Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850219 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 1985 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Helton Anderson (arrived at 5 :10 p.m.), David White, Roger Hunt, and alternate Ramona Markalunas present. c.QMMIJiSIONE~S~OMfo!ENTS Hunt requested some department address Nugget Lake. He understood a drain was to be installed. Fallin remarked the parking lot has been eliminated at the golf course and people are now parking along the street, Parking on the street is not allowed. She suggested no parking signs. Tygre reported a friend 1.,110 is staying at the Prospector has complained about the "hustler" atmosphere. People have been trying to sell him timeshare units. The Commission was concerned about this during its approval procedures. Fallin remarked free dinners are being advertised. Did the staff approve this? Alan Eichman, planning office, replied yes. This marketing de\7ice is within the bounds of the regulation. The staff has processed and approved everything the Prospector has done. /'; \'Ihi te reported the traffic committee met last Thursday night. his recommendation the traffic committee will meet with Commi ssion and w ill present its proposals. At the Richman reminded the Commission of a work session scheduled for nExt Tuesday. MINUTES November 20, 1984: Harvey requested clarification of the first sentence. last paragraph. page seven. replace "presided." On page 15;, in the second paragraph, second sentence replace "CO" 1'7ith "building permit." Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of November 20, 1984. as corrected; seconded by David White. All in favor; motion carried. November 27, 1984.; David \'Ihi te moved to approve the minutes of November 27, 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. December ~1984~ December 4 1984; carried. Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of seconded by Pat Fall in. All in favor; mot ion , ~ ~CORD OF PROCEEDINGS Re,gyJ.ar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission ~ruary 19, 1985 December 11. 198i.;, Harvey changed the word "lie" to "like,," fourth line from the bottom of paragraph two. page 16. David White moved to approve the minutes of December II 1984. as corrected; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. December 18. 1984: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of December IS. 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. January 8. 1985: Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of January 8. 1985; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. January 15, 198~: David Hhite moved to approve the minutes or January 15, 1985; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. January 22. 1985: Tygre corrected the spelling of IV1llard Clapper, "Clappard" to "Clapper." ''leI ton Anderson moved to approve the minutes of January 22. 1985. as corrected; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. February 5, 1985: February 5 1985; carried. Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion pUBLIC HEARING SAT-TIME SATELLITE DISH CONDITIONAL USE Richman noted the applicant has withdra\m the application. Harvey closed the public hearing on the Sat-Time satellite dish conditional use. PUBLIC HEARING RECONSIDERATION OF SPA CODE AMENDMENTS Harvey opened the public hearing. Richman briefed the commissioners. In the packet are a memorandum from Richman and copies of two ordinances. Council earlier adopted Ordinance 29. The ordinance addressed one aspect of the overall P&Z code amendment recommendations. the minor change procedure for adopted precise plans. The ordinance is an interim action. The second ordinance considered to be a new ordinance. is a cleaned-up version of the entire document originated by the Commission. Tonight he will to educate the commissioners on Council's direction. Council will review this ordinance during 11arch or April. after the resolution of the bankruptcy. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting P1a~ning and Zoning CommissioA-February 19. 1985 Richman highlighted five or six areas of change to the later ordinance. He encouraged commissioners comments on the changes. The first change is to Section 24-7.3 (e) on page three. This item was added after Council's last work session. The submission of a conceptual plan is required by an applicant requesting a designation of an SPA overly. This requirement is applicable to two cases: first, a site that does not currently have an SPA overlay; and second, a site \'!ith an SPA overlay whose boundaries are changed. In either case, the applicant has to submit a conceptual plan. The plan must indicate that which is to be accomplished by the SPA overlay. Klein had indicated in a recent letter that the conceptual plan requirement had nO established conceptual plan review procedure. Richman suggested language that requires the conceptual plan procedurally folIo\'! the PUD conceptual plan review. The intent is not to require the level of detail of the PUD process. Harvey asked what is the difference between the conceptual