Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150721Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Jason Elliot, Spencer McNight and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan announced the commission’s newest appointed member, Spencer McNight, who will serve as the second alternate. Clerk’s note: As of July 13th, Jason Elliott has assumed a regular position on the commission and Jessie Morris has assumed the first alternate position on the commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for July 7th, seconded by Mr. Goode. 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 July 7th Mr. Walterscheid opened the continued public hearing from July 7th. Ms. Quinn stated notice had been provided at the earlier hearing. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the Staff. Mr. Barker, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application. He noted the initial hearing was on June 16th and was continued to July 7th and again to today’s meeting. The applicant presented two design options at the June 16th meeting. The commissioners were somewhat divided on their opinions of the two options. Some expressed concern regarding the proposed additional parapets for option one and how they increase the perceived height and massing of the building. Other commissioners were comfortable with the design as proposed with option one. The applicant requested a continuance to work with Staff to come up with an option that was a blend of the two options. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 The applicant submitted a revised design on June 30th which was most similar to the previous option one with a few minor changes. 1. The west building no longer has the proposed additional parapets. 2. A portion of the parapet on the east building is set back further from street as originally proposed. Mr. Barker also pointed out the proposal in the agenda packet included a tower element on the east building originally had a parapet on it which would have required a variance if approved. The applicant has since modified the proposed design to eliminate the parapet. Mr. Barker provided new drawings demonstrating this as provided by the applicant. The new drawings are exhibit G. Staff is supportive of the design as presented and recommends approval as stated in the draft resolution included in the agenda packet on p. 14 with one modification eliminating condition two under section one. He stated condition two it is no longer necessary. Mr. Barker also noted the drawings provided as an exhibit in the resolution will also be replaced to eliminate the parapets around the tower. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. Mr. Barker identified the drawings to be replaced as requested by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Rob Sinclair, RGS Architecture, represents the applicant, the Durant Mall Condominium Association. Mr. Sinclair provided summarized the completed project on the foundation of the building, the building’s type of construction and their actions since the previous hearing to provide an updated option. The skin of the building deteriorated over the past 40 years. They are looking at using a steel superstructure and a combination of metal and composite siding. He provided images of the current design showing the existing parapets on the east building. The height will be reduced from 32 ft 4 in to 32 ft and closed in on the east-west direction. The height of the parapet on the west building will be limited to the existing spring point of the pitched roof. As part of this application, they have also agreed to enhance all the public space including new restaurant and public seating, new bike racks, new planters and public art to provide a more inviting environment. They will also clean up along the alley as part of this project as well. He showed slides showing the building before and after the project. He brought examples of the siding material for the commission to view if they wish. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. There were none. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid asked for public comment. There were none so the public comment portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commissioners. Mr. McNight asked Staff about their concerns regarding the materials mentioned in the initial meeting. Mr. Barker stated Staff wanted to ensure the commission had an opportunity to evaluate samples of the materials themselves. Ms. Tygre thanked the applicant for bringing in the samples, but she stated she has no comment on the durability or color of the materials. Mr. McNellis appreciates the applicant’s efforts to improve the public area next the City Market parking lot, but he is not sure it will make it more inviting. He feels the environment should be shielded more from the parking lot. Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution 14, Series 2015 with a modification to Section One to remove condition number two and renumbering condition number three to number two. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goode. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. McNight, yes, Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. 1310 Red Butte Drive – Residential Design Standards Variance –Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn replied she has reviewed both affidavits of public notice and found it has been adequately provided. Mr. Walterscheid then opened the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the Staff. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, reviewed the application. The property is being developed with a new single family home. The applicants are requesting a residential design standard variance from what is referred to as the ‘no window zone’. The structure on the property is a new single family home. The applicant is requesting a portion of the home which is single story be allowed to have glass windows in the nine to twelve ft above the finished floor on the street facing façade. She then displayed a slide (p 63 of the agenda packet) depicting the area under review. She added the adopted residential design standards (RDS) require certain building elements to be part of the new structure to ensure homes contribute to the street scape and provide a residential scale and character 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 for a neighborhood. Examples include front doors facing the street, minimizing the presence of garages on the street facing facades. On street facing facades, windows are not supposed to span thru an area where a second story typically exists. This is typically at a height between nine and twelve ft above the first floor. The applicant is requesting to have windows up to 13 ft in height on the taller end of the roof that is between 14 and 15.5 ft. The windows are located on a single story wing of the new home. The windows go into the nine and twelve ft area previously mentioned. A variance may be granted on one of two criteria as described on p 60 of the agenda packet. Staff does not feel the lot has unusual constraints and is recommending a “soft” denial. She noted other administrative variances have been granted for similar types of requests, but typically there is a lower floor to ceiling plate height. Staff did not feel Staff did not feel they should approve the application administratively because of the higher roof height so that is why they suggested it be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She stated they are in the process of updating the RDS to quantify some of the standards a bit better. She added if the commission feels this is an appropriate design with acceptable glass heights and it is not a two story structure, then she suggested they find it meets the intent of the standard and is appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. There were no questions. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Dylan Johns and Mr. Tim Andrulaitis, Zone 4 Architects, are representing the applicant. Mr. Johns feels there are two parts to their request. One being the intent of the code and the other being the practicalities of designing a structure. He displayed an elevation of the building and described it clearly having elements of a two story building that does not exceed 25 ft in height and has no gable. His understanding of the intent of the code is to restrict having a double volume of glass on the front façade of a residence. He stated the element of the building where the glass would be located is not two story and the presentation of the element facing the street is one story. He then showed a plat of the property (p 92 of the agenda packet) and described the location of the building elements in relation to the street. Mr. Johns added this will be a full time residence for the applicant. Mr. Johns stated in regards to creating in expression on the corner of the home they have designed a sloping roof with a 1/12 pitch. The peak of the window is approximately 13 ft. Mr. Johns stated bringing the glass down does not really help the architecture and does not create a better intent of the standard. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 21, 2015 Mr. Goode asked for them to confirm how far the structure is from the road. Mr. Johns stated is approximately 100 ft from the street. Mr. Andrulaitis added there is six ft fence in front of the structure which reduces the amount of glass on the façade visible from the street. Mr. Walterscheid noted there were not members from the public to comment. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commissioners. Ms. Tygre does not feel it is appropriate for the commission to discuss the intent behind the RDS. People will have different memories on why they were written and the way they were written. She does not see a clear way to look at either criteria and find either one to be appropriate. She feels very strongly about excess glass and may lead to light problems. She does not feel it is a design solution that she would like to see and cannot support the request for a variance. Mr. Goode stated he would be fine with the variance. Mr. McNellis stated he would also support the variance and feels the design is appropriate considering the context of the neighborhood. Mr. McNight does not see an issue with the variance but understands Ms. Tygre’s position. Mr. Walterscheid stated his understanding of the RDS is to enforce the pedestrian scale of structures. Because this is clearly a single story element and the context of the architecture he is in favor of granting the variance. He feels there are problems when applying contemporary architecture to the RDS. Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 15, Series 2015 as provided in the meeting agenda packet granting a residential design variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNellis. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. McNight, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a five to one (5-1) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 5