HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120320 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Comments 2
Minutes 3
Conflicts of Interest 3
Code Amendment— Downtown Zoning 3
The Code Amendment Process 6
1
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 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,
Bert Myrin, Keith Goode, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre and LJ Erspamer. Cliff
Weiss was not in attendance. Staff in attendance were: Jim True, City Attorney;
Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow, Community Development; and Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Jim True said that commission members are not excused but they are absent.
Bert Myrin said that when the P&Z suggests something to Council and they change
it was there some sort of system that would let P&Z know that we are handing off
the wrong things or what are we doing that is so off base. Bert said that he
supported the change in affordable work force housing. Bert said what is more
important is the process and the process changed. Bert said that he was looking for
a process that came back to P&Z to give a heads up not change things. LJ
Erspamer said that staff may repeat what was said at P&Z but the interpretation
might not be the same however LJ didn't know a system in the process other than
one of the P&Z members attending the Council meeting but he didn't want to over
burden the process. Jasmine Tygre said that she thought it was good but she didn't
have a solution for it but maybe we can come up with some suggestions on instant
feedback. Bert said the common link is com dev. Jessica Garrow asked if what
Bert was looking for was at the beginning of a meeting staff telling this is what is
happening with a certain project and where it was going. Bert replied just an
update of where we are at but not something that will take more staff time; just a
minute or two at the beginning of a meeting. Jessica said that she would bring it
up with staff and she will get back to P&Z. Stan Gibbs asked what was it that he
was trying to accomplish. Stan said that this is informative and you are trying to
make it so in the future we can temper our decisions on what Council is going to
want to do. Bert replied maybe not temper them or change them but we at least
would be aware of what is going on.
Jasmine said the building on the northeast corner of Cooper and Original seems to
have mushroomed; it was a 2 unit building with a row of Evergreens and it looks
gigantic and about 5 feet taller than any of the surrounding buildings. Jim True
said that submitted building permits and complied with zoning and those 4 units
and were not created recently; they have existed for a long time. Jasmine said if
this is what is allowed in RMF she would like P&Z to take another look at RMF
dimensions sooner rather than later.
2
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
than it does. Emzy said P&Z might want to do is look at what other City Councils
do outside of the system and see what their relationship is with their governing
body in that way. Emzy said to put flexibility into your zoning and you won't be
stagnant.
Minutes:
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of January 31s' seconded by
Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of February 7, 2012
seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
Public Hearing:
Code Amendment— Downtown Zoning •
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for the Downtown Zoning and asked for
notice. Jessica Garrow provided the notice.
Jessica said this was a public hearing for changes to the Commercial Core (CC)
and C-1 zone districts; there was a lot of discussion during the AACP regarding
mass and scale throughout town. Council had raised a lot of concerns with things
that they adopted in the AACP; Council wanted to look at lower heights and looks
at floor areas in free market residential. Jessica said that the code amendments in
front of you deal with floor area for free market uses as well as heights. Right now
those zone districts allow a 28 foot height limit for 2 story elements and employee
housing to look at the same. Staff is proposing a 4 foot decrease in the max height
for 3 story elements in CC and C-1 zone districts. In the CC zone it would go from
42 feet down to a maximum of 38 feet and in C-1 it would go from the current 40
feet to a max of 36 feet. Staff is still purposing to have a range of heights because
that is important in the commercial design standards. Jessica utilized a power
point zoning map of the CC and C-1. Jessica said the code amendment proposes to
incorporate minimum floor to floor heights into the zone district so the commercial
design standards talk about a minimum floor to floor height on the first floor of 13
to 15 feet so that would include all the mechanical in the ceiling. Chris Bendon
said the CC is from Main Street to Durant; the west side is Monarch and the east
side is Hunter. C-1 is the one block between Hunter and Spring, Concept 600
Building through Mezzaluna and just prior to the Aspen Square Building. Jessica
said they were proposing to go down to an 11 to 13 foot floor to floor in the C-1
Zone District and that is currently what is called for in the mixed zone district
3
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
within the commercial design. Staff is proposing a minimum 10 foot floor to floor
g p p g
on the upper floors with a 9 foot floor to ceiling. Since there were these 2
calculations staff thought that it makes sense to go to just a floor to floor
calculation.
