C ITY OF C OLORADO S PRINGS D OWNTOWN R EVIEW B OARD Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 C ITY OF C OLORADO S PRINGS D OWNTOWN R EVIEW B OARD Meeting Minutes The Downtown Review Board held its regular meeting on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 in the City Council Hearing Chambers 107 N. Nevada Avenue, Suite 325 Colorado Springs, CO The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Whitley at 8:30am Members Present: Ed Gonzalez Richard Guy Daniel Hankins Gary Marchio John Olson George Cruz Dan Robertson Michael Whitley Members Absent: Wayne Timura 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Board member Cruz, seconded by Board member Marchio, to approve the November 2, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously (Members Robertson and Gonzalez excused and Member Timura absent). 2. COMMUNICATIONS None. 3. Consent Calendar No items Member Gonzalez now in attendance. 4. New Business Calendar File No.: CPC FBZ A1MN11 Quasi-Judicial Request by the City of Colorado Springs Land Use Review Division to implement a number of minor modifications to the regulating plan for the Downtown Colorado Springs Form- Based Zone (FBZ). The Downtown Colorado Springs FBZ covers roughly one square-mile of downtown extending north to Cache La Poudre Street, south past Las Vegas Street, west to I-25 and east to Shooks Run. The proposed changes are minor in nature, largely focusing on clarifying standards and addressing issues that were not included in the original regulating plan adopted in July 2009.

2 Planner Tefertiller displayed PowerPoint slides (Exhibit A). Planner Tefertiller clarified that pages will be revised to comply with the State s definition of human service establishments. Member Gonzalez inquired of the difference in submittal for major vs. minor amendments. Planner Tefertiller replied that the submittal process is virtually the same. A minor amendment is processed similar to a zone change that would include notification to all surrounding property owners. Major amendments would be processed similar to a code change, which is a legislative process with minimal notification. Both would be heard by the Downtown Review Board (DRB), City Planning Commission (CPC), then onto City Council. Member Whitley asked if there were concerns raised during yesterday s form-based zoning open house meeting. Planner Tefertiller replied that most were curious, but a few were involved two years ago when the plan was first implemented. His opinion was that most left satisfied with the information proposed. CITIZENS IN FAVOR Mr. Ron Butlin offered his opinion to strike Section to not require changes reviewed by both the DRB and CPC before final decision at City Council. Mr. Marc Smith stated that if additional changes are required under Chapter 7 that would require additional notification prior to the CPC meeting. Member Guy agreed with Mr. Butlin s suggestion. Member Olson inquired of possible changes should DRB items not be reviewed by the CPC. Planner Tefertiller illustrated the next month s deadlines and how adding the CPC review would only add two weeks to the process before Council review. Member Guy stated that the reason for the DRB was that the CPC didn t have understanding of needs of the specific downtown area. He did not feel it necessary for the CPC to review DRB s recommendations prior to City Council decision. Member Whitley agreed procedurally, but would like DRB members in attendance at the CPC meeting prepared to defend DRB s recommendations. Mr. Marc Smith clarified that any changes to City Code Chapter 7 requires review and recommendation by CPC. Member Hankins felt the intent was to streamline the process. Member Guy argued that the DRB is the planning commission for the downtown area. Member Whitley agreed this is the most informed board for the downtown area, and forwarding the recommendations to a less-informed board could be detrimental. He agreed that DRB should have ability to forward DRB recommendations directly to City Council. CITIZENS IN OPPOSITION None.

3 DECISION OF THE DOWNTOWN REVIEW BOARD Motion by Member Guy to approve Item 4-File No. CPC FBZ A1MN11 with updated definitions for human service uses. Member Guy asked Ron Butlin to assist with the motion language concerning Section and reference to Planning Commission. Mr. Marc Smith asked for a break to discuss amongst staff. Member Guy asked staff for FBZ sections where Planning Commission appears. Planner Tefertiller stated that if the objective is to remove Planning Commission then they may strike from Sections and Member Whitley recommended only changes in Section regarding minor amendments and removal of Planning Commission from that process. Member Guy recommended DRB ability to change zones only within the FBZ boundaries. Member Olson recommended not changing Section involving boundaries and that these would continue their review through CPC. Member Guy clarified his motion to include changes to following sections: strike City Planning Commission add after process as a change of zone based zone request as described in Chapter 7 and eliminate sector changes add words without City Planning Commission and add sector changes Planner Tefertiller stated that staff would research with the City Attorney s Office the effect these proposed changes have upon Chapter 7. Member Gonzalez was uncomfortable with DRB being asked to vote on modifications not written down. This is a major change to the structure of this board, and he felt it was not fair to ask staff to research and include that information in the CPC report due today. Staff requested another break for research. Planner Tefertiller stated that this FBZ item was initially placed upon the December 15, 2011 City Planning Commission agenda, but staff is within the timeframe allowed by code to rescind that item from the agenda by end of business today should the DRB wish to continue this item to the January 4, 2012 DRB meeting. Then DRB s recommendation would be discussed at the January 19, 2012 CPC meeting. Member Guy agreed to postpone this discussion to the January 4, 2012 meeting. Member Robertson seconded that motion. Motion unanimously passed (Member Timura absent). Meeting adjourned at 9:36am

