At its July 18 meeting, the Sedona Planning and Zoning Commission approved an increase in maximum building height and roof design changes for the Sunset Loft employee housing project.

Neighbors of the proposed project voiced their objections.

Urban planning manager Kari Meyer told the commission, “When the building permit was issued and we were reviewing it, the roof line changed from the sloping roof seen during the development review process. I noticed,” he told the commission. “The staff can make some minor changes as the project goes through the building permit process, but we felt the roof line change was significant enough that we sent it to the customer for review. I would like to submit.”

“They were looking at the project and trying to find ways to reduce the cost of the building, and one area they felt was that changing the roof line could have a big impact in a positive way. “About the cost of the project,” Meyer further explained.

The developer’s letter of intent for a design change proposes increasing the height of the building’s walls by 5 feet, which increases the maximum height from 22 feet to 27 feet above the natural formation. As the height increases, the style of the project changes from a pitched roof to a flat roof with a parapet, changing from a chalet-like look to a more boxy modernist aesthetic with the addition of stucco and steel.

“If you’re making a pitched roof in an urban area, you’re going to have a slightly higher ridge to account for the change in roof line,” Meyer told the committee, noting that Sunset Loft’s original plan was , which indicated that the gable of the pitched roof rises to height. Some places are about 32 feet above the ground. In the revised plan, the balustrade walls end at a height of 8 meters above the ground, and only the roof-mounted mechanical units exceed that limit. City ordinances allow an additional 8 feet for roof-mounted equipment.

“When we reviewed the height, I think it was probably two to three feet that would have been needed to go beyond the standard height,” Meyer said.

Another purpose of the design change was to relocate the equipment to the roof of the building for easier installation. Developer M. Keith Holben pointed out that the original plan was to install several condensing devices between the buildings. “It’s our only really active open space out there, and our analysis shows that for an area we want residents to enjoy, the noise level with this many condensing units is appreciable. So that was one of the reasons why we wanted to move the residents there “attached to the roof,” Holben said.

“This was done to keep costs down,” said Charlotte Hosseini, vice chairman. “Are there any other [variations]Is it just for curiosity and made for cost efficiency? ”

“Maybe there will be changes to the plant list,” Meyer replied. “As for the building itself, there are no other changes.”

In a written statement submitted to the commission, neighbor David O’Donnell noted that the cost-cutting argument for the change did not fit.

“I should point out that each unit has 9-foot ceilings on both floors,” O’Donnell wrote. “My ceiling is 9 feet, but it’s not a standard length for lumber so it cost me 18% more…and considering it’s affordable, why would a renter pay 1 sq. Do we need to heat and air an additional 3 cubic feet per foot?” What about their living space? ”

“All I know is that everyone is very concerned about the sheer scale of this project, and the city only wants to further infuriate local homeowners with such a decision.” It feels like,” O’Donnell added.

The city’s current financial contribution to the Sunset Lofts project is $4.2 million, and the developer is seeking an additional $8.4 million in financing from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. At the city council’s recent budget work session, housing manager Shannon Boone noted that rising building costs may require the city to increase contributions by another $2 million, and if that happens, said the total project cost would be $14.6 million, with a per-unit cost of $14.6 million. Over $317,000.

Rick Cohen of Sunset Village, across from the lot on Sunset Drive, submitted a petition to the commission signed by 28 fellow residents opposing the proposed changes.

“It was supposed to be a very nice looking building, but it looks very flattened and lacks aesthetic appeal,” Cohen says. “It feels like we are starting almost from scratch. .”

“While we disagree with Cohen on the aesthetics of the transition from pitched to flat roofs, we also understand that it is a matter of cost,” said Kathy Levin. “If this allows us to proceed with the construction of 52, 46 affordable housing units, I think we are in a position to have to approve it. I regret that I had to change.”

“The need outweighs the visuals,” said Commissioner Will Hurst.

The committee then unanimously approved the change.

Regarding the project’s construction schedule, city attorney Kurt Christianson told the commission, “An amendment may be submitted to the city council that will give applicants additional time. The initial development contract is due in July 2021. It was completed in May, so two years have passed, which was the original construction period, which, if approved by the city council, will extend the period to start construction by another nine months. “