Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150707Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis and Ryan Walterscheid. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sarah Rosenberg. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for June 30th, seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no conflicts expressed. 710 & 720 E Durant Ave (Durant Mall) – Commercial Design Review – Continued Public Hearing from June 16th Mr. Walterscheid opened the continued public hearing from June 16th. Ms. Phelan stated the applicant requested a continuance for July 21st. Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the public hearing to July 21, 2015, seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Walterscheid closed the continued public hearing. 1475 Sierra Vista Drive – Residential Design Standards Variance –Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn replied she has reviewed two affidavits showing notice was published and mailed. Mr. Walterscheid then opened the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the Staff. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 Ms. Sarah Rosenberg, Community Development Special Project Planner, reviewed the application. The applicant is requesting a residential design variance. The house was built in 1968 on a 16,001 sf lot at the end of a cul-de-sac. The current owners purchased the property in 2013 anticipating remodeling the structure. An initial residential design variance was submitted to increase the nonconforming nature of the garage but it was withdrawn when it was determined it would need to go before a board instead of being administratively approved. Since then the applicant has applied for a building permit which would exceed the demolition allowances of more than 40% of the exterior walls and roof structure. Because of this event, the existing nonconformity must be brought into compliance. The applicant initially requested three variances but two have been resolved leaving the variance for the existing footprint and location of the garage. Ms. Phelan stated regarding the street facing garage and access from a public street, the standard requires the front façade to be ten feet back from the face of the house. The current front façade of the garage is forward of the front house façade. Ms. Rosenberg reviewed the neighborhood context. Most of the structures in the neighborhood were developed prior to the existing design standards making most of them nonconforming. The applicant studied 25 of the structures and 14 do not meet the design standards related to the façade of the street facing garage including the subject property. She then showed a slide (p 78) identifying the houses in the neighborhood with nonconforming garage orientations. Ms. Rosenberg then showed a slide depicting the existing and proposed site plans. There are two design standards the applicant needs to meet. One is a side loading garage or the front façade and the other is to set back the front façade of the garage at least 10 ft behind the front most wall of the house. The existing garage orientation does not meet either of these standards. Ms. Rosenberg stated there are two criteria for granting a variance of the residential design standards and only one of them needs to be met for a variance to be granted. 1. Does the request provide an appropriate pattern of design based on the context of the surrounding neighborhood and the purpose of the particular standard? 2. Is the request clearly necessary for the reason of fairness due to unusual site-specific constraints? The applicant has proposed to maintain the garage to be street facing to limit the construction costs by maintaining the existing foundation and some of the walls. They also stated the cone shaped lot produces hardship making it difficult for a side loading garage. Staff does not feel the shape of the lot is not a significant detriment to redevelopment. Staff finds the request does not meet the variance review standards and recommend the application be denied. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. Ms. McNicholas asked how many of the nonconforming houses were a result of approved variances. Ms. Phelan stated they did not conduct research to make that determination. She added there are older houses in the neighborhood and there is other redevelopment occurring including some with similar situations. Ms. McNicholas asked if Staff worked with the applicant to provide an alternate approach. Ms. Phelan stated the biggest issue is the location of the foundation and the cost savings to the applicant to keep the foundation in place to prevent a redesign of the house. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects, represents the applicant along with Mr. Bill Pollock. Mr. Johns stated they submitted an administrative variance request last year to move the front of the garage forward to accommodate a larger car. The applicant decided not to pursue this and instead move forward with maintaining the existing facades. Regarding the two criteria to be used for the variance request, he feels they fit into both criteria. Their research indicated a majority of the houses in the neighborhood have this style of development. The garage placement of the houses follow a traditional ranch style house with an attached garage. It is also his understanding this neighborhood is the reason for introducing administrative variances were included in the residential design standards in 2005 because there were numerous requests. This residence is about 90 ft away from the edge of the pavement and is heavily screened by trees. The