4 Downtown Review Board November 30, 2011 Proposed Modifications to the Downtown Colorado Springs Form-Based Code History The Downtown FBZ was adopted by City Council in June 2009 Roughly 1 square mile of Downtown was rezoned to FBZ under Ordinance #09-83 Section 3 of the Ordinance reads Approval of this Ordinance includes a mandatory review and evaluation of its implementation one year, more or less, from its date of passage. August 2010 review resulted in postponing any modifications more reviews needed

5 Process Staff has gathered feedback from: Downtown Review Board discussion 10/5 & 11/2 Downtown Stakeholder group discussion 11/10 Other Stakeholders Open House 11/29 Hearings at Planning Commission and Council to come Issues Over the last two years Staff has kept a running list of Major and Minor issues Issues documented as major and minor Proposed modifications document describes all proposed p changes.

6 Two Timing-Related Issues There are two items with the FBC that warrant immediate attention: Medical Marijuana Uses Sign standards These two issues have led Staff to recommend immediate amendments to the code. Medical Marijuana Existing FBC is silent on MMJ uses In early 2011 City Council adopted d land use regulations City-wide Did not include the FBZ Staff has been relying on an interpretation for recent MMJ use questions Staff proposes to add a specific section (2.5.6.) to describe MMJ uses in the FBZ

7 City-Wide standards permit all three MMJ uses in commercial and industrial zones Medical Marijuana Recommendation Staff proposes to permit all three MMJ uses throughout the FBZ Utilize use flexibility in urban areas MMJ uses are more commercial than industrial Changes to buildings (e.g. removing windows) must go through review/approval Many MMJ uses in FBZ today; no known impacts Grows and Product Manufacturing can utilized deep lots/buildings present downtown

8 Signage Standards Current standard 2.9 implements City-wide sign regulations OR allocation for T1 and T2 sectors C-6 allocation for CEN and COR sectors City-wide sign code in process of major amendment Expected adoption early 2012 Sign allocations no longer tied to zone Allocations based on use Proposed methodology should work downtown Minor Improvements Currently a minor improvement application is needed for projects that alter a structure s façade or landscape scheme. Few standards are applicable Proposal define/expand use: Only significant alterations trigger application New use of outdoor space (e.g. roof-top patio) Not solar, green-roof, roof, or HVAC additions Minor additions new sq. ft. less than 1,000 or 50% existing whichever is smaller

9 Amendments to Code Currently processed as a zone change Propose minor/major definition iti Major changes: zone/sector modifications Processed as zone change Minor changes: physical/use standards, bonuses, guidelines, procedures, definitions Processed as a zoning code amendment Some discussion about Planning Commission s role in reviewing changes to FBC Glazing Calculations The intent is to provide pedestrian interest Changes in grade can be problematic Thresholds are difficult to meet Clarification on independent versus cumulative calculation Building Code requirements for ground- level glass

10 Calculation: Pueblo Bank Pikes Peak frontage = 1,900 sq. ft. Glazing = 1,007 sq. ft. Percent glazing = 53% Glazing Proposal Measurement taken from 18 above either: Finished grade Or finished floor Clarify that each façade is calculated independently

11 Administrative Relief Section of the Zoning Code allows Administrative Relief (15% maximum) to any quantifiable standard in the Zoning Code. The FBC does not include a similar provision nor empower to FBC standards. Any relief from a standard can only be approved by the DRB through a Warrant Proposal allow Admin. Relief Building Envelopes The largest side yard setback available for any Building Type on any type of lot is 10 This basically prevents any direct vehicular access to the side of a new building The proposed Mexican restaurant on Wahsatch had included a faux façade above their access drive to meet the standard. Direct access from the public street (not alley) would likely require a Warrant

12 New Mexican Restaurant Driveway design to access their rear- parking lot rear parking lot Building Envelopes Proposal Add a new Section Access to rear parking Staff can allow a larger side setback for access to rear-oriented parking when: Curb cut is acceptable Pedestrian conflicts minimal Alley access alone is insufficient

13 Parking Exemption The FBC exempts all Central Sector from parking standards Historic Parking Exemption area retained Neither include N. Tejon from Bijou northward Past parking variances and recent parking Warrant approved in this area Existing Parking Exemption

14 Proposed Expansion Exhibit : A

15 Roof Top Space Staff has allowed use of previously un- used roof-top space The FBC is silent on this issue No standards are applicable Two semi-common requests: Roof-top pp public gathering g space (e.g. bar) Solar panels Proposed solution: require minor improvement plan for active assembly space A few other minor issues URA seat on the DRB Human Service definitions iti Mayor vs. City Manager Typographical

16 Next Steps Planning Commission 12/15 City Council 1/10 and 1/24 Recommendation Recommend approval of the proposed modifications to the Downtown Form- Based Code as described in Figure 3 of the DRB agenda based on the finding that the proposal complies with of the regulating plan as well as Chapter 7, Article 5, Part 6 of the City Code.

17 Questions Exhibit : A