Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19951214 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COP~ITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1995 Chairman Steve Buettow called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. Present were: Steve Buettow, Robert Blaich, Roger Moyer, Sven Alstrom, Jake Vickery, and Marta Chaikovska. MINUTES Buettow stated there were a lot of question marks typed referring to who said what on the minutes of August 31, 1995 and asked the members to fill in names indicating who stated what to replace the question marks. Buettow deferred approval of the minutes until a later date. CO~ISSIONERS COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, staff, requested to add an item on the agenda. Hichael Ernemann, who had a project in the West End, requested a worksession at the end of the meeting to obtain input and comments from the Committee. MOTION Vickery moved to include the worksession at the end of the meeting; Blaich seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COP~v/ENTS There were no comments. 926 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Buettow stated he had a conflict of interest with the project and turned the chair over to Jake Vickery as he stepped down. Amidon represented staff and stated the project was first reviewed in April, 1995 under Ordinance 35 and both agenda items were hold- DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1995 overs from the old neighborhood character guidelines process of Ordinance 35. The project was reviewed and not found to be in compliance with the guidelines, and the applicant was given the recommendation to find an alternate solution for the driveway; the applicant did not have an access to an alley. The property owner did negotiate with the next door neighbor and gained access to their driveway and provided staff with a revised project with the garages toward the back of the site. Amidon stated staff found the project was in compliance with the neighborhood character guidelines and commended the applicant and architect for finding a solution to the situation. Gibson and Reno Architects, represented the applicant. The Gibson & Reno representative stated the project involved a challenging site which did not allow flexibility in dealing with the driveway and the garage, but through revisions and other options, and through the ability of negotiating with the next door neighbor, there was a new and improved drive primarily on the Queen Victoria property. The front of the building was more in scale with the neighborhood. The representative stated, showing the site plan, that setback requirements were taken into account. The western unit of the proposed duplex was set back ten feet from the property line, which corresponded to the existing Queen Victoria with its ten foot setback. The eastern unit of the duplex was set back twenty feet; the adjacent 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses setback was thirty fee. The front entry portico and the adjacent porch had been set back slightly from the property setback line and the remaining unit was set back additionally to address both sides of the property. The representative stated with a shared driveway there would be minimal impact to the yard and he explained the floor plans and the exterior materials of stone and board and batten wood siding and the proposed roof had wood cedar shakes. The representative had photographs of adjacent properties and Blaich asked to see the photographs. The representative explained the photographs as the Committee viewed them. MOTION Blaich moved to approve the proposed development at 926 E. Hopkins Avenue, under the requirements of Ordinance 35, Series of 1995, finding that the applicable "Neighborhood Character Guidelines" 2 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1995 have been met; Moyer seconded. Vote was 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Alstrom), motion carried. 1011/1015 E. HOPKINS AVENUE Buettow offered to step down due to conflict of interest but the applicant preferred he stay. Buettow continued to chair and remained on the Committee for the review. Amidon represented stating her apologies for the brief memorandum, but she had gotten the information extremely late and found the drawings were not completely legible. Amidon stated she did not want to bring the project before the Committee, but because the project was under construction, she was trying to be helpful to the property owner. Amidon stated when the Committee first saw the project in February, 1995, the ADU units were in the basement and the Committee approved the project with no conditions. The applicant came back in August, 1995 and wanted to make some changes and suddenly the ADU units were above grade; that meant the applicant was asking for an FAR bonus the Committee had never seen. The situation was discussed at the meeting and a motion was made stating the Committee was not opposed to the ADU units above grade, but if there was to be any FAR bonus awarded, the Committee wanted the project to come back for reconsideration. Amidon stated the units were above grade, the floor plans needed to be modified; the balcony had been extended and the porch railing across the front; and the ADU entrance was through french doors. Amidon stated the applicant would receive 154 square feet per unit bonus which they proposed to add at the rear of the structure by filling in an area which previously had a second floor overhang so it would not have an impact from the street. Amidon concluded she did not know if the Committee wanted to be concerned about how the project might impact the alley, and staff had not received corrected elevations. Scott Samborski, representing the applicant, stated it was proposed to relocate the ADU to the main floor and showed drawings of the floor plans. Samborski stated the plans would not change the front elevation, and a gable would be added to the back. Samborski concluded showing the plans submitted in February for comparison. 3 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1995 Hoyer asked clarification of the location of the 154 square feet on the rear, underneath the second floor. Samborski responded what was being added was entirely on the second floor. Hoyer asked the maximum FAR allowed and if the applicant had exceeded the maximum. Amidon responded the maximum FAR was 3,600 for a duplex, and one is allowed up to 250 square feet in bonus per ADU, so with the 500 the applicant was getting 308. Amidon stated the project was maxed, plus 308 square feet. Samborski stated of the 250 square feet bonus allowed, the applicant was only asking 154 square feet per unit. Vickery asked if the applicant had been through the Planning & Zoning Commission. Amidon responded the project had not gone through P&Z and it was not required. She said she did not understand the situation entirely, but if it did have to go through P&Z, it would be worked out. Samborski stated the project had been part of the Fellman lot split and perhaps that is why it had not gone through the P&Z review process. Amidon stated she did not feel the project had a great impact on the site but did have doubts about the ADU bonus. Samborski stated one of the units was for a mother who had a daughter with a learning disability and the ADU would fit the need very well for the disabled daughter. Blaich stated the Committee had previously requested clarification on occupancy of ADU units and it was a request that was to be investigated more thoroughly by the Planning Department. Blaich said that had been some time ago, but the question has been the use of ADU units; the bonus is obtained and the ADU gets used for other purposes. Blaich asked the status of the investigation by the Planning Office and again asked for the information requested. Amidon responded she had heard discussion regarding a survey that was done on the ADU units, but could not inform Blaich of the status at this time. Vickery stated the survey was in progress and would be finalized in January, 1996. Chaikovska asked clarification of what the Committee was being asked to approve or disapprove. Amidon responded the Committee was being asked to evaluate whether there was an impact on the neighborhood character guidelines. Buettow stated in the original approval the Committee approved the project with the ADU units below grade with a provision that the 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1995 applicant had to build the project exactly as it was represented, and if the applicant wanted to change the ADU units he would have to come back to the Commission to show plan changes. Samborski stated the mass and scale had not changed on the project. Vickery asked if there had been any substantial changes and if it related to Ordinance 30. Samborski stated there had been no substantial change in the design. Amidon responded the applicant was already under permit. Blaich asked regarding the drawings, where the ADU unit was shown previously on the lower level, what would happen to the lower area? Samborski responded the area would become a bedroom for the occupant. Buettow asked regarding the front elevation and the window wells being locked out with stone work. Samborski replied the front elevation would remain as previously approved; the window wells would not be visible from the street. Alstrom asked regarding the entrance to the ADU unit and its location. Samborski showed the location of ADU entrance on the site plan drawings. Vickery stated he did not have a problem with the project and the front doors of the units did face the street, and were not articulated or pronounced. MOTION Chaikovska moved to approve the revisions to the drawings submitted at this meeting on December 14, 1995 for 1011/1015 E. Hopkins Avenue; Moyer seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Blaich commented for future reference the applicant should do a better job of presenting the information, and the reason staff had raised questions was because of the insufficient information received. Samborski responded he agreed with Blaich, but he was the contractor and not the architect and could not get hold of the architect to present the information adequately. 5 DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE DECEMBER 14, 1995 WORKSE SS ION The worksession followed the meeting and was taped. The tape is on file in Community Development. Heeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk