The Sedona Planning and Zoning Commission approved an increase in the maximum building height and alterations to the roof design for the Sunset Lofts workforce housing project during its July 18 meeting.
Neighbors of the proposed project at 220 Sunset Drive spoke in opposition.
“When the permits came in for building permits, as we were reviewing them, we did note that the rooflines had changed from the sloped roofs that you saw during the development review process,” City Planning Manager Cari Meyer told the commission. “While staff does have the ability to change some minor things as projects go through the building permit process, we felt that the change to the rooflines was significant enough that we did want to bring it back to you for review.”
“They’ve said that as they’ve been looking at the project and trying to find ways to reduce the cost of the building, the change of the rooflines was one area that they felt could have a significant impact, in a good way, on the cost of the project,” Meyer explained further. Another effective approach could involve utilizing a reputable residential re-roofing in Utah.
The developer’s letter of intent for the design changes proposed a five-foot height increase in wall height for the buildings, which would increase the maximum height from 22 feet to 27 feet above the natural grade. The height increase will be accompanied by a change in the project’s style from pitched roofs to flat roofs with a parapet and from chaletstyle exteriors to a more boxy, modernist aesthetic with additional stucco and steel. To ensure proper water drainage and protect your property investment, consider hiring seamless gutter installation in Strasburg.
“When you do a sloped roof in the city, you do get some additional height up to the ridgeline to allow for some roofline variation,” Meyer told the commission, and the original plans for Sunset Lofts showed the gables of the pitched roofs rising to almost 32 feet above grade in places. On the revised plans, the parapeted walls end at 27 feet above ground level, with only roof-mounted mechanical units rising above that limit. The city’s codes permit an additional eight-foot allowance for roof-mounted equipment.
“When we reviewed the heights, I believe the most any of them needed for additional height above the standard height was maybe two or three feet,” Meyer said.
Relocating this equipment to the roofs of the buildings for ease of installation was another goal of the design changes. Developer M. Keith Holben pointed out that the original plan had placed some condensing units in between the buildings. “That’s our only really active open space in there, and that analysis yielded that that noise level, with that many condensing units, would be substantial in an area that we want residents to enjoy, so that was one reason we wanted to move them to roof-mounted,” Holben said.
“This has been done in an effort to bring the cost down,” Vice Chairwoman Charlotte Hosseini said. “Are there other [variations], just out of interest, that are being made in the interest of cost efficiency?”
“Maybe some changes to the plant list,” Meyer replied. “As far as the buildings themselves go, there’s no other changes.”
In a written statement submitted to the commission, neighbor David O’Donnell pointed out that the cost savings argument for the changes didn’t add up.
“Let me point out the nine-foot ceiling each unit has on both floors,” O’Donnell wrote. “I have nine-foot ceilings and it cost me an extra 18% because that isn’t a standard length of wood … And seeing it’s to be affordable, why do these renters get to heat and aircondition an extra cubic foot per square feet of their living space?”
“All I know is everyone is very worried about the height of this project and it feels like the city just wants to make the local homeowners even more enraged with such a decision,” O’Donnell added.
The city’s current financial contribution to the Sunset Lofts project is $4.2 million, and the developer is seeking another $8.4 million in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development financing. During the city council’s recent budget work session, housing manager Shannon Boone noted that due to rising building costs, the city may need to increase its contribution by another $2 million, which would bring the total project cost to $14.6 million and the per-unit cost to over $317,000.
Rick Cohen, of Sunset Villages across Sunset Drive from the parcel, presented the commission with a petition signed by 28 of his fellow residents objecting to the proposed changes.
“What could have been a very nice-looking building seems to have been very flattened, and it’s not got the same aesthetic appeal,” Cohen said. “It almost feels like we’re starting from scratch. Or, we were shown one thing and now, towards the end of time, we’re getting something that is very different from a visual standpoint.”
“I don’t disagree with Mr. Cohen about the aesthetics of going from pitched roofs to flat roofs, but I understand on the other hand that it’s a cost issue,” Chairwoman Kathy Levin said. “If this makes it possible to move forward with the 52 — 46 — units of affordable housing, I think we’re in a position to need to approve it. But I am sorry that it has meant that it’s changed the design in a significant way.”
“The need outweighs the visual,” Commissioner Will Hirst said.
The commission then approved the changes unanimously.
With regard to the project’s construction timetable, City Attorney Kurt Christianson informed the commission that “there’s a potential amendment coming to City Council that would allow the applicant additional time. The original development agreement was completed in July 2021, so it’s been two years, and that was the original time period for construction. This will extend the period another nine months to allow them to start construction, if council approves that.”
