Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/09/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Study SessionOfficial Minutes Planning Commission September 6, 2017 Page 3 Megan Phimister, 3451 Zarthan Ave. S., co-chairs the Sorensen Neighborhood Association. Both she and her co-chair Lois Zander support the request. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said new businesses are coming to the area and there is a lot of potential for revitalization. She said she supports the request with concern about the addition of bike racks. Commissioner Carper said it is a reasonable request. Chair Peilen supports the request. Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Place of Assembly uses at 6509 and 6515 Walker Street with conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 4. Other Business None 5. Communications None 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION MINUTES September 6, 2017 1. Mixed-use Zoning District Concept Review—Building setbacks, step backs, façade details and buffer yards Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, explained the discussion item is for continued feedback from the commission before staff generates an official request for a zoning amendment on the topic. Jennifer Monson, Planner, noted that the topics of building orientation, building height to street width ratio, and transitions between residential districts were introduced at the August 16 study session. Ms. Monson gave a summary of the direction staff proposes for building orientation with a primary street frontage and a secondary street frontage. She stated that there wasn’t Official Minutes Planning Commission September 6, 2017 Page 4 agreement on a specific ideal ratio. Staff proposes a range of acceptable ratios. Minimum and maximum overall heights will be discussed at a later date. Regarding transitions between mixed-use buildings and R1/R2 districts, Ms. Monson said staff proposes using the existing PUD language for buildings within the M-X district. Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, discussed height bonuses. She said examples include creating public space on site, creating bicycle or pedestrian paths that connect different public spaces, public art, water features, innovative storm water treatment on site, green roofs and other high performance green standards, more affordable housing units, and affordable commercial space. She asked if these should be bonuses or required throughout the district. Commissioner Robertson said he liked the idea of a bonus, providing options and creativity to the developer and architect. Commissioner Carper asked who would be authorized to do negotiations on bonuses. Mr. Walther said ideally it would be more formulaic to avoid negotiating these issues on each site and application. M-X would be a stand-alone district that doesn’t have to operate with a PUD. The Commission would review and the City Council would approve any formulas that staff develops when preparing the ordinance. Commissioner Johnston-Madison discussed green space and features of Excelsior & Grand and Uptown developments. She said she would like to see more green space in M-X. Commissioner Peilen said she had concerns about requirements on the makeup of housing. An option is one thing, but a requirement is another thing. Mr. Walther asked the commission to consider items they wouldn’t want to be included as a bonus, and items that should instead be required. Commissioner Robertson said green roof might not be with height bonus as it is mostly used with storm water management. He said he loved the idea of affordable commercial space. Commissioners agreed about that. Commissioner Peilen said she liked the idea of options. Commissioners discussed height and what a development like Excelsior & Grand might look like with another story. Ms. Monson suggested bringing this question back to a future session. Ms. Kramer discussed setbacks which minimize the impact on adjacent parcels and on the street level. She showed diagrams with 2-story versus 3-story where the 3rd story is Official Minutes Planning Commission September 6, 2017 Page 5 stepped back so not as visible from the street. She spoke about tying it to the height bonuses and stepping back. It wouldn’t then impact the building-to-width street ratio, or impact pedestrian realm, but the developer still gets the extra story. Ms. Kramer discussed different step back requirements for front and rear buildings. Commissioner Carper spoke about angle of visibility and complaints regarding the Bally’s site proposal. He noted concerns from residents to the south that by allowing the Bally’s site to be one story taller it would be above the tree line of the residential on Vallacher and in view of the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnston-Madison remarked that at this point the discussion is general, not about specific sites. It’s all relative to the area. She added that the Commission did not recommend approval for the Bally’s site development. Mr. Walther said staff’s intention as we are developing these codes will be to use some test sites. Whether or not they are rezoned to M-X or not they will at least fit the criteria that might be suitable for M-X. Then it can be tested to show what these rules look like when applied. Ms. Kramer discussed setbacks versus build-to lines keeping buildings relatively close to the street to create the street edge. Instead of just a hard line such as setback, there would be a build-to zone. The building has to fall within the zone for a certain percentage of the building frontage, so there would still be some flexibility. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she still thinks more green space is needed. Mr. Walther said he wonders about the right amount of green space the Commission is looking for. He said staff is thinking to propose a larger setback than what we’ve been seeing for that reason. The struggle is how much is enough, how much is too much? He asked commissioners to share examples of areas and properties that seem about right to them. Commissioner Robertson spoke about courtyard houses and doing bigger houses on smaller lots with good landscaping. Ms. Kramer provided definitions and illustrations of different considerations that go into a selecting a build-to line. Ms. Monson asked commissioners to consider their preference for specific setbacks based on adjacent uses or the alternative based on building code. Ms. Monson discussed building siting and façade articulation to identify how the building interacts to the sidewalk and build-to zones, how to make a large building seem smaller, and courtyards. Official Minutes Planning Commission September 6, 2017 Page 6 Commissioner Robertson said he was a little uncomfortable with requiring courtyards. He said it might be if you provide a courtyard you get something for it. But to have a rule that you must include a courtyard open to sky means you are designing my building and I might not like that. There might be a reason I don’t want to do that. I might pass on what you can offer me. He said that becomes more like building design, not street design. Chair Peilen said she agreed that it might get too heavy handed, too specific and too controlling. Ms. Monson spoke about façade divisions which visually break up the building. There was a discussion about formula and language. Commissioner Robertson suggested language saying large facades shall be broken up architecturally, but not indicating required numbers. He said a lot of cities are trying to provide formulas. Building design is not a formula. Mr. Walther asked how we prevent bad design, and how one would decide if what the architect provided has met the intent of the regulation. Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, spoke about formulas as the simplest thing. For instance, you’ve got to have a total of 20 ft. of depth added somewhere in the façade. Commissioner Robertson spoke about percentages of building materials as an example. He said it gives the architect a palette. There was a discussion about making M-X language easy to understand, making it flexible and inspire to do better. Commissioner Carper said the bonus concept is a way to inspire. Ms. Monson and Mr. Walther stated that other topics for future discussion may include side and rear buffer, screening and landscaping, maximum height, distance of step backs, width of step backs, minimum commercial depth/uses, ground floor transparency, site circulation, trash location, entrances and their locations, parking and loading, landscaping, and uses. Commissioners said staff should decide the order of topics to be presented. Commissioners said they prefer continuing with the discussion format rather than having staff present proposed ordinance language for consideration. Official Minutes Planning Commission September 6, 2017 Page 7 The study session was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary