Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150526Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 Keith Goode, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, Skippy Mesirow, and Kelly McNicholas. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Nadolny and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES May 19, 2015 Minutes – Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none expressed. 100 S Spring St, Growth Management and Commercial Design Review Mr. Goode asked if notice had been appropriately provided. Ms. Quinn stated she has received two affidavits of public notice, one for the publication and one for the posting and mailing. The affidavits were provided as Exhibit A. Mr. Goode opened the public hearing for the 100 S Spring St and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Barker, Planner with the Community Development Department, reviewed the application to P&Z. The application is a Growth Management Review to relocate the existing affordable housing unit on site and a Commercial Design Review to remodel the existing structure. The application is submitted by 100 South Spring Street LLC and represented by Davis Horn, LLC. The property is located at Main and Spring Streets. It is a 3,000 sf lot with mixed use zoning. The current structures include a 3,131 sf commercial building on the property which varies from one to three stories and includes a 400 sf affordable housing rental unit. The property is currently non-conforming in regards to the north and west setbacks as well as the commercial floor area which was previously granted as a bonus by City Council to allow for the extra floor area in exchange for the on-site affordable housing unit. It is also nonconforming in regards to parking which requires three spaces which were never provided. The affordable housing unit was waived of its parking requirement in the same approval as the bonus floor area. Page 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 The proposal is to remodel the commercial space, relocate the affordable housing unit from the south side of the structure to the north side facing Main St, provide compliant parking for the net leasable area, improve the public amenity space and install new materials and finishes for the building exterior. The demolition and relocation of the affordable housing unit requires a Growth Management Review. The applicant proposes to keep the unit as a rental unit. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) has reviewed the proposal and recommends approval as rental unit with a condition of this being forced as a for sale unit if it is out of compliance for a year. The application also requires a Commercial Design Review. The Community Development Department has authorized the application to go thru a consolidated review to combine the conceptual and final review since what is typically reviewed at the final review including the exterior materials is included in this review. In regards to the Commercial Design Review, the property is located in the central mixed use character area which is primarily two to three story residential buildings with a few commercial buildings as well. The main design objectives are identified on p 8 of the packet. The mass generally remains the same. There is some change in the height in the middle of the building with a portion going higher and portion going lower. There is also a carved out area in the back of the building for a new second floor terrace. The proposed materials are zinc and cedar. Staff is recommending to have the colors of the materials more closely match in color to appear as a one designed project instead of two separate ones linked together. They also recommend the zinc to be patinated to reduce reflective glare from the material. Staff is also recommending removal of the sliding zinc doors that would cover the glass openings on the first floor on Spring St as they may eliminate the interaction between the public and private realm and the activation of the building with the street. The public amenity space is a dramatic improvement as to what is currently available, so Staff is comfortable with the proposal. The current nonconformities may be maintained. The parking proposal is a mixture of two spaces on-site and cash-in-lieu to satisfy the remaining fraction of a space. The affordable housing parking space originally waived can be maintained as nonexistent since the building is not being demolished. For the utility and recycle/trash area, they are proposing to abandon the existing transformer and utilize one across the alley. The Utilities Department is comfortable with this proposed change. The recycle/trash area is smaller than what is required by the Environmental Health Department but they have tentatively agreed to a special review for a smaller area given the nature of the property and proposed use. Overall Staff is recommending approval of both reviews with the conditions listed in the resolutions. Mr. Barker did note the title of the second resolution on p 15 should reflect the Commercial Design Review Page 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 instead of the Growth Management Review. Mr. Barker explained there will be two resolutions because the Commercial Design Review cannot be consolidated with Growth Management Review in order to comply with the code. