UMED District Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission Case No Meeting Minutes. October 12, 2015 Public Hearing/Deliberations

Transcription

1 Exhibit G UMED District Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Case No Meeting Minutes October 12, 2015 Public Hearing/Deliberations November 9, 2015 Deliberations/Action

2 This page intentionally left blank.

3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF October 12, :30 PM A. ROLL CALL Present Excused Staff Stacey Dean James Fergusson Tyler Robinson Jon Spring Brandon Walker Brandon Spoerhase Anthony Cange Andre Spinelli Gregory Strike Kristine Bunnell Carol Wong Dave Whitfield Shawn Odell Hal Hart COMMISSIONER DEAN moved to reorder the agenda and hear Item C(2) Election of Vice Chair at the end of the meeting. COMMISSIONER Cange seconded. Dean, Fergusson, Robinson, Spring, Walker, Spoerhase, Cange, Spinelli B. MINUTES - Page 1 of 19

4 Page 2 of 19

5 October 12, 2015 Page 5 of 11 CHAIR FERGUSSON opened the hearing to public testimony. The following individuals testified: BARBARA KARL, President, Airport Heights Community Council CHRIS TURLETES, Facilities Director, UAA TRIGG DAVIS, Chairman, Alaska Pacific University Board of Trustees AMY SLINKER, Pfeffer Development Commercial Real Estate Developer ANDREW ROMERDAHL, Director of Real Estate, Providence Health & Services TIM POTTER, DOWL STEVE RAFUSE, MOA Parks & Recreation CHAIR FERGUSSON closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SPRING moved in Case to recommend approval of the UMED District Plan Update with the exception of the Land Use Plan Map on page 67 of the staff packet, which will be reviewed more extensively in a future meeting, subject to the following amendments: 1) All comments on the issue-response summary agreed to by staff, which was laid on the table tonight. 2) Delete street design standards references on page 46, and the implementation section on page 80. 3) Delete recommendation for new staff position on page 54. 4) Revise all references to northern access study that contradict Planning and Zoning Resolution and reference October 5 th, specifically the mention of roundabouts on page 48 and additional descriptions on page 21. 5) Reorder plan priorities, University Lake Park Master Plan to priority number 7. 6) Delete references to fresh food access. 7) Resolve conflict between design guidelines on pages 42 through 46 with Title 21 design guidelines. 8) Delete reference to park and ride parking on page 80. 9) Delete plan implementation recommendation to prohibit off-leash dogs on page 57. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING mentioned his concerns with regard to the Land Use Plan Map and needing more information regarding that. He would also like to discuss an additional comment heard from the public regarding an idea to either rezone or add transfer development rights to a couple of parcels along Piper Street. The only new comment heard was to delete reference to Park and Ride parking on page 80, and to him, that has been discussed extensively as a part of the Northern Lights project, and was rejected at that time as one of the TDM measures. The reality is that if you plan to build parking outside the UMED District to accommodate the traffic in and out, and then bus them in, you will have a pretty large parking lot somewhere near the UMED District, which will not be pretty. He does not think that is a good idea and would like to see it deleted. Page 3 of 19

6 October 12, 2015 Page 6 of 11 COMMISSIONER CANGE intends to support the motion. He thinks Commissioner Spring has captured the bulk of the comments, not only those presented to the Commission during public testimony, but by the Commission as well. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE will be supporting the motion, but would like to add an additional amendment. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE moved to amend and, as testified by Director of Real Estate Andrew Romerdahl, to look at incorporating Piper Street and Folker Street as an additional commercial corridor. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING thinks this is a fine motion, but this information was already incorporated into the previous motion that when reviewing the Land Use Plan Map he had mentioned for those particular parcels to be a part of that review. He indicated that this might be considered a different motion because Commissioner Spoerhase is suggesting adding the incorporation to the Land Use Plan Map, but the Commission will not be approving the Land Use Map, if the original motion is approved. It will be delayed and reviewed at a future meeting, and he does not know if it would make sense to approve a small part of the Land Use Map and not the rest of it, but he would rather wait until it is reviewed as a whole. COMMISSIONER SPOERHASE withdrew his motion. COMMISSIONER WALKER intends to support the motion. He thinks holding off on the District Land Use Plan Map will allow edits to be made, if necessary, and some of the stakeholders testified to those edits. He was considering adding amendment 7.1.b. to get the density transfer issue memorialized, but asked if that could be added later while working through the Land Use Plan Map due to the fact that the Commission is recommending approval of the rest of the plan, and would that eliminate the opportunity to add to the matrix at a later date. COMMISSIONER SPRING would like to consider that as part of the Land Use Map. He thinks it is one of the options heard from testimony, so it is part of the package. He does not want to forego that option. COMMISSIONER WALKER asked Commissioner Spring to revise his motion to say, Land Use Plan Map and the Implementation Matrix. COMMISSIONER SPRING agreed to revise his motion to read, Transfer development rights amendments. COMMISSIONER DEAN asked Commissioner Spring regarding the 3.4 Transportation Section on the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, and how it is different from what already has been produced for this since so many plans have taken place in this particular area, and many of them have incorporated roads. COMMISSIONER SPRING replied that TDM was one of the original options in the Northern Access. He believes it was a stand-alone option, but was dropped as part of it. In his opinion, TDM is an important part of the overall transportation program for this area. A multi-prong approach is necessary and problems cannot totally be solved by building new roads. Institutional areas like this usually have a TDM management plan in place, and it is probably beyond the current capability of the city to do that requiring it to be a Page 4 of 19

