Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Sunrise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press for exterior, HVAC and elevation fixes; council tables Sunrise facility zoning change to July 8
Summary
The council paused a proposed zoning amendment for a modular classroom at Sunrise Residential Treatment Facility after neighbors and planning commissioners asked for improved exterior materials, reduced visibility, HVAC relocation and buffering; council asked the applicant to return July 8 with mitigation and cost details.
The council heard staff and applicant presentations and public comment on Z‑26‑12, a request to revise the planned unit development (PUDR) and place a modular classroom/administrative building at Sunrise Residential Treatment Facility.
Community Development Director Elden Gibb told the council the planning commission unanimously recommended approval with a condition that the proposed exterior materials be upgraded to match the existing campus buildings (which have a stucco/"stuckle" finish). The applicant’s representative, Dan Cox, said the units are modular classroom structures repurposed from a school district and that the building would provide nine rooms — six classrooms plus support and administrative space — and that the units would be permanently installed on foundations that meet building code.
Nearby residents (Elden and Debbie Copia, who live adjacent to the proposed pad) voiced concerns about the building’s height, the pad elevation (the proposed pad sits roughly four to five feet above their rear yard), the side‑mounted HVAC condensers (noise concerns) and the proposed metal‑panel exterior. One resident said, “It is definitely our backyard,” and requested screening, different exterior materials and a lower pad if feasible.
Council members and staff discussed options the applicant might pursue, including stucco‑type panels to match existing buildings, narrow buffering trees (Italian cypress-style) along the property line, relocating or consolidating HVAC condensers at ground level or the roof, and reviewing whether lowering the pad is technically and financially feasible. The council expressed sympathy for both the applicant’s operational needs (on‑site schooling for residents) and adjacent residents’ privacy and noise concerns.
Given outstanding technical questions and potential cost implications, the council voted to table Z‑26‑12 until the July 8 meeting and asked the applicant to return with concrete mitigation options and estimated costs for exterior upgrades, HVAC relocation or alternatives, additional landscaping and any changes to pad elevation.