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff. Mr. Mesirow asked if they are eliminating outdoor parking spaces. Mr. Barker stated the three to four current spaces off the alley are not compliant with code in regards to dimensions. One is actually in the right-of-way which is not permitted. The applicant is trying to bring them into compliance. Ms. McNicholas asked if the new construction is taller than the current building at any point. Mr. Barker pointed out a window on the second story will be taller, but it will not increase the height of the building. Ms. McNicholas asked if the document received via email earlier in the day would be addressed. Ms. Quinn stated the applicant representative is planning to address it. Ms. McNicholas then asked if APCHA had time to review and comment on the document at which Mr. Barker replied they have not had time yet. Mr. Mesirow wanted to clarify none of the current building is subject to historical preservation at which Mr. Barker replied no. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Glenn Horn, Davis Horn Inc, represents the applicant and is joined by Mr. David Johnston of David Johnston Architects who is the local architect of record. The designers, Selldorf Architects, are out of New York and not present at the meeting. Mr. Horn stated Marianne Boesky is the owner of the building. She owns a gallery in New York and would like to open one here in Aspen. She has had a place here for years and is excited about opening a gallery in Aspen. Mr. Johnston reviewed the design of the structure which will consist of a gallery / artist space along with a residential component. He indicated on a slide demonstrating where the residential unit would be moved. Inside the building, they would be removing the second story. The project will reduce the current amount of commercial space. The project includes a two car garage on the back and there will be an extension on the back near the alley to include a deck/patio space. The upper floor will become a conference room with a bathroom and a small bar. The building has an increase in the upper middle area and a decrease in the same area for an overall wash on net area. He recognized the cabin structure near Main St. has historic components and they wanted to go back to cedar siding on the cabin in a grey tone to match the metal siding on the other portion of the building. He also felt they may not use zinc, but may use a silver or chrome painted surface that will not be shiny. They have no issue with the conditions of the approval. New York had proposed the metal doors for a thermal break at night but they have no issue to remove them. Page 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 They looked at keeping a parking space on the corner by the alley but it would be in the right of way, so it will be a green space instead. One component they are adding is the public amenity patio space on the side of the building. Mr. Goode asked the commission for questions of the applicant. Mr. Gibbs asked about the use of the space on the first floor where the windows are located. Mr. Johnston stated currently there is a garden level, second floor and a third floor. They will maintain the third floor, eliminate the second floor and bring the garden level up to street level. Mr. Horn then covered the issue with the affordable housing unit. Regarding the history of the unit, he stated in 1979 Neil Ross and Brian Goodheim obtained a land use approval in a special review approving a bonus on their floor area in exchange for providing affordable housing. The unit was restricted to a moderate income unit which relates to a category two or three. The applicant is proposing to renovate the building and relocate the affordable housing unit from the alley side to the Main St side. The assessor’s record shows the miner’s cabin on Main St was built in 1888 and does not have any historic elements. The owner has offered to make the unit a category two instead of a category three. The decreases for the change are explained on p 72 of the agenda packet. APCHA was uncomfortable making this a rental unit because it is harder for them to manage a single unit vs a complex of units. They would prefer single units to be a for sale unit. The Growth Management Review was triggered only because the applicant wants to move the affordable unit to the other side of the building which requires an update the deed restriction. The owner wants it to be a rental unit for an employee of the gallery and has difficulty with it possibly becoming a for sale unit. APCHA wants to make it a for sale unit if it is out of compliance for a year. A proposed change was drafted after meeting with APCHA. Currently the proposed changes states if the unit is out of compliance for 15 days, the owner may request a hearing regarding the noncompliance. If 15 days passes without a hearing or a request for a hearing, the owner will pay a fine of $500 per day until the unit is rented and compliant with the deed restriction. If it is out of compliance for a period of six months, APCHA would have the capability to place a qualified person or family in the unit that complies with the category two guidelines. There would be no for sale under this proposal. In summary, they would move