Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20121204 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes December 04, 2012 Comments 2 Minutes (11/20/12) 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Resolution regarding conflicts of interest 2 Continued - AVH Aspen Valley Hospital 5 601 E Hyman — Growth Management Review 13 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes December 04, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Ryan Walterscheid, Keith Goode, Bert Myrin Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Commissioner not present was Jim DeFrancia. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy City Community Development Director, Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin thanked everyone for the work session last week and will get something to the Commission before December 181h and we can finalize it then. Ryan Walterscheid asked if these were concerns and what were we asking Council to do. Bert answered that what we had worked on while we were there was a request to Council to work on things for us so we would know something affirmative. Ryan said he would prefer the authorization for us to work on the things rather than just a recommendation. Jennifer Phelan said the next meeting was December 18th and the 1St of January was a holiday so we would have a P&Z meeting on January 8th Minutes MOTION.- Stan Gibbs moved to approve the minutes from November 20`h with a change to page 13"Regardng HVAC' seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APPROVED. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Ryan Waltersheid mentioned before that he worked across the street from 601 E Hyman but had no conflict with this application. Public Hearing: Resolution regarding conflicts of interest LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on the Resolution of conflicts of interest. Debbie Quinn prepared a resolution in order to deal with issues such as the one that rose earlier this year when there was a request for the recusal of one of the members with a potential bias. So this resolution that is in the packet basically sets forth a provision and basically sets forth a procedure and recites the provisions of our home rule charter and our code that allows you as a board to adopt your own rules of procedure that would ideally have all these potential allegations of bias resolved prior to the actual hearing itself. Debbie said what it does is require that 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes December 04, 2012 any applicant who's matter is set for public hearing who believes that any member of this commission is biased and unable to render a fair and impartial decision on their application they should present that request for recusal to the City Attorney's Office prior to the public hearing date. Debbie said at that point the City Attorney would meet with the affected member and determine whether or not that person could render a fair and impartial decision and advise the applicant accordingly. Debbie said there will always be situations where it might come up at the last minute and she addressed that in the very last paragraph of the resolution but she thinks what was important is that our Municipal Code already talks about false acquisition proceedings and what it requires of you as volunteer board members under a fair and impartial decision and those are all referenced in paragraph 8 of this procedural resolution. Debbie said it was a good reminder for your duties and obligations to be fair to all and to members of the public. Stan Gibbs said if you get the none of the above case where 3 days before the hearing the applicant realizes or comes to a realization that they need to contact you, how do you see that resolving. Debbie responded if anybody who contacts our office before the hearing we would make our best effort to try to talk to the affected member and try to resolve it back to the hearing and let the applicant know before what the outcome is. Stan said on the last sentence of the resolution "The Chair may, but need not, request a motion and vote on any such action." Stan asked if you can square that with number 10 which seemed a little contradictory to him. Debbie replied this could be an action such as requesting a recess of proceedings if an issue comes up during the course of proceedings as we had to do with the last time it came up; it is an individual determination when allegations of impropriety, fairness, bias, excreta of an individual come up; you have to soul search and see if you can sit and listen and be impartial. Debbie said it is not something for this board to determine, that is why it needs to be resolved in advance however if it does come up at the hearing it is up to the chair to maintain the integrity of the proceedings and do what is necessary to make sure the public hearing doesn't get side tracked or out of control. Debbie said this is where the chair can take some action and he could request a motion for continuance or a motion for a short recess to calm down or whatever is necessary, not emotion to make a determination as to whether or not a conflict exists. Stan wondered if a little language in here could be added just to clarify because when he read it he thought wait a minute. Debbie said that was a really good comment. Stan said a motion in general could be anything, a procedural motion or a motion for exactly what you said a motion to continue or recess. Debbie replied a very good point on that and she was happy to do that. U asked where does that go Stan. Stan replied it was the last sentence of the resolution. U said instead of"request". Stan replied 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes December 04, 2012 request a motion to do something or continue the direction and anything that Debbie comes up with is fine. Cliff said in order to give