Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880105 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING (, ZONING JANUARY 5, 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 5:00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre, David White, Mari Peyton, Ramona Markalunas, and Michael Herron. Roger Hunt was excused. COMMISSIONER' S COMMEN'.rS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Alan: At the next regular meeting on the 19th of January you have 3 GMP applications. They are all fairly significant projects. They all have additional review beyond just scoring and subdiv ision issues. Some are rezoning issues. We need a commitment from the Commission that you will stay and that you will go through all 3 applications in one night. An option would be to start meeting at 4:00. The general consensus was to start that meeting at 4:00 pm. Alan asked Commission members if anyone remembered the limit- ations placed on the 2nd floor of the Aspen Grove Building in terms of the uses allowed. Welton and Jasmine said they could vaguely remember something but could not be positive about details. David: I know a couple of different people before Chelsea's went in there that were contemplating restaurant use and checked it out pretty thoroughly and didn't find any limitations. MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 5, (, 17, 1987 Minutes of November 3, 5, and 17, 1987 were approved with corrections. HUN'lER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP AMENDMEN'l PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Steve: This is an application to make a few modifications in the Hunter Plaza. This is being changed in several ways. The paving surface treatment is being changed in that they are using brushed concrete instead of aggregate. And the bands of bricks that were running throughout the courtyard along the sidewalks have been PZMl.5.8$ reduced. The applicant would also like to reduce the number of benches in the courtyard from 8 to 4. According to the Municipal Code, GMP amendments should be reviewed by the P&Z according to whether this would change the score that was originally given to the application and also to the appropriateness of the proposed changes. Conditions of approval can be given on amendments to GMP applications. The Planning Office noted that the application scored pretty high in the areas of site design and amenities which we feel that what is being changed here would indeed affect. The application went into a lot of detail in the presentation of the site design and then at the time of the P&Z meeting the applicant further emphasized the site design's many components and how well they worked all together. They were scored 2.4 in site design and 2.3 in amenities by the P&Z which is fairly high. We only noted that the paving treatment had already been installed after the fact and at that time Larry Yaw brought it to my attention that he was thinking about changing some benches and we noted it and brought it to their attention that it would be a deviation from the GMP application. We are hoping to try and avoid this kind of problem in the future either with regard to the level of detail that is provided in the application or to be sure that all of the development community should notify the Planning Office when they are actually constructing something that they have changed something prior to the building permit plan's submittal. They should notify us so that we can then respond. In our assessment, we feel that the brushed concrete really serves just as well as the aggregate would have. We don't think that that is an issue of major contention. However, the br ick pavers, we do think is a reduction in the project amenities. Those pavers were giving a considerable amount of texture to the site design and seemed to link the streetscape into the structure quite well and make the courtyard very pleasing as in the application. We also think the benches are fairly important as they do provide a nice seating environment in the courtyard. We also noted that the planter height is somewhat of a problem as much for the applicants as it is in terms of the city's interest in the proj ect. The last planter has been stepped up a considerable amount so that it actually blocks the windows a little bit. It also gives the feeling that the site design is so full it is sort of an obstruction. We feel that if you would simply reduce it to the height of the rim where the fountain is going to go then that 2 PZMl.5.8~ would be an improvement and would make the planters and the benches work better. What we did was to look for certain site amenities that the applicant might provide to compensate for the loss of the brick pavers since we feel that that is really the change that does effect the score and does effect the quality of the project. And we came up with several. We did think that the planters should be lowered and the benches should be installed. Another point about the benches is that if you stagger the benches and put 2 of them along the fountain, then you could have the problem that when the water is going, it could splash people so they are not practical in that respect. Also they are so close to each other that they become somewhat uncomfortable for people to sit because they are staring into each other's eyes. So we thought the original design really worked better. We also suggest that the second level of terrace landscaping be enhanced somewhat that there might be the potential of putting planters along the inside of the parapet just to give a little more greenery. We have asked that two bike racks be installed as had been spoken of in the text of the application but not shown on the site plan. Finally a financial guarantee ought to be placed for the installation of the terrace landscaping and of the fountains since neither of those have been installed. Our recommendation is that you decrease the score in the areas of site design and amenities and basically approve their request with some conditions that would require that they do a little bit more than they have thus far in those areas. Sunny Vann: First of all the drawings that were included in our GMP application were intended to be illustrative of the quality of the site design. They were supposed to indicate the types of street furniture and furnishings that would be included in the project. The