7 October 12, 2015 Page 7 of 11 separate project specifically identified for the UMED District. He supports that as part of these plan implementation strategies. COMMISSIONER ROBINSON thinks Commissioner Spring has brought forward some good recommendations, but he is not ready to pass a resolution in support of a plan that does not have a Land Use Plan Map. He would like to see some further analysis on the issues mentioned before he would feel comfortable, and he feels it is fairly common to ask staff to do an issue-response based on the amendments previously noted. The Land Use Plan Map is the most important part of this document when it comes to future analysis of development issues within the area. When APU shared some ideas, he began to understand how the area could potentially develop with road networks that were not just the Northern Access network, but were the other networks off of that bringing forward lands for development. There is a risk showing that on a plan, and being fearful that whatever is shown on a plan either has to be like that or it departs from the plan, but that is what planning is about. Several good points were heard by Mr. Romerdahl regarding a density transfer, and whether or not the area along Tudor ought to just be changed, or allowing a density transfer to other areas having a special hashed mark, but that will not be resolved this evening. He added that given the fact that Providence owns the community commercial center, he thinks it is realistic to say it will not likely be a strip mall in the future. There were comments regarding the scale of the UMED Village, and what controls the scale for new developments that are small scale, and if larger retails were to suddenly appear, it changes the nature of the plan. He is still confused as to whether the discussion is about housing for the universities, housing in a broader sense, or whatever the market dictates, and where those areas are. With the number of issues mentioned, he would like to ask staff to respond to these issues because he is not willing to support the motion at this time, but would support a motion to postpone until some of the issues are vetted at a very near future meeting. COMMISSIONER ROBINSON moved to postpone Case to a near future meeting asking staff to respond to the issue of the Land Use Plan Map and the other issues identified in Commissioner Spring s motion. COMMISSIONER WALKER seconded. COMMISSIONER ROBINSON stated, again, that he is uncomfortable passing a plan without the most important component of the plan. He feels the issues ought to be presented by staff in an issue-response, and the Commission should be able to make decisions on those at a future date. COMMISSIONER WALKER will be supporting the motion to postpone as this will allow the opportunity for any edits that need to be made on the plan. COMMISSIONER SPRING believes that most of his amendments listed have been discussed, with some exceptions. He does not feel that enough direction has been given to staff to respond to the additional issues. CHAIR FERGUSSON asked Carol Wong with the Municipality s Long-Range Planning Section for her input. Page 5 of 19

8 Page 6 of 19

9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Assembly Chambers Z.J. Loussac Library 3600 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska MINUTES OF November 9, :30 PM A. ROLL CALL Present Excused Staff Stacey Dean Tyler Robinson Jon Spring Brandon Walker Anthony Cange Andre Spinelli Gregory Strike Brandon Spoerhase Erika McConnell Margaret O Brien Kristine Bunnell Dave Whitfield Jon Cecil Carol Wong COMMISSIONER CANGE moved to change the order of the day and hear Agenda Item E(1) after the public hearings. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. Dean, Robinson, Spring, Walker, Cange B. MINUTES 1. Monday, October 12, 2015 COMMISSIONER CANGE moved to approve the minutes. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. Page 7 of 19

