HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.drac.19980831DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS ~84~D
AUGUST 31, 1995
Chairman ? said that due to the discussion at the last meeting and
also to comments heard subsequently, he brought a checklist that
could be used to evaluate projects in greater detail if anyone
wished to do so. Regarding Spin and Roger's comments at the last
meeting about incorporating neighborhood guidelines into the
Board's evaluations, he thought they could be used as a reference.
He noted that the members have experience using those guidelines
through their work on the Ordinance 30 committee. He asked about
public notice requirements.
Amidon said staff intends to consult Council about that.
Chairman said if the Board knows anyone involved or adjacent to the
projects being heard, they could call and inform them and have them
come to the meeting.
Lamont said she would be addressing some of the issues raised by
? in her staff comments.
? said that when Council originally voted for Ordinance 30, they
intended to reconsider the FAR numbers after a year. He thought it
would be helpful if the Board kept a list of projects it reviewed
~ and how they may or may not have been improved by a smaller FAR.
Lamont responded that it would be helpful to keep careful track of
the kinds of issues that are appealed. She said staff is getting
a lot of good feedback from applicants on the submission
requirements and how those could be changed. Staff is also keeping
a list of soon to be amendments to Ordinance 30, amendments staff
has recognized as necessary after working with the ordinance. She
thought the exercise ? proposed would be a better one after seeing
some of the projects built.
Chairman ? thought a simple list of how many projects they reviewed
and, of those, how many would have benefited from a smaller FAR
would be useful to Council.
In a discussion of the two projects reviewed, Board members were
split on which projects would have benefited from a smaller FAR.
Lamont thought it might be a good topic for a work session.
Amidon suggested the Board might have a brief discussion about
anything .they might think is not being addressed at the end of
their meetings. She said staff has already identified a couple of
issues which were not included in Ordinance 30 and would appreciate
any input.
Lamont gave each member a copy of Ordinance 30 and a copy of the
residential design standards checklist. She said the checklist is
used by staff when an applicant submits a proposal. The checklist
`, _,, is not included in the Ordinance so that staff has the flexibility
to change it as needed. She said Board members could use the
checklist to review a project for compliance since staff memos only
note where a project is out of compliance.
Lamont added that the staff has put together an application packet
for clients to take with them. It includes the residential design
standards. She said staff member Dave Michaelson has created a flow
chart of the design review appeals process which staff is in the
process of verbalizing as well so that people who are more word
oriented than visually oriented will have the benefit of both. She
gave copies of the application packet to the Board members. She
said when Board members get their staff memos, they could do their
own review. She thought it would be appropriate for a Board member
to let staff know if he or she thought staff had missed a standard
with which the project was out of compliance.
? disagreed saying that they are an appeal board with a very
specific mandate. She said for them to bring up issues which the
staff had already passed on would not be in their purview.
Lamont said there are several things which should be going on when
they meet. Yes, the Board needs to review specific appeals as they
come before them. In discussion with the applicant, if resolution
~,., of their design means tweaking another design standard, then the
Board should be aware of that. Does the non-compliance of a project
,,,,_„ bring about a better design solution in this case?
She thought the Board should have the checklist so they know how
a project complies overall when something is being appealed. If
staff has missed how someone complies with the checklist review
but a member of the Board identifies it, it's ok for that to be
part of the discussion.
Lamont talked about the public notice requirements for Board
meetings. Ordinance 30 now states that the meetings are to be held
the second Tuesday of each month. That can be amended. It also
states that the Chair may call special meetings on certain occasion
like this one. She asked at what time the Board would like to meet.
The members decided they would like to meet at 4:00 P.M.
Lamont said that requiring a public hearing for appeals to the
Board could be done by amendment to Ordinance 30. She said the
Board can not grant variances to pre-established dimensional
requirements or to uses on the land, the kind of variances the
Board of Adjustment can grant, for example. Those kinds of cases
should and do have public notice requirements.This Board grants
variances to a set of design guidelines which should not need a
..., public hearing.