changes which have already occurred--the brick pavers and the change in the exposed aggregate to brushed concrete--as well as the proposed reduction in the benches themselves are dictated by what we believe to be both practical as well as aesthetic considerations. We believe these changes result in at least as good if not a better project as we originally proposed particularly in the pedestrian experience in the plaza. The problem is that the Planning Office does not agree. They even go so far as to suggest that because we redesigned the brick paving pattern that the score should be reduced from slightly above standard to standard. If you look at the scoring categories, I don't think 3 PZMl. 5.8'1. . ,,,,..' you will find in there that how we layed out the brick paving pattern is really a scoring category. We believe that the changes we have provided are consistent with the way the GMP process has always been scored. The changes that came about here came about as a result of detail design development. They are a result of additional information that was obtained subsequent to GMP. In fact the major ity of them were included in the plans which were approved by the Building Department. When those changes were made, we felt they were consistent with the intent and therefore no deviation from GMP had occurred. We don't want to be portrayed here as somehow trying to get around what we originally represented. The changes that were made were done with the series of original applications in place and were done consistent with what we believed to be historical application of the GMP criteria. If the drawings are to be used in the future as Steve suggests then we are going to have to apply a greater level of detail and commitment at the GMP level. But we need to know about this in advance. With respect to the 3 changes that are before us this evening, Steve essentially agrees the change to brushed concrete is not a problem. It was done from a safety point of view. The brick banding: It was an aesthetic consideration that the extent of the banding was too busy for the quality of the project. It would have necessitated a less efficient snowmelt system to be installed. The issue of the planters themselves: What we were trying to represent in our original site development plan was we were going to produce an area of open space that could be used by pedest- rians. There would be seating in there. It would be landscaped and the quality of the surface would be something besides just concrete. It would be some kind of architectural treatment to enrich that surface. We believe we have done that. We have banding. We have step terrace now as opposed tot he original ter race. The planter s themselves, we bel ieve, function quite well. And the type of seating that is being proposed is the equivalent if not better than what was originally shown. Larry Yaw. We had actually designed, in fact, constructed 3 benches. We constructed them to be 32" high. That would be 16" sea ting and then enough planter to form a back. They were all built out of brick and it was all wonderful. Then I got on the site one day and saw that that height became a visual barrier rather than a visual amenity. So I had them torn down. 4 PZMl.5.8'1> I had the foremost planter lowered to 16" and then they progress back to 32". That made it more inviting to go in. In addition I redesigned them so that the cap on this thing was like a glazed material so they could be easily cleaned. The idea was that in the front planter to turn a planter into street furniture so that all the surfaces around here could be seated on. We increased the seating. Then what happened with an actual survey there is a grade difference of 8n across the site which we were not aware of at the GMP level. This would make benches around become 2 different levels. We noted that some of the benches that were shown did not face the pedestrian activity. So the planter tops which were designed for seating service that. There would be no benches because it really works. However, in talking to Steve we are proposing we put 4 benches which are on the lower side of the grade drop. We felt that the solution is handsomer, less cluttered and more effective as a pedestrian environment. Jasmine: I am not sure I understand what the changes in the banding are. Larry: We felt that the size of these along with the planters, the fountain and the detail of the building facade, etc. just got too busy. Sunny: The bike racks and the fountain: It is just too late in the year to install the fountain. The fountain is on the premises and will be installed in the spring. The bike racks will be installed. We are not trying to eliminate all the seating. We just want to eliminate 4 of the 8 benches and substitute the planters them- sel ves. Michael: Since all their CO. Steve, why is it necessary to rescore the project? that space is open, I would assume they already got without this. Steve: I think they got a temporary CO based on the outcome of whether you think this is a variation. That is the question. Michael: If we determine that what they have done is OK, why is it necessary to rescore it? Can we just extend the temporary CO until they install the other amenities? Alan: Don't worry about it. You don't have any relationship to CO. 5 PZMl. 5 .8'b Michael: But Steve was asking for financial assurances to guarantee that they-- Alan: But the appl icant is saying that they are committed to installing them so I don't see an issue there anymore. Michael: Then why is it necessary to rescore? Steve: Page 4, alternative #1 is to actually not rescore if you don't see any deviation. Sunny: Since we are going to have future GMP applications we need to know in scoring site design which looks at circulation and useability of the open space and the landscaping provided-- had we shown this paving pattern verses this paving pattern, would you have scored us different? Or if we had shown 4 benches in the seating area and said we were going to provide good qual ity seating, how would we have been scored? Those are the real issues. Dav id: I think you are right. It is interesting to see that we want detail to know what is happening but detail at a certain point is not--you are almost overdetailing to get more points. Then what happens is decisions are made to change things. I am not quite sure what to do with the continuing problem