PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska. MINUTES OF December 5, :30 PM

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF December 5, :30 PM A work session on Anchorage Talks Transit was conducted at 5:30 p.m. prior to the meeting and presented by Collin Hodges and Abul Hassan with the MOA Public Transportation Department. A. ROLL CALL Present Excused Staff Tyler Robinson Jon Spring Brandon Walker Brandon Spoerhase Andre Spinelli Greg Strike Danielle Bailey Mitzi Barker Jon Cecil Carol Wong Sharon Ferguson Tom Davis Terry Schoenthal Hal Hart B. MINUTES - C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. Disclosures COMMISSIONER SPINELLI disclosed in Case that he is a member of the Anchorage Home Builders Association and the association has worked with the municipality to develop some of the language in this ordinance. He has not attended any of the recent meetings, but did attend some of the meetings when this discussion took place.

2 December 5, 2016 Page 2 of 11 CHAIR ROBINSON noted that he also attended some of those meetings. He added that this case is a legislative matter and unless a commissioner is directly involved in a case, they are allowed to participate. D. CONSENT AGENDA - 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Introduction for Public Hearings 3. Site / Landscape Plan Approval 4. Time Extensions; Expedited Hearing Requests; Minor Conditional Use Amendments 5. Other E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: (TD) PETITIONER: Municipality of Anchorage Long-Range Planning REQUEST: Review and Recommendation by Planning and Zoning Commission to the Assembly of the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan and Map-Public Hearing Draft. COMMISSIONER STRIKE moved to reorder Agenda Item E(1) Case , Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan Public Hearing Draft to be heard after the public hearing items. COMMISSIONER WALKER seconded. Robinson, Spring, Walker, Spoerhase, Spinelli, Strike F. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Introduction for Public Hearings 3. Site / Landscape Plan Approval 4. Time Extensions; Expedited Hearing Requests; Minor Conditional Use Amendments

3 December 5, 2016 Page 3 of Other a. CASE: (SDF) PETITIONER: PTS, Inc. REQUEST: Context Sensitive Solutions Transportation Project Site Plan Review - Design Study Report for Eagle River Traffic Mitigation Phase I (MOA Project #11-16). SHARON FERGUSON presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality's Planning Department. AARON CHRISTIE, DOWL Project Manager, represented the petitioner. The commission discussed the north and south multi-use path connection; access to the Eagle River Financial Center and VFW Road; and concerns with the turn lanes onto Monte Road and Centerfield Drive. They also discussed why a bus stop was being designed in a congested location that already has a bus stop a few hundred feet away. COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Case to recommend approval of the Draft Design Study Report for Eagle River Traffic Mitigation Phase I, Old Glenn Highway/Eagle River Road Intersection, subject to staff s conditions. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING stated that it is good to see progress on this implementation of the Eagle River Traffic Mitigation Study. This was the number one priority in that plan or one of the top priorities and it is needed as a precursor to the actual full-blown improvement to the intersection as a four-leg intersection. This will definitely have a beneficial result as far as congestion relief, as well as safety and safety is more important because of the weaving motion that has to occur at that location. He does not believe it was mentioned in the Traffic Study Report, but he is almost sure there is a high accident rate in that intersection. It is also supported by a good public involvement process and there are a few things to clear up, such as resolving some of the access issues; the adjacent properties; and possibly improve the connection for pedestrians and bicyclists. This was a very good job. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: (SDF) PETITIONER: Seth Andersen REQUEST: Rezone from R-3 (Mixed Residential) district to R-4 (Multifamily Residential) district.