them time before the actual public hearing, is there going to be something that the applicant receives that identifies P&Z commissioners so that they can determine in advance; how do we communicate this up front so it doesn't be a last minute thing. Debbie answered the intention of the resolution is that it is up to the applicant to contact the attorney's office if they believe that there is a conflict and the member needs to be rescused. Debbie said the attorney's office would then contact the member and have a discussion. Debbie said if they don't know until they see a face then we can't deal with it until that moment and that is why she put that language in there. U said that was he talked to Debbie about this morning. Bert Myrin said that it was important that it have direction about continuing the meeting to a future date so that future P&Z who were reading this understand what our conversation was. Debbie suggested the last sentence then is that "The chair may but need not request a motion to continue or recess the hearing". U asked about number 6 members recuse themselves when a conflict is apparent. Debbie responded those are the ones when you have your agenda and it says "declaration of conflicts of interest" that is when you self disclose and you do that at every meeting. Public Comments: Gideon Kaufman said to simply answer the concern that every applicant has to come in for a pre-application conference so why can't as part of the pre-application process be handing out the names of the P&Z members, then they get to look at them way in advance and avoid any last minutes situation. U asked if there was any thought on adding the P&Z members to the pre-application conference. Bert asked how much burden would that put on the applicant versus the staff. Ryan Walterscheid said the pre-application was dictated by staff and would be a response with the P&Z Members names on it. Debbie said her only thought on it was not burdening staff with more than what we need to do and we have WEB pages that already list who you are that it is up to the applicant to know who the commissioners are. MOTION.- Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 21-12 with the additions by Debbie Quinn to the last paragraph, seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; Jasmine 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 04, 2012 Tygre, yes; Ryan Walterscheid, yes; LJErspamer, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 7-0. Continued Public Hearing: AVH Aspen Valley Hospital LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Jennifer Phelan stated this is the third public hearing with regard to Aspen Valley Hospital and tonight we aren't in a place to be making decisions on the application; we have more information from the applicant's team that we will be going over tonight and looking at some future dates. Jennifer said that we are looking at a continuation date of January Stn for the next meeting on the hospital. Jennifer said tonight we are looking at Phases III and IV of the Master Facilities Plan for the hospital and the architect, Russ, will be going over some items and the new lighting consultant is here and Tom Dunlop is here to talk about the sound and the sound readings that he has taken. Jason Jaynes is here tonight to get back to P&Z on the connectivity issue that Stan and Cliff brought up at the last meeting with regard to how do pedestrians get to once they get off the bus easily make it to the hospital. Jennifer suggested in the best use of time the applicant should go first tonight so all of their team members can tell what they have done. Dave Ressler, CEO, said that we have some good information for you tonight and we don't have final determinations in everything we have but we do have some good information. Dave said they have learned some good lessons in regard to Phase I1 and our intent is to correct some of those ideas and we were really trying to achieve our energy efficiency and safety those were the 2 things in Phase I1 and maintaining the dark atmosphere. Russ Sedmak introduced Nancy Clanton of Clanton and Associates and a nationally renowned lighting design and lighting engineer. Nancy gave a background of her firm which she has had for over 30 years with experience and they are completely committed to quality lighting. Nancy said that she was a Fellow of Rocky Mountain Institute, Board of Directors of the Dark Sky Association and a Fellow of her Technical Association. Nancy wrote a model lighting ordinance that could be used for any community and delves into this new light source which is LED lighting which is presenting a challenge for a lot of communities and designers. Nancy said it was a learning curve on the spectrum of light that LED puts out and she is honored to be up here to access the situation and 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 04, 2012 provide some suggestions. Nancy said we can apply those lessons learned to the next Phase. Nancy gave examples of the projects that she has done in the Aspen area as in the Aspen Institute Conference Center that was definitely committed to sustainable lighting; the Viceroy in Snowmass Village and the Maroon Creek Bridge was a huge challenge to light without putting poles up so their suggestion was LED lighting that just lit the pavement. Nancy said Aspen was a very dark ambient situation so how do we light this situation and in the Model Lighting Ordinance I would almost put you at the bottom or lighting zone zero. Nancy said that moonlight was 100th of a foot candle and highways are lit from a half to a 1 foot candle. Nancy said there were some great opportunities in how we can work with that and she has noticed in a lot of light trespass issues if someone can see the light that is intrusive. So one thing they are looking into was not anyone see the light and to shield it from off