~.- She noted that one of the goals of the design review appeals
,,,.... process is that it should be straightforward and simple. For
example, someone could find out on a Monday that they don't comply,
submit their plans on Thursday, and meet with the Board within a
week or week and a half. If there are public notice requirements,
the process would take longer and add another layer of requirements
for an applicant to deal with. She said staff will discuss it with
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. She thought that
once you make something a public hearing, you're opening up the
neighborhood to an entire design review process which was not the
goal or intent of Ordinance 30.
? said if neighborhoods are smart, they'll form their own
committees and do their own design review.
Lamont said the City, as part of formulating Ordinance. 30, has
told different neighborhoods that if they are willing to come up
with a neighborhood association and create covenants that require
applicants to go through a design review, it would help them to try
to make that a seamless process.
? said he would prefer the neighborhoods take care of this than a
Board.
Lamont said one of the ideas staff had was that if someone appealed
a neighborhood decision, there would be a joint meeting of the
neighborhood committee and the Board. Someone would appeal to this
~,, Board but the neighborhood association committee could also be
present and work with the Board on the appeal.
~~
Talking about the public hearing requirements, ? said he would not
want to add bureaucratic delays caused by such noticing to the
process, but there is a reasonable alternative which would be an
ad in the paper stating what projects the Board would be
considering at its meeting. Probably more effective notice would
be posting the property so it would alert the neighbors about the
meeting. He said the neighbors have the right to know that, and the
Board should make some effort to inform them.
Lamont asked Roger what he thought.
Rog: Anything would be better than what is done now which is
nothing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone from the public present who
wished to speak on any issue other than an agenda related item.
There were none.
Lot 3, Lacet Subdivision: Joel Barnes
New staff member Dave Michaelson introduced himself and the Barnes'
project. He said Barnes requested a variance from the design
..., standard that deals with driveway cuts within a setback to the
driveway. A site and drainage plan for the entire subdivision was
provided to the Board in their packets as well a site plan for Lot
3, Lacet Subdivision and photographs that Barnes submitted with the
application. Michaelson said he had summarized the criteria by
`~„~ which the Board could create a variance to the design standard.
Michaelson said he was not here when the project .originally went
through Ordinance 30 design review, but understood there were some
issues regarding height and window placement that were taken care
of. Still to be resolved is the issue of the driveway cut presently
before the Board.
Lamont said the subdivision itself came through before Ordinance
35 was adopted.
Michaelson said Barnes' proposal would create about a two foot cut
within the setback. All the other lots in the subdivision have been
granted variances through the Board of Adjustment process because
it was a zoning issue prior to the adoption of Ordinance 30.
Michaelson said he played around with some other lot layout options
to avoid the need for the Board's review, but they didn't make any
difference. Staff recommends, based on all the other variances
approved in the subdivision and the fact that there doesn't appear
to be any other practical alternative, that the Board approve the
request based on Criteria 3 which deals with unusual site
constraints. He said almost every lot in the subdivision has grades
in the neighborhood of 14-16% so it's tough to access a building
envelope. The building envelopes were defined as part of the
subdivision review so the Board can't shift it to get away from the
driveway cut.
Referring to the checklist, ? thought that in a situation where
there is no alley access the width of the garage is restricted.
Amidon thought the standard is that the width of the house has to
be at least ten feet more than the garage. There are two different
sections that deal with garages, and she did not have them in front
of her so could not give a definitive answer. One standard says the
garage can't be more than 40%.
? said the 40% standard was the one he recalled.
Referring to a copy of Ordinance 30 provided by a Board member,
Amidon said it sets up standards so that if your garage is more
than 40% of the total, it must meet one of the following standards,
one of which is that the vehicular entrance to the garage is
perpendicular to the front line. In this case, it is.
? asked about another standard which talks about a garage recessed
behind a front facade.
