Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20070410 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 10.2007 Ruth Kruger, Chair calls meeting to order. Commissioners in attendance: Steve Skadron, Brian Speck, LJ Erspamer, Ruth Kruger, John Rowland, David Guthrie. Staff in attendance: Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Continued from April 9'\ Chris Bendon summarizes Res012 new draft amendments. #11 Bendon asks to confirm commissions desire to revert back to existing text, # 12 inserts clarification ...citation and...TDR's. Maximum unit size was 1500-2000 and wanted 2000-2500. Commercial residential ratio was discussed as too severe so changed to read free market residential no greater than 150% of floor area that commercial uses. Lodging floor area suggested 1 to 1 increasable to 1.5 to 1 (page 4) and maximum lodge unit size 1500 sqft need to be discussed. Kruger wants to incentive smaller room sizes. Lock offs with maximum of 1500 sqft follows conversation April 9'h. Skadron confirms this is new. Lodging has its own. Skadron feels denser properties might present more attractive hotel price points. Kruger explains the disallowance oflodging in downtown central core and comment was to encourage lodging anywhere and everywhere. It's really upper floors downtown and inviting people to be creative. Other changes include mixed use zone districts along Main Street. Kruger wouldn't want to demand 100% affordable housing in a zone district because the box will be condensed and doesn't see 1 to 1 free market. Ratio will look at affordable versus free market. If you lower ratio you have more free market residential. Suggested text is higher ratio. Kruger doesn't see high end houses on Main Street due to dust and noise. Might be good place for regular housing. Skadron asks if this prevents affordable housing from being built. Kruger thinks it's a tough zone district already, height limits are less and there are setbacks. Leave it at .75 to I and increase 1 to 1 by special review. Skadron asks about community vision for Main Street. John comments that others may want to build a house on Main Street. Bendon describes strategy and mitigation bracket. Struggle is range with FAR of buildings. Kruger suggests 0.5 to I as 0.25 is not practical. John would like to see diagram. Steve is not clear on intent and states how intention of7'h and Main affordable had a commercial component. Bendon states that is 1 to 1 FAR. Overall cap on FAR is 1.25 to 1. Mandatory ratio between commercial and residential. John would go with .5 to 1 LJ agrees. MOTION: Kruger entertains motion for Resolution 12 as amended. L1 moves. John seconds. APPROVED 6-0. Bill Lipsey comments he likes offices on 2nd floor but it conceivable that someone could build all SCIon second floor. Kruger confirms SCIon commercial first floor meaning you can build office space on second floor in SCI zone. Residential is not allowed anywhere on the ground floor. I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 10.2007 Commercial and Multi Family passed. Miscellaneous - Resolution 13 presented by Garrow. Garrow discusses changes on handout: section 9 flag 16 dealing with interpretation, section E sentences allows for noticing when an interpretation is rendered. Anytime an interpretation is rendered, Com Dev Dept would send notice to paper to be published. Section 15, flat 24 deletes floor area under special review language. Section 33 and 34 are new sections added. Addition of Admin Hearing Officer to deals with appeals and power to Com Dev to staff officer. Com Dev would have the ability to grant administrative variances or approvals in SPA and PUD. Section 34, flag 3. Clarifies when a nonconforming use is able to be restored. Deleted definition of partial demolition. LJ asks if a building permit application triggers 30 day, Bendon replies the period of time in which they are in a building permit is not considered period of discontinuance. Kruger confirms this is added protection for SCI and Bendon confirms any protection for anyone who has nonconforming use who wants to pull a building permit and make improvements. Guthrie clarifies if someone puts in a building permit application and ceases; it takes 90 days for permit. Bendon explains its period of time that you are working. LJ asks about closing for the off season. Bendon suggests saying "purposeful discontinuance" Skadron questions language. Kruger is OK with language and confirms it's only for a project under construction. Kruger suggests 60 days and LJ agrees. Kruger asks about nonconforming office downtown core and Garrow states this is for demolition. Bendon discusses whether or not it's associated with a structure or not. If in a structure, 12 months, ifnot associated with a structure then 30 days. Under "Abandonment and Discontinuance" have a provision for structures and uses not associated with a structure. Garrow reads Abandonment or Discontinuance and Demolition and Destruction sections. Sentence is added to G 1. LJ would like to see more constructive language, its czarist that Community Development Director has authority to initiate interpretations of Title 26. Kruger asks what "approve developed subject" SPA means and Garrow explains provision in Land Use Code that allows right to make amendment. LJ asks for explanation of dwelling; change to definition adds "above grade". Duplex must have common wall of 10ft in length. Kruger and LJ ask if gazebos are permanent fixtures. Garrow explains code interpretation. Will add to 15% LJ asks about renting a house. Phelan responds and Garrow defines what is permitted, 2 short term occupancies which are less than 6 months. Kruger has a problem with this. LJ disagrees and explains short term rental on regular basis would be like a central core. He feels it was to keep residences quite and peaceful. Guthrie agrees with Erspamer. If policy was changed, Bendon would want to call public. Intent here was not to get into substance of regulation. Kruger is fine addressing another time. Page 6 #8, Kruger asks if it's a failed motion and shall not be considered action; application "remains pending". Garrow replies it is still live and hasn't failed. Bendon 