property. Nancy said that LED lighting was a new design and they can do it because every single element you can put in a little cap that puts little micro shields on every element so there are things that can be done with it but it is way beyond what you are used to. Nancy said the warmer the color of light more like an incandescent the less glaring it is. Nancy said looking at options for Phase 1I was the retrofit; one option may be replacing some equipment. Whitcomb Terrace has a lot of pole lighting and that is an example of replacing some of the equipment. Nancy said is we could dim the light or go to a lower light. External shields are ugly and could put more wind loading on the poles and that would probably be the last thing to look at just a lot of added issues with external shields. Nancy said the plan hasn't been refined yet and we are not quite ready but there are a lot of opportunities. Nancy said the light in the garage so you can't see it out and the screens in the garage will help a lot. The top deck lighting is already turning off at night. The garage light dim down and when you walk past them they come up to what we call bi-level, so it goes down to 1/3 of the level. Nancy said for Phases III and IV get the light lower and more built in amenities; more step lighting. Nancy said she would like to make the lighting classy. U asked the commissioners if they wanted to ask questions on lighting and get that out of the way. Cliff said that Nancy talked about shielding and wind load especially on pole top and then you mentioned something that he actually has no thought of or was aware of was to individually shield these LED bulbs. Cliff said these LED light cast off a lot of glare so the pole top stuff on top of the garage is 6 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes December 04, 2012 the most offensive and is it an option to use shielding around a fixture and the LEDs, it is an aftermarket thing that can be done. Nancy replied yes; it is not even after market because they way these lights are designed is that you can take out the LED trays and replace them; they are not a light bulb that you screw in and this can rotate the trays and she wanted to add to the selecting. Cliff asked if it was cost effective. Nancy replied that it was because this manufacture has 12 different options of distribution and shielding and it is disbursed and if it works great. Cliff said he wasn't sure that the screening on the garage was a recommendation or if you had other thoughts at this point. Nancy said that was something that Russ could delve into because they were architectural screens. Russ said the shielding that Nancy was talking about is the image on the bottom of the power point that- demonstrate the effects of hanging shields in the structure which is a lot different than the trying to do it on the pole light. Russ said there were several fixtures that could not be shielded by architectural on the outside of the building because of openings in the garage that need to remain open and those are the lights that could benefit from these sorts of shields applied. Bert said the screening was relatively light colored and would a light or dark color screen comes through with what comes through on the outside. Nancy replied yes it does and that is something that she wanted to work with the architect team and would get samples and changing the color of light depending upon what the inside shield is. LJ asked if the pole lights were fixed or did you have to have them so high or could you have them lower and how do you deal with area lighting rather than direct lighting. LJ asked if this was the concept you were dealing with as far as height. Nancy said pole heights are restricted by 12 foot high poles in Aspen. LJ said page 89 part 500; outdoor lighting shall be 12 feet or less in height. Nancy replied basically a 12 foot pole is more of a pedestrian type pole and it is not optimum for a parking lot which would typically be 20-25 foot high. Nancy said that this was very common and this is what was accepted in some communities. LJ said it could be lowered. Nancy replied that it could be lowed and even put in bollards or lighting amenities. LJ asked Jennifer on page 88 reduce glaring and offensive light sources and this refers to only outdoor lighting. Jennifer asked what section he was talking about. LJ replied the section was 26.575.150 the intent and purpose of outdoor lighting can it refer to the spillover from indoor lighting. Jennifer said we have no code for indoor lighting and the hospital is going beyond what our requirements are with regard to lighting; discussing what their task is for some of the indoor lighting with the automatic shades and turning off some other interior lights. LJ asked about reflective lighting on the top of walls; are there any 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes December 04, 2012 lights that shine on a wall, in other words if you go to the circle you can look up and see; is there any plan to avoid reflecting that light off the wall which creates a more brightness at the upper level of the parking lot. U asked how do you avoid reflecting light off the wall that creates a bigger mass and scale of the building. Nancy responded anytime you have a light next to a building it's going to reflect off the wall from the power point she showed where they could dim that light with a warmer color and this was a common technique to light surfaces. Russ said this was an important area because this was where people walk up to enter the building so there needs to be adequate lighting for pedestrians. Stan said it was a public entrance to a building so does there have to be a certain number of lumens. Nancy replied there were no standards but there were recommendations unless the town says you have meet the illuminating engineering society light levels and