Jessica said the other change with height was roof top mechanical equipment so
right now any elevators or stairs are required to be setback 15 feet; we are
requiring a 20 foot setback from any street facing facade for any roof top
mechanical equipment; solar, floor panels, duct work, fire exists, and elevator
overruns. That will help decrease the mass of buildings as you perceive it as a
pedestrian; that will help it to recede into the background.
Jessica said in terms of the floor area change is treated a little different in historic
and non-historic properties; right now in both zone districts you have a by right 25
to 1 for free market uses and you can go up to a .75 to 1 if you provide equal
amounts of affordable housing. Staff is proposing that historic buildings maintain
the existing by right 5 to 1 floor area with no ability to increase to .75. For non-
historic properties you would be able to do a .5 to 1 floor area for free market only
if you provide equal amounts of affordable housing; this is different than growth
management but it increases your affordable housing mitigation by more than 3
times.
Jessica stated that they held a focus group with some architects and planners to get
some of their feedback and were concerned about the lowering of heights to fit all
the systems in but it will become a challenge for them. Jessica said that they
suggested not including a floor to floor for upper floors and let the designers figure
that out and there were some concerns on the floor area changes because it
increases the amount of affordable housing that is going to go on parcels it might
push out office uses on that second floor so that is a trade-off that you have to
consider. Jessica stated that you could do a combination of on and off site
affordable housing. Chris said the space that is required between one level of the
floor and ceiling with pop ups on the ceiling.
Jessica distributed a color drawing of the heights downtown right now; there are a
lot of 2 story buildings on the malls with a lot of vegetation. Stan Gibbs asked if
the floors were sunken it really doesn't give you the perspective of a historic
building. Jessica replied that was addressed in the commercial design standards
and you are not allowed to do sunken buildings. Stan said you only see the first
floor of historic buildings with higher ceilings on the first floor and this was an
4
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes March 20, 2012
important feature that we want to maintain. Stan said that floor pitch was a lot
easier to specify; floor to floor.
Bert mentioned the 28 foot 2 story buildings and asked if anyone have built these
lately. Jessica replied not recently but we do see 2 story modules as part of some
of the buildings that come forward. Bert asked where the 10 foot floor to floor
came from. Jessica responded'that Council directed staff to look at heights and
floor area; it constrains what can happen in.a building and it created a conflict with
the commercial design standards. Bert said the overall reduction of height to
Council was lower. Chris said one of your goals to make a recommendation to
Council and that is your recommendation not based on where you predict Council
is going.
Jasmine asked on the roof top equipment if there is a limit on the amount of roof
top equipment that is allowed or the size of it; is there a limit on how big the
housing can be for an elevator. Chris replied there is a minimum of space needed
• R for the elevator. Jessica said the building department reviews the elevator.
Jasmine asked if we want the roof tops to be turned into recreational areas. Jessica
answered right now you are allowed to use your roof for mechanical equipment
and a roof deck but are required to have railings that have to meet the code in terms
of height; it has to have building code requirements. Chris said there were a lot of
considerations in the commercial design standards as, for the look and feel as well
as height.
Bert said on the roof top section of the memo on page 7 does that include the roof
top railings like around Sandy's at the edge of the building and even though it is a
clear railing they push stuff up against it and you can see it from so the clear railing
doesn't matter.
LJ Erspamer asked if this would change the value of a property. Chris said it
wasn't P&Z's job to review that. LJ asked if HPC weighed in on this. Jessica
replied that they worked with Sara. LJ asked if this applied to lodges. Jessica
answered this was just for the CC and C-1 Districts.
Stan asked if there were max floor heights, what if somebody wanted to build a 40
floor first floor. Jessica responded that it was covered in the commercial design
standards but we are clarifying in the 13 to 15 foot range 15 foot is a maximum.
