Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20130108 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes January 08, 2013 Comments 2 Minutes (12/18/12) 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 114 Maple Ln — Residential Design Standards Variance 2 Aspen Valley Hospital, Phases III and IV PUD 8 Election of Chair and Vice Chair 15 1 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 LJ Erspamer opened the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for January 08, 2013 in City Council Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Keith Goode, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Ryan Walterscheid arrived at 4:55. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy City Community Development Director, Claude Salter, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin said that he and LJ attended the City Council Meeting with the memo yesterday and all were present except Steve Skadron. Bert said the feedback that they received was that Mick suggested a work session joint with all of us to prioritize what was on our list and one of the Councilmen thanked us for working on this new process. Bert thanked staff for the December update on all the things he asked for a year ago; does that get shared with Council. Jennifer replied that Council did receive a copy. Bert said the future agenda calendar looked light and he hoped in the future they could get going on code. Bert asked how things were going with applicants submitting applications electronically rather than on paper. Jennifer responded they were still working on Council tweaks and they are still paper and electronic. LJ asked what was the Traffic analysis update plan. Jennifer said that Jessica was looking at getting more information on what type of traffic impact was based on what development. LJ said he heard that there was a study being done but he didn't know what instructions they had been given. Jennifer said that she would ask Jessica to give you a quick summary. Minutes MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes from December 18`h seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest None stated. LJ said that he walked by 114 Maple and it was probably about 350 feet from his house but he did not receive a notice so he didn't have to recuse himself. Public Hearing: 114 Maple Ln — Residential Design Standards Variance 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes January 08, 2013 LJ Erspamer,opened the public hearing for 114 Maple Lane. LJ asked if there was notice provided. Debbie Quinn received the affidavits of notice and just received the mailing lists. Debbie asked if the posted notice had been in place since it was first posted. Monty Earl replied that it was. Debbie stated the affidavits of notice will be marked as Exhibit D to the staff report. Claude Salter stated that she was a zoning officer with the City and was here today with the applicant, Monty Earl, the owner of 114 Maple Lane. Claude said Monty was requesting a variance from the Residential Design Standard known as Building Element for their property. This design standard is achieved when 3 components are present and those elements were a front entry door, a front entry porch and a street facing window or windows. All the residences in the city are required to meet these residential design standards or retain a variance. Claude said that Mr. Earl submitted building permit documents which did not meet the standards and staff worked with him to meet those standards in order to get that building permit issued. It was issued and he built a site foundation and put a modular onto that foundation and you will see in figure 1 on page 3 how it looks now and the applicant would like to apply for a variance to his plan set; figure 2 on page 3 was the plan set that was approved. Claude said this home is located in Smuggler Park and there is a mixture of structures and many were placed there prior to the adoption of the Residential Design Standards. Claude said the review standards for granting a variance are as follows: there are 2 review standards that the applicant is required to meet: "a." is to provide a pattern of development considering the context of development that is proposed and the purpose of that standard. The purpose of that particular standard is in evaluating the context in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or "b." clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff supports the denial of this variance. Claude said the applicant has demonstrated that it is clearly possible to meet the standard and in fact their plans came in and that's how they got the building permit in the first place. Claude said the condition that they are proposing on page 3 figure 1 is clearly not adding to the streetscape in any way and not promoting any cohesive neighborhood character, it is not promoting the walk ability, it is not maintaining the standards. Cliff Weiss asked if this has an HOA and have you heard anything from them. Claude replied that they have not responded. 