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 10.2007 discusses tie vote constitutes denial but code requires when board is required to take action it must be positive vote. Tie vote was not an action. Instead of saying an absence of an action is an action, we would rather sayan action is an action. If you move to approve and motion passes, project is approved. Makes record perfectly clear. #39 Kruger wants to know if it changes the rule, Garrow confirms it does not change the rule but clarifies code interpretation. All mixed use building applications P &Z has seen this has been how FAR was calculated. John asks about hypothetical building analogy and terraces and roof gardens in 15% allowance. Garrow stated doesn't count as those are access to space. Consolidated roof deck counts into overall building of 15% allowed, access areas to that portion would be divided evenly. Kruger asks about a 3 feet overhang and Garrow defines. LJ asks ifthere is something that protects for shade in summer and creates an environmental benefit to use less nonrenewable resources. Phelan adds it can be looked at. LJ suggests it could go through a special design. Guthrie states there are some occasions where you need more than 3 feet. Bendon discusses how code measures egress. Com Dev will look at this more Kruger is concerned about a hearing officer. How can they find someone to appoint. Garrow explained those who requested exemption from moratorium went to hearing officer. Bendon states the BOA have normal responsibility to address hardship variances and to be an appeals board by decisions made by administrative officials with respect to the land use code. A review on the record is whether or not they have jurisdiction to make decision, whether they have authority and whether they abused discretion. The original thought was to take administrative decisions to City Council, but this is so broad. Garrow states hearing officer only has authority to hear and decide appeals for administrative determination. Rowland questions roof mechanical equipment regarding residential neighborhoods and those who don't know how to consolidate vent chases. Garrow explains next section permits mechanical equipment to exceed the height. Kruger agrees to talk about roofs sometime. Rowland asks about corner lots and flag 47. Garrow explains this was omitted and is added back in. Corner lots went from 1/3 to 2/3 front yard setback. Garrow explains its stating the same thing. Rowland asks about FAR calcs measuring exterior walls; are exterior treatments going to count. Garrow responds this is included as veneer adding to the bulk. People are building beyond what they are allowed to build and then going to BOA and asking for forgiveness later. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moves to approve Resolution 13 with changes. John Rowland seconds. All in favor, APPROVED 6-0. 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 10.2007 Phelan discusses Chapter 26.412 Commercial Design Review changes. Review Authority clarifies which commission will be reviewing a project. If a project is located in the commercial core historic district, main street, or landmarked, HPC will review. Ifits any other commercial lodging or mixed use project outside of those areas it will be purview ofP&Z. Either board can make a referral to the other. Kruger asks how P&Z will know what projects will be coming up before HPC that P&Z might want to refer and Phelan responds they can be updated as to HPC docket. Guthrie asks about landmark and Phelan states only a project that is purely commercial, lodging, or mixed use with commercial component are under Commercial Design Review. Bendon adds if you have something to say about a project that is not in your jurisdiction, you have an opportunity to comment with this referral process. When a conceptual review is granted by that board, the City will honor that even if you may individually disagree. LJ wants to know what is to avoid people from applying with different criteria to the same issue. Bendon states if you abstain, you must have a legitimate reason or conflict of interest. Phelan discusses an assemblage of parcels. Guthrie asks ifHPC doesn't designate as historic landmark does it goes back to P&Z. Bendon confirms as they don't have jurisdiction. One situation is where a portion of a project is a historic landmark that goes to HPC and the other is a project or portion thereof where there is potential historic landmark. Review Process Conceptual review talks about where structure is being sited on property, how high it will be, if there is public and pedestrian amenity, setbacks and those basic form and citing issues. Review process is almost duplicate or parallel of how HPC reviews. IfP&Z review, they will go to conceptual review and approve, approve with conditions, or deny. Once conceptual approval is granted, staff is required to forward to City Council for 30 day call up to possibly review decision. Commercial Design does not go to City Council. Existing review criteria include meeting commercial lodging and design guidelines. P&Z will determine if the application meets guidelines. No other criteria changed, but one was deleted. Winter & Co created new book. Building relation to the primary street has been deleted as its covered in Commercial Design Standards. Public amenity spaces included .in commercial design review is basically additional standards and contributes to street vitality and must meet criteria. Guthrie asks about "private property" development. Phelan confirms P&Z can't require or demand use of public amenity on their property. General 25% requirement applies to everyone and P&Z determines how it will be met, onsite, off site or cash-in-lieu. All design reviews are subjective. 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 10. 2007 Cash-in-lieu was increased from $50/square foot to $75. The addition to design operational characteristics where public amenity is required to meet design standards that was produced by Winter & Co. MOTION: David Guthrie moves to pass Resolution 16 with changes of hybrid authority, review authority. John Rowland seconds. APPROVED 5-0. Motion to adjourn until tomorrow at 4:30. Transcribed by Tara O'Bradovich, Paralegal 5