Amidon said there's been an argument in the Planning Dept. about
that. Planning Director Stan Clauson feels that this is an
either/or situation: either your garage has to be ten feet behind
the front facade or it has to be perpendicular. She said a policy
statement or amendment to the Ordinance might be needed, but
~,~ Clauson feels that creating a courtyard area in the front - as is
.,. being done with Barnes' proposal - would be better than pushing the
`. garage back and looking at its doors.
';~,.~.-
? asked Michaelson about the options he had looked at.
Michaelson said one of the things he did was to shift the footprint
of the structure to the west to try to create enough room for the
garage to turn it back to the street face and push it ten feet
behind the front facade. If you do that visually and look at the
topography, there is still a cut of about two feet necessary.
Michaelson demonstrated this option for the Board. No matter which
way the garage is orientated, Barnes would still have to come
before the Board.
? wondered if the applicant should also be seeking a variance
regarding the garage being recessed behind the front facade
simultaneously with the application.
After some discussion, it was agreed that would not be necessary.
? asked if the driveway would still be relatively level with the
street access.
Michaelson said that within the setback it would not be.
Barnes' representative said the garage is at natural grade and
,,.,., there has to be a two foot cut for access. He said the problem was
created when the subdivision was created, and Barnes has a letter
from Clauson that says that turning the garage 90 degrees to the
street relieves him from the burden of the ten foot setback. The
applicant did not bring the letter with him.
? moved that the Board grant a variation of the residential design
standards at Lot 3, Lacet Subdivision for a below grade driveway
within the required front setback, finding that the cut is
necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific
constraints.
? (woman) seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.
? said this is an example of a subdivision being put in with no
regard for character guidelines and terrible siting. If those
things had been addressed before the buildings were sited, this
would be a much more interesting subdivision. Lamont noted that
it's a good example of the existing neighborhood coming to bear on
the review process; the reason the building envelopes are so
restrictive and defined is because the neighborhood wanted the
buildings pushed as far away as possible and didn't want them to
access off Riverside Drive.
? said that brings up a topic he had thought about recently:
„~.~ subdivision designs. Currently, they are usually based around the
cul-de-sac principal. In the West End where subdivisions are based
`,,,. around streets and alleys, a design is produced which is more
typical for single family houses. The cul-de-sac design forces
design problems immediately. He thought that should be considered
„~,,, for new subdivisions seeking approval. Some discussion followed on
subdivision design.
? mentioned some options that he thought would have improved the
design for the Barnes' application. Lamont said the restrictive
building envelopes in this particular subdivision prevented placing
the house closer to the street and other options. ? said if the
Board was the HPC, it would have tossed the application out on its
ear, but this Board only deals with one narrow focus; he questioned
how useful the Board really is but said he would withhold judgment
for a while.
1011-1015 East Hopkins
Lamont told the Board that the project was approved under Ordinance
35 on February 28, 1995 by the Interim Overlay Committee. A very
specific architectural site plan was approved for the project. It's
on a 7, 500 square foot lot, so under Ordinance 35 not only was
review mandatory but compliance with the Committees' recommendation
was also mandatory. She said there was a lot of discussion at the
Committee level about placement of the light wells in the front of
the duplex. Each unit had a light well shown in front and a porch
with French doors was shown over the light well. Staff recommended
that the light wells should be moved to the side because one of the
„_d guidelines was to discourage second terraces, light wells and below
grade driveways in the front of homes.
She said the Committee approved the project with the recommendation
that the applicant continue to work with staff to resolve the
issues and submit plans. The plans have come in with the light
wells still in front of the duplex. After discussions with the City
Attorney, Amidon advised the applicant that the plans could be
amended via the old approval process, the neighborhood character
guidelines. Pursuant to that process, an application was submitted.
She said staff noticed the accessory dwelling units proposed below
grade had been moved up on the main floor in the new plans. When
an accessory dwelling unit is above grade, an applicant has the
option of seeking a floor area bonus which is 50~ of the size of
the unit or 250 square feet whichever is less. The accessory
dwelling units proposed were 460 square feet in the new plan so a
230 square foot bonus has been inlcuded.