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes January 08, 2013 Stan Gibbs asked if the development has already been done according to the building permit except for the entryway and the windows. Claude responded that it has a conditional certificate of occupancy and it is pending the outcome of this meeting. Bert Myrin said on page 11 of the memo the applicant has a letter to us mentioning the project on Cottonwood; are you familiar with what they were referencing; is that picture included in the memo. Jennifer stated that the applicant didn't submit any photos. Monty Earl thanked Claude for helping get through the process. Monty said the neighborhood was fairly inconsistent and the standards have been out for quite awhile and he displayed some photos of the neighborhood showing houses where the standards have not been met. Monty said the house was supposed to be perpendicular but it didn't work on the lot and they have a zero setback at that side of the street and in other parts of town they probably have a different setback. The Park has their own rules that they passed as it is now and perhaps the zoning laws weren't designed for the Park and have had to pick and chose things that they wanted to make fit when some of them obviously can't fit. The property lines are not parallel to the street. Monty said they set their house back from the street because we saw a lot of houses had cars cluttered and that doesn't add to the streetscape. If they add the porch then they will be pushing their cars out into the street too and it has been inconsistently adding to the neighborhood. Keith Goode said the permit was issued on May 22nd and was issued without the compliance, no. Jennifer stated that the permit that was submitted and reviewed with the Residential Design Standards and Claude worked with the applicant to come up with a solution to meet the standards so that she could issue the permit. Claude said the issued permit was on page 3 of your memo figure 2. Keith asked Monty if he didn't want to do this. Monty replied that they will if they have to but they basically have a bedroom, a bathroom and a closet at that end and it would not be a very functional. Jim DeFrancia asked if they were concerned about the streetscape couldn't they just put a door up there on the wall like a piece of art. Claude said there are 3 elements to it and one is the door, the windows and the porch or canopy. Claude said that if you proposed a canopy and it met the standards then you would need windows. Jim asked if he could put up a wooden door, a false window and a canopy; would that address the streetscape. 4 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 Bert asked if it would have to be an operating door. Jennifer replied that it just says a door; it doesn't say it has to be an operating door. Bert asked on figure 1, page 3 if they parked there. Monty replied they parked there. LJ asked if they were going to build a garage there. Monty replied that he can't promise you but we planned on it in the future. Cliff said if you put a garage there you could still be an entrance through the garage. Cliff said that he thought fire code required at least 2 egresses. Claude responded that there was egress and every bedroom has a window and it meets code. Stan asked on page 15 which is the subject lot. Claude answered it was about midway on Maple Lane. Stan said it was thought to be resolved before building permit; if the applicant had not been able to resolve it and they still wanted the variance they still would have come to us and we would have seen the application. Jennifer replied yes. Public Comments: 1. Patty Simpson stated that she lived at Smuggler, 116 Maple Lane, so she was a direct neighbor to Earls and been on the Board and she brought a plat so everyone understands the configuration of these lots. Patty said they were longer than wider so you can only put your house into a slot with 10 feet on the side. When Smuggler was first there the front part which is now common ground used to be part of Neale Street and the homeowners used to enter from the front of the house where we have our big windows and porches and our main entryways so the houses that are original had to put some kind of door either on the side or along the street side on that north side of Maple Lane where there is no sun past 9:30 or 10 in the morning. There is no place for a deck. The plat was an Exhibit. Patty said that she was in favor of the variance. 2. Solvieg Warming said she lived at 120 Maple and Patty said a lot of what she wanted to say. Solvieg said she had another issue besides the cold and you are looking at a parking lot if you have a porch on the street side. Solvieg said that she wished that someone from the architectural committee would say that no one has built to the new standards when they did whatever about no side entrance or anything like that. LJ closed the public comments portion of the hearing. 