Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120117 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 17, 2012 Comments 2 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 South Aspen Street 2 AACP "gap Issues" Code Amendment 1 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 17, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin, Keith Goode, LJ Erspamer, and Cliff Weiss. Jasmine Tygre did not attend. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Chris Bendon, Jessica Garrow, City Community Development; Cindy Houben, County Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin asked again about the 2 empty affordable units at the Motherlode. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None stated. Minutes — Postponed until the next meeting on the 24` Public Hearing: South Aspen Street PUD LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on South Aspen Street PUD. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to continue the South Street PUD to January 24 seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor. Public Hearing: AACP "gap issue" Code Amendments LJ Erspamer opened the "gap issues" Code Amendments. Jessica Garrow said that staff was going to try and focus P &Z onto what are the gaps created by the fact that the AACP is now a guiding document. Jessica said when they looked at that the only issues brought up in relation to specifically the AACP were mass, scale and neighborhood compatibility. Jessica said in these code amendments you will see making sure that when we delete a reference to the AACP we will replace it with mass, scale and neighborhood compatibility. Jessica said there were 16 references to the AACP to be in the criteria; they have added in a new section called common development review procedures; it requires certain reviews for certain projects that they have done some public outreach besides noticing neighbors within 300 feet of the project. Jessica said the other item is from 2009 Planning & Zoning and HPC reviewed page 58 for call up and appeals to Council (Exhibit L). Jessica said that the ability 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 17, 2012 that P &Z, HPC and Council have right now are retained and we are not trying to increase powers just retain. Jessica said the first amendment was a neighborhood outreach they included on page 23; if it goes to City Council it is subject to this heightened review. Jessica said it also has a clause that says if a project is just going to HPC or P &Z and staff's review is that it might be during scope and would be subject to heightened review if there is something that goes to City Council that is very temporary use but that could be exempted. Jessica asked P &Z what threshold do you think is appropriate for those types of reviews. Stan Gibbs said he thought it leaves too much open to judgment of the community development director, no offence to Chris. Stan said the applicant should definitely make an outreach to the neighbors as a requirement for the applicant. Stan said that we should think about what we require. Chris said that the SPA, Commercial Design Review, major HPC review and things that may in our opinion represent a large development proposal or a change in the neighborhood. Jessica said they have 4 items and a catchall; the Information Meeting; On Line meeting; Enhanced Public Information, it might include a letter describing the project; Individual Outreach to individual neighbors and get feedback that way and any other form of outreach that an applicant can come up with. Stan said it was difficult for an applicant to know what their impacts are; is there any process that we can help an applicant take on the noticing. Chris asked if there was an expectation the applicant resolves all the issues before it comes to P &Z or before it goes to City Council; that is not our expectation and if the applicant meets with neighbors and changes the plan that is great. LJ Erspamer said that you are using the word "may" in all of this so you don't have to do any of this. Chris responded that if you are identified as one of the projects that had to do this then you would have to do it. LJ said that he was concerned with the On Line Meeting. Stan said instead of "should" he said they "must" conduct a form of noticing but it should be a specific type of noticing or a choice of noticing. Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director, asked if they were going to the Board of Adjustment as well with Land Use cases. Jessica replied the way this is applies to all boards. Stan said in Marcella's comments about the County Board of Adjustment being able to adjust heights doesn't apply to the City Board of Adjustment to vary heights. Chris said that when you get a variance from the Board of Adjustment it is to rectify a particular hardship of the property that if not varied would render or close enough that a court would say you have taken a property. Chris Bendon and Jim True excused themselves at 5:25. 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 17, 2012 Jessica said AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP this amendment is furthering some greater community benefit. Stan asked why your description just sort of highlighted the point that why do we mix these 2 issues in one section of the code; he said that he wouldn't be adverse to staff's splitting or make them explicit. Stan said that the references to the AACP should be directly referenced. Jessica said what you are talking about is a substantive change to the code; it implements all of the work the P &Zs have done. Jessica will go back to Jim and John and talk about that change. Jessica said VARIANCES on page 29 we are striking reference to the AACP and referencing the Municipal Code. Jessica said in variances as Chris talked about earlier they are really hardship variances. You really have to prove that it is a hardship and not just an inconvenience. Jessica said CONDITIONAL USES page 31was the next item and the commissioners agreed with the changes "and" to replace "or ". Jessica said that P &Z had a pretty board area with conditional uses. Jessica said (ESA) on page 34 you find the changes in C11 8040 GREENLINE; staff told the Open Space and Trails Board that they had to adopt something formally. Cliff said he felt the 8040 Greenline needed to go and have a total over haul and he wasn't sure that they should bother with it and would have been done in the whole valley. Jessica said there was not a perfect answer to these. Jessica asked do you want me to bring some specific language to Jim and John to review. Jessica said that maybe a regulatory plan could be included in the language. Stan said the plans that are adopted by City Council and Ordinance which is what makes the plans regulatory. Jessica said the (SPA) on page 37 was next and it was a review criteria going forward we used as a model for the amendments in PUD and Subdivision. Jessica said this was a well written review criteria; it gives a project review for mass, scale, neighborhood compatibility and calls out architecture character, open space, density, height, it is a all encompassing review. Cliff didn't understand why you wouldn't tighten the Stream Margin Review while you had the chance. Cliff said the code does not trap enough at all. Cliff said that he would like some substantive changes. Jessica said back to SPA going forward; they added in projects to emphasizing quality construction and design. Cliff asked what quality construction is; is it 4 S • ecial 0 Plannin ' & Zonin ' Meetin ' — Minutes Janua 17 2012 affordable housing or everything. Jessica replied it was everything to SPA. Cliff said that was wide open to interpretation. Bert wanted it to be on its own and tagged on as 5. Jessica said in PUD there were places that instead of AACP it was changed to adopted goals of the community. Stan said they were all over the place with language and why could we just say "adopted goals of the community ". Bert wanted to strike "or enhance" on Al page 40. Jessica noted on page 43 El. added the language emphasize quality construction and design. Jessica said Growth Management on page 46 almost never will you see something that is simply Growth Management; it is usually in conjunction with Subdivision or PUD or Commercial Design Review. Growth Management is about the uses, what is going on inside; it is not about what the building looks like. What the building looks like is taken care of through Subdivision, Commercial Design and PUD. Stan said compatible with the uses in the area and delete in #2 page 47 "ef enhance". Jessica said page 49 SUBDIVISION and they will get rid of Al. "enhance". The commission wanted taken out everywhere in the document. C Improvements on page 50. Bert wanted to retain the goals of the community at the end of Cl; the commissioners agreed. Jessica said they were deleting C2. Jessica said the last section was PARKING. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to January 31' seconded by Keith Goode; All in favor. Adjourned at 7:00 pm. 0 ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5