Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20130521 D Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 21, 2013 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 2 301 Lake Ave 3 420 East Hyman 5 Parking Policies 6 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 21, 2013 LJ Erspamer opened the P&Z Meeting of May 21St in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin, Keith Goode, Stan Gibbs, Ryan Walterscheid and LJ Erspamer were in attendance. Staff present were Debbie Quinn, Assistant Attorney; Jessica Garrow, Sara Adams, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Josh Rice, Engineering; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Ryan noted the email from Bert at 6am had a lot of discussion about code amendments and it appears Bert is frustrated with progressing or some of the lack of ease but Ryan doesn't agree with the letter that was sent and doesn't reflect his opinion. Ryan said he doesn't agree with the tone or the implication of Bert's letter. Ryan said he understood that P&Z has been talking about this initially in 2008 but he said it has only been discussed for the last 3 months actively. Bert said that staff doesn't attend those meetings so he cannot have a conversation with staff. Bert said we will talk about it at the end of the meeting because he wanted to talk about the issue rather than the process. Jessica Garrow stated that she sent an email last week to P&Z and HPC letting you know about public outreach meetings related to the Ruby Park remodel with meetings on Thursday from 11-12 and 1-2 at Ruby Park. Jessica said there was an open house from 4-6 on Thursday. P&Z is a key stakeholder in this process so there are the additional focus groups that we wanted to extend an invitation to P&Z and is an opportunity to understand what the concerns with Ruby Park are issues or opportunities with neighbors and businesses on Thursday. LJ and Stan will attend the Thursday meetings. Chris Bendon stated that he went to the national planning conference in Chicago and heard a presentation by the Jackson Hole Planning Department that they recently updated their comprehensive plan with they did with their county and they took 5 years to update their planning document including a long multi meeting discussion on whether the document was an update or a re-write. Chris said there are various e newsletters and sign up on the City WEB. Minutes MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from April 16 and May 14, 2013 seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Ryan Walterscheid recused himself for the 420 East Hyman public hearing. 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 21, 2013 Public Hearing: 360 Lake Ave LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on 360 Lake Avenue, Hallam Lake Bluff Review. Debbie Quinn reviewed the notice and checked with the applicant that the beginning notice was posted April 30"' and it was in order. Sara Adams noted the Planning & Zoning Commission did conduct a site visit at noon. Sara said the project was a Hallam Lake bluff review; there is an existing house at 360 Lake and the proposal was to fix the existing non-conformity. This existing house was constructed in 1990 a few months before the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Standards that you see today were put into place. Sara said when the house was built they removed a huge portion of the bluff and built the house into the landscape, which would not be allowed today. The proposal is to remove a pretty large portion of the house that faces the lake and put that on the front of the house on Lake Avenue and reconstruct a portion of the bluff. Staff finds that the intent of the standard is met; what the applicant is proposing will decrease non- conformity and supports it. Brian Flynn from Parks and Josh Rice from Engineering are present and we can talk about what is being proposed. Sara said there were a lot of changes in the resolution. Josh Rice said that the slope was retouched so it was lower. Jim DeFrancia asked that how are they going to support all that earthmoving. Josh replied that it is going to have to some sort of internally supported float; there is no wall and it can't slough off down the slope it will have to be held in place by something geo- synthetic and re-vegetated. Bert asked why the slope went from 60% to 45%. Josh said today there was the 45% degree slope and something similar has been done. Stan asked about the urban runoff management and how it fit into this; he doesn't see that being resolved anywhere or by anyone. Stan said the slope below the house is much more than that; what exactly is this 18 degree management plan and where does it apply. Stan asked if the application met that or not. Josh responded that there were gravel swales and PVC pipes that go down the drainage; the urban management plan limits the slope to which you can discharge to approximately a 3 to'l slope. Josh said that they are removing a lot of the existing drainage features so they will have to conform with.the URMP. LJ asked if you would look outside the city to see other engineering companies and what they have done throughout this country. Josh said there are contractors 3 e Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes May 21, 2013 elsewhere that do this kind of work. Josh said they will give Steve the specifications that the contractor must meet. LJ asked if Engineering will give the specifics that they have to follow. Josh replied that they haven't gotten that far. LJ asked Debbie if they put this together and everything is done and it slides out who is the responsible party. Debbie replied probably the owner of the contactor. Sara said they would want the project to be successful. LJ said on page 2 was the heighted review process. Sara replied that this paragraph was giving the background of the Bluff Review and this project was