2011-06-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2011 Page 6 249 Member Wozniak polled Commissioners on any concerns with the building’s proposed 250 height and perceived appearance of the façade. 251 Discussion ensued regarding the height of the adjacent apartment building (3 levels, but 252 1 level partially below ground at garden level) estimated to be approximately 25’ tall; 253 height of this proposed building at 35’, with the maximum of 40’ allowed for a building in a 254 Neighborhood Business Zoning District. 255 Member Wozniak opined that the building height appeared too large and too tall for that 256 site. 257 Mr. Lloyd advised that the height question had been raised in the e-mails received by 258 staff and related to this case over the last few days, and staff had calculated sun and 259 shadows, noting that a 40’ tall building’s shadow would not cross property boundaries 260 long-term. 261 Member Gisselquist, in addressing height concerns, opined that it would be nice to lower 262 the height if possible, but offered no opinion on the roof style. Member Gisselquist noted 263 that when previously addressing transitions between zones, this building met the 264 transition, when 1.5 story homes and a 3-story apartment building were to the north and 265 west, and then this proposed facility sweeping up to the corner. Member Gisselquist 266 noted that this size of a building was not being in-filled, but was at the edge. While 267 recognizing Member Wozniak and neighborhood concerns on the roof design, Member 268 Gisselquist had no comment on the proposed design, but had no problem with the 269 building’s height. 270 Chair Boerigter noted that this was a Conditional Use application, and taking into 271 consideration other uses that would be permitted on that site and their potentially greater 272 impacts for traffic, building mass and height, this use seemed more amenable to the 273 neighborhood. Chair Boerigter noted that overall, the pending traffic study and City 274 Engineer would need provide expertise in addressing traffic patterns and any obvious 275 concerns, but noted that that the City Council would consider those results. Overall, Chair 276 Boerigter opined that this was a good project, with minimal impact to the neighborhood 277 compared to other potential uses. Chair Boerigter opined that, anytime you lived next 278 door to a commercially-zoned site, there would be some disparity in building size that 279 couldn’t be completely eliminated. 280 Member Wozniak opined that the gable roof was probably an attempt to tie the building 281 into the single-family neighborhood, but asked that the developer consider the height 282 disparity between this building and its neighbors, without the Commission recommending 283 that as a condition for approval. 284 Member Lester noted Section 5.1.c and d of the staff report, questioning if there was 285 sufficient green or open space available. 286 Mr. Lloyd noted that the open area, in addition to the secured fence area did not show as 287 significant on the site plan; however, he noted other areas fenced in and additional 288 landscaping on site, in addition to the fenced areas near the secured doors, would 289 provide green space. Mr. Lloyd further noted that a requirement for assisted living/nursing 290 home facilities was to have sufficient recreational space available, and opined that the 291 developer’s various landscaping options, including potential vacation of a portion of the 292 right-of-way, would allow the applicant to meet City Code for available and sufficient open 293 space. Ayes: 6 294 Nays: 0 295 Motion carried. 296 297 Chair Boerigter advised that this case was scheduled to be heard at the City Council at 298 their June 20, 2011 meeting.