5 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 Commissioner Comments: Jim said he appreciates that we have Residential Design Standards and you have to start somewhere for compliance in that neighborhood but it is an issue of aesthetics, design and streetscape. Jim said it wasn't an issue of code compliance in the sense of excess so he would defer to the staff recommendation to deny the variance but encourage the applicant to buy a door and bolt it up to the wall and he can tell you where to get windows and put up a little shed and there you go. Jasmine said that we come up against this often that the residential design standards don't necessarily seem to apply to particular neighborhoods and it doesn't matter if it is Mountain Valley or Smuggler or anything that is not in the traditional West End grid style. That is what the original design standards were based upon, even though they have been revised. Jasmine said that Smuggler Park in particular there are very small lots which are very constrained in terms of access; in order for people to get the maximum living space on a small lot and still fulfill the setback guidelines. Jasmine said here we have this small house and the people are trying to make the best out of their living space and something that is not going to ruin the neighborhood and she would find both "a" and "b" are met in this situation and would be inclined to grant the variance. Jim said well said. Bert said he agreed with the applicant that there were inconsistencies in the application of the code and granting a variance continues that inconsistency and makes it more difficult for the next person to say what the standard is. If the standard is clear in the code and staff is supported in reading the code then applicant will slowly move toward meeting the code. Bert said the code is the neighborhood impact so he would support staff. Cliff said he hesitated to support this and wanted to hear from the HOA. Ryan Walterscheid echoed what Jasmine said about standards in town that are not in the West End; the lots in Smuggler were tight and you have a shotgun home to make that work. Ryan disagreed with putting a fake door and window up. Stan said that we have seen a lot of these and when there seems to be a reasonable neighborhood inconsistency and also somewhat site specific constraints; he agreed that this particular neighborhood has a lot of that. Stan said he can't support this because the applicant made representations that they would comply because they went forward with a building permit and actually constructed; if this were being 6 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 heard before the building permit were issued he would probably be able to vote for it but now he can't. Keith said he didn't think the issue was this applicant but the neighborhood and it needs code written for what is going on in there; there was a plan submitted. Keith said if we don't grant the variance it would be stupid not to put up a fake door. LJ said that this was not acceptable to him according to the code and if we disagree with staff we need to come up with criteria for judgment to disagree with them. LJ said that he would like to discuss what would work and could we have a discussion about the-garage or does it have to be part of the application or can we say build a - - - garage within 3 years and put the door here. Debbie said the application is what we have. Cliff strongly urged the applicant to meet with staff and continue. LJ said that was an idea. Cliff said there were special circumstances here about the HOA and the Design Standards in general and that you didn't know the plans in the future. LJ asked if they were bound by the guidelines of an HOA; we are bound by the guiding documents. Cliff said the Design Standards for this neighborhood could be revised in general if the HOA was representing the entire complex. Jennifer said that this building has a CCO on it, a temporary occupancy allowance. Whether you vote yes or no this 3rd option is you need to talk about timeline. LJ asked how long was the CCO. Claude responded at the end of this meeting. Claude said he has to make a decision to either build it or get the variance. Jennifer said there were temporary occupancies and we do need to a solution to some type of reasonable timeline to take care of this. LJ said they could come up with a plan to alleviate this blank wall on the streetscape. Claude said that this was their design. LJ asked if the bedroom was a little off ground level. Monty replied there was only one floor and the foundation and top plate were about 10 inches off the ground. Monty said when they originally built it they wanted to get it done before winter and the bedroom is right there and there were speed bumps so they really didn't want the noise so they didn't want windows and doors. Monty said he wasn't happy about the way it looks from the street either and he wished he had put some windows in but he really doesn't want to do a door; he doesn't see very many houses that have porches and it wouldn't be very useful because it was on the dark side of the house. 7 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 Bert said the solution is what staff is requesting and the applicant said that would go ahead and do what staff suggested so there is a solution that fits on the property. Cliff asked what the maximum and minimum overhang was that staff was looking for. Claude answered that it was 50 or more feet with the minimum depth of 6 feet shall be part of the front fagade and canopies shall not be more than one story high. Claude said that they can come in with a change order and meet the standards. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to adopt Resolution 1 series 2013, denying a variance from the Street Orientation Entrance and principal window standard for 114 Maple Lane; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Jasmine Tygre, no; Cliff Weiss, yes; Jim DeFrancia, no; Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED DENIAL 5-2. Continued Public Hearing: Aspen Valley Hospital, Phases III and IV PUD LJ Erspamer opened the continued hearing for Aspen Valley Hospital. LJ said there was one person who had to leave from the public so LJ was going to let the one person speak. Public Comments: 1. Bob Rafelson stated that anyone who doesn't appreciate what the hospital does in this community has an aberration; this is not about the use of the hospital. Bob asked that you be as concerned with the structure, the facility and what is going to be in it and how it is going to be made accessible. Bob said he was pleased that Nancy has been brought in about the lighting. Bob said the county has declared Castle Creek Road one of the most beautiful places and the hospital doesn't have to be industrial looking. Bob suggested planting more trees to camouflage the building even more in particular around the water main; there are vines and shrubs that grow tall. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, said that tonight was a continued public hearing for Aspen Valley Hospital Master Facilities Plan for Phases III and IV. Jennifer stated that Phase I was the Obstetrics Wing that was approved and Phase II is under construction and tonight she will provide the review standards that the commission is considering with regard to this presentation. They are proposing to complete Phases III and IV or the conceptual approval that was granted and the AVH representatives are here. Jennifer said that she would be discussing an overview of what is being proposed for square footage and heights and we talked 8 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes January 08, 2013 about the uses in previous meetings and we will be reviewing the review criteria by the commission tonight. Jennifer said that Phase III includes 75,000 square feet of new development with 10,000 square feet of Medical Office space; it includes one and two story components, basement space and their roof plan; the maximum roof height is basically the Medical Office space that will be 32 feet and the additional mechanical is on the second story roof. Phase IV includes just over 8500 square feet of new development which includes ground floor and basement. The max height is a small section which is 32 feet, it is lower and nearer the new entry and there will be additional mechanical behind the new entry on an existing first story roof. Jennifer said to develop Phases III and IV the applicant requires a Growth Management Review for the development of Medical Office space; the planning commission is the final review authority for this and the Planning & Zoning Commission will make a determination as to the number of employees generated by the expansion of the hospital function. There were 2 functions the new expansion the Medical Office space and the actual hospital development; your review for Essential Public Facility is a determination of the number of employees generated by the hospital function and Council will consider your determination in their later review of the hospital expansion. The Planning & Zoning Commission is required to make a decision for a final Planned Unit Review and this is for site specific development plan to the City Council. Jennifer talked about the purpose of Growth Management was to provide mitigation typically in the form of Affordable Housing for the employees generated by a project. A number of allowances were memorialized by the conceptual approval granted by the City Council which effects the Growth Management review; Medical Office space in determining their employees generated we used the mixed use generation rate so everything in her memo was based on that conceptual approval and that the hospital function for the generation of employees was memorialized; the hospital did a study and programmed what they thought they would be generating when these Phases came on line. Jennifer said that during the conceptual approval Council permitted the use of a housing credit and that was memorialized in the ordinance and it was based on existing affordable housing that the hospital currently has as well as the new housing that is being developed on this site. So Phase III will generate 20.16 new full time employees and Phase IV will be 8.46 full time employees. Jennifer said 9 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 that Phase III proposes 10,187 square feet of commercial net leasable and used as Medical Office Space, this was less than what was anticipated during Phase II review and thought that 15,000 square feet was what was needed. The Medical Office space mitigation for employees is 16.95 for the mixed use and on site affordable housing the greater of the 2 rates on one property can be used as the mitigation. Jennifer said for Phase III that higher rate is the hospital function at 20.16 employees that would be mitigated for; Phase IV is only for the hospital function at 8.46 employees so the total for both Phases is 28.62. Using the existing credit that the hospital has is their existing credit is 57 FTEs and with the new housing that will be 28.5 for a total credit of 85.5 employees. Jennifer said with Phase II that is underway they had to mitigate just under 20 employees. Their existing credit will adequately cover their mitigation requirements with a credit of 36.9 left over. Jennifer said