but we are going to have to solve this or we are going to get ourselves into a real sticky problem with it. Larry: We are worried about that a lot. What has happened is it is both applicant's and the Planning Office fault. In the spirit of competition over the 8 or 9 years, presentations have become more and more elaborate. I don't think the intents are any different at the conceptual but in the desire to be bigger and bigger presentations, there is more and more elaboration in the presentations which I think has keyed the Planning Office into more and more detail. The effect of it is we have to spend in our applicant's money another $15,000 to come before you. Secondly you are going to have to spend a lot of time here in sessions just like this--going over detailia that doesn't necessarily effect the process for the better. Jasmine: One of the problems is you do need a certain amount of detailia. What happens is that even though you are not necessarily scoring on the specific drawings there is an influence that occurs in this. This is a very important psychological part of the selling job that takes place during a presentation. And when you look at drawings, you can't help but be influenced by certain things you like or don't like. It has a 6 PZMl.5.8~ lot to do with the way it is drawn and the way it is shown in the GMP application. You can't come up with these drawings that are going to make us like this project and then expect not to live up to it because that is part of what was the "sell" on the project. Larry: I agree with everything you are saying. But in a very short period of time we have to take these drawings up to a finite level of detail that precludes a very important process for quality design development which is both practical and normal from a schematic design until it progresses up till finally it becomes permanent drawings and is submitted for a building permit . There is a very important element of improvement and study that goes on to make those things happen. And if we have to submit too much detail at the beginning that we are going to preclude a process called refinement and improvement which I think is very important to the process. Jasmine: Yes but at the same time if you don't put in that detail, you are not going to score as well. ..,,-.<. Sunny: It puts us in between a rock and a hard spot. If I could write the application today I would not show the pavement detail and would just show the plaza and I would write "We are going to include brick paving details to enhance the quality of experience and we are going to install some benches to provide an adequate seating arrangement". Then Joe Blowe comes in with an elaborate presentation, how are we going to score in the comparison? Michael: I know that some of the provi sions which the Planning Director can make a determination as to whether or not changes are sufficient enough that you have to go and ask for an amendment. Aren't changes like this within that realm of discret- ion? Alan: Yes, I think we are beating this up a little bit more than we really need to. It is being resolved in the code administrat- ively. I think there are a lot of things we can do to avoid this problem ever getting to this level in the next building season. We have written a letter to the architects encouraging them to come in and talk to us before we get to the building permit process because, of course, in design development things are going to change. We can't be expected in building permit review to look at the most detailed building plans and pick out whether something has changed. Only in the rarest cases will we not be able to work something out. 7 PZMl. 5. 8'D If this came in in the new code, you would never see it. We just don't have the authority right now to sign off on one bench. Welton asked for public comment. There was none. Welton: I felt that it was a major change myself but understand the way the topography works and the fact that what was repre- sented was basically benches around 4 sides each of those 2 planters and nothing on the fountain. So as far as seating I think it is going to more than represented previously. Alan: The seating capacity has increased. Welton: I am satisfied with the information for the planter heights and the bench revisions. MOTION Michael: I make a motion for option #1. (attached in records) Ramona seconded the motion. David: I think the presentations in the future would have to not be quite so detailed. This, to me, seems to be a wasted meeting for you people and for us. If we spend a lot of time doing this, what a waste of 7 people's time on P&Z. Jasmine: The reason I don't agree with using alternative #1 is that I prefer your suggestion which would be to do a miner amount of revised scoring because there are significant differences. As you have explained them they are not necessarily detrimental to the quality as the Planning Office suggests. Yet I think it is important to have a mechanism like that for applicants, unlike these applicants who may not be acting in good faith. We have to be able to make a determination like that and I think that sometimes it is important for the applicant to come back and explain what they did and why. I am not opposed to that at all. But it is a change and I feel that it is important to avoid setting a precedent whereby modifications to GMP are just treated as though everybody was going to do it consciously because not everybody is. Welton asked for a vote on the motion. The motion was defeated in a tie vote. 8 PZMl.5.8'b MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion to take the Planning Office recommendation as written deleting conditions A and B. Jasmine: I will move for the Planning Office's recommendation to lower the point score but subject only to the condition C pertaining to the bicycle racks. (attached in records) David seconded the motion with all in favor and Michael abstaining. CODE SIMPLIFICATION PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Alan Richman and the P&Z Board discussed Code Simplification and Clarification in detail regarding new language for park dedi- cation fees, new language for the housing impact fees and methodology. Welton then continued the public hearing to 5:00 pm January 12, 1988 Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:55~. . . In /J ______~ _ ___ _ ~.L:tt!l1Jl~ __ Janice . Carney, Ci y Deputy~rk 9