URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska. MINUTES OF December 12, :30 PM

Transcription

1 URBAN DESIGN COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF December 12, :30 PM A. ROLL CALL Present Excused Staff Monica Sullivan Jerry Winchester Nichole Rehm Ed Leonetti Melissa Morse Barbara Cash Ryan Yelle Stephanie Mormilo B. MINUTES 1. Wednesday, July 11, 2018 COMMISSIONER WINCHESTER moved to approve the minutes. COMMISSIONER CASH seconded. Sullivan, Winchester, Rehm, Leonetti, Morse, Cash C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. Disclosures COMMISSIONER MORSE disclosed that she was absent for the July 11th meeting when Cases and were initially heard and will abstain from voting on the resolutions. D. CONSENT AGENDA

2 December 12, 2018 Page 2 of 8 1. Resolutions for Approval a. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (SMO) Design Variance from AMC B.4.a. for a roof overhang and support column to encroach into the 25' stream setback in the gr-2 (Single-Family/Two-Family Residential) District. b. Resolution: Related Case: Purpose: APPROVAL (RY) Design Variance to allow a utility substation and supporting infrastructure to encroach into a stream setback in the CE-R- 10 (Low-Density Residential, Alpine/Slope) District. 2. Site / Landscape Plan Approval 3. Other COMMISSIONER WINCHESTER moved to approve the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER LEONETTI seconded. ABSTAIN: Sullivan, Winchester, Rehm, Leonetti, Cash Morse E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS - F. REGULAR AGENDA - 1. Resolutions for Approval 2. Site / Landscape Plan Approval 3. Other G. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CASE: (FDM)

3 December 12, 2018 Page 3 of 8 PETITIONER: Alaska Airlines REQUEST: Variance from Title 21 (Old Code) AMC B. for sign location and AMC A. for sign size. COMMISSIONER CASH moved to postpone Case to January 19, COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN seconded. Sullivan, Winchester, Rehm, Leonetti, Morse, Cash 1. CASE: (RY) PETITIONER: Moreland Properties, LLC REQUEST: Design Variance from AMC E to allow a reduction in off-street parking requirements for redevelopment of the former LaMex building and Tortilla Factory. RYAN YELLE presented the staff report and recommendations on behalf of the Municipality s Planning Department. LAQUITA CHMIELOWSKI with DOWL represented the petitioner. TIM POTTER with DOWL and ROD HANCOCK, Petitioner, assisted with responding to questions from the Commission. The Commission discussed parking agreements; peak parking and traffic studies; and alternate transportation methods. COMMISSIONER MORSE disclosed that she did not attend the Spenard Community Council meeting held regarding this case, but she does reside across the street from the council s president. CHAIR REHM opened the hearing to public testimony. The following individuals testified: TYLER ROBINSON STEVE PLANTAE PAUL MALIN MARK BUTLER, Spenard Community Council. MS. CHMIELOWSKI provided rebuttal testimony. CHAIR REHM closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MORSE moved in Case , Moreland Properties, to approve the request for a Design Variance from AMC E to allow a reduction in off-street