the unit from one side of the building to the other, renovate the 35 year old unit and change the deed restriction from a category three to a category two. The applicant feels this type of the unit diversifies the rental stock. They understand the potential enforcement issue and hope the proposed agreement would be sufficient for noncompliance. Mr. Mesirow asked what the initial proposal from APCHA was regarding the compliance. Mr. Horn stated the initial proposal specified if the unit was out of compliance for a year, then it would become a for sale unit. Mr. Mesirow didn’t feel it should be difficult to keep the unit rented, so he asked why the owner is concerned. Mr. Horn stated the owner has philosophical objections of having a for sale under any circumstances. She stated it would be unacceptable and in lieu of is it is prepared to pay a substantial fine. Page 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 Ms. Tygre asked how she would feel about having APCHA place a renter in the unit. Mr. Horn stated the owner is comfortable with that approach. Ms. Tygre asked Mr. Horn to confirm the agreement language in packet does not match what Mr. Horn provided verbally during the meeting at which he confirmed was accurate. He was providing the latest information from communications with the owner during the day. Mr. Horn submitted a letter reviewing the owner’s position as Exhibit B. His discussion in the meeting included updates to the letter provided. Mr. Goode asked Staff who would be in charge of monitoring the unit for compliance. Mr. Barker stated it would be APCHA and would be clarified in the deed restriction. Mr. Mesirow asked if the latest agreement language had been reviewed with APCHA which Mr. Horn stated they had not spoken with Staff or APCHA yet. He added they had been in discussions with the County and City attorneys. Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. Barker for the definition of ‘in compliance’. Ms. Phelan stated APCHA would specify this in the deed restriction. Ms. Quinn stated the deed restriction would require APCHA to give notice of any violation to the owner. The owner would then have 15 days to request a hearing. If the owner chose not to request a hearing or if the hearing was held and it was determined to be not in compliance, then the fines would begin at that time. Ms. McNicholas asked Staff if their recommendation would change based on the proposed changes. Mr. Barker stated it would be based on what is in the memo at this time since there has not been time to review the proposed changes. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Goode closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. Tygre does not have any problems with the application itself and feels it would be an improvement except for the deed restriction which she feel the language should be reviewed by APCHA prior to making a decision. Ms. Quinn asked if she is recommending a continuance until a new recommendation from APCHA with proposed language from APCHA. Ms. Tygre concurred. Ms. Phelan added it would be helpful to hear from the commission regarding the design. Ms. Tygre stated she would not prefer the zinc doors, but does not care about the materials as long as they are not reflective. Mr. Gibbs agreed with Ms. Tygre. He feels he does not have justification to override APCHA’s policies just because someone has philosophical objections. If APCHA could review the new language and feel it was adequate, he would agree with application. Ms. McNicholas stated she was prepared to approve the application until she heard the new information. She feels the building provides more public amenity and is in line with the character area and feels it will be a benefit to the community. She is not sure how she feels about the zinc doors. She is sympathetic to the owner, but understands APCHA may have challenges with the enforcement. She Page 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 would support a continuance until more details could be made available regarding APCHA’s review of the latest language. Mr. Goode loves the design, but is in agreement with the other commissioners. He feels the zinc doors may help the gallery space inside. He would also like APCHA to review the latest language. Mr. Gibbs asked if the doors would prevent light pollution. Mr. Johnston stated it was a secondary consideration. The designers stressed thermal properties first. Mr. Gibbs feels both are good issues and suggested they be part of the application. Ms. Phelan stated they have to be careful with a building that looks and acts as a commercial space. She suggested the windows could be glazed for the same purposes as presented which is typical in commercial buildings. Mr. Mesirow feels overall the design is really nice. The structure itself and the activation of the streetscape. Regarding the doors, he does not feel they need to be removed. He concurs with the other commissioners regarding the housing unit. He can’t imagine a situation where the owner could not rent the unit for a year. He is happy they are meeting the parking requirements for the project, but is not sure it is best to encourage applicants to be taking 800 sf of space out of a building for parking. Ms. Phelan suggested a continuance date of June 16th to allow APCHA to review and discuss the proposed language changes. Mr. Horn stated he has a conflict on the 16th so it may need to be rescheduled for a later date. Ms. Phelan stated it could be set for that date, but pushed back if necessary. Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the hearing for June 16th, seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Goode closed the public hearing. 601 Rio Grande Pl, Obermeyer Place Rezoning and PD Amendment Ms. Quinn stated received 2 affidavits of notice, one by publication and the other by posting and mailing and it appears notice was appropriately provided. The affidavits were submitted as Exhibit A. Mr. Goode opened the public hearing for 601 Rio Grande Pl, Obermeyer Place. Mr. Goode turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Sara Nadolny, Community Development Planner, reviewed the application requesting a rezoning and an amendment to the Planned Development (PD). She explained P&Z would be issuing an approval or denial of the application to City Council who will be the final review authority. Ms. Nadolny described the property located on north of Main St. and north of the commercial core. It is zoned as Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) with a PD overlay. There are few spaces which allow for commercial uses including a fitness center and a couple of office spaces. Ms. Nadolny stated for a few years now, Staff has been struggling with requests from business owners who are looking to locate their businesses within SCI zoned properties. The problem is that the SCI zone is very specific and limiting as to what is allowed to operate in the zone. Often the office and retail Page 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 requests are prohibited from the SCI category. In 2013, City Council directed Staff to examine the areas zoned SCI to see what was and was not working. Staff held three different meetings to obtain input from the public and the property owners. The results indicated Obermeyer place was very interested in reexamining their current zoning. The property has a lot of empty spaces and wanted to allow for more variety of uses. Obermeyer Place was approved in 2003 with a PD and Special Planned Area (SPA) overlays. Since its creation, owners have struggled to find tenants who businesses fit within the acceptable list of uses resulting in many open spaces vacant for long periods of time. Obermeyer Place at its inception was created as a vibrant area of industrial activity to house the hard- to-locate services and industrial type businesses which may have been relocated down valley otherwise. More than a decade has passed now since the initial approval and currently there are fewer service commercial industrial businesses looking to locate at Obermeyer Place. Also, the types of businesses are evolving and operate a business that looks more like an office instead of an industrial space. Staff looked at the available zoning categories and identified Neighborhood Commercial (NC) as a category that most closely relates to the current and desired uses. Rezoning to NC will allow for a variety of uses such as retail and office space. It may increase the likelihood for the property to become more vibrant and active which fits the original vision of Obermeyer Place. The second part of the application requests to amend the PD. Staff suggests the PD to allow the existing SCI to be maintained in order to protect existing businesses from becoming non-conformities. Staff has reviewed the requests against the review criteria and finds all the criteria to be met. The zoning is compatible with the surrounding parcels. There are no increases required in utilities, parking or other public facilities as a result of the application. The rezoning is consistent with and compatible with the community character, pubic interest and the land use code. Staff recommends P&Z provide a recommendation of approval for the rezoning of Obermeyer Place from SCI to NC as well as a minor PD amendment to permit SCI uses to be maintained as part of the PD. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff. Mr. Gibbs asked how many current SCI units of use are active. Ms. Nadolny suggested waiting for the applicant’s presentation that may answer the question better. She stated there is a table of uses on p 190 of the packet showing current utilization, but not a comprehensive list of available space. Mr. Gibbs asked if this SCI zone and the area down by the bike shop were the only two SCI zones left. Ms. Nadolny stated Clark’s Market and the Post Office are also in SCI zones. Ms. Phelan stated Clark’s Market is half SCI and half NC. She also added it is difficult to track the percentages. Ms. Nadolny stated the Andrews McFarland building on Mill St is also zoned SCI. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Jerome Simecek represented the applicant. Mr. Wally Obermeyer, president of the Condo Association, was also present. Page 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 Mr. Simecek presented a visual of the overall location of the buildings including the multiple levels in the project. He described the surrounding parks and buildings. He then showed an outline of the current uses allowed including the SCI and the nonconforming spaces identified in the original approval. Ms. Nadolny added overall the property is zoned SCI, but an ordinance allowed for nonconforming spaces on the parcel. Ms. Phelan stated this allowed the pre- existing business to continue to operate after the redevelopment. Mr. Simecek showed the defined spaces for each level of the development. He stated the below grade area currently has the largest amount of vacant units. They are typically smaller units. He then showed an at-grade map indicating the variations on the SCI approval including the recent approval to allow the Police Department and medical clinic to operate on-site. In summary, he pointed to several at-grade long standing vacant locations he feels a change to the zoning would be a powerful tool to revitalize the spaces and reach the goal for the area to be active community area. Currently, there is one space vacant at-grade and at least five below grade. Some are rented at very reduced rates as well because of the limited opportunity for tenants. Mr. Obermeyer stated the condominium association polled the owners of the SCI units including approximately 33 condominiumized units. They spoke with all but three unit owners. Everyone was in favor of the proposed change and would like to increase the foot traffic and vitality of the area. Mr. Goode asked the commission for questions of the applicant. Ms. McNicholas asked who approves or denies the tenant’s applications. Ms. Nadolny stated the Finance Department sends business applications to the Community Development Department for a zoning review. Ms. McNicholas asked if this application would change what SCI uses are allowed. Ms. Nadolny stated the first part of the application would change the zoning to NC which is more general and most all the existing businesses could fit within the NC zoning. The second part of the application is to update the PD to allow the SCI uses. Ms. McNicholas asked about potential future applicant that wanted to do an SCI use. Ms. Nadolny stated it would be allowed as part of the PD approval. She added this would open it up to both types of uses. Mr. Mesirow asked about the department’s progress for reevaluating what uses should be considered as SCI. Ms. Nadolny stated every few years they are asked to revisit and update the list which is difficult for the department to keep up with. Ms. Phelan stated a review is not scheduled to happen anytime soon. Mr. Goode asked for an explanation between going full on commercial and NC use. Ms. Nadolny stated full commercial zoning would create a lot of non-conformities. A list of permitted and conditional uses are listed on p 167 of the packet. She added with this parcel having a PD, a lot of the uses are defined by the PD. The majority of requests they receive are for office and arts uses. Mr. Mesirow asked if the initial approval of the project was contingent on the SCI zoning. Mr. Obermeyer stated prior to the redevelopment, there an old blue steel building that was the Obermeyer office and warehouse. When Obermeyer moved out to the airport business center, the building was rented. The project also involved a parcel owned by Bill Murphy and the intent was to redevelop an Page 8 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 eyesore and ideally house the existing businesses. All the units were condominiumized and the majority were sold. The original approval included SCI space and non-conforming space that was grandfathered in the approval. The intent of having the business owners own their space has worked pretty well. It has been difficult for people to sell their units because of the SCI limitations on allowable uses. He believes by changing the zoning to NC and allowing the SCI uses will help people. He feels the application preserves the original intent but it will also provide some vitality. Mr. Gibbs asked if there is a master plan for this area. Ms. Phelan stated she was not sure if this area was discussed or not. Mr. Gibbs asked if the code allowed for permitted uses that are typically not allowed. Ms. Phelan stated yes under PD. She added the PD code was updated which repealed the SPA regulations and basically merged them because they were very similar in allowing for variations in dimensional standards, but also allowed used changes. PD allows for dimensional and use variations from the underlying zoning. Ms. Tygre asked if there was a possibility for the owners to combine the SCI small sub-grade spaces to make them more rentable. Mr. Obermeyer stated size is not the biggest constraint and feels Obermeyer Place suffers from a lack of customer parking for the businesses as compared to other SCI zoned parcels. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. No one wanted to comment so Mr. Goode closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Goode then asked for any staff rebuttal. Ms. Nadolny wanted to clarify there are no constraints to someone combining units. Mr. Simecek added there is no prohibition of such in the association documents. Ms. McNicholas asked if the tenants have the ability to remodel at which Mr. Simecek stated the association would grant approvals but could not reasonably prevent it from happening. Ms. McNicholas stated her big concern is for future SCI uses and could they be approved. Ms. Nadolny replied they could be approved in the future. She stated the drafted resolution allows for either SCI or NC uses. Mr. Gibbs asked for confirmation of zoning requested. Ms. Nadolny stated the zoning being requested is NC with the PD overlay allowing for SCI uses. Mr. Gibbs stated he has a fundamental problem having multiple zones on one parcel. He feels the focus should be on addressing the zoning to address the needs of the uses in the zone. He doesn’t feel throwing multiple zone districts on a parcel is the answer. He does not have an issue with what the applicant is requesting. He would prefer the existing SCI uses become non-conforming with no ability to expand unless the PD is reopened for P&Z review to allow for the use. Ms. McNicholas asked staff if they agree with view of Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Nadolny stated future PD amendments wouldn’t actually go to P&Z, they would go to City Council. Mr. Gibbs stated that was fine. She added they looked at how to clean up this parcel in regards to zoning. Page 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 Ms. McNicholas is concerned this change would de-incentivize a potential SCI applicant and feels there is value in having those uses in that space. Mr. Mesirow feels the historical context is important and is concerned we may be pushing out future SCI opportunities. He feels the change may not be consistent with the original intent of the redevelopment and would prefer it be maintained as SCI and have the SCI code updated. He stated technology and real estate have changed and is not properly reflected in the current SCI code. Ms. Tygre agreed with Mr. Mesirow. Mr. Gibbs wondered if there was a possibility of merging the SCI and NC zones and feels they are similar. Mr. Mesirow wanted to clarify he is not suggesting to combine the zones and feels there should be an expansion to the SCI zoning. Mr. Goode asked Staff when they may have an opportunity to review and update the SCI zoning code. Ms. Nadolny reiterated what Ms. Phelan stated earlier regarding it not being on their agenda at this time. Ms. Tygre wanted to add by making it all NC, she feels it will inflate the rents which was not what was intended. Mr. Gibbs felt Ms. Tygre and Mr. Mesirow made good points. Mr. Goode asked staff to verify whether or not P&Z approves the resolution, that it will go on to City Council at which Ms. Nadolny confirmed the application would go to City Council. Mr. Simecek agrees the SCI is dated, but the applicant is stuck with the uses. He stated the applicant is looking to add vitality which they don’t see with the restrictions under the SCI zoning. Mr. Mesirow stated he understands the applicant is trying to bring vitality, but feels he needs to look at the long term community interests which involves looking at the SCI zone. Mr. Goode wants to agree with the original intent of the project. Ms. McNicholas excused herself to attend another meeting. Mr. Gibbs feels from the community’s perspective, the demand in the community is not for SCI uses. From the applicant’s perspective, they will be more successful if NC uses are permitted. He feels approving the resolution tonight would be recognizing the reality for the area. He supports the idea of SCI but is not sure whether it has a place in our community. He supports the change to NC, but would like to the current SCI units to be grandfathered in and have the use remain an SCI use. Ms. Tygre added the applicant can then come in for a change in use. Ms. Phelan said office use and maybe retail restaurant would be allowed under the NC zoning, but would probably demand higher rents as stated earlier. Mr. Gibbs stated the concern is the loss of SCI zoned space in the community. Ms. Phelan asked if it would be agreeable to NC with no office or retail restaurant. Mr. Simecek stated the property doesn’t lend itself for a retail restaurant due to the limited parking onsite. Mr. Obermeyer stated there is one unit they had hoped would be a restaurant or coffee shop. He has spoken to a few chains with no interest. The original intent was to have a bakery, woodworking shop Page 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 and offices but they are asking to have flexibility. There are spaces in the garage that could provide for SCI uses. He feels it will benefit the community if the spaces can be filled and the spaces will dictate the potential uses. Mr. Gibbs asked for a list of the categories current SCI uses. He is thinking of potential language to add to Section 1, Part B of the resolution to keep the current SCI uses. Mr. Mesirow also wants to think of the modern equivalent of SCI uses that may be considered in the future. He is concerned if the change to NC is made, then those future SCI uses will never get a foothold. Ms. Nadolny responded under NC, service commercial uses are allowed, but industrial is not. Many of the requests may be service commercial, but they look like offices, so they are not allowed. Ms. Tygre feels the new industrial types of uses would be precluded with the change to NC. Mr. Mesirow doesn’t feel the proposed solution will allow low margin production businesses to ever compete with higher margin businesses. Ms. Nadolny responded businesses that used to look industrial often look more like an office these days. Ms. Tygre feels they are being asked to give up SCI zoning on the parcel and she is not willing