procedure for an SPA and PUD. He assumed the SPA procedure would be more streamlined. Richman clarified an applicant will not be subjected to all the utility procedures, the road procedures. etc. The critical issues are design and intent. Harvey asked is the procedure a pre-application meeting with planning office to outl ine expectations. Richman noted i teffi "e II states an appl icant must submit a conceptual plan for designation. Second the item delineates what the conceptual submission should include. The planning director or planning staff would identify the conceptual submission. The planning office would detail for the applicant the necessary aspects or the conceptual submission. Harvey questioned the clarity of the language. Future cOE1inissions and appl i can t s may not unde rstand that intent. Richman agreed the language is sketchy. PUD requires details on water, se\rer drainage, fire. roads. etc. The goal is to extract the objective of the designation and the form of development. Council does not expect the same level of detail for a conceptual SPA submission as a conceptual PUD or a conceptual subdivision. Harvey suggested an add it i onal sentence that def ines more specif ically that the SPA submission must deal Hith the type of development and not with the specifics of utilities, roads. etc. Herb Klein. interested citizen. was concerned there be a procedure. I;lein quoted a letter he had received from Paul Taddune in response to Klein's correspondence: "Since the SPA is a zoning overlay the conceptual plan contemplated in Section 24-7.7 (e) would be submitted in connection with zoning ordinance designating a property SPA. The precise plan referenced in Section 24-7.4 would be 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ReQu1ar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19. 1985 adopted and implemented after SPA designation." Klein did not understand the st3.tements. Harvey questioned the referenced sections. Richman noted "24-7.7(e)" is a typographical mistake.. it should read "24-7.;Ue)." Richman mentioned he never received Taddune's letter. Richman presented item two. On page three, Section 24-7.3(b) Council removed the following sentence from the Commission's recommendation: "variations may also be imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council which, in any of the above requirements, limit the applicant's ability to develop to less than the standards of the underlying zone district." The Commission and Council had spent most of their time revievling this sentence. The debates were heated and lengthy. Taddune and Richman had encouraged at the beginning of the section evaluation criteria: compatibility with the neighborhood, availability of utilities. road standards, etc. Criteria provide a strong basis for the Commission to approve development above or below the FAR and open space requirement. Criteria are stronger than a statement that P&Z has the right to impose limitations. The SPA process involves trade-offs. Standards for trade-offs do exist. The ordinance cannot suggest the Commission is trading in a vacuum. Attorneys argued the language was too open ended. Harvey argued the language indicated no reliance on the underlying zoning. Tygre said the ordinance does not indicate that the SPA agreement involves negotiations. Formalize this idea. Richman asked why is SPA different from PUD or subdivision. Negotiations take place during the PUD and subdivision processes. but the negotiation process is not referenced in the language for either of these. Harvey repeated the intent of the SPA overlay. These parcels are large and critically important to the community. Those reasons do not apply to a PUD parcel. The Commission wants to insure that the SPA applicant approach the SPA procedure with the understanding that the parcel is important to the community. The intent of SPA differs from the intent of PUD. Section 24-7.6. "Standards for Review of Precise Plan." does not deal with use of the parcel. The use of the parcel is the essence of SPA. The Commission may not want the Institute to be compatible with the neighborhood. The Institute is a special piece of property. Perhaps. Little IJell' s use should not be compatible 1-1 i th its ne i ghbo rhooe. Pe rhaps the cOr1muni ty wants an' hybrid 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning commission February 19. 