the planned unit development review is required as the property is located in the public zone district; all your dimensional standards are generated through a site specific development plan or your PUD plan. The purpose of a planned unit development is to promote flexibility with regard to development that promotes the purposes and goals of the AACP; it should achieve a more desirable development plan and quality design, site planning, and preserve natural manmade features. These are the objectives of a Planned Unit Development to plan more efficient use of land, and public facilities and incorporate an appropriate level of public input. The actual criteria for a Planned Unit Development cover a broad spectrum of criteria including consistency with the AACP, consistency with the development with existing land uses around it, talks about site design and architectural character amongst other criteria. This application was based on the former AACP because of when it was submitted. Staff recommends approval of this with conditions, which are outlined in the draft resolution. Jennifer said included in this resolution is to provide pedestrian access on page 13 of the packet; staff is also recommending the applicant provide a lighting plan with Council's approval as part of the final PUD approval. Jennifer was suggesting to Council that for Phase III lighting there be light shades on the second story element and include an interior lighting plan for the new glass entry. Jennifer noted additional landscaping for the North side of the garage. Jasmine said on page 4 was the continuation of square footage tables when you get to the total you get 11,330 and a minus 1,366 and there is an addition of 10,000; can you explain what that was for. Jennifer replied a lot of it was additional basement space; the applicant heard some of the concerns about mechanical and they expanded the basement space to include more mechanical. Jennifer said there 10 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 was an 8700 additional square feet of basement space for Phase III on page 22, Exhibit E. Jasmine said if this was mechanical that was on the roof aren't you just moving it from one location to another. Jennifer responded that you are putting it in the basement and you are accommodating it in the basement. Jennifer said you are creating gross square footage in the basement. Stan said the roof doesn't count, right. Jennifer replied it doesn't count. Jasmine said it was minus 1,366. Jennifer answered that was Phase IV. Bert asked on page 2 there were 3 decisions and where in there do we fit this community conversation about lighting and noise. Jennifer replied that lighting was in the PUD criteria based on our outdoor lighting standards and this goes further than what our outdoor lighting standards require. Bert said so the 3rd bullet is where we are having our conservation on that. Jennifer responded that was the most substantive area. Dave Ressler appreciated the opportunity to talk and we will get into the presentation. Dave said that they have worked very hard on these lighting considerations both in terms of the lighting that has been installed in Phase II and Nancy will talk about Phases III and IV and how to accomplish the objectives that Jennifer outlined. Russ Sedmak said he was here to talk about the presentation tonight and was an amplification of what was in packets in terms of recommendations and resolutions to the lighting mitigation challenges. Nancy said that basically what they heard last time was mitigation of the brightness of the lights out there. Nancy utilized power point slides to show the differences in brightness of the lights by mitigation. They have explored 2 different avenues with the manufacture; one of them is to just put a dark cover plate on them. Nancy said the modules in the LED lights have little shields on the bottom of them; those shields are to mitigate brightness off of a property line. Nancy said they can look at shielding on the side of a light and in front and in back of it. Nancy said they are going to go to every single pole and recommend what kind of shielding needs to be done it in order to mitigate the brightness off site. They are recommending reducing the number of light bars from 3 down to 2; it is a way to dim the lights. Nancy said the color of light as a white light appears a lot brighter; this is actually an experiment that we have now is the first pole when you drive into the upper parking lot has a much warmer color on it. Nancy said they were recommending the warmest color you can get with an LED module which is like an incandescent light bulb (she illustrated on power point) all the outside lighting will be replaced 11 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes January 08, 2013 with that warmer lighting. Nancy said turning off lights that you do not want, yes the upper deck lights did go off at dusk and in the parking garage there are already motion sensors on them when you walk by the lights get brighter. Nancy said they walked Whitcomb Terrace last night and they could remove light poles. Russ said they could remove 5 light poles and replace with bollards in those locations and the remaining 3 light pole locations will be doing the same mitigation of reducing the 3 lightbars down to 2 and changing the light color to the