Planning Commission Minutes 2016 09 08

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 13, 2016 Page 6 of 31 O'Connell in support. I suggest we change Resolution 22 as it is written. It says solely that they are modifying the building elevations. I am in favor of Resolution 22 to include that the setback increased 6 feet so it is now 12 feet back from the back line, the removal of butterfly wings to gable ends, and the switch from two stories to three stories. Brauneis in support. Moline in support. I had an opportunity to walk by the other buildings that this building will mimic in North End. This direction with architecture is an improvement over the existing plan. Hsu in support. It is helpful that the applicant talked with the immediate neighbor to work out issues. Brauneis says I am concerned about the sound concern. I think it is great the developer and the neighbor have worked something out. I hope the compressor blanket does achieve the 40%. This is not an issue we have taken on in development approval in the past. AC is a concern for every home or apartment complex. I don't know if the PC is meant to consider this. In the long term, does that mean that they will have to maintain an AC when it is replaced in 40 years? Since we do not have any specifications in front of us for the performance of this AC blanket, I am concerned about heading there. Rice says Brauneis has a good point. Procedurally, can we make a condition to what is an amendment to a PUD? Zuccaro says yes, you can make a condition of your recommendation of approval, specifically if it is connected to one of the review criteria you are looking at for the development. As long as it is in consideration of the PUD review criteria and you think it is a reasonable condition related to meeting those criteria, you can make that type of condition. There are issues of defining it and being able to enforce it over time. These are valid things we may want to consider and how the condition is worded, if you choose to adopt the condition. O'Connell says given those conditions and definitions, I am leaning toward leaving it out. Hsu says I think one of the criteria this would apply to is its appropriate relationship to the surrounding areas. This is clearly criteria we can draw upon to enforce this condition. I don't see it as being too precedential to always worry about the noise. I don't see this as saying the future owners of these townhouses have to maintain the AC to some decibel level. I think it applies to the PUD. If there are issues with noise in the future, that is a nuisance issue and outside the planning context. Moline says I can envision the complications of trying to enforce this in the future. I am comfortable leaving it out of our approval. I appreciate that the applicant has worked with the neighbor. I don't think it needs to be in a condition. Pritchard says I agree with my commissioners that we are getting into a slippery slope in terms of enforcement. I believe the applicant will work with the homeowner. Technology improvement in AC will lend itself toward a quieter product. Historically, that has been the case. Rice says after hearing the discussion, I agree with O'Connell that in approving an amendment, we are also approving an amendment to the plan that suggested a 6 foot setback on the north side and now makes it 12 feet. It is an important feature and should be in the resolution. Motion made by Rice to approve North End Block 15 PUD amendment, Resolution 22, Series 2016. A resolution recommending approval of an amendment to the final Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan for North End Block 15 to modify the building elevations, and be modified to include a statement that a change in the setback from the north property line from 6 feet in the previous PUD to 12 feet, seconded by Moline. Roll call vote. Name Vote Chris Pritchard Yes Ann O'Connell Yes Steve Brauneis Yes Jeff Moline Yes Tom Rice Yes David Hsu Yes