Lamont said when the proposal came to the Committee in February,
the representation made by the architect and applicant was that
this was a duplex with the maximum allowable floor area. The
Committee at that time was deciding whether to approve a project
that was over 85$ of the allowable floor area. In addition, she
said, it appears that the plans submitted in February had more
~.,., architectural detail about the front facade than the plans that
were submitted for this review. She believed the detail shown led
~ the Committee to believe that, although the project was at maximum
floor area, there were elements of the front facade that helped
break up the bulk and mass of the structure.
? declared that he worked for the firm that did the initial
schematics and a design approval for the project. That firm is no
longer working on the project. He said if anyone had a problem with
that, he would step down.
It was agreed that ? should step down and noted that the Committee
would still have a quorum.
? said he wished to make it clear that the Board was now the
Overlay Committee. He added that everyone on the Board was on the
Overlay Committee except Marta. The only difference is that now the
Board deals with neighborhood guidelines completely.
Lamont said she believed the Committee needed to start with what
was approved in February and the changes being requested as a basis
for discussion. The applicant has several alternatives. They can
go back to what was originally approved on February 28th if in
Committee deliberations things come up the applicant cannot live
with; or the applicant could throw out the February 28th approval
and go under the new Ordinance 3o residential design standards.
? wondered if the applicant had chosen to go through the amended
Ordinance 35 process. Lamont said yes.
? asked for a presentation from the applicant.
? summed up what they want to do. He said it's in their best
interest to look at the front elevation with staff in more detail.
He said the intention was to put architectural details on their
plan but there has been some indecision about exactly what it
should be. The location of the accessory dwelling units (adus) he
thought would be a technical issue which could also be dealt with
on staff level.
He said the window wells in front are very important for proper
lighting. The project is located between two buildings so window
wells on the side would not provide the necessary light; it's a
dark corridor. He demonstrated his point with a drawing of the lot.
Scott Roth talked about the intent of the code in relation to the
siting of the building. He asked that window wells located in front
of the units be approved.
Lamont said if the front of this home is on the setback, then the
proposed window well cannot be built. A window well can go into
the setbacks as long as it meets UBC requirements. The problem is
that you can't have a window well that is bigger than the UBC
requirements within the setbacks.
>,.~
? said that in profile the ground level is two feet behind the
`v.., setback. There is a two foot projection up above which sits on the
setback. There is two feet of ground for a window well and possibly
another foot to meet UBC. To meet UBC minimums, the window well
'~.., would project slightly into the setback, a foot to a foot and a
half probably. Even meeting those minimums, he said, front window
wells allow more light for the lower space than the same window
well and the same situation in the sideyard. There is space between
the edge of the window well and the sidewalk that is up on top of
a berm to create a buffer about 6 feet wide with landscaping.
Street level is about 7-8 feet below the level of the house.
? suggested adding French doors as once proposed for the project.
He said they would rather have the window wells in front and the
effect from the street is negligible because they can't be seen.
? asked if the upper floor overhangs the lower floor.
? said it does by two feet.
? wondered how much light the north facing terraced window wells
would actually provide.
? They will provide better light than if they were located on the
east or west sides.
Further discussion followed about the project's window wells.
Roger said he would agree to add back the original design features
and would like a condition to any approval that the applicant add
w.,,,, more of a porch to the recessed unit. He noted that the reason for
the neighborhood character guidelines was to create life on the
street and that would be done both by design and landscaping. A
porch on the north side would be great in the summer and would be
used. He had no problem with the location of the light wells. He
thought there should probably be a condition that a landscape
design plan be submitted to staff for approval.
? said she did not have a problem with the light wells proposed
provided there is good landscaping.
Jake said he had a quandary regarding Ordinance 35. If the
applicant would make some changes to the design to bring it into
conformance, that would be consistent with the approval and its
conditions. If the applicant doesn't want to do that, he thought
they should probably submit pursuant to Ordinance 30.
Roger asked Lamont if the applicant added the original design
features and more of a porch on the recessed unit and submitted a
landscaping plan for staff approval, would that be a good way to
deal with the request.