4 December 5, 2016 Page 4 of 11 SHARON FERGUSON presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality's Planning Department. She pointed out that they do not know how to apply the special limitation that reads, Limitation of the total number of bedrooms to that which would be permitted in a four-unit R-3 development because the code does not specify the number of bedrooms. The commissioners discussed if there was a new Title 21 code requirement that requires utilizing alley access if there is an alley; height limitation in the R-3 district of 35 feet versus the R-4 district limitation of 45 feet; and no maximum limitation on the number of bedrooms in R-3 zoning. SETH ANDERSEN provided a presentation on his own behalf. CHAIR ROBINSON conveyed that when this case was originally heard last March, he had disclosed that his employer owns two lots directly south across the alley from this location and the commission had directed him to participate seeing he had no financial or personal gain in the matter. Given that this is being considered a new case and a separate record, he, again, disclosed that his firm is under construction on two lots in the R-3 directly south across the alley from this lot. COMMISSIONER WALKER moved to direct Chair Robinson to participate in Case COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE seconded. ABSTAIN: Strike, Spoerhase, Spinelli, Walker, Spring Robinson The commission discussed with Mr. Andersen that the number of bedrooms allowed in R-3 zoning would be four-units with three bedrooms for a total of twelve bedrooms and he stated that that he would be satisfied with a limitation of twelve bedrooms. He also agreed with the height limitation and the code requirement that access should be off of the alley when it is possible, unless the traffic engineer decides that there is too much congestion for the size of the project and space. MR. ANDERSEN added that the traffic engineer had indicated to him that trying to park a certain number of vehicles in a 50-foot wide lot for a four or five-unit project would seem to be very congested in the alley adjacent to Cordova Street and she would be okay with two units being accessed off of 11 th Avenue. CHAIR ROBINSON opened the hearing to public testimony. The following individuals testified: VIRGINIA SAMSON JEANETTE GREENBAUM KEN STONE ROSEMARY KARISH DEBORAH BROWN JENNIFER HAZEN

5 December 5, 2016 Page 5 of 11 MR. ANDERSEN provided rebuttal testimony. MS. FERGUSON added for clarification that the five-story apartment building directly across the street from Mr. Andersen s lot is zoned R-4. She also referred to page 76 of the staff packet and pointed out that under the current R-3 zoning, a conceptual four-unit development is allowed. Three bedrooms per unit would max out available onsite parking. Under the proposed R-4 zoning, a conceptual six-unit development with two bedroom units would have the same parking requirement and same effective intensity of persons per acre or bedrooms per acre. CHAIR ROBINSON indicated that six two-bedroom units would be the same as four threebedroom units by code and will still be a total of twelve bedrooms using either calculation. CHAIR ROBINSON closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE moved in Case to approve a rezone from R-3 to R-4 consistent with the four special limitations recommended by the Assembly found on page 4, lines 18 through 24 in the staff packet. The special limitations are as noted: 1) Limitation of five units; 2) Limitation on the total number of bedrooms to that which would be permitted in a four-unit R-3 development; 3) Primary access to off-street parking from the alley, with minimal incursion onto 11 th Avenue, or prohibit or recommend limited incursion onto 11 th Avenue to two units; and 4) Height limitations of 35 feet. The petitioner agreed to follow all of these limitations. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI seconded. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE commented that these are always tough to go through, but the petitioner followed the proper channels and has met the nine approval criteria that are noted as follows: 1. The rezoning shall be in the best interest of the citizens of Anchorage and shall promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. This standard has been met. 2. The rezoning complies with and conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, including the Comprehensive Plan Map(s). This standard has been met. 3. The rezoning is generally consistent with the zoning district purpose in the requested zone and the purpose of the title. This standard is also met and staff testified that there is an additional five-story apartment building within the area that is R-4 zoned clarifying that this is not a spot zoning. 4. The rezoning is compatible with surrounding zoning and development and protects areas designated for specific uses on the zoning map from incompatible land uses or development intensities. This standard is met. 5. Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electricity, police and fire protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) are capable of supporting the uses allowed by the zone or will be capable by the time development is complete, while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development. This standard is met.