those light levels are now being changed depending on what lighting zone that you are in and what you are adapted to. Cliff said this is a smaller lobby entrance than the kind of lamps that are shown here but in Phase III/IV the new lobby has a larger wall of glass and maybe you can help us with films that you can put on glass that allows light in but blocks light from coming out as much as 50%; is that reasonable or tasteful for the hospital. Nancy replied that it was not real tasteful; she thought they could use lighting design and light it lower and let the daylight come through during the day if that is going to benefit patients and staff and celebrate that and at night treat it like an outdoor area with more step lighting so you don't need to fill the volume of light. Russ said in that final phase it tends to be a much more indoor/outdoor. Cliff said it is not too late to make the modifications that Nancy recommends or possibly use. Russ said there will not be any hanging pendants in that space. U asked if you didn't have all that glass and you brought the side of the building down further would you have less light spill over on the outside; in other words take away that top half of that glass. Nancy responded that light doesn't bend so if we lit everything lower like at a lower level and went down that upper glass could go really dark; there were so many benefits for the daytime daylight that she wouldn't want to change the architecture to get less glazing; let's just get the lighting design so we don't get that upper glass to glow. U asked how much solar gains are you going to have if you plant those pines trees in front of those glass windows. Nancy replied even diffused light, the direct light is not a good thing and if the pine trees diffuse the light and the sky gives off a lot of light. U asked if there was a glass that you make that could diffuse or refract this light. Nancy said there was a film that is designed mostly to direct sunlight and directing it back up to the ceiling so it would almost do the opposite but diffusing even glows more and clear glass has a potential to go dark. Nancy said a film could be a reflector with sunlight hitting it 8 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes December 04, 2012 and be a glare source during the day and she said she was a proponent of clear glass. Russ commented that Tom Dunlop has been with us as an engineer designer since 2006 and the conceptual review in 2007, we committed to basically making any noise levels current or below the hospital's levels in 2007. Russ said that we committed doing a study at the completion date of Phase II and relation to this P&Z review we thought it appropriate for Tom to do an interim analysis now to demonstrate what the sound levels are coming from the hospital and at the property line today versus where they were in 2007 and upon completion of phase II we will do that analysis again. Tom Dunlop introduced himself and gave his background in Environmental Health since 1970 in Colorado and 1976 he was hired by the City of Aspen to start the Joint City/County Environmental Health Department. Tom said in that role he wrote the first Noise Ordinance for the City of Aspen and that came about when snowmaking was being proposed for Aspen Mountain. Since that time there have been iterations of that Ordinance and with Howard McGregor who is the president Engineering Dynamics based in Englewood Colorado. Tom said that noise was based on a log erythematic scale so it measured that way based on the way people hear. Tom provided a chart on Page 38 of the packet regarding sound noise levels; he said that his conversation with you at this volume of my voice was about 55-60 decibels. Tom said if you have a 10 decibel change it is perceived as being either twice as loud or twice as soft. The process we used was to identify ambient sound and ambient noise levels within a 360 degree around Aspen Valley Hospital and the neighborhood. Tom said keep in mind the definition of ambient noise is composition of sounds from various sources that are very common to a specific area so ambient noise moves with the area that you are considering. Tom said in 2007 part of the study we did included a helicopter study which occurs about 50-60 times a year for patient transport and was not done for the 2012 because we have good information from 2007 and the location of the helipad is only 15 feet higher than the location from 2007. Tom said they flew St. Mary's largest helicopter in for the study in 2007 and had to cover 50 or so feet above the current landing zone and got 4 aspects which simulated where the new landing zone will be in Phases III and IV. When we first start hearing the helicopter it is coming past the airport from Grand Junction so it takes a minute or 2-3 minutes depending on weather to get from the airport to the hospital and the last 5 to 10 seconds at the loudest when landing because the rotors have to be adjusted for a soft landing. Tom said that transient sounds that go past you are perceived much 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes December 04, 2012 louder because they are going past you; stationary sound has a lower standard applied. Tom said the City Municipal and County Ordinances do not cover aircraft; that is regulated by the FAA. Tom said there were 9 sites depicted for noise study sites on the second page from the pack of his report (page 37) but the hospital is a black spot in the middle that looks like baseball diamond; so there were 14 different locations around the hospital for the noise monitoring network and the 9 we picked up for this 2012 study were part of the 2007 study also; 2 of the site were requested by the neighborhood on Heather Lane, the Meadowood Subdivision is in the county and the other land surrounding the hospital is in the city. Tom said looking at the noise Ordinances for both the city and county the most restrictive standard is 50 decibels keeping in mind my conversation is 55-60. So the night time levels are 50 decibels and generally it goes from lam to 7pm, most of the night time should not exceed 50 decibels. The measure data shows the noise environment around the hospital is not pristine but it is typical in a mixed land use; we have the hospital, school campus, a church, a major traffic intersection, southerly approach to the airport, a water treatment plant, an office building in the form of human services and the Senior Center. Tom said the studies from 2007 and 2012 are almost identical on ambient levels; each of the 14 receptor sites registered noise levels below the most conservative standard of 50. On page 34 of the memo Tom provided the 14 different sites and ranged from 29 which was over by the High School on Glen Eagle Drive to 49 which was the closest spot of the hospital property line, site 12. Tom said that the conclusion was that between 2007 and 2012 has not resulted in excessive noise. Tom said that a noise barrier has been constructed around the chiller unit and in one neighborhood the noise level was reduced to 41. Cliff said looking at the average decibel levels were ever above 50 or was it always at 50. Tom responded there are times when it is higher and times when it is lower. Cliff said some machinery because of its nature of operating it puts out more noise; personally he lives next to a house that has radon exhaust on the roof and he can hear that. Tom said that low frequency sound register doesn't register as high frequency sound does; the humming noise that you are hearing is like an air conditioner sound. Stan asked if there was a weighted scale so is "8" physically a low frequency or a high frequency. Tom responded the low frequency is measured specifically in community noise enforcement standards. 10 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes December 04, 2012 Russ said that 4 circles in a row that are depicting trees and there is a red line that is in front of those from the bus stop from right to left and that is a sidewalk that has yet to be constructed and that is part of the connection that will be completed from Phase II in spring. LJ asked if the subject Jasmine was waiting for would be covered in the next meeting. Jennifer said that we might want to wait until the next meeting to address PUD criteria. Public Comments: 1. Graeme Means said that he was a neighbor of the hospital and was concerned about the noise and the light from the hospital and was encouraged by what he heard tonight. On the other hand he feels-that this should have been the level of approach from the beginning. Gram said there were sound issues long before this construction started; last night at the neighborhood meeting the hospital tried to satisfy the neighbors. Gram said he thinks these things can be mitigated making it a better place for the hospital and neighborhood. 2. Peggy Carlson is a neighbor from Meadowood and she wanted to address the mechanical box on the top of the building and that box is very high and we talked about screening it. Peggy said from last night's meeting they heard that there is going to be an exact replica of that mechanical from Phase II and voiced concern for it to be mitigated and hopefully this can be addressed. 3. Nancy Kole stated that she lived at the top of Meadowood on Larkspur and she can see the mechanical box and the hospital footprint from her home. Nancy said to get another box we learned last night is 49 feet and 8 inches long and if it 13 or 18 feet wide and 12 feet 6 inches high is like another story on top of the hospital. Nancy asked to bring in a professional to talk about that problem. 4. Dr. Bill Rodman wanted to thank you for the great improvement that it has made so far; privacy is of importance. Dr. Bill Rodman said in the next Phase they would be doing the same for the emergency room; right now it is that patients are on top of each other and the new privacy aspects are greatly needed. 5. Cindy Johnson said that she was a lab tech at the hospital and their laboratory was going to be in Phase IV now and they are having a terrible time keeping private the patients that come in the office in the out-patient area with only 4 chairs. Cindy said they we mandated by law to follow that 11 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 04, 2012 we have patients safe and we need to increase our testing it was more and more important that we have privacy. LJ closed the public comments portion of the public hearing. Cliff said that we are not voting tonight he assumes that there is another meeting. Jennifer replied the expectation is to continue this until January 8th. Cliff said that Russ made a presentation at the last meeting and he found it difficult to discern anything from that so will that be addressed at the next meeting on the 8th. Jennifer asked if he wanted more clarity around the mechanical. Cliff asked for him to make a decision. Leslie Lamont stated that they submitted a cover memo that had about 4 views at build-out. LJ said it was the current landscape. Cliff said the applicant is presenting a good deal of information about mechanical roof top units and the code is not applicable. Jennifer responded that you are using the PUD criteria as the basis in general for approving Phases III and IV. Jennifer said at the next meeting she will be talking about the mass and scale, how the conceptual relates to what has been approved now but as a Planned Unit Development you are site specific approval based on those criteria. Cliff said he was having trouble with stairwells and elevators and how there are other technologies out there and it is 10 feet high and this is what we need and code allows it and He always feels it is an eyesore. LJ said in the PUD the mechanical