1985 mixture of uses on the Little Nell parcel. How will the statements of expectation. established by the Commission. be incorporated in the record? Harvey quoted Section 24-7.3(b): "Variations from the following requirements of the underlying zone district may be allowed..." He questioned the suitability of "may be allowed." Should language on the parcel's community importance be drafted into this ordinance? The reasons why certain parcels are SPA s are missing. in particular, the language on the parcel's importance to the community, to the past and the future. Richman recommended an addition to the intent section: clue to the unique importance to the community. Harvey emphasized the reason for the SPA is the uniqueness of the historical uses on the properties to the community. Should this comment be included in the i'ntent section or the standards of revie\~ section? The comment may be too general to include in the standards of review. Include some comment on \.,hy the parcels are designated SPA. Eost of the parcels include mixed uses and are not conforming. Richman suggested including language in Section 24-7.1. the statement of intent. Klein recommended specific language in the standards section: where necessary demonstrate preserving the existing historic uses and community benefits unique to the particular site. design techniques must be employed which without the additional density would otherwise make the project economically unfeasible. This language preserves the trade-offs. Give the applicant higher density only if the applicant can demonstrate the high~r density is necessary to preserve an existing uniqueness of the site. The rationale for increased density has been the developer s risk of receiving less density. The standards for granting increased density should be more specific. Harvey repeated highlight the reason for the SPA: the unique historical scale. uses, and importance to the community. The Standards for Review should be judged against the rationale for "Thy a particular parcel is designated SPA. That rationale involves the community's reasons to preserve the uses, densities. etc. Richman suggested additional language to Section 24-7.1: exceptional importance to the community or the unique attributes for the community. Harvey asked what happened to the narratives composed by the Commission on the individual SPA parcels. Richman explained the 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting planning and Zoning Commission February 19. 1985 narratives have been set aside until the ordinance is adopted. The narratives will come forward later as a work program item and class action rezoning. Harvey asked what if a property owner does not want the property rezoned. Richman replied the applicant has no choice. Hunt emphasized for a variation a developer must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that the community receives a benefit. Indicate this idea in the ordinance. Harvey said the SPA submission must demonstrate that the design enhances the community's historical attitude, use, and enjoyment of the property. The design of Little Nell has to maintain the important community benefit: the interfacing of the mountain and the town. Specific language identifying the uniqueness of the parcels should be included in the ordinance. Richman suggested a criterion that reviews the submission against the basic intent of the SPA designation. Harvey reasoned otherwise the parcel is a PUD. Richman said the adoption of the precise plan must relate to original intent of SPA. Harvey referred to Section 27-.6 (b) ("Standards for Reviel.,"): "the burden rests upon the applicant.. .lack of adverse effect... and compliance \,ith the city's intent in originally designating the site SPA." The ordinance is designed for an SPA designation request. For that scenario, a statement of intent is unnecessary. In theory the site is nel.,ly designated. The concern is the already designated SPA site. Include some comment in the intent section that gives the reason for the original designation for existing SPA sites. Richman concurred. The addition of that criterion is redundant in Section 24-7.5 (b). Leave item "b" as is. Hunt requested an addition to item "b": variations will be allowed where there is demonstrable community benefit. For eXaT"ple. the community benefit for Little Nell could be the interface between the mountain and the city. variations can be granted for that consideration. In the ordinance convey the bargaining conceflt. John Doremus, representative for the Institute property, argued the six criteria listed in item "a" of "Standards for Review" are stronger than "demonstrable community benefit." He argued Section 24-7.6(a) (1-6) addresses Hunt's points in a more detailed fashion. Richman argued the inclusion of item "b" strengthens "a." An applicant will have to state the community benefit in the statement of intent for a conceptual approval. The applicant \oIill also have to com[)ly with that statement of intent for approval of the precise plan. The applicant will not receive variations unless he meets the intent of the cO!amunity benerit. 6 r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission ~ebruary 19. 