6 December 5, 2016 Page 6 of The rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment (including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife, and vegetation) or such impacts shall be substantially mitigated. This standard is met. 7. The proposed rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses or such impacts shall be mitigated through stipulations. This standard is met. 8. The rezone does not extend or exacerbate a land use pattern that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This standard is met. 9. The rezoning shall not result in a split-zoned lot. A split-zoned lot is not created. He added that the approval of the rezone from R-3 (Mixed Residential) to R-4 (Multifamily Residential) district for Lot 1, Block 15B, Third Addition Anchorage, is consistent with staff s recommendations dated March 7, COMMISSIONER SPRING moved to amend Special Limitation No. 2 to state, Limitation on the total number of bedrooms to twelve bedrooms on the lot, which is equivalent to a fourunit, three bedroom development. COMMISSIONER WALKER seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING noted that if this motion is going to go forward, this limitation needs to be clarified. Otherwise, it does not make any sense. COMMISSIONER SPINELLI concurred. COMMISSIONER STRIKE disagreed in identifying that the rezoning is generally consistent with the zoning district. Yes, discussion has been heard that the association across the street from Cordova Street is higher density, but Cordova is a demarcation zone; it is a separation zone between the zoning districts. Therefore, the zoning is not consistent with the zoning district that this property is located in and for that reason, he believes Standard 3 has not been met. A process exists that avails the public to participate and the public has consistently participated on this topic, and in return, the commissioner seems to be looking at workarounds. He stipulated that he is the first one to look for ways to have and make development work, but there is a consistent process in place to avail the public to testify, and there has been consistent public testimony to this particular zoning that cannot go without notice. He believes this is an isolated zoning situation within this particular district and the fact that it is adjacent to and sits on the line of the demarcation zone, does make it harder, but it does not avail itself that it is not an isolated zoning in that district. For that reason, he will not be in favor of this rezone. COMMISSIONER WALKER expressed that a lot of negative community testimony was heard this evening, but there were also some positive comments. He can somewhat vision what the developer has for this project and it is for a different demographic and probably a

7 December 5, 2016 Page 7 of 11 younger demographic for younger people that, for example, might ride their fat bikes to work, and he believes those community members that are opposing this are envisioning it differently. This is infill development and if you look at any northwest city, such as Portland or Seattle, you will see exactly these types of developments. There is a code in place to protect the neighborhood from the negative impacts and the parking issues that the public is so concerned with. This meets the standards and he will be supporting the motion and does not believe the neighborhood s perception of units equals density is correct. He thinks more units with fewer bedrooms can result in an effective lower density. MS. FERGUSON explained that page 23 of the March staff report addresses a point that Commissioner Strike was referring to in that the Fairview Neighborhood Plan regarding the demarcation line between that plan is right at Cordova Street. The Fairview Neighborhood Plan is an adopted plan by the Assembly and it is an element of the Comprehensive Plan. She read a sentence from that page that states, Title 21 under F.2.b reads that the designation of areas at or near boundaries on the Comprehensive Plan Map shall be interpreted in accordance with the goals, objectives, policies, and guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, including locational criteria for designations on the Comprehensive Plan Map. COMMISSIONER SPRING will be supporting the motion. It does not seem as if there is a big difference in the impact of this development versus an R-3 district. It is one unit and there will, at most, be two additional parking spaces. There will be an impact on the open space, but there is an elementary school and a playground; and another not so desirable park located on A Street. The height is controlled by the special limitations and is the same as R-3 zoning. He also pointed out that the Land Use Plan Map is encouraging the development of an ordinance that would allow this type of development, should it be approved. One of the policies is for areas that are close to downtown, such as this, should have the ability to develop at a slightly higher density. One more unit, he thinks, would be allowed under that ordinance change and this fits right along with that proposed change. He would support that change and that would be the preferred way to handle it because he does not like to see what he considers an oddly looking zoning map protrusions into a neighborhood. The intent of the Land Use Plan Map is develop like this and this is just a small incremental increase in the intensity. CHAIR ROBINSON will also support the rezoning. He does not think, at that scale, there is a significant difference between an R-3 and an R-4 lot. Fundamentally, it is the same type of building. Clearly, the challenge that Anchorage has is that no one, yet, has figured out how to do feasible infill development in the community and because of that, the community depends on people, such as the petitioner, to do an in-depth study of what can or cannot be done under the existing rules while also trying to bring new and different products that meet the needs that Anchorage sees coming forward; needs of a very different demographic and a very different household size. He fundamentally thinks that the line of demarcation in this neighborhood is 11 th Avenue and it is Pilot s Row, and that immediate neighborhood is not going anywhere. He thinks things fundamentally change when going south of that street with duplexes, Cordova Square, and other townhouses. Opportunities need to be created for small, intelligent and innovated infill and, unfortunately, the rules in the R-3 district just did not allow it. He believes what the developer has proposed is absolutely consistent with the plans and he does recognize the neighborhood s concerns. He also hopes the rules are