heights are not limited but it is a special project so we have no criteria to judge and limit it. LJ said to Russ you have a drive shaft with vertical fans that must gear and pinion that you have are there any other mechanicals that you can put more horizontal than vertical. Russ said the exhibits in your packets that illustrate the design of the air handling equipment represent the largest of the units that is being planned for Phase III which is similar to all of the units that we have on the roof. Russ said those are a low profile horizontal unit, which means the air is brought in on the side and blown horizontally through the various chambers that temper the air, filter the air, mixes with return air that comes from the building which comes from below and is as flat as it can be for the volume of air that it needs to push through it. Russ said you could theoretically make units smaller by adding many more of them on the roof or placed wherever you can place them which is terribly inefficient from the cost and energy and maintenance standpoint. Russ said we are putting in the most energy efficient, long lasting, quiet machinery that we have. LJ said at the last meeting it was 11'6" and now somebody brought up that it was 12'6" above the roof. Russ said that was a unit that on the Phase 11 project which is under construction right now. Russ said the largest if the units in Phase III are in the basement; don't have a basement in Phase II that allows mechanical air handling units to be placed in it. 12 Reiular City Planning & Zonin2 Meeting — Minutes December 04, 2012 Cliff said that was helpful what Russ said. Jennifer said that we can bring back a clear roof plan for Phases III and IV at the next meeting. LJ said that we need to memorialize these lighting conditions in the resolution. Jasmine asked if there was a proposed date for the retrofitting that you described; is it proposed at a particular time so we can see if it works. Nancy replied not yet mostly because we were just brought in last week and asked if we could get back to you on a date. Bert echoed what Nancy said that it was the best meeting that he has been to and read the minutes from the last meeting and Russ nailed it with the areas of Whitcomb Terrace, the top of the parking structure and the loop road. Bert said he would be interested in darker screens and more step lighting rather than pole lighting. Keith said the more structures that come in front of us with more glass the more issues we will have with lighting. Ryan said he appreciated your expertise and it is nice to see that at this level. To speak to Keith's point the building code in town requires that you meet the energy code and that we are going to show in our lighting and may not be from the lighting code but from the building side of it. Ryan said that he was glad that the hospital is over and above of what we get from other applicants. Bert said the sound that meets the code and the sound that is no worse than it was and would like to strive to be good neighbors with the sound. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved for the Hospital Hearing be continued to January 8`h; seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED. Public Hearing: 601 East Hyman — Growth Management LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for Growth Management for 601 E Hyman. Sara Nadolny said the public notices were Exhibit E. Debbie Quinn asked Mr. Clauson if the notice has been posted. Stan Clauson stated that they were. Sara stated this public hearing was regarding the redevelopment plans for 601 East Hyman that involves the demolition and replacement of the current 2 story building with a 3 story mixed use building. Sara said that this particular hearing 13 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes December 04, 2012 will cover the Growth Management and Subdivision and has received approval for Conceptual Commercial Design Review. P&Z is the final decision making body for the Growth Management Reviews and City Council is the final decision making body for the subdivision review but require a recommendation from the P&Z Commissioners. Sara said there were 3 Growth Management Review involved with this application; the first is the addition of 2,056 square feet of Commercial Net leasable space and translate to 2,056 Growth Management allotments as they are available through the 2012 Growth Management Review with the City. The second review deals with the 1,835 free market net livable space that will translate to 1 Growth Management allotment which staff also agrees with. The third Growth Management Review deals with affordable housing; the development within a mixed use space requires Affordable Housing Mitigation at 60% of the employees that are generated by this new commercial space. Basement and upper floor are commercial space is a 25% reduction of the number of employees generated per square feet of new net leasable space. The amount of full time equivalents that must be mitigated calculates to 3.41 FTEs just for the commercial. Sara said the net livable space in a mixed use development requires mitigation at the rate of 30% of the net livable area calculated out 540 square feet of Affordable Housing space that will need to be provided for with this net livable plan; we have calculated that into 1.38 FTEs. No onsite mitigation is being proposed with this plan so the code say the applicant must provide the full mitigation for both the new net leasable and livable, which is a total of 4.79 FTEs total. Sara said the applicant has proposed to provide mitigation of a certificate of affordable housing credit and this mitigation is supported by the City's Housing Authority as well as Community Development staff. Sara said the project has to undergo subdivision review as well because that 3rd story residential unit will have to go separately