meeting the intent and less non-conforming. Steve Wilson utilized power point and the bluff was cut in the 90's when the house was built and they would have to restore that portion of the bluff. Steve said that they looked at the house and how that house intrudes out onto those portions of the bluff that were already cut out of and then look at modifications that they make to this house, keeping the ridgeline the same and decreasing the restriction and showed what the new house will look like sitting behind the actual bluff. Steve said they are creating less non-conformity and illustrated the new house. Steve showed-a slide that showed the numbers of non-conformities and would give a copy to Sara for the file. Steve said the 18 degree slope would be ideal from discharge from the slope. Steve said that they wanted to know if P&Z could get behind this plan. Jim asked about the storm drain which is currently discharging at various points that flows into the lake; he asked at the end of this project will all of your surface storm drain water then flow into the storm drain system and not into the lake. Steve answered that it will probably be treated on site in an infiltration system and then contributes to ground water; any overflow will go into the city storm water system. LJ asked if there are any dry wells that contribute to this solution. Steve replied that dry wells will not be used here. No public comments. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution 12, 2013 approving the Hallam Lake Bluff Review for the project located at 360 Lake Avenue; seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Discussion prior to the vote: Stan asked about the re-vegetation along that new bluff; is that going to done by the City or does the applicant have to do that and what are they proposing. Brian Flynn said that will all come up when the applicant 4 } Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 21, 2013 comes up with,the plan and then Parks can provide feedback. Brian stated that both parks and Engineering feel strongly that the initial re-veg should not include trees using a seed mix and multiple native bushes. Brian said that they would like to discourage any single stem trees and anything like that and give it a year. LJ asked if this was the last time P&Z would see this application. Sara replied yes. Public Hearing: 420 East Hyman, Zocolito building Growth Management Review LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 420 East Hyman. Debbie Quinn said that she reviewed the affidavits and they are in order. Sara Adams said the project before you was 420 East Hyman Avenue for Growth Management review and recommendation of subdivision to City Council. The proposal is to demolish the existing 2 story building and to replace it with a new 3 story building; they are subject to the code that was in place in March of 2012 which means they are proposing a free-market residential unit and the height of their building goes up to 38 feet. Sara said they received conceptual major development review from the Historic Preservation Commission because they are located in the Historic District and received conceptual commercial design review from the Historic Preservation Commission. Sara said they are here at P&Z for growth management and onto City Council for Subdivision and then back to HPC for the Final for the project. The mixed use building contains commercial in the basement and 1St floor and a small commercial space on the second floor and are required to mitigate for the larger affordable housing requirement because they are providing the affordable housing on site; they are mitigating for the replacement of the 3 units that they are demolishing. Sara said they were providing more net livable affordable housing than what is there today. The 3 affordable housing units are rental units and are subject to the housing guidelines. Sara stated that the project met the requirements of the commercial core district from March of 2012. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Sara introduced Brian West and Charles Cunniffe representing the applicant. Bert said the 4 things that we are deciding tonight appear to be math problems that match the code. Sara replied correct. Bert asked if there was much discretion that P&Z has with decisions. Sara answered not really. LJ asked about parking deficiencies. Sara responded that the parking was resolved at HPC and they are meeting the parking requirement on site. 5 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 21, 2013 Stan asked about the current conditions with the 3 free-market units and asked if they were owned or rented. Charles Cunniffe said currently they were all rentals; currently 1 is affordable, 1 is a hair salon and 1 is free market but they are listed as multifamily units so we have to replace them. Charles said there wasn't much to say other than what Sara said. No public comments. Jim agreed that it was in compliance with favorable staff recommendation. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution 13, Series 2013, approving Growth Management Reviews and recommending City Council approve Subdivision Review for the project located at 420 East Hyman; seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion prior to the vote: Bert said there was another application that came from HPC had done all of the reviews and it seems like this should be on our list to maybe take the burden off the applicants to come see us since the applicant had no presentation and staff spent time. Bert said it was on a to do list for future. Jim said that he was with Bert on this. LJ said this was the 4th application in a row that followed the code. Public Hearing: Staff Comments on Parking Policies LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for off-street parking. Debbie Quinn stated there was public notice in the newspaper of this meeting. Chris said this