to do it. Mr. Mesirow added overtime the community won’t get SCI space back because they won’t be able to compete with the NC businesses. Mr. Goode feels SCI needs a home, but feels we are condemning the applicant by carrying the burden right now. Without the needed code change on the radar, the owners will sit on empty spaces. If P&Z states no to the approval, at least Council will know the SCI code needs change. At the same time, he would love to see a café at Obermeyer Place. He feels the real issue is that SCI does need to change. Mr. Gibbs asked when the variances had been approved and by what mechanism. Mr. Simecek stated some of the variances, including the medical office, health club, and a ski service center were approved at the original PUD. Others such as the Police Department were more recent. Mr. Obermeyer stated most of the units are owned by the original owners. He is not sure to the degree the assumption of NC uses rubbing out SCI uses made by P&Z is valid. Based on the location of the spaces, he doesn’t feel it would be appropriate for office space. He feels it is in the public’s best interest to allow SCI uses, but allow NC as well. Mr. Gibbs asked Staff if Clark’s market is zoned by level. Ms. Phelan stated certain percentage must be zoned NC and Ace Hardware meets the SCI requirements. Mr. Gibbs asked if the basement of the Obermeyer Place could be SCI and the ground level NC and grandfather in the current uses. Mr. Obermeyer doesn’t feel this will solve the problem because most of the empty spaces are in the basement already. Mr. Simecek stated the NC zoning would provide the flexibility to the spaces. Mr. Gibbs asked if they have had requests for NC uses. Mr. Simecek state there is a list of commonly denied requests in the meeting packet including medical, chiropractor, interior design and architecture, and general retail. Ms. Nadolny stated the list of types of uses rejected is one to two years old so there have been additional requests denied since the list was compiled. Mr. Gibbs stated he is trying to understand the desire for NC use in the basement. He feels the current zoning is preventing reasonable uses of the property when there is no demand for SCI uses. Mr. Mesirow stated it is unfair to state P&Z is keeping the spaces from being utilized because the SCI code has not been updated. Ms. Tygre feels it is better to change SCI from a point of the community and the code which should be updated to reflect what we want as a community, rather than upzoning a property. Page 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2015 Ms. Phelan and Ms. Nadolny both stated with SCI uses, it tends to be a stretch. Ms. Phelan stated there seems to be more requests for office types of uses. Mr. Goode asked the P&Z commissioners if they would agree to defining the current SCI places as permanent SCI requiring a PD if they want to change it. Ms. Nadolny stated her understanding is the intent to keep the underlying SCI, but certain units could be designated for either SCI or NC uses. Mr. Obermeyer believes the condominumization map designates the allowable uses including SCI, NC and non-conforming uses. Ms. Nadolny referred to Section 9 of the approving ordinance which essentially defines a dual zone. This ordinance was not part of the packet. She paraphrased the section states the space may house businesses in compliance with either the NC or SCI zoned district regulations as defined in the land use code. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Gibbs to confirm he would prefer to adopt the NC zoning and keep the existing SCI uses as non-conformities. Mr. Gibbs feels this is a great example of spot zoning which obstructs the uniformity of a property. His perspective would be to allow the property was adopted as NC with the current SCI uses allowed to persist. Mr. Mesirow agreed with moving away with multiple zoned spaces on one property. Mr. Gibbs moved to amend the proposed resolution, Section 1B to add the word “current” before the service commercial industrial, non-residential uses statement. The motion was seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Goode asked if the commissioners wanted to discuss the motion. None wanted to discuss further. Roll call to vote: Mr. Mesirow, no; Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Goode, yes. The motion does not pass with a two to two (2-2) vote. Mr. Mesirow then motioned to draft a resolution to deny the approval and propose to City Council to review the SCI zoning code. The motion was seconded by Ms. Tygre. Roll call to vote: Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Gibbs, no; Mr. Goode, yes. The motion passes with a three to one (3-1) vote. Ms. Tygre suggested P&Z could be looking at ways to provide input for redefining SCI to be somewhat more inclusive. Ms. Nadolny confirmed the draft resolution has been denied as it stands. She asks if P&Z wanted to include information in the denial to provide to Council. Mr. Mesirow stated the recommendation to Council may state P&Z understands the desire for vitality on this property, but rezoning to NC is not the appropriate remedy. The appropriate remedy would be a complete and timely visit of the SCI zone. Mr. Goode adjourned the meeting at 6:45. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager Page 12