Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140107Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 7, 2014 1 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Myrin asked if the Motherlode affordable housing has been occupied and Ms. Phelan stated she did not know. Mr. Myrin said there is an open house this week and he may attend. Mr. Erspamer stated he went to the work session last night for the cash in lieu discussion. He stated that the council wanted more accurate data so they can figure out what kind of system can be used to create the cash in lieu program. Ms. Tygre asked for more clarification and Ms. Phelan said there was a study for the cash in lieu in regard to income categories and it showed the current numbers are quite low to what today’s market would require. Ms. Tygre asked why it has to be an ADU and Ms. Phelan said that is one of the options when building a single family home or duplex. Ms. Tygre said she wanted clarification that an ADU is one of the options and not a requirement. STAFF COMMENTS: There is a joint work session on Monday February, 3rd with City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There are no public comments MINUTES – December 17, 2013 Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the minutes from December 17th, seconded by Mr. Myrin. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Tygre suggested the commission wait until more members are present before a decision is made. Ms. Quinn stated that the commission can delay if they do not feel there is a sufficient number of members present. Mr. Gibbs made a motion to continue the election of chair and vice chair, seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Gibbs recused himself from the public hearing. Public Hearing – 431/433 W. Hallam St. Residential Design Standards Variances Mr. Erspamer notified the applicant that since only three members are present, all three members need to vote in the affirimative in order to pass a motion one way or the other. He told the applicant that if he feels the hearing is not going the way he would like he could continue until more commissioners are present. The applicant said he has spoken with the owner and he would like to present the application and see where the commission stands before they make a decision to continue or not. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 7, 2014 2 Ms. Quinn stated she has reviewed both affidavits of public notice and they are appropriate. Ms. Phelan, community development department, stated that the application is a request for two variances from the residential design standards. The property is 431 and 433 W Hallam. It is a corner lot in the West End on the corner of Hallam and 4th Street. There is an existing duplex. The owner is proposing to demolish and redevelop with a new single family home. She said that Dylan Johns is the representative for the applicant, DH Hallam, LLC. The lot is just over 6,000 square feet. There is not alley access because of how the property was subdivided in the past. The residential design standards have a provision that for lots without alley access a garage is required to be set back ten feet further that the front most wall of the house. There is another standard that requires garage doors that face the street to be either single stall doors or appear to be single stall. There are multiple residential design standards for single family homes including orientation and window requirements. She stated that the request tonight is not to have to set back the garage but be flush with the rest of the wall of the house and to provide a double garage door that matches the surrounding materials. The garage door should be hidden and blend in with the rest of the surrounding materials. Ms. Phelan stated the design standards are in place to preserve the neighborhood character. The intent is to have homes that contribute to the street scape and insure parking is concentrated to the rear or side of the home. She said that in regards to garage doors the intent of the standard is to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the street scape. To grant a variance from the design standards the board needs to determine that the design solution, as being proposed, is an appropriate solution considering the context of the neighborhood and the purpose of the standard, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site constraints. Ms. Phelan said the purpose of the standards is to minimize the visual impact of garages. She said that the historic pattern of the West End is to have garages that are detached accessing the alley or a side street as an accessory structure. She said that this helps to minimize the presence of garages. This is a new redevelopment project and Staff feels that the standards should be met. The overall context of the West End warrants meeting the standard. She stated that Staff does not see this having unusual site constraints. There are multiple lots in the West End that do not have alley access, Pearl Ct., parts of N 4th St., Lake. Ms. Phelan said that as shown in the application the standard can be met. The garage can be set back to meet the 10 foot setback. She stated that they can use materials that blend in with the rest of the home for the garage door. Ms. Tygre asked what hidden garage door means. Ms. Phelan said it is using similar materials so the garage door blends in with the rest of the materials of the home. There is no real official definition of hidden. Mr. Myrin asked if the garage is along the front most wall or side wall of the home. Ms. Phelan replied that the standard is when it is street facing so as a corner lot it would need to be set back on either side. Mr. Erspamer asked if it is a single family home. Ms. Phelan replied it will be a single family home. Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects, is representing DH Hallam. He stated that the project involves an existing duplex, late 60’s edition. It is a single story home with a few set back encroachments. There is one on the 4th Street façade about five feet over the line and a few inches on the East side. He said that trying to put a single family home with an ADU and a detached garage on a lot of this configuration is Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 7, 2014 3 extremely difficult. He said the reason they are here tonight is not to say that they could not come up with a solution to get the garage in there but they have a solution where the owner is a bit uncomfortable with the amount of outdoor area remaining. He said that because of the site condition and property configuration the project may not work for the owner. Mr. Johns noted that the garage on the Weaver property contains a garage as well as a surface parking area. The owner has been in talk with the owner of the Weaver property to try to acquire rights to go through the surface parking part of the property. So far the price is where they do not want to do it. Mr. Johns said that they are asking to move the garage mass towards the front façade of the building which would open up the outdoor area by 21 percent. He stated if they did have alley access it would be allowed and the only difference would be the garage doors would be off to the side. He said there are a few options of making the garage doors blend in to the façade. He stated he took a half block radius and looked at the existing garage conditions. He pointed out multiple examples of Victorian and similar era homes that do not conform to the standard. He stated that there are 11 non-conforming garages in the three blocks he looked at. He stated that doing the hidden door solution is not a deal breaker. Mr. Erspamer stated if the garage set back is ten feet there would be an overhang of ten feet. He asked if the applicant is requesting to not have the set back but leave the garage flush with the house. Mr. Johns said they would like to bring it flush to the façade. He said they don’t feel that the pedestrians are being impacted here and it is not a sidewalk attainment zone and there is no current sidewalk. He said there is a few feet rise from the curb line to where the house is built. He also said there is an irrigation ditch that runs through along 4th Street. He said they are losing usable space for the family on the interior courtyard in exchange for conforming to the design regulations. He said the town is not gaining anything but the owner is losing a significant portion of their outdoor space. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was a survey of what the back looks like ten feet in. Ms. Phelan replied it is diagram A100. He also asked if there are two doors would there need to be a post in the middle. Ms. Phelan said the requirement could be two individual doors that require a post or one double door that appears to be one door. Mr. Erspamer opened the public comment. Scott Hoffman, the owner of 501 W Hallam, stated he is new to the area and came for information. He said that if Staff says no then it should be no. He said the main reason seems to be they want more yard. Mr. Hoffman said that his home would be remodeled at some part. Mr. Erspamer stated that normally the commission does not let dialog go on and asked if he had an opinion one way or another. Mr. Hoffman stated he thinks the house looks better with the offset forms. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Ms. Tygre stated that there are residential design standards and they are very clearly explained in the code. She said they need to choose A or B or not at all. That is the role of P&Z. She stated if it meets A or B they approve it and if it does not they don’t approve it. She said everything else they are discussing is not relevant including their own opinions. She wants to focus the discussion on either A or B. She stated she is trying to find anything in the presentation that would contradict what Staff’s findings are. She stated she did walk around the property this afternoon and double garage doors seem like a very suburban subdivision approach. She said that the context makes the design not compatible with the neighborhood unless there is a way to disguise the doors. She said the original solution did as good a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 7, 2014 4 job for the double garage and what is proposed is not an improvement over that. She said she can’t find the justification in the code as it is written to grant this request. Mr. Myrin stated that page 16, A and B and Staff’s comments summarize what he would say. He agrees with Staff and if it is something where they need to change the code then they should change the code and should not be a one-time exception for a brand new construction. He said the house does not need to be as large as it is and they can give some of the house space to yard space or some ADU space to yard. Mr. Erspamer said that he and his wife own a unit with no alley and it is a hardship. He said that the blank door does not meet the code. He said it is acceptable to put a façade on the door to make it blend in and look like two single doors. He said he does not see anything compelling why they can’t do the set back other than losing ten feet in the yard on the backside. He said it gives it dimension and unless he sees something compelling he agrees with Staff. Mr. Johns stated he would like to continue and discuss with the owner. He asked if the feeling is that the alley condition does not represent a hardship. Ms. Tygre and Mr. Myrin agreed with this. Ms. Tygre made a motion to continue to the January 21st meeting, seconded by Mr. Myrin. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. Linda Manning Records Manager