was P&Z's initiative. Chris said that there was a memo from multiple departments in the packet regarding parking. The planning profession has seen this migration from minimum parking standards to some place just not having parking and some stating maximum parking standards. Places around the country have created minimum parking standards and have created an auto dominated city. Stan asked Chris if it would be workable to have a policy that was essentially more demand driven where you had to justify how much parking that you were going to have; it wouldn't have any specific numbers like if you had so much net leasable this is what you have to have. Stan said a property like City Market would say the maximum amount of parking that you can fit and other projects like ones on the mall that you don't expect people to drive there so maybe they don't want to have 6 T Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 21, 2013 to deal with it except for a couple of employees. Stan asked if it would work as an approach that in the land use code really if you want parking you need to justify it. Stan asked if that would work as a demand driven kind of thing. Chris replied potentially but you might run up against the fact that uses change over time and once the building is there it is hard to change the parking ratio; it either has parking or it doesn't. Chris said you can treat it differently and the ground floor gets eaten up by a parking space and maybe you shouldn't have parking on the ground floor because it competes with commercial space and we have such a small downtown. LJ asked how you setup good policy on demand and the Transportation Demand Management tools are rather vague; if you have an on demand shuttle service that creates 2 trips and he wanted to reduce traffic. LJ said we want to reduce traffic coming in from the roundabout but there is some inner city. LJ mentioned big cities with comprehensive traffic plans and the city of Aspen needs to have more discussion on the parking situation and would like to go to city council. Chris said it was a successful since 1993 in Aspen reducing or keeping the traffic level to that standard. Bert said that his primary question was about process not so much about parking. Bert said as far as drafting a resolution of getting authorization from Council so what do we do next and we had permission from Council to proceed. LJ asked what the resolution should say. Bert replied to allow us to process through the amendment process to amend the parking or neighborhood commercial; he asked the code on that. Chris stated the first thing is to figure out what it is you are .asking Council to do when that goes to City Council. Chris said to change the number is one thing but you realize that your conversation is a little larger than intended. Keith said what we were discussing in the past was how do we protect just the Clark's Market and the City Market parking areas. Keith said that property was owned by the markets but if the city has a way to protect it. Bert said that rezoning it commercial would help. LJ said it has its own zoning. Chris said to keep in mind that both of those properties are PUDs and Clark's is an SPA so regardless of the parking ratio that is specified in the code they would have to come and pitch their case regarding the dimensions and the number of parking spaces. Chris stated that in order to have this conversation there is a requirement in the PUD and they have the opportunity to amend that. Bert said that he guessed that you were all for writing a code change for one little thing and he was interested in doing that. Chris reinterred his advice to Council would be really look down that path and really see what it is that you are intending to do. Bert said that if they can figure out how to do a small code change that would be better with a resolution. Chris said the process is the same regardless is that you pass a resolution and the staff would be working on it and are you fully aware how that 7 r Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes May 21, 2013 might affect other things and it is just an eyes wide open. Bert said that he just wanted to do the one NC. Bert suggested that we wait until there is a new Council in place. Debbie said that P&Z passes a formal resolution and this is just noticed for tonight so that we can continue to another date but you have to adopt a resolution of the Planning & Zoning Commission requesting that Council initiate a code amendment as follows with as much detail as possible. Bert said that staff wasn't there to draft the resolution. Debbie offered to assist in with drafting the resolution but she said that she didn't know what you want to put into it because there hasn't been a meeting but there have been work sessions. Debbie said this is to determine if there is a direction and whether you want us to bring back some resolution that you can consider and continue the meeting. Bert asked for Debbie's help to draft a resolution to modify the Neighborhood Commercial Parking requirements. Debbie said that it needs to ask Council to allow a code amendment; your role in code amendments is to initiate which is what this would do but once it is initiated it goes through the planning process and they come back and get your input but your role is the same as it is in any other code amendment. MOTION.- Jim DeFrancia moved to continue this public hearing on the parking code amendment to June 11th seconded by Keith Goode. All in favor. APPROVED S-0. Discussion prior to vote: Bert said it would start the process. Debbie said the code amendment would be to initiate an amendment that would address a parking requirement or a parking requirement for neighborhood parking; not a minimum or maximum but just to address parking requirements for neighborhood commercial zones. Adjourned at 6:22 pm. 14ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8