The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTONER SUBDIVISION, LOT 2 MAJOR AMENDMENT - OBERMANN RESIDENCE - FDP130045 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILATTACHMENTS Agenda Item 92 City Clerk's Notice of Public Hearing and Site Visit (PDF) Notice of Appeal (PDF) Hearing Officer Decision, December 17, 2013 (PDF) Staff report given to Hearing Officer (PDF) Materials Presented at Hearing (PDF) Verbatim Transcript (PDF) Staff powerpoint presentation to Council. February 4, 2014 (PDF) Item # 12 Page 4 Agenda Item 12 "The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility, because the design of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City's conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural compatibility "shall be derived from the neighboring context. "At the hearing, both the applicant and the City presented photographs and testimony that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding area varies greatly. The photographs presented at the hearing show one-story homes, two-story homes, split-level homes, modern homes, traditional homes, homes with one primary roof element, homes with more than one primary roof element, bungalows, cottages, mid-century ranch homes, Colonial homes, Craftsman -style homes and Tudor -style homes. The Staff Report states that the predominant characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second story floor area contained within the roof line. However, the evidence presented during the hearing by both the applicant and the City simply does not support this conclusion. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B): "In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established ... the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. " The Hearing Officer finds that the existing architectural character in this area is not clearly defined. Unfortunately, the phrase "enhanced standard of quality" is undefined, ambiguous and impossible to apply. While the Hearing Officer personally agrees with the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is too busy, with too many competing building forms and roof lines, that personal opinion does not render the MJA noncompliant with Section 3.5.1. The majority of the public comments at the hearing, including those from adjacent property owners, supported the architectural style of the home, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that the quality of the home is suspect. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section 3.5.1." 2. For the Appellant's assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 4.7(A) — Purpose for the Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), the Hearing Officer states on page 3 of the Findings and Decision: "The Staff Report contends that the MJA fails to comply with Section 4.7(A), Purpose, because elements of the building design are not arranged to control the height, scale, mass and bulk in a way that is compatible with architecture in the surrounding area, resulting in incompatible design which does not preserve the character of developed single-family dwellings in the N-C-L district. As discussed above, however, both the applicant and the City presented testimony and photographs demonstrating that the architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly. It was undisputed at the hearing that the MJA proposes a single-family dwelling in compliance with all applicable size and height restrictions for the N-C-L district. In light of the variety in architecture, mass and height of homes in the surrounding area, it would be impossible for the Hearing Officer to determine that the proposed architecture of the home proposed in the MJA is incompatible with the surrounding area. As such, the Hearing Officer finds that the MJA complies with Section 4.7(A)." SUMMARY Building plans for Lot 2 are the subject of this appeal. Building elevations and a building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision approval. The Major Amendment proposes amended building footprint and building elevations. The Hearing Officer issued a written decision on December 17, 2013 to approve the proposed Major Amendment. On December 31, 2013, an Appeal to the Hearing Officer's Decision was submitted, asserting that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, specifically: 1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 — Building and Project Compatibility 2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) — Purpose. Item # 12 Page 3 Agenda Item 12 area varies greatly, but believe there is a predominant architectural feature or characteristic that is shared amongst the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods." "The photographs presented by both the applicant and the City staff provide visual evidence that the predominant feature of homes in the neighborhood is simple, geometric roof lines that are triangular or rectangular and limited in number. Where there are multiple roof lines, they are typically smaller than the dominant roof and the dormers are small in scale and limited in number. Overall, the neighborhood's predominant architectural style is of a simpler form/shape with minimal extra appurtenances (rooms, balconies, large dormers) sticking out." "The staff, Meg Dunn and Michelle Haefele testified at the healing that the proposed building is incompatible to the neighborhood context because the neighboring houses have simple geometric shaped roof lines with several triangular, sloped roofs and a simpler, basically rectangular or square building form. A review of the