Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940802 ,c_,_ ~rJ ~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 2. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call: Steven Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Mary Lackner, Planning: There is a Main Street sidewalk meeting tomorrow night August 3, at 5:15 in the Library. The City is going to be presenting plans for a connection sidewalk from 1st Street to 7th Street and 7th to Bleeker along both sides of Main Street. That is supposed to be constructed this Fall. Kim Johnson presented zoning maps to everyone's delight! Leslie: Brought members up to date on the Council meeting August 1, regarding the overlay zone district. August 22 is the public hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS - There were none. ',,- MINUTES JULY 5. 1994 MOTION Roger: I move to adopt minutes of July 5, 1994. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. AFFORDABLE HOUSING TEXT AMENDMENT Leslie: The title is a misnomer. It is not related to affordable housing. It is a general proposed text amendment that affects architectural proj ections in all proj ects. She then did a presentation as attached in record. Roger: This allowable eave of 18 inches is only operative for side yard setback? Leslie: Nothing is allowed to project into a required side yard into our setbacks except for--and the code lists a variety of things that can project. Building eaves can project up to 18 inches. Right now architectural projections can go up to 12 inches. We are just changing the 12 to 18 so we don't get into this debate with people. .- Bruce opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the public. There were none. He closed the public hearing. - -- PZM8.2.94 - On the changed definition of architectural projection where you add "Does not extend to the ground"--does that mean somebody could start a window 4 inches from the ground and come up? Leslie: Because if it touched the ground then we are into site coverage issues. They could be within an inch. Roger: I can see where the Building Dept came up with projection as opposed to eaves on these. Because I don't see these as an extension of the roof. It is more of an awning which is an architectural projection. I can't think of any reason to have a problem extending that out to 18 inches from 12. The only question is, for example, for a bay window on the side of a house in a side yard setback. If it is near the ground level is that going to make a difference--that extra 6 inches that a bay window would be allowed to go out and how close could a bay window go to the ground. Bay window discussion followed. MOTION Bob: I move definition of proj ections of to recommend to Council the text amendments architecture projections to increase the those features from 12 to 18 inches. to the allowed 1""'- Jasmine seconded the motion. '- Bruce: I am going to vote in favor of this. I do have one comment. It is not intended as a criticism of staff at all. When I read through this I couldn't help but wonder whether we would be considering and staff recommending approval of a text amendment if a private developer were the one applying. I am wondering if it were somebody other than the City doing the Kraut project if we would be favorably considering this text amendment. I hate to see us applying a double standard. I wonder if a private developer would have gotten this far along with this kind of text amendment. I just want to make sure that the issue has been raised and you have thought about it and we are not just willy-nilly approving something just because the City is the applicant. I want us to be aware of that. If the text needs to be amended, fine, let's do it. But let's be aware that we are not doing something favorable for the City. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. 204 EAST DURANT TEXT AMENDMENT Bruce re-opened the public hearing. --. Mary Lackner, Planning, made presentation as attached in record. ,.,~ 2 ".- PZM8.2.94 '- After discussion-- MOTION Jasmine: I move to recommend approval for the text amendment to permit parking on garage aprons for multi-family projects with Special Review approval to City Council. Roger seconded the motion. Can we couch the guidelines in such a way that it allows the flexibility within the Special Review. Vann: There is a typo. It should say "One planter buffer provided per 3 spaces". Jasmine: I amend my motion to include the change in #3 on page 6 of the Planning Office memo dated August 2, 1994 (attached in record) "The location and dimension of planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site circumstances" Roger: And I amend my second. ,.-... '--'" Bruce: So your reading of the last sentence is something like "The location and dimension of planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site specific circumstances provided that one planter buffer is provided per 3 off-street parking spaces". Jasmine: That is fine. Roger: That was the u~derstandingof my second. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. SPECIAL REVIEW Mary: The applicant meets their requirements for 1 planter for 3 parking spaces. They meet the length requirement. They vary from 10 to 18 feet in length. However, as far as the width of the planter they are proposing 2 foot wide planters which we have concern about because the Parks gave us the minimum recommendation at 2 and 1/2 feet. Also the height will very from 4 inches above the surface of the driveway to 2 and 1/2 feet because the planters will go along the side of the sloping driveway. It starts out at 4 feet and then it will drop to about 2 and 1/2 feet down by the garage doors. I think we can work with that. Staff's main concern is the 2 foot width. In that width you are not only looking at your planting area but also the structure of what is holding your planter there. We think if that is minimized this may work but we have concerns on that. In this case as I think with most - -- 3 ....