Public Comments:
5
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
1. Emzy Veazy III, public, stated that he didn't hear anything about the ADA,
America Disability Act, this city is delinquent on this for ADA. Emzy said
there could be building down 2 stories and that would allow the architects
have more leeway.
LJ closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Bert said the resolution started on page 6 and he agreed with the maximum heights
on the ground floor. Stan said if there is the 10 foot limit and a 13 foot minimum
on the first floor that means that you can't build a 4 story building, which is a
change because right now with 9 feet you could get 4 stories with the 40 foot
height limit.. Jessica said the 9 foot is a floor to ceiling. LJ said maybe we should
do what the architectural group said and just define the bottom floor and let them
design the rest of the building to a maximum height of 38 feet. Chris said there is a
big difference between a 71/2 foot ceiling and a 9 foot ceiling. Stan said we are
trying to have some diversity in height. Jessica suggested taking their suggestion
eliminating this discussion on the upper floors and the minimum of 13 feet on the .
first story. The upper floors would have a minimum height limit of 9 feet floor to
ceiling.
Bert suggested a setback for railings at the height of the railing; move the railing 5
feet. Keith said why have a clear railing if you can't see through it. Jessica said
that right now the code requires a 50% transparency and it can be up to 42 inches.
MOTION: Bert Myrin mpved to approve Resolution #006, series of 2012
recommending City Council amend the height and free market residential FAR in
the CC and C-1 zone district with conditions. Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll
call vote: Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Jasmine Tygre,
yes; Bert Myrin, yes and LJErspamer. All in favor, APPROVED 6-0.
Public Hearing:
The Code Amendment Process
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for The Code Amendment Process. Chris
Bendon stated this is a code amendment to amend the way we do code
amendments and they way that it is done now is not working.
Chris said the detail language was that solved the problem that we never talked
about and struggle through that and there are recommendations from City Council
with very precise language, there is a recommendation from P&Z and it is in an
Ordinance format and that is when the public finds out at the first reading; the first
6
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
opportunity for the community to hear the concept and we are sitting there with
detailed language in front of everyone. Chris said instead of that we want to
reverse the whole thing; we want to have all those concept discussions as much as
we can with the public prior to initiating the code amendment; prior to getting into
the details. Chris said the question to council is do you want to pursue this code
amendment; it is less of a threat to the community. Chris said it includes some
things that staff does now that isn't codified; a private party can initiate a code
amendment but the Council needs to authorize that somehow; Council needs to
sponsor it. It maintains the authority for P&Z to initiate the Community
Development Director to initiate. Some things may not require a community input
phase; code clean up.
Stan Gibbs said from the perspective of P&Z they just change and don't review the
actual proposal for the code amendment. Chris replied that was the biggest change
that you are not involved as a Scribner but you are involved in providing policy
direction. Stan asked how other communities handle code amendments. Chris
responded that in some communities P&Z is not involved in code amendments
only Council. Stan said that Planning & Zoning was not about changing the rules
but enforcing the rules.
LJ asked if a citizen could bring it to petition and bring it to election. Chris said it
g p g ,
was in the Charter. LJ asked if this was a discretionary referral from Council.
Stan said if the last line was taken out of the memo on Exhibit B page 6; P&Z
voted that there would be a public process. Stan said that HPC should be included
with P&Z on the public process.
No public comments were stated.
LJ closed the public comments portion of the public hearing.
Jasmine said there was confusion in the steps outlined below and it should be steps
out lined in b.
Chris said the standards here address either amending the zone district map or they
have always been in the same chapter and have the same standards. Standards
either address a change in code or rezoning; we are separating the standards. -
When the city annexes properties the city has 90 days to final rezoning or leave it
unzoned.
7
Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes March 20, 2012
Jasmine said rezonings are being called amendment to the zone district map, which
is what it is but she wanted to call it zoning. Chris agreed.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #7, series 2012
recommending City Council amend the process in the land use code and amend the
official zone district map with all of the amendments discussed, seconded by
Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Bert Myrin,
yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
The commissioners thanked Chris for the presentation.
Adjourned at 6:55 pm.
J/kie Lothian, II eputy City Clerk
•
•
8