1985 '- Rich.'TIan continued. Section 24-7.5(d) \.,as added: time frame. The general concern vias repeated amendments. The precise plan shall cover the development for at least five years but not to exceed ten years. That language is clumsy. The language adds nothing. The applicant is required by PUD to provide a construction time schedule. But the regulations do not require a five year prograi1\ or a ten year program. Insert a minimum phrase: the city wants to review at least five years worth of activity on a parcel. Harvey asked what if someone wants to build within eighteen months. An eighteen month plan could be equivalent to a five year plan. States only the application shall provide a schedule specifying the time frame of the development which is to occur on the parcel. During the review process the Commission can challenge the appropriateness of the schedule. Fallin expressed uncomfortability \.,ith the open-ended quality of the statement. Spell out the time. Klein said he is not concerned with the ten year provision. the maximum limit. But, a minimum provision is very important. The purpose of the SPA is to discourage a piecemeal planning approach. The minimum is critical to the integrity of the process. An eighteen month minir.1um is absurd. A five year minimum plan protects people. Do not try to anticipate development after ten years. Harvey understood the Commission had intended to deal with the length of time on the approval. Richman noted thL3 section does not address that intent. This section directs the applicant to disclose to the city a five year comprehensive plan. Item "f" addresses expiration of rights in the process. Harvey said item "f" does not address the length of the approval for a precise. Doremus clarified traditionally when an area is master planned. the entire area of ownership is master planned. Knowledge of the full development plan is more important than the number of years. No one can pinpoint years. Ask for a master plan ror the entire area of oIVnership and a proposed schedule of development. Harvey asked what happens to the approval if the schedule ends. Richman answered the applicant \oIOuld not be in compliance l'lith the condition of the approval. and the applicant \'70uld have to request an amendment. The PUD process is similar. Doremus point is articulated in Section 24-7.3(a): the applicant has to receive a precise plan approval for the entire parcel in question by following the procedures in the zoning code. Rich.'TIan argued the time fra'TIe is irrelevant and unnecessary. Harvey asked if the schedule were not ,net would the ilruendment be major or minor. Richman answered the change would probably be considered minor if the order of the on-line schedule VTere 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 1985 changed. If the entire order were eliminated. the change would be reviewed again by the Commission. Harvey questioned Section 24-8.26. Richman explained that section discusses changes not to be considered by staff, changes in siting and coverage. That section is physically not oriented procedurally oriented. Tygre commented item "d" needs a schedule specifying and disclosing the time frame of the full development. Second. how much time should be given to someone to implement the plan. Conditions for the developer may change and conditions for the community may change. Can both issues be covered in the same language. Gideon Kaufman, representative for Little NelL reasoned an applicant is subject to the development process even with the receipt of an SPA designation. The application is subjected to growth management, to other developmental processes with time limits. He discouraged designating arbitrary times in the SPA process. Time limits are designated in GIlP and other development processes. Harvey remarked the development schedule should be called eighteen months after receipt of the GMP. And the precise plan cannot be approved 1'1 i thout a GrIP approval. Only requi re a schedule specify ing the development time. niclli~an noted item four. Section 24-7.5(f), discusses expiration. Do not terminate the SPA designation because an applicant fails to present a precise plan within two years. Item "f" is extremely important. Harvey suggested the applicant be given two years to submit a precise plan after final approval of the conceptual plan or the conceptual plan approval expires. Do not terminate the SPA overlay. Richman added or the conceptual plan for the site shall expire. Richman said item five. Section 24-7.6 (c), states final approval to the precise plan \~ill not be granted vTithout a growth management <lllotment. The PUD and subdivision regulations read similarly. The approval of the precise plan is conditional. An allotment is necessary for final approval. Spence Schiffer, interested citizen, asked why should a GrIP allotment be required for the adoption of the precise plan. It should be the other way around. Richman answered the city's policy has always been that no one receives zoning, subdivision, or other approvals without the right to build first. The a~endment to the code is one must apply for everything at one time. Harvey said assume the Institute plans a residentiaL commerciaL and lodge development. Assume the Institute does not receive a 8 N RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning commission February 19. 