~ PZM8.2.94 -- other cases we would be looking at under this text amendment would be to require a landscaping plan that does show screening vegetation, trees and shrubs at the time they apply for building permit and have Parks approve that. That would be something we would want to see if you do go with these reduced widths. Vann: The problem with the width is either we reduce the size of the width of the parking space and increase the size of the planter or try and provide a generous parking space so you are not banging your doors and still provide a screen. Roger: Park's recommendation of 2 and 1/2 feet--was that a recommendation that there should be that much dirt supporting that screening? Were they actually looking at a total of 3 feet wide? Mary: We were talking about size of the planter. That would be the planter structure itself. I don't know if George had thought they were going to be several inches wide taken out of that 2 and 1/2 feet or not. We didn't get that specific. Roger: If you were looking at 6 inch walls at 2 and 1/2 feet, you are looking at 2 feet of dirt to support the screening. Vann: We are not talking about trees back here. -'..... Arch: The problem with plants is water getting to roots. If you do an irrigation system, that will solve the problem. Roots can grow down underneath a driveway area and plants, shrubberies--it is not a problem. -- MOTION Sara: I move to approve the Special Review for apron parking with the condition from staff that a landscaping plan be presented to the Park's Dept and to staff for visual relief of the apron parking. Roger: I will second that motion. Should we add onto that under the assumption that the text amendment passes by City Council. Bob: As part of the issuance of a building permit. Sara: I accept that as part of the motion. Roger: And for my second of the motion. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION/POD AMENDMENT CONTINUED Bruce re-opened the public hearing. MOTION _ Roger: At the request of the applicant I move to table action and to '- 4 .- PZM8.2.94 - continue the public hearing to date certain of August 16, 1994. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor, KRABACHER GMOS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Kim Johnson, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: I have a question for staff. Is it in your budget to be checking on applicants on their traffic mitigation, their transport- ation mitigation? Who is going to go out there and check for 4 bicycles? Are you going to do that on your lunch hour, Leslie? Leslie: No. And as with most of our conditions of approval--when employees thought that they had parking provided on site. We have had employees call us and say "The parking that I thought I had is being used for guests". And then we have been able to enforce that. Kim: Making it a condition of approval puts it on the record that that is what the approval required. And there are ways that staff hears about things and we try and seek out the answers if we feel that there is a problem. ,- Bruce: There is 2 levels that I am concerned about. One is initially in the building permit phase or CO phase or whatever it is. Is some- one going to check then to see whether bus passes and bicycles are done? ''>.....'<'-'', Arch: At our meeting with Kim, Leslie and Amy we brought up these 3 proposals and we all realized that 2 of them were actually in the control of the applicant. The 3rd was more or less something that would hopefully happen down the road. It is obvious that 4 bicycles could be there and should be there and the Zoning Officer inspect once a year. And the bus passes is just something that is offered freely. The van pool program is out of the hands of the applicant. Kim: I thought Joe was planning, if he retains ownership of the building, that would definitely be in his control. Arch: For his employees, yes. Gideon Kaufman, Attorney for applicant: That would just be put in the covenants. Arch: All of those could easily be checked on and verified through a one-time visit once a year. Jasmine: I share a lot of Bruce's concerns. And I think that the applicant could do everything possible. The applicant can issue the bus passes and set up a van pool, put the bicycles there. But there is no guarantee that the people are actually going to use them. And .- - 5 '-'-' PZM8.2.94 - there is no way for the applicant to enforce that. And there is no way for the City to enforce it. In a sense these are all really good ideas but we have no real idea whether they are going to work and even if the applicant does everything in his power to make this work there is still no guarantee that it is going to and that it is going to do any mitigation. I think it is nice that we are trying to do this. But I think it gives us a false illusion that we are accomplishing something that we are not necessarily accomplishing and which the applicant can't control. Bruce: The condition is there and the enforcement of it as the condition reads is up to staff. So our options are either change the condition or remove it. And I am not inclined to remove it. Jasmine: I am not inclined to remove it either. I am just expressing discomfort with it. Bruce: Do you have 4 bicycles budgeted in the construction budget? It is your representation that we will have 4 bicycles at time of CO? Krabacher: Sure. I have got 2 right now. Bruce: All right. That's good enough for me. ...,......... MOTION -,.'-;.".....'" Roger: I move to approve the Krabacher Office Building GMQS exemptions for expansion of FAR and net leasable in an historic landmark. I also move to recommend to the City Council approval of the GMQS exemption for the three-bedroom Category 2 affordable housing unit. These approvals are conditioned on items #1 through #11 on Planning Office memo dated August 2. 1994. (attached in record) Marta seconded the motion with all in favor. Bruce then adjourned meeting. Clerk ,- '- 6