Lamont said the additional floor area is still an issue. Staff's
.. opinion is that this submittal is a substantial change. If the
Board wants to leave things like the landscaping and window wells
~,.,. to be worked out between staff and the applicant, staff needs very
clear direction from the Board.
_.. ? said his feeling on the adu is that it's another suite. It
doesn't have to be used as an adu since there's no requirement for
a rental pool or caretaker. He said he would make a resolution to
recommend to Council that all adus be placed into a rental housing
pool if a full time resident caretaker does not reside there. He
said he hoped this Board and HPC would make that resolution to
Council.
Jake asked if the Committee is comfortable dealing with the project
as a brand new Ordinance 35 review. He said the changes made are
substantial and more than a response to previous conditions under
Ordinance 35 approval. If the applicant wants to stick with the
Ordinance 35 review, he has to build it as represented addressing
the conditions of that approval. If he chooses not to do that, the
applicant must come back under the ordinance 30 process.
? said all they want is to get approval to move the light wells.
The adu issue can be worked out with staff.
In response to Jake's comments, Lamont said an applicant has the
option when they submit their plans, if you find they haven't
complied with the conditions of approval, to go back to their
original approval. This applicant did not.
.. There was some discussion about employee housing in general and
working with the applicant in a pro-active manner. Lamont said the
~.~ purpose of the meeting is to decide whether the applicant must go
back to what was originally approved or is this committee willing
to make amendments to the approval.
? said she understood that the applicant is only asking the
committee to pass on the light wells.
? said that is correct, that the applicant would like to move the
light wells in the front and work with staff to get back as closely
as possible to the original project.
Lamont said her problem is that on February 28th what the committee
left staff and the applicant to work with was not very clear.
Discussion followed on the February 28th approval and what should
be included in a motion for this meeting. There was also some
discussion on differences between the original plan and the current
plan and how to deal with the adu issue.
? moved that the Historic Interim Overlay Committee approve the
applicant's request for 1011-1015 E. Hopkins with the following
conditions: 1) that applicant work with staff to restore original
design features on the north side, 2) that applicant submit a total
landscape plan for the north side to include light wells which will
insure that they are not visible from the street, 3) that applicant
accept the approval of the adu as approved February 28th but if
`.".~ applicant wishes to change that approval then they must come back
before this Committee with revised plans and elevations.
,_
`~,~ Lamont said that the original approval was for adus in the
basement. She asked the Committee if it would meet with their
approval if the applicant wants to maintain the adu on the first
floor without any bonus and with no net gain in floor area. that
? thought that was covered in his motion, that the applicant must
come back to the Committee if there are any changes in floor area.
? seconded the motion.
? said he would support the motion, but after looking at the
drawings and the character of the neighborhood, and basically
feeling it's better to have adus above grade, he didn't think it
is a sensitive situation. He did not think that the adu as proposed
is problematic. He said he would also support some method of
allowing the applicant to keep this adu more or less where it is
built but it has to conform with the FAR. He also said that after
thinking about the grade going up as it does, it's not a typical
front yard. He did not think the pedestrian on the street would be
aware of the light wells even without landscaping. The thing most
on his mind about the project is the front facades of the units and
having the kind of character from the street that the city has been
striving for. He was glad to hear the applicant would be willing
to put those elements back into the project and would like to see
,,,..~ them focus on that. He said he would like to see the introduction
of a one story element or something that brings the facades down
`.,,,,~, to human scale. The idea of Ordinance 35 was that if you go above
85~ of your FAR, the project should make a greater contribution to
the community and to the streetscape.
? said he sat through a lot of the meetings on Ordinance 35, and
the different characters of a lot of the neighborhoods was not
taken into consideration. Each area should have its own homeowners'
association.
? said the most important part of the motion for him was that
applicant work with staff to get back to the original design and
bring the facade down to something more human. A porch is an
excellent example of an element like that. ? encouraged the
applicant to look at building porches or something similar.
~~