house itself is roughly 2,760 sf. He pointed out on a slide the close proximity of the house to the setback lines. The pie shaped lot with the narrow edge approaching the street makes a big difference when trying to maneuver cars on the property. He feels the streetscape follows the intention of the code rather than the literal definition of the code. He feels the owner is attempting to fix the design around the existing foundation with a small addition utilizing available floor area ration (FAR) for the property. He feels there is no easy way to get cars into the lot. He showed pictures of the house from three positions of the front of the house. He also showed pictures taken by Staff and pointed out their pictures were taken while off the street and theirs was not. He noted while the form of the proposed house is different, the existing house and proposed house are the same mass. He feels strict compliance with the code will change the streetscape. He noted there is a provision within the International Building Code which applies to existing buildings which allows the building officials to exempt certain code standards if there is a financial hardship to the property owner. He doesn’t feel the residential design standards were meant to be a punitive measure for an owner. He feels there are site constraints to be considered. He then showed a site plan with a side loading option depicted. This option is not possible without removing many mature trees and would put the project up against other design variances. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 Mr. McNellis asked if the garage was included in the 40% demolition figure at which Mr. Johns stated it was not along with the wall including the front door. He reiterated the applicant is not trying to introduce more nonconformities and maintain the existing structure. Ms. McNicholas asked Staff if financial hardship may be considered. Ms. Phelan does not believe financial hardship should be considered and reiterated the two criteria previously discussed to allow for a variance. She also stated P&Z only needs to identify one of the criteria as applicable to grant a variance. She suggested focusing on the neighborhood context because there are examples of nonconformity. Ms. McNicholas asked how Staff would argue this is an unusual site constraint. Ms. Phelan stated compared to the other lots, this one is more constrained due to its shape. She stated the 40% demolition rate is more technical. If this was really a scrape to ground demolition, the new structure could be reoriented on the lot. Mr. Walterscheid asked for public comment. No member of the public was present. Ms. Phelan stated there was one letter from the owner of 1465 Sierra Vista Drive which is next door the applicant’s property. The owner stated in the letter he has no objections to the applicant’s proposal. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commissioners. Ms. Tygre stated she toured neighborhood and noted the area does not get a lot of pedestrian traffic and there is a lot of mature vegetation. She didn’t see much of the home from the street. She does not feel the pedestrian experience is relevant and noted a variety of garage orientations. She agrees with Staff’s position when a certain amount of demolition triggers a review and doesn’t believe a financial hardship should be considered. She likes the idea of a modest remodel of the existing structure not exceeding the FAR and wants to approve the request. She feels there are other properties in the area that will be redeveloped and if the variance is granted on the grounds of neighborhood context, she is concerned the decision will be used as basis for other decisions. She wants to approve the variance based on site constraint of the cone shaped lot. Mr. McNellis is inclined to approve based on neighborhood context. He agrees with Ms. Tygre regarding the mature vegetation and agrees you cannot see the garage element from the street. He adds some weight that they are maintaining the original structure. He also feels there is a site constraint. He counted at least five other houses where the garage if oriented forward but probably 10 ft forward of the front façade of the house. Mr. Walterscheid stated he is in support of the applicant as well because the proposed redevelopment will remain in the same form on the pad. He would approve based on both the neighborhood context criteria and the site constraint criteria. He noted other remodeled homes with the same front facing garages. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2015 Ms. McNicholas stated she preferred to approve a variance based on site constraint given the orientation of the house. She shares Ms. Tygre’s concerns regarding approving the variance based on neighborhood context. Ms. Phelan suggested changing the last paragraph of Section 1 in the draft resolution to reflect the site constraint of the cone shaped lot instead of the neighborhood context as the reason for granting the variance. Mr. McNellis asked if the resolution should include both criteria or just one. Ms. Tygre stated she only wants to grant it based the site constraint. Ms. McNicholas feels the site constraint criteria honors the code. Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 13, Series 2015 with a modification to the last paragraph under Section 1 to state the design considers the site constraint of the cone shaped lot instead of the context of the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes, Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a four to zero (4-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 5