1985 multi-year allotment. but only 25%-30':; of the lodge rooms re- quested. Under that scenario. the Institute has a partial allotment for the precise plan. Hhat happens? Richrnan replied the applicant has to develop a phasing raechanism. The applicant has to design around the incremental allotment. without the right to build the applicant cannot build. Schiffer commented this process creates a dilemma similar to the GMP and other approval. There are incongruities. Harvey asked why cannot someone receive approval for the precise plan first, and then the subsequent approvals. Richman replied the results are speculative subdivisions" PUD's, and SPA's. There is no consumer protection. If this policy is not applied to precise plans then do not apply it to subdivisions. For subdivision approval. the city always requi res grovlth management allotment. Schiffer argued an SPA is not like a PUD or subdi- vision. SPA is zoning. Start "lith the zoning first, then apply the other constraints. Treat this process as a rezoning. Richman argued if this Ivere simply rezoning he would agree. The language suggests an association with conceptual SPA approval and growth management allotment, not Vlith precise plan and growth management. Approving the precise plan without a right to build turns the growth management revieIV into a check-off process. Harvey considered a multi-year growth management allotment for final SPA plan approval. If the applicant were granted 25% the first year. 25% the second year, and 25% the third year. the applicant during the third year would lose the first year allot- ment. The grm.,th management allotment expires after two years if the project is not built. And the applicant cannot receive an SPA approval without the full allotment. Richman noted the code provides extensions. Doremus commented multi-year allotments involve an element of risk. Richman said the lodge Has granted a multi-year allotment because the city concluded the public benefit associated with the project merited a multi-year allotment. Harvey differentiated betIVeen the SPA and PUD. The SPA parcel is existing, is an historical public benefit, and is being preserved by the city. Schiffer said this process forces a piecemeal approach. The process encourages growth where it is not wanted. The process also forces someone to apply for a GriP allocation before the precise plan is adopted. The applicant has to build \v1thin the two year period once he receives the allocation. Layers of time constraints are counterproductive. Schiffer remarked one purpose for the adoption of the precise plan may be to increase the value and and marketability of the pro- 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ReQu1ar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19. 1985 perty. An appl icant may not want to develop the prope rty. l'Ihy force the applicant to develop? Harvey said the motive to increase the value of the property would affect the Commission's decision. Schiffer repeated the process forces'someone to compete for an allocation before the adoption of the precise pI an. wi tho ut an adopt i on the appl i cant cannot build. That applicant would be holding onto a quota that could legitimately have been awarded to someone else. Kaufman said track the two processes together. The adoption of a conceptual plan should concurrently occur with the growth management. An applicant will lose an edge in the GI1P competition by divulging information at an earlier process, the precise plan. The GNP competition will be unfair. It is very important to apply for the conceptual SPA approval at the same time as the allotment. Harvey noted another problem. Conceptual approval does not involve a detailed submission. Growth management involves details. siting, elevations. etc. Perhaps the precise plan and gro\.,th management should track concurrently. Otherwise. conceptual SPA would be very detailed. After the conceptual SPA plan is approved the applicant can develop the precise pan and gro\'lth management information. The system otherwise is piecemeal. Richman agreed the proposed process creates a procedural morass. Schiffer explained SPA is an underlying zoning, the GriP is the pacing mechanism for growth. The underlying zoning should come before the Gnp allotment. If the applicant wants to process the GllP submission concurrently with the SPA submission. give the applicant that perogative. But. do not impose constraints or requirements to do so. Do not make any Gnp approval a prerequisite for conceptual SPA adoption. Harvey understood an applicant \Ias to first receive conceptual and preci se pI an approval for a parcel of 1 and then apply r 0 r growth management allotment. Richman said no. Recall the argument Hunt had raised during the Shapery proj ect: once SPf.. approval had been given for a property the Commission had no right to deny them growth management. Richman had disagreed with this interpretation. The Commission had the right to rate a project on the phasing mechanism. But, if the last step were growth management the Commission would review this step as irrelevant. Hhy reviell a grovTth management application IIi th subdivision and SPA approval? Growth management should be in conjunction with the final SPA approval. If the approval is defined as the precise plan. fine. In every other case it is conceptual, but may be conceptual subdivision and conceptual PUD are different than conceptual SPA. Harvey agreed if an applicant receives a growth management approval before the precise plan 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ReQu1ar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19. 