following photos included in the presentations by the applicant and City staff show the contrast between the neighborhoods' simpler, rooflines and geometric housing shapes and the proposed building. The visual effect of the proposed project's architectural style with its multiple massive dormers and large, popped out rooms on the top of the building is that it appears asymmetrical, significantly larger in bulk, mass and scale, and out of character with the predominant architecture of the neighboring homes." "Additionally, the appellants support the Staff Report when it states that another predominant characteristic of the architecture of the surrounding area is second story floor area contained within the roof line. The staff, and applicant alike, both provided photographic evidence that the common architectural feature of the neighborhood's diverse housing styles is that the second story floor area is basically contained within the roof line. The photographic evidence clearly supports this conclusion. The proposed project is not compatible with the dominant character of nearby homes because the three large dormered rooms and balcony on the second floor are not contained within the roof line but appear as a large, asymmetrical, unplanned add-ons to an existing structure.' "Finally, the appellants also disagree with the hearing officer's interpretation of Section 3.5.1(8) when she decided that the existing architectural character is not clearly defined. The photos of houses in the area presented by both the applicant and staff showed that the common, simple sloped roof lines with second story floor area contained within the roof line are established architectural characteristics of this neighborhood. The project just doesn't meet this established common architectural feature. In fact, the Hearing Officer personally agreed with the City that the style of the home proposed in the MJA is 'too busy, with too many competing building forms and roof lines,' providing additional evidence that the proposed building is not in context with the character of neighboring houses. The photos show that where there are additional dormers or roofs, they are smaller, secondary and minimal in number." The appellant provides photographic illustrations with the Notice of Appeal, stating that: 'Following are photos of neighborhood houses that clearly illustrate the commonality of the roof designs, slopes, and simple geometry building forms that are predominant in this neighborhood and provide common architectural features. All photos are taken from the applicant's Powerpoint presentation and are highlighted to emphasize the second story architectural features that face the street. The proposed house is also shown with similar highlighting." HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS AND DECISION 1. The Hearing Officers Findings for the Major Amendment are located on page 2, 3, and 4 of the Hearing Officer's decision letter. For the Appellant's assertion regarding Land Use Code Section 3.5.1 — Building and Project Compatibility, the Hearing Officer states on page 2 of the Findings and Decision: Item # 12 Page 2 Agenda Item 12 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner SUBJECT Consideration of the Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision to Approve the Stoner Subdivision Major Amendment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On December 31, 2013 an appeal was filed concerning the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision regarding a proposed Major Amendment to the building elevations and building footprint for Lot 2 of the Stoner Subdivision, 1017 West Magnolia Street. The Appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land use Code, specifically: 1. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility 2. Article 4, Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District (N-C-L), Section 4.7(A) - Purpose. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Stoner Subdivision was originally approved through a Type 1 public hearing held May 30, 2013, to subdivide an existing single-family residence into two new lots, creating a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot. The new lot is known as "Lot 2" and is east of the existing single-family residence. The existing single-family residence remains on a portion of the original lot, which is renamed "Lot 1". The two lots are located at the southeast corner of Wayne Street and West Magnolia Street in the Neighborhood Conservation, Low -Density Zone District (N-C-L). Building elevations and a building footprint were approved for Lot 2 as part of the original Stoner Subdivision approval. The Major Amendment proposes amended building footprint and building elevations for the approved single-family detached dwelling on Lot 2. ASSERSIONS OF APPEAL The Appellant asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states. "The appellants agree with the Staff Report that the project fails to comply with Article 3 Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility and Article 4, Section 4.7(A) Purpose because the design of the home is incompatible in mass, bulk, and scale with homes in the surrounding area. The basis for the City staffs conclusion is that the design contains a significant amount of competing building forms, causing the overall bulk and massing to be inconsistent with the character of nearby homes. Pursuant to Section 3.5.1(B), architectural compatibility 'shall be derived from the neighboring context.' The appellants agree that the architecture of the homes in the surrounding Item # 12 Page 1