warmer. Nancy said in Phases III and IV they are taking all the things that they have learned in Phase II and applying it to Phase III and IV in addition of some other things minimizing the poles and usage of way finding lighting and most of it can be done with low landscape lighting. Nancy said that they would put dimming on all the lights and establish some controls and in the interior lobby there won't be lights that are visible from outside. Russ said for Phases III and IV we are planning on having the automated shades for the top floor. Cliff asked if there will be big hard light coming to the outside and are there chandlers planned for the main lobby. Russ replied no. Bert said the screens that went up were initially a lighter color; are you considering darker colors. Russ said the screens that went up initially were a temporary construction material and the final product will have a white interior and warm grey exterior color and we are told that product will be delivered by the end of January. Bert asked how that compares to what is up now. Russ answered it was a tighter aperture (smaller holes) in the fabric that is there right now. Bert said one of the public comments was that you could see the lights from the hospital to 82; are you comfortable that you reduced that impact from 82. Russ said it was difficult to tell what lights you could see from 82 and our observations were the lights on the top of the parking deck and the surface parking lot that were visible. Russ said he thought they had taken care of the situations from construction including stairwells and they are reducing the illumination and warmer lighting. Public Comments: 2. Graeme Means said that he was a neighbor of the hospital but he considered the lighting issue a city wide issue and thanked the hospital for going to the lengths that they have. Graeme asked that they continue on Phase II before going onto Phase III and IV comprehensively. Graeme said that he went on line to read the city lighting code and it said to preserve the small town character, eliminate the escalation of night time light pollution, reduce 12 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 glaring and offensive light sources, provide clear guidance to builders and developers, encourage the use of increased technologies for lighting, prevent inappropriate and poorly designed outdoor lighting. Graeme stated from his perspective the process didn't work and the city may need to look at and a lot of citizens of town would be very supportive of a dark sky approach to Aspen and to having a lighting ordinance that would be effective but it didn't seem to work here. 3. Chris Beck stated that he was an anesthesiologist and behalf of the medical staff we have uniform support for the construction process and the outcome of Phase I and II; we think the offices and PT have been great for our patients, for the community and for us to work in. Chris said for Phase III and IV things that we will look forward to having in the emergency room, in same day surgery and in the operating rooms. Chris thanked the city for their support. Their Medical Staff meetings have uniformly supported the project. U closed the public comment section of the hearing and went back to the commissioners for their comments. Cliff said that there was an 8700 square foot difference to relocate mechanical and where we before and where are we now. Cliff said there were a number of roof top elements and how many did we start with and how many do we have now. Russ said at conceptual we hadn't identified the full mechanical design for Phases III and IV and the helipad was on the roof of the second floor which would have created more bulk and mass visible from the neighborhood under that and had a dilemma as to where to put the mechanical equipment at conceptual. Russ said theoretically that equipment was going to go onto the roof of the ED building and as we got into the engineering of it we realized the existing roof couldn't support anymore mechanical equipment that is presently on it which is why we are replacing those units in place where there already are the openings in the structure. Russ said it was technically a necessity to put the 3 air handling units in the basement of the building. Cliff asked from the power point presented 2 meetings ago has anything changed. Russ replied no, the design that was included in the application is the same design that it now; we did include in the packet the specific dimensions for all the air handling units that are yet to be installed on the roof. Cliff asked about the easement and pipe that the first gentleman who brought up about planting on the easement pipe. Leslie Lamont replied it was a water easement and pipe that prevents the installation of trees. 13 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 Ryan asked if the helipad location was not at the same location that it is at now. Russ replied at conceptual it was located up an additional story from where it is located on our final plan. Bert asked if we could include some of what we have heard on the lighting plan in... Jennifer said you could include what you have heard as an exhibit to the resolution. Bert asked if we could include reducing the light bars, warming the color, shielding the exterior, shielding the existing lights, converting from pole lights to bollards in all but 3. Jennifer said that Exhibit K in the packet was provided to you so it could be referenced. Bert said on Page 10 was to consider landscaping and asked if there was something specific. Jennifer said they did submit a landscape plan but there was discussion and Parks was concerned about field locating; if you think that something should be emphasized more she said to outline those. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution 2, 2013 for a growth management review and recommends approval for final PUD and a growth management review to permit development of the AVHMaster Facilities Plan for Phases III and IV and adding to page 10 "b" a lighting plan as presented in Exhibit K in P&Z packet of this date be developed and adopted and continue and on page 10 "c" and as seen from Castle Creek Road; seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call Vote: Cliff Weiss, yes; Jasmine Tygre, no; Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 6-1. Discussion prior to the vote: Bert asked if you would consider on page 10 # b. referencing Exhibit K for the lighting plan. LJ said it would read "b." a lighting plan as presented in Exhibit K in P&Z packet of this date be developed and adopted and continue. Jasmine said that great strides have been made in the lighting but Graeme's comment about looking into our lighting code made sense. Jasmine said that she was concerned because of the size of this project and was concerned about approving something before we see the results of the mitigation that they have proposed that is of concern to the community. LJ said that they were voting on something that they would see in the future; he said he would put his faith in the hospital, Jasmine said she didn't say they were not acting in good faith; she was just saying suppose it doesn't work even with everybody acting in good faith, then what are we going to do. Steve said that they plan on having mitigation for the lighting implemented in the next 6 weeks before it goes to Council. Stan said he agreed with Jasmine, he has the same concern in terms of order but in order to understand if it "works" we would have to have some kind of standard and measurement techniques and we don't have any those things nor do 14 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes January 08, 2013 we have any code that requires those things. Stan said we have a very qualitative lighting code, does it look good, doesn't bother very many people; if we really want to go down this road we would have to find some way to quantify this. Stan said he was thinking of bringing that up but he didn't see how it could be done in any time frame that would be acceptable to the hospital or to the city. Stan said not having a standard is difficult to say does it work. Ryan said that later down the road there is a lighting standard that has to be followed but that is usually submitted at building permit; it that correct. Jennifer replied yes and the issue with this lighting is that we don't regulate interior lighting, which is problematic for the project but also the exterior lighting talks about lumens, height of fixtures but it doesn't address the LED lighting in the type of lighting is given off; it might meet the foot candle or lumen requirements but it still might not be palatable to the citizenry what we have on our books. Jennifer said that might be a bigger issue; this is going above and beyond what our code would require what they are proposing in this plan. Jennifer said that one thing that we could do some type of night tour with the City Council when this lighting is implemented; we could do a follow up with the Planning & Zoning Commission to see the plan also how it is working out. Cliff said that we have done a site visit with the folks and identified specific areas that were clearly problematic. Cliff said that Nancy's presentation has satisfied those problem areas; we get to see the problem areas and he said he was good with this as is. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to continue the meeting for 15 minutes; seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED. Bert had one more addition on page 10 "c" and as seen from Castle Creek Road. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Bert nominated the current slate. Jim would also support that or reversing like we did the last time. Jasmine said she third. Stan said we needed some new blood. LJ said we are going to vote for chair 1 St. Jim nominated Stan for chair and LJ for Vice-Chair. Stan said we should have an open process; he thought it would be a good idea to get some new blood. Jim nominated Stan for chair. Stan nominated Bert. Bert thanked him but said no. Ryan said he would vote to re-nominate LJ for chair. Jasmine seconded. Bert seconded Stan. Stan withdrew his nomination for chair and vice-chair. Stan and LJ nominated Ryan as vice-chair. LJ said an alternate can chair but sometimes not vote. Debbie said he could participate in the 15 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes January 08, 2013 meetings. The commission did not have to vote because there was only 1 nomination for each position. U Erspamer was voted as chair and Ryan Walterscheid as vice-chair. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 pm. JIckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 16