1985 approval, the city is still tied. The city may only have the opportunity to review a conceptual plan and a growth management application. The Commission may have insufficient information to make a decision. Harvey concluded precise and growth management should be reviewed concurrently. Richman agreed precise approval followed by growth management is not a sensible approach. Kaufman argued the Commission will not accept a vague ideas during conceptual. The applicant will have to divulge information about the project to satisfy the commissioners. At the time. the growth management application will be exposed. It is important for a Gf.lP applicant who is also requesting an SPA designation to have the same edge as his competitor. not to know what each other is planning. Conceptual and GHP should be at the same level. The Commission is not compelled to approve the precise plan afterwards. although it may be difficult. Instead, process the G1JP application first. the conceptual plan second. This order gives the Comuission sufficient information to approve the conceptual. This order protects the applicant in the GNP process. Harvey articulated a difference: a developer trying to win a coupetition and a community considering the best use on a piece of property. That is the problem. Doremus cited the l1eadows and its 80 acres of mixed land use. The planners and developers do not know I'/hat the community will accept at this time for develop- ment. How can a project hire a developer, arrange financing,. prepare everything in line for a hotel for the conceptual presen- tation, only to have the Commission dismiss the hotel plan because it has something else in mind for the parcel. G11P immediately starts the clock, the applicant immediately has to build. and detail his plans. Decrease the level of detail at the conceptual SPA level; the Commission wants information on use, density, and concept. The Lodge submitted substantial information at its conceptual revieH and yet it still did not submit enough informa- tion. The Commission cannot know too much at conceptual,. therefore. Kaufman s concept is protected. Approve the concept then direct the applicant to execute a precise plan and apply for an allotment. That is the only way a larger c1evelopment can possibly work. Tygre lias not syr,lpathetic to the argurilent of divulging conceptual ideas prior to the GrIP competition. The reasonlng lS applicable to a poker ga'l1e. GIIP applicants first have to meet threshold. then compete for the allocation. The poker game scenario is not realistic. Larry Yaw architect, saic1 developers do care about Ilinning by one point, no matter how. Harvey said that scenario may be true for comparable projects; but. SPA cannot be compared to commercial development. Tygre emphasized the SPA intent is more important than the edge in a GllP competition. The GIIP 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ReQu1ar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 1985 should be more closely tied to the precise plan. The GNP appli- cation and the precise plan should be tracked together. Anderson noted the GIlP application is fairly detailed: identifying utilities, trails, etc. That process does track more closely vii th preci se. The conceptual question should be j'Thether or not to pursue the SPA plan further. Anderson was not sympathetic with Kaufman. That applicant who has exposed his plan may have an advantage over the appl icant who has not; that appl icant has the benefit of the Commission's feedback. White identified another problem associated with conceptual. Council treats the conceptual stage as a prelirilinary stage, Harvey asked do the Commission and Council review conceptual and precise plan in the SPA process. Richrnan replied correct. The preliminary step is deleted in the SPA process. Schiffer emphasized the essence of SPA is the property's unique character. Let the developer choose whether he wants to process the GNP submi ssion concur rently 1'1 i th the SPA submission or not. Harvey repeated the goal is to make the conceptual process as least burdensome as possible. That goal cannot be accomplished with a concurrent grovlth management review. Doremus :TIentioned that the code does not prevent doubling up on procedures. Harvey asked does an applicant with an existing SPA designation need to be subjected to the conceptual review. If not, that applicant can be subj ected to only one step. It would be foolish for a developer without an SPA designation and without conceptual approval to present a plan for precise and growth management. Harvey asked is there a problem with conceptual as the first step and precise plan and growth management plan as steps two. "a" and "b." Richman agreed precise and growth management are more appropriately connected in terms of the level of detail. Kaufman asked what is required for conceptual SPA. Ric:lman answered a statement of intent, use. and density. The issue is zoning. The reference to area and bulk requirements and use table is generic. The process does not specify FAR, e.g.; 1.5. The approval is broad. Ka ufman noted the abil i ty to apply for GllP submission happens once a year. How does this affect the proposed SPA process? One could miss the GNP filing date. Richman noted he vTDuld re-write item five [Section 24-7.6(cl]. Harvey mentioned the phrasing of "final approval to those portions of the precise plan" is confus- ing. The phrase indicates a piecemeal approach. Can an applicant with a partial allotment from growth management receive approval 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19. 