8 December 5, 2016 Page 8 of 11 sufficient to satisfy parking and believes they will be as good, if not better, on this lot than all of the older developments that preceded a lot of those rules in the zoning code. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED Spoerhase, Spinelli, Walker, Spring, Robinson Greg Strike 2. CASE: (TS) PETITIONER: Municipality of Anchorage Current Planning REQUEST: Review and recommendation by Planning and Zoning Commission of an Ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code (new code) Subsection D.4. Establishment of Grade Plane for Building Height; and Subsection C.3.i. Steep Slope Building Design Standards to establish a simplified method for determining base grade and to allow construction in steep slope areas to the same height standards as the underlying zoning district allows. TERRY SCHOENTHAL presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality's Planning Department. CHAIR ROBINSON opened the hearing to public testimony. The following individuals testified: 1539 INVESTMENTS - GRETCHEN CUDDY, LAUREL AND FRED STUTZER JOHN RANKIN TIM POTTER KAREN MICHELSOHN PAUL MICHELSOHN DIANNE HOLMES NANCY PEASE, RABBIT CREEK COMMUNITY COUNCIL ERIC VISSER CHAIR ROBINSON closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE moved in Case to recommend approval of the revised Assembly Ordinance. COMMISSIONER WALKER seconded. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE noted that through staff, public testimony, and the revisions provided, this item was overlooked in the original passing of Title 21. He would not call it a housekeeping item, but it will help with further development of topographically challenged plots.

9 December 5, 2016 Page 9 of 11 COMMISSIONER SPRING will be supporting the motion. He does not feel an amendment is necessary to refine the engineering qualifications, and three stories on the downslope solves any problems, and should be allowed. He addressed the findings as listed below: 1. A principal concern of the Hillside District Plan and of Hillside residents is site drainage. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that building height is not related to site drainage and should be considered separately from drainage issues. 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the current method of measuring average grade for the purpose of establishing base grade has a level of complexity that adds time and expense for the applicant and time for the reviewer. Identification of a simpler means of determining base grade is desirable. The proposed alternatives for determining an average grade provide both simplicity and flexibility in establishing that grade. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission finds the requirement that limits height to 25 feet on slopes greater than 20 percent is unnecessarily restrictive and limits even those homes seeking to use slope adaptive design principals. The proposed elimination of this requirement will allow heights to those identified in the underlying zoning district and will restrict building heights on the downslope side of the structure to three stories for the hillside area. These are stronger requirements than those of (old) Title The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the steep slope requirements are not conducive to redevelopment in Class A zoning districts (urban areas) and removal of these requirements for the urban areas will not result in detriment to safety or welfare. E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CASE: (TD) PETITIONER: Municipality of Anchorage Long-Range Planning REQUEST: Review and Recommendation by Planning and Zoning Commission to the Assembly of the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan and Map-Public Hearing Draft. TOM DAVIS presented the summary and explained each of the items highlighted in green. CHAIR ROBINSON noted that this was postponed from November 14 th and this evening the commission will be discussing the Comment and Issue Response Summary Draft dated December 5 th. He restated the main motion on the table is to recommend adoption of the Land Use Plan Map Hearing Draft as written with staff s recommendations.

10 December 5, 2016 Page 10 of 11 COMMISSIONER WALKER moved to go into Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER STRIKE seconded. COMMISSIONER WALKER moved to come out of Committee of the Whole. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE seconded. COMMISSIONER WALKER moved to postpone Case to December 12, COMMISSIONER STRIKE seconded. H. APPEARANCE REQUEST - I. REPORTS - 1. Chair 2. Secretary 3. Committee a. Title 21 Committee - Robinson b. Citizens Advisory Committee - Spring c. TSAIA Master Plan Committee - Spoerhase d. Wetlands - Strike e. Live, Work, Play Housing Focus

11 December 5, 2016 Page 11 of 11 J. TITLE 21 DISCUSSION - K. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS - L. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER WALKER moved to adjourn. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE seconded. Robinson, Spring, Walker, Spoerhase, Spinelli, Strike The meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m.