in trust from the commercial development. Staff finds the subdivision will be compatible with this development and the C-1 zone district and doesn't adversely affect the future development of the surrounding,area and suitable use for the land and overall this part of the application is found to be compliant with subdivision review criteria. Staff recommends a favorable recommendation to City Council. Cliff wanted to understand the certificate. Jennifer replied the certificate is in FTEs, a certificate can be any amount and depends on how much affordable housing was developed that would grant under that certificate. Bert said you went over page 3 and he asked what P&Z is here to decide; he said it looks like a math problem. Jennifer responded that it was essentially a math 14 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 04, 2012 problem and what you are verifying with the Growth Management Review is that the form of mitigation that is being proposed is acceptable. Bert said the certificate seems to be a choice among several an applicant can select from and it is not up to us to tell the applicant what you can and can't choose. Jennifer said the certificate is a form of mitigation that you can accept. Stan Gibbs asked where the extinguishing of the certificate actually get in book and what parts of the whole development process are held up until that happens so that we actually know they have carried forward with. Jennifer replied that they actually haven't extinguished one and we would want to see it at building permit issuance. U asked if there were certificates available on the market today. Jennifer answered there are certificates on the market. U asked if there was cash in lieu for parking; how does the government use this money. Jennifer replied that it was provided to the transportation department and used for capital projects that they have. Debbie Quinn said such as improving the Rio Grande Garage and that kind of thing. U asked if there will be a TDM involved in this. Sara said the TDM and park fees will be part of this. U said APCHA was asking the APCHA board to make a decision on the certificates after we make a decision. Sara stated that she met with Cindy from APCHA and she wrote a recommendation for this process. U said aren't we putting the cart before the horse. Stan Clauson representative for the applicant provided history on the project; P&Z provided conceptual approval on July 30th and GMQS application was submitted on the 10th of August; there was a Council call up largely to define the amount of open space which was subsequently increased and then P&Z granted conceptual commercial design review addressing the open space question on the 16th of November. Stan Clauson said the total floor area for the building is 8,957 square feet in the C-1 zone district and would allow 11,250 square foot building and no variances are requested for this project. Stan Clauson utilized power point to show the building pulled back on the first level, widening the sidewalk on Hyman Avenue and this all covered under the planning and zoning commission and we will be coming back for final detailed design review and at that point there may be changes to the fenestration of the building. Cliff asked if they were selling commercial space; are you condominizing. Stan Clauson said there would be a condominium plan prepared but he couldn't speak to the exact nature of that plan; it would be recorded at final plat. Jennifer stated that 15 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes December 04, 2012 there is a definition of subdivision; the way the ownership is set up now triggers subdivision. Jasmine asked for clarification of the affordable housing; are they categories. Jennifer replied that they are category 4 or lower which the applicant can use for this project. Jasmine said the approval calls for them to mitigate at a category 4 level or lower. LJ said if they mitigate on site it is 1.38 and if they mitigate off site it is 4.79; is that correct. Jennifer said in the code right now you have to mitigate for the total. No public comments. LJ said he was reluctant to make a decision on something that APCHA hasn't decided on but if put in a condition that it has to be approved by APCHA before we approve it. Jennifer said this is a legitimate form of mitigation that you can approve and that you already have a representative of APCHA saying they would like to see that form of mitigation. Ryan stated that if it is a way of mitigation that meets the code he doesn't see a way to hold it up. Stan Gibbs said it would be valid to put a condition of approval just to say if for some reason APCHA decides it is not appropriate then it has to come back to P&Z for re-review. LJ said he liked that and the other was a Transportation Development Management Plan; what are we going to see what another department is going to do in that TDM. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 22, 2012 granting GMQS allotments and recommending Subdivision for expansion of new free market residential and new net leasable commercial space with the following modifications would add this approval shall be contingent on the recommendation from the APCHA board that mitigation shall occur via certificates of affordable housing credits and in Section 1 add these certificates of affordable housing credit shall be extinguished by the City prior to issuance of a building permit for 601 E Hyman; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call: Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; LJErspamer, no. APPROVED 6-1. 16 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes December 04, 2012 U voted no because he did not want to be dependent upon another Board's vote (APCHA Board) after P&Z's vote. Adjourned at 6:55 pm. AO�JL I Ado�". J �kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 17