1985 to execute a precise plan? Klein said appl icants disclose proj ects and take risks applying Hith multi year allocation even \Jithout the SPA process. The tHO year expiration is unfair and does not make sense. Someone may apply for an SPA approval and bank their allotment. The GI1P process must recognize this situation. must allOlq banking the allotments, and must not require partial SPA development. The community goal is a completely built SPA project. Design the system to encourage this goal. Once the SPA plan is accepted, once the applicant has successfully competed, once the allotments are banked, the hTO year 1 imi t makes no sense. Richman said the code generically deals with this: the 33 months replaces the t\Jo year provision. It is not fair to allow speculators to bank allotments in an environment of limited allotments. If the applicant is banking the allotments for the purpose of putting together a complete project, then give that applicant the ability to hold on to the allotments. Klein challenged the following language: one cannot receive an allotment unless one has conceptual approval. It has been mentioned if an applicant were to have an existing SPA designation the applicant would not need conceptual approval. Richman replied the revised language ties growth management to the precise plan. Klein asked can someone request a groHth nanagement allocation without a conceptual approval on an SPA plan. Richman replied yes. '['he Commission did not have a problem with item six, Section 24- 7.7 (SPA Agreement). Richman summarized the amendment to the SPA resolution: to tie the allotnents to precise plan and not to conceptual plan. Ue \Jill present a resolution which integrates tonight's discussion at the next meeting. Harvey reiterated Council has to be made aware the SPA process is not a PUD process. Council Hill have the opportunity with ComJission to review an SPA submission both at the conceptual and preci se stage. Garvey closed the public hearing. OLD BUSINESS ASPEN GROVE SPECIAL REVIEW Colette Penne, planning office, briefed the Com~lission. The applicant requests a GNP exemption for an addition of 206 square 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19. 1985 feet. The additional footage will cover the existing outside dining area at Pinocchio's. Penne had reviewed the 1977 application which produced the Aspen Grove Building. Nothing precludes the open space from being used as proposed as long as the 25% open space is maintained. The restaurant use is leaving. The applicant wants retail space. A big spruce tree, located in Pinocchio' s courtyarc, is a concern. The applicant has offered to donate the tree to the city and the city can move the tree. The tree's value is approximately $5,000. Jim Holland, director of the parks department had concerns about movino the tree. That tree has been moved before. The tree still has a root ball. Holland had concluded the chances of the tree surviving the transplant were good and had suggested relocating the tree near Pablo!s~ The applicant designed the courtyard to allow someone to completely circle the courtyard. The entire make-up of the co~~ercial space is changing. Both restaurants are leaving. The landscaping plan includes benches. The courtyard will be enhanced from a retail perspective, and the open space will be more usable. The impacts on the community are minimal or manageable, e.g., employee housing, parking, infrastructure. The 25% open space is maintained. Even with the increase in FAR. 600 square feet of buildable FAR remains. The employee number will probably decrease. Commercial space has a less employee demand than restaurants. The CC zone does not require parking. The parking will not increase. The engineering department has confirmed there is no additional demand. Harvey summarized the impacts. Employees will not be increased because retail is less intensi've than a restaurant use. The \Vater and sewer demands are lessened. Trashr parking, and e;nployee housing are reduced. Penne noted IlPC has granted conceptual design approval. The design does not violate with the viewplane. Harvey asked does the Commission need to address the canopies. penne ansvJered the canopies extend over the public right-of-\'Iay and not private property. The applicant is responsible. Ya\'l noted the canopies are ror public safety. The applicant cannot build under the canopy. He challenged the city. If the area below canopies "ere to be counted against the applicant, then the applicant should have the right to the land below the canopies. Count that square footage in the total square footage of the property. The interpr.etation by Drueding is contrary to the principal of floor area ratio. Harvey asked does the code difrerentiate between private and public property under the Ii) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Re<]u1ar Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19. 