4 December 12, 2018 Page 4 of 8 parking requirements for redevelopment of the former LaMex building, subject to Conditions 1 through 3 in the staff report. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN seconded. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN is having a lot of conflict with this, but feels that something good is happening for Spenard to make it safer. On the other hand, neighborhood residents have expressed concerns with parking. She is hesitant to move forward just to create this great community space and, as a result, create a problem. COMMISSIONER MORSE does see additional exceptions or conditions to the variance that may be necessary to substantially meet Criteria C and D. There is a necessity to upgrade the lighting and access to the street at the windwill lot, and a necessity for a pedestrian amenity on the east side of the building. There is also a necessity to provide additional 37 secure bicycle parking locations to supplement the parking variance request for 37 parking spaces. She lives in the neighborhood and understands the amount of biking that does happen year round. MR. YELLE informed the Commission that the UDC cannot impose any improvements to off-site businesses as a condition of this variance. Secondly, the condition to add a pedestrian amenity is very difficult to enforce and how would that be defined. That condition would require a very specific type of amenity and what type of amenity would you place more value on. COMMISSIONER LEONETTI will be voting in favor of the motion. The petitioner has done a great job explaining their scenario. It is a great addition to the community and the parking is an issue, however, all of the plans discuss multimodal transportation. If we continue to increase or include parking in those plans, the multimodal is not going to happen. He does not think it is necessary to postpone the case or require off-street parking. This business owner has had great success in our community and he is confident that what the owner has proven with his other restaurants will be continued with this restaurant. He also does not think it is necessary to make additional conditions. If the petitioner were someone that had not proven themselves in Spenard, he would feel more compelled to make conditions. This will really test the community, but it will just take a matter of time for it to work and for the community to understand the concept. COMMISSIONER MORSE noted that the feedback on the additional bike parking is coming from herself being a user at the Bear Tooth lot, which is usually too full for her to park her bike and from people that live within the community. After hearing from staff that the Commission cannot require an upgrade of the lot and regarding the pedestrian amenity, it sounds as if that is the intent. She finds that the traffic study, although informal, had proven available parking in the area. The plan presented is in alignment with the 2040 Land Use Plan, the West Anchorage District Plan, and the Spenard Corridor Concept Memorandum. All providing development in a Town Center. COMMISSIONER WINCHESTER suggested that Commissioner Morse s request for bike parking could be included as an amendment or make it an advisory request to the petitioner to use the area in front or on the side of the building. As we all know these drawings are very conceptual, so there is not a lot before us to review in terms of real detail. He trusts the developer to do what he says he is going to do and that includes making this a successful project. No one invests millions of dollars in something without trying to make it

5 December 12, 2018 Page 5 of 8 successful. The city has made a substantial investment in this community and in the Town Center. He will be supporting the motion and recommended to add to the findings that the petitioner is being encouraged to take on the bike parking detail and pedestrians amenities at the perfect location in the front area. The petitioner believes they can make that work with the amount of parking they have, but we need to allow the community to speak up about their parking needs. Yes, it is a dead-end lot and it is the best that can be done on this lot, but it is supposed to be just for this building and not a cut-through parking lot. Staff had reviewed this thoroughly and believed this is the best option and it would still allow space for dumpsters and other items. COMMISSIONER CASH stated that this is a wonderfully complex situation and the attributes the Commission is hearing are so positive, and she wants this to go forward. The one thing that does not work is the parking. Even though this is such an opportunity to help move this community center forward, she does not want it to be forced upon the property owners that have lived there for many years. This developer will succeed with this project and with that success comes more people. The Commission discussed success regarding the parking scenario being contingent on some things that are not in place yet, but could be in place to help the process. The period of time it takes to develop those finer points into success points is undetermined and it is this interim period where the residents of the area do not know how to cope with what they have currently is what she is struggling with. Not that they will not love coming to the food court, but what about how it affects the lives, safety, and children in the neighborhood. She wants to be fair to everyone and see Spenard blossom and be successful for everyone. COMMISSIONER LEONETTI added that this is a discussion about communities and he is not convinced that cars make communities. People make communities. The less cars that are around, the more opportunities there are to take other modes of transportation. He is convinced that Spenard Road is well designed and is actually improving the neighborhood. As a result, these developers are willing to roll the dice based on not only the automobile, but also on the pedestrians and bicyclists. There is only a certain square footage allowed for each automobile and that has already been allocated in the community. If 400 cars drive to this parking area and fill up 400 spaces, but 600 people want to be there, the remaining 200 people are going to find another mode of transportation. COMMISSIONER MORSE pointed out that this building already exists and was once a restaurant. It is meant to be a restaurant or a retail business. This is landlocked and the petitioner has done the best they can, and this proved to be adequate parking for the last restaurant. The lack of parking in a neighborhood that is the most multimodal location in the city is an acceptable exception to the rule. Criteria C and D mention benefitting the community and not having this building vacant any longer will also benefit the community, especially when looking at public safety. Those facts are undeniable. STEPHANIE MORMILO, MOA Traffic Engineer, expressed that she was very encouraged to hear these discussions, adding that any issues will fall on her department to resolve. CHAIR REHM thinks this is a fantastic idea and will support the motion. She believed more in the calculations on the third table than those in code as far as the use of the building and the available space. After reviewing the staff report and realizing the Traffic

