Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA MINUTES May 2, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Consideration of a height variance request at 301 Church Street. Applicant is Tom Kirkland for the Tradition @ Northgate, LDT. Senior Planner Kuenzel stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Kuenzel told the Board that the variance is being sought to allow for the construction of the proposed dormitory with a roofline that will screen roof top equipment. The area was rezoned in 1996 with the rest of the Northgate area subsequent to the City's adoption of the Northgate Redevelopment Plan. That plan targets the Northgate are for rehabilitation and redevelopment as an urbanized historic business area near the Wellborn and University Drive with residential uses behind the commercial areas. The plan provides for high-density development in all three of the Northgate subdistricts with pedestrian and bicycle -oriented uses. In an effort to achieve these goals, site design review is discretionary through the Northgate Revitalization Board Review Subcommittee (NRB). Future development and redevelopment is to occur in more of an urban, compact style, rather than the suburban style that occurs in other parts of the City. In November 1999, the NRB and City Staff held a predevelopment meeting to discuss the conceptual plan for the dormitory. At that time, the NRB expressed some concern regarding the scale of the project, and gave the applicant direction to focus on the site areas between the building and the streets such that these areas would create a semi- public transition with landscaping and pedestrian -friendly facilities (sidewalks, benches, lighting, etc.) The NRB recommended approval of a slight increase in height in order to effect these goals on the rest of the site. The overall permitted building height in this subdistrict is 50 feet —the visible roofline of the proposed dormitory will be 53 feet 3 inches. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 3 feet 3 inches, or 6.5%. Mr. Bond asked if the alternatives listed in the staff report are the only ones available to the applicant. Are there any structural changes that can be made. Ms. Kuenzel replied that staff had not identified any but there possibly could be some. Ms. Kuenzel referred the question to the applicant. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing. Tim Kirkland, the applicant, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that he has been working with the city for a better part of a year and the NRB to come up with a concept that both the city and the NRB would be pleased with. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that 4 significantly large air conditioning units are being proposed and placed on top of the building. The fagade is to cover the units from being seen. Mr. Kirkland told the Board that one of the alternatives is not to place the units on top the building but rather have them on the ground and build some structure around them. Mr. Kirkland explained that the landscaping plan that is being worked on by the NRB and the city involves Second Street, Church Street & Boyett Street. Aesthetically it would not be ideal for the plan to place the units on the ground. It would impact the sidewalks, the pedestrian ways and the bicycle routes. Mr. Kirkland stated that the best architectural thing to do would leave the units on the roof and cover them up. Mr. Kirkland ended by telling the Board that the architect was in the audience if they had any questions. John Garrison, the architect, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Garrison if there has to be a certain number of feet per floor. Mr. Garrison replied that clear heights are needed that a ceiling can not encroach. To be able to accommodate all the infrastructure in the plenum you have to have a certain floor to floor height to accommodate that. Mr. Searcy questioned the overhang shown on the drawing and asked if the screening could be provided inside that edge, which would then still hide the equipment but not require the variance. Mr. Garrison replied that it was possible. When working with the NRB and the ordinance, one of its intents is to have the buildings step back from the street and have some movement and scale to them. Mr. Garrison explained the proposed building and how the canopy on the ground level projects the base of the building out and as the building rises the roof screen overhang creates some relief and shadow at the top of the building. This makes it look more active and vibrant. Mr. Garrison told the Board that the screen could move back to be flush with the building but the shadow would be lost. Mr. Garrison explained the shadow as being an important part of the building. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Garrison if he would agree that the primary reason for the variance is for the aesthetics of the building. Mr. Garrison stated that he would agree to that statement. Mr. Bond asked Mr. Garrison if 3 feet 3 inches reduced the building height, would it in some way violate the southern building code requirement for clearance in each floor. Mr. Garrison replied that the top four floors of the building have minimum clearance. From a floor to floor stand point once everything is installed; the bathroom ceiling heights are at the minimum height they can be. The only place for additional height is on the ground floor. This could be lowered down but that is the main plenum for all the infrastructure to go up through the building. It then would have to go to the top of the roof and be exposed and that would be a severe hardship to the design of the building. Chairman asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request. Benito Flores -Meath, 901 Val Verde, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Flores -Meath told the Board that when he first saw the project he understood it to only be four floors. Mr. Flores -Meath agreed that placing the heating and cooling units on ground level on the side of the building is not very practical. Mr. Flores -Meath suggested taking out a few of the inside dorm rooms on the fourth floor and install the a/c units there, then a variance would not be required. Mr. Flores -Meath told the Board that a lot of money has been spent in the Northgate area to make it quaint and now this monster box appears in the middle. Mr. Flores -Meath described the project too big for the area. With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Bond made the motion the authorize a variance to the building height requirement from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: area blocks were created prior to city incorporation making consolidation of property and redevelopment difficult and the effective loss of the perimeter of the site for landscaping purposes requires the increase height of the building to accommodate the design; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the alternative of additional land acquisition to make the project feasible and to leave enough transition area is not feasible in the Northgate area as elsewhere in the city, and maintaining as much open area within and around the site is important to the design of this project and to the overall Northgate area. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0).