and the egress is met on that level with a stairwell in the back through a hallway. The elevator shaft will be reworked to it is a true elevator. Mitch said the first floor stays the same building footprint but the interior will change for better circulation. Mitch said the 2nd floor is being extended forward for additional commercial space so it will be a 2 story fagade in the front and in the back extended out to include a 930 square foot livable area deed restricted employee unit; it is expected to be a 2 bedroom employee unit with a deck. For the 3rd floor there is an entry lobby, elevator and stairs. The 3rd floor is setback 27 feet from the front fagade of the building and the next wall sets back even further at 31 feet back from the front and the courtyard door is further back. Mitch said the recessed 3rd floor is to decrease the perceived mass, scale and height. Andy pointed out in the plan the 40 foot section in a limited area in the very small part in the middle zone almost in the geographic center of the lot and it has been setback from the property on the east side. Mitch showed the west elevation next to the Cunniffe building. Andy clarified that this is the profile of the neighboring building and their building is the dashed lines. Andy said the canopies setback as they provide shading and a visual barrier to the higher section of the roof which is back behind. 11 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes October 16, 2012 Jasmine said the screen canopy wall on this drawing it looks as though they are angled; they are not perpendicular to the street, is that correct. Andy replied that was correct. Andy said architecturally this is probably the most diverse block starting with the Crandall Building and the new Art Museum; they wanted to respect the historic storefront grid system on the street but provide something a little more unique on the upper level visually because a lot of the buildings on this block have become boxy looking. Jasmine asked how tall the chimney was. Andy answered about 3-4 feet above the parapet. Jasmine asked if in the C-1 District was a restaurant use still a conditional use or would that be a permitted use. Jennifer replied it was permitted. Jasmine said one of the uses in this building could be a restaurant. Jennifer said it could be. Cliff asked if there was a chimney now. Andy replied no, this was part of this design. Cliff asked if it would be wood burning or gas. Andy responded that it would be gas but they were real similar in the constructability; they are required to be the same construction as the log. Cliff inquired about the public amenity space. Mitch said it was a nice flower garden in the summer and it was 22 feet by 19%2 feet. Cliff asked for the justification for a 13 to 17 foot 3rd floor. Mitch said a lot of that was not in the flow; we have a parapet wall that helps to screen things that go on the roof that no one wants to see and the parapet was 1 V2 feet. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm for 616 E Hyman, seconded by Stan Gibbs. I opposed (Jasmine). APPROVED. Stan Gibbs asked how far the overhang of the building goes. Mitch said the canopy comes over here to the same area as the deck, so that is about 16 feet back from the front fayade or 10%2 feet from the wall. Stan asked if this was 13.5 feet in that just a design element. Andy replied that it was their anticipation that wall would be the living area but from an architectural perspective in lieu of the flat roof syndrome we were trying offer some variety to the upper level to give it some interest. Bill Poss said there was a 57 foot museum across from it. Bert said page 17 of the staff memo talks about the street facing amenity space. Jennifer said it was landscaped public amenity space so that did not meet the guideline. Bert asked on page 19 what criteria are we supposed to use to justify raising the height. Mitch replied they were going with the new building or variation of building height in the Commercial area and did not want to vary roof heights. Mitch said that the 1St and 2nd story already had the floor to ceiling heights and they were just adding a 3rd floor that was setback and had screen canopies and 12 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes October 16, 2012 varying the roof heights and they were working with a remodel of an existing structure. Cliff asked how the parapet varies. Les answered it varies from 38 to 40 feet in different areas of the roof. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: LJ said that he was not a fan of modern contemporary but this was a great design but the height could be kept at 36 feet and doesn't see the hardship where it should be. LJ said the parapet creates so much mass from the sidewalk and would like to see that brought back. Cliff had a problem with the height and whether you could achieve more variance in height by not having that unit on top with 13 foot ceiling; a 10 foot ceiling is a pretty good ceiling even for upscale. Cliff said that you would be in the code; if you said you would give me double the public amenity space then I would reconsider but everything staying the same. Cliff said there is no reason for this to be that high except to give some upscale new tenant way more height then they really need. Cliff was looking for 2 things getting the overall height of the building down; he can't vote for this while there is no justification for the height. Les asked if he would be dropped down to 3 8 feet. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to extend the hearing on 616E Hyman to 7:30 pm; seconded by Ryan Walterscheid. LJ opposed. APPROVED. Ryan said that going to 38 was a good compromise; he said that you would have a flat roof would be at 36 but he would go with the 38 feet. Stan said the canopy was setback but was still bothersome to him as does the height; he didn't see the justification for going above 38 feet. Cliff asked Jennifer if it was possible for them to be at 36 feet under the code. Jennifer said the finished floor is for the 2"d to the third level is at 23 feet according to these drawings so you are adding 10 feet so you are at 33 feet so you have 3 feet for mechanical to get to 36 feet. Les said if you force us down to the 36 feet we end up with a flat roof and we don't want a flat roof that is our whole intention in design. Les said capping at 38 feet. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 420 series 2012 approving Conceptual Commercial Design for the project at 616 East Hyman with the following change on Section I B shall read all dimensional standards shall be met 13 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes October 16, 2012 except dimensions of the recycling, open space shall remain as presented tonight with shall meet guideline 1.23 if applicant continues to exceed 36 feet for the third story addition; Jasmine Tygre seconded. Bert said the proposal for A is the subdivision and final commercial design application shall address the height of-36-feet and replace that with shall meet guideline 1.23 if applicant continues to exceed 36 feet for the third story addition. Bert said that we need criteria to meet that amendment. Bert said the change came from the staff comment on page 19 at the bottom of the box. Ryan said that said they are varying 2 feet from the neighboring building. LJ asked Mitch for thoughts on that. Mitch replied there was a lot more of that standard than what was just printed in the staff memo; there are several more parts to it and part is the Zone District for heights limits which is 40 feet is all about achieving height variation. Jennifer said it is to 36 feet. Mitch said he thought they should come back and address that guideline more specifically. Jennifer suggested the hearing be continued and the applicant look at the 3rd story and show you the floor to ceiling heights and show you different variations in more detail so you have a better understanding of why they are asking for this. Mitch said they could easily live with the portions that are currently that 40 be lowered to 38 and the remainder to be at 36. Jennifer said that we should continue this meeting to the 30th of October with the expectation that staff will find a date that works with the applicant and with the commissioners. MOTION. Cliff Weiss moved to continue the hearing on 616 East Hyman to October 30th; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:40 pm. jacEe Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14