1985 horizontal projection? Pennc said do not count the space under the proj ection in the applicant's FAR. Otherwise. include the space in the applicant's FAR and give the applicant the space. Harvey asked will the applicant agree not to enclose or use the space under the canopies. YaH replied the applicant would not have a problem. Penne noted the issue is not really gerQaine to the Commission's approval. Lar ry Yal'l f archi tect for the proj ect. presented the design. He referred to site plans and elevations. The existing open space is in e::cess of the 25%. That space is nicely landscaped Irith flowers. The space is not effective public space. The fencing interrupts the space. The new proposal is a more participatory space. People can move around the entire space. FloHers and plants will be consolidated in the center of the space. Seating ,Till be located around the vegetation. People will be able to circulate. The entire sidewalk in the courtyard \/ill be a patterned brick., similar to the Aspen Square Building. Eight green ash trees will be located linearly in front of the building. The spruce tree, a public asset, "ill not be lost. The tree Hill be transplanted someHhere else. The OITner will give the tree to the city and underHrite the expenses to move the tree. The owner commits to this plan. The clan is varied. enriched. and seasonally changing. The plan ei1c~urages a high degree of pedestrian access and participation. The addition's architecture is a continuation of the existing materials of the building. Harvey asked how does the footprint of the proposed enclosed space compare with the footprint of the existing pinocchio patio- dining area. Yaw illustrated on the plans the differences. Harvey recollected swimr.ling pools Here not counted in open space. Arc fenced in dining areas considered open space? \'1ill the city gain more usable open space with this configuration? Penne noted the use of open space for dining space is customary. The city about a year and one-half ago instituted a policy that required the Commission's approval for the use of open space for dining. Pinocchio's and the Heinerstube never went through that approval process. The Aspen Grove Building was one of the first growth management buildings. The fences were assumed to be part of the appr.oval. In fact.. th," fences were not part of the approval. This proposal returns 25% open space to the city. 25% open space was approved for the building in 1977. Except for the absence of the tree. the proposal improves the use of the space. Hunt objected to the narrowing of the open space. The open space is not Hide to begin with, 35-40 feet. A projection of ten or more 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 19. 1985 feet will further narrow the space and will render the open space meaningless. He criticized the dog-leg space on the southwest corner. That portion of the space is not visible from the street. Visually the space will not appear to be as open. Hho owns the western edge. between Pinocchio's and Crossroads? Where is Pinocchio's property line? If the applicant owned the one one foot gap, he could expand in that space. Harvey said the trade-off is the visual impact for usability. Hunt was not satisfied with the trade-off. Yaw said the owner wanted a special people place. The spruce tree blocks the space now. The extension no more interrupts the space than the tree. Hunt argued the southllest corner is not visible and therefore worthless as open space visually from the street. Ya'" said the open space is quality open space. \landering and discovering space sometimes is more important. Anderson argued the space is more usable as open space but not any more valuable as open space. He did not want to lose the spruce. The sprUCE is the street's signature. He had no strong objections. Yaw noted the HPC approval had one condition: review the pavers. '.Iotion: David White moved to approve special review for a GUP exemption for the 286 squarE feet commercial addition as proposed. provided that the landscape plan is comraitted to and the spruce tree is transplanted at the cost of the applicant. Viewplane approval can also be given since no viewplane lines are being violated by the proposed construction. Seconded by Pat Fallin. !lotion carried with Roger Hunt opposed. Motion: Jasmine Tygre moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m.; seconded by David White. All in favor; motion carried. ----_._-,~ ~ ------,_..__.+---....~_._,-- ."------. ------_.__..,---~- Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 16