6 December 12, 2018 Page 6 of 8 Department is in support of the project based on a bullet list of items means the petitioner had done their job to bring forth all information, studies, and whatever was necessary to make this work. The Spenard Community Council unanimously passed a resolution in support of this project and the North Star Community Council also supports the project per public testimony. By being involved in non-motorized transportation and multimodal communities, she explained that if you do not force it to happen, then people will continue to drive. Creating this corridor, which is in a Transit Alternative Corridor per the plan, you are encouraging that change. COMMISSIONER MORSE addressed the following findings: a) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard. This standard is met. The petitioner accommodated as much parking on-site as possible and given that it was an existing restaurant with the same functionality, our code has made the site obsolete. b) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard. This standard is met. With no doubt as a Town Center and Transit Supportive Development Corridor listed in the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan, this is exactly the type of development that is meant to happen in the area. Reduced parking should be allowed. c) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard. This was under debate this evening, but she found proof that this proposed project benefits the community. The developer had already proven themselves in our community and with the combined collective trust the UDC added, this development will benefit the community. d) The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property as permitted under this code. This standard is met. In talking with the landowner that owns the additional land adjacent to the property, they are investing in themselves in providing parking (although not in a formal agreement) that feels very fitting in the Spenard area. e) The variance, if granted, does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located. This is obviously met as it is a restaurant and will continue to be a restaurant. f) Persons with disabilities are provided with access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and reasonable accommodation.

7 December 12, 2018 Page 7 of 8 This standard is met. The Commission observed that this project is not just taking an old restaurant and opening it again, but is actually adding to the building to provide these accessibility measures. The parking meets ADA and the entire project seems to accept the need for accommodating people with disabilities. g) The variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. This standard is met. It will actually improve the health, safety, and welfare. It will, potentially, decrease the amount of public safety calls to the area because it will no longer be vacant property. h) In evaluating the request for a variance from the maximum sign height, the Urban Design Commission may consider whether there are special topographic circumstances that would result in a material impairment of visibility of the sign from the adjacent roadway, which significantly diminishes the owner s or user s ability to continue to communicate adequately and effectively with the public through the use of the sign. This standard is met because it does not involve a sign. COMMISSIONER CASH asked staff that should another restaurant wanted to reoccupy that location, would they be subject to a variance. MR. YELLE replied that if the restaurant were to be occupying the full footprint of the current development, then, yes, they would need a variance. If they were choosing only to develop one floor and not do any type of expansion like this project is proposing, then it may be a different story because you would not have as great of square footage that you would have for this project. COMMISSIONER LEONETTI finds there is a nonconforming status determination that was amended May 10, 2018 that outlines all of the requirements for the parking and any additional nonconforming determinations that are key factors in this. There was discussion this evening that the parcels are being replatted into one parcel and that has been approved by the Platting Board, but has either not yet been completed or is almost completed. Four people testified with two in favor and two in opposition, and there were five comments in the staff report with three in favor and two in opposition. Sullivan, Winchester, Rehm, Leonetti, Morse, Cash H. APPEARANCE REQUEST - I. REPORTS - 1. Chair 2. Secretary

8 December 12, 2018 Page 8 of 8 3. Committee J. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS CHAIR REHM presented a Proclamation signed by Mayor Berkowitz honoring Commissioner Leonetti for his valuable time served on the Commission. K. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER WINCHESTER moved to adjourn. COMMISSIONER MORSE seconded. Sullivan, Winchester, Rehm, Leonetti, Morse, Cash The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.