10 November 9, 2015 Page 2 of 17 Dean, Robinson, Spring, Walker, Cange C. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS / EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. Disclosures COMMISSIONER WALKER noted that there are some instances in the response grid for Case Providence Alaska Medical Group and their real estate department made some comments, and staff disagreed. He disclosed that he represents the marketing of the Tudor Square retail property for Providence, which is one of the areas that was discussed on the Land Use Plan Map. Staff did agree with Providence s stance on how that particular property should be treated, but there were others near it that they disagreed on. ERIKA MCCONNELL stated that it is possible for people in the real estate profession who are representing individuals that are interested in properties to have knowledge of interests in particular properties. She suggested asking Commissioner Walker if he can act independently and without bias in this particular matter. This is a legislative item, and he has disclosed his interest. The Assembly will have the final say on this item. In response to Commissioner Cange, COMMISSIONER WALKER conveyed that he has no financial or personal interest in this matter. Commissioner Spinelli arrived at 6:37 p.m. COMMISSIONER CANGE moved to direct Commissioner Walker to participate in Case COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. ABSTAIN: Dean, Robinson, Cange, Spinelli Spring Walker FAILED COMMISSIONER SPRING expressed that he would be willing to change his vote if the Commission had the ability to allow him to participate in certain portions of the general plan. He thinks the Providence issue revolves around the Land Use Plan Map, and in his opinion, he should not be involved with approval of the Land Use Plan Map, or anything that has to do with Providence in this area. There are significant issues related to Providence and the Land Use Plan Map, especially in the Transfer Development Right issues. He is uncomfortable agreeing with him participating. Page 8 of 19

11 Page 9 of 19

12 Page 10 of 19

13 Page 11 of 19

14 November 9, 2015 Page 9 of 17 MAIN MOTION COMMISSIONER CANGE moved in Case to recommend approval of the UMED District Plan Public Hearing Draft of October 2015 as Exhibit A; the Comment Response Table with the items that staff agreed with as Exhibit B; and the UMED District Plan Update, Land Use Plan Map, and Land Use Descriptions dated October 28, 2015 as Exhibit C. He recommended the Department add an existing zoning map. COMMISSIONER SPRING seconded. FIRST AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING referred to page 9 and moved to amend to delete street design standards shown on page 46 and Implementation Item 4.6.a on page 80 based on comments received from MOA Private Development. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING does not disagree with the idea of having a street standard section on a plan, but he does not know how to fix this one. There are too many problems with classifications; and everything is listed as a district collector; and it conflicts with the Official Streets and Highways Plan. The illustrations are not detailed enough, and do not show bike lanes, separation of the curbs, language problems related to the integrated campus, and both scenarios which no longer exist in this version of the plan. It would take too long to try and fix it. COMMISSIONER DEAN referred to pages noting that all of the design guidelines are already covered in the new Title 21. New separate design guidelines would have to be written for that. She is looking at all of the design standards, which MOA Private Development also wanted to look at. In response to Chair Robinson, COMMISSIONER SPRING clarified that his motion only addresses the illustrations on page 46. COMMISSIONER CANGE clarified that the motion is just to delete Figure 38 on page 46. He called for the question. Spinelli, Cange, Spring, Robinson, Dean SECOND AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER CANGE moved to amend and delete Item 5.1.a, new staff position proposed with this plan. COMMISSIONER SPRING seconded. COMMISSIONER CANGE was not convinced with staff's response regarding his comment that he felt this needed a whole separate position to assist the steering team. He will not support this motion. Page 12 of 19

15 November 9, 2015 Page 10 of 17 Dean, Robinson, Spring, Cange, Spinelli THIRD AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved to amend to revise all references to the Northern Access Road Project to be consistent with the action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 5 th. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING noted that the list is not too inconsistent. They have incorporated many of the elements that this Commission recommended. He has a concern with the multiple roundabouts, and if these had been proposed on the Northern Access Plan, he would not have voted for it. He would have asked for the deletion of the roundabouts because he does not feel it is appropriate for a minor arterial street that is supposed to carry incoming and outgoing traffic in the area, and also through the area. Roundabouts should not impede traffic, but allow as much traffic on the Northern Access instead of UAA Drive because UAA Drive goes right through campus, and this is on the peripheral of the UAA Campus. The crosswalk improvements on Northern Lights were not addressed, although, they did mention signal improvements and he did not understand what that meant. The issue is more related to crosswalk improvements in that area. He referred to the two travel lanes and specifying how many travel lanes should be included, and he assumed that some Transportation Demand Modeling had been done to show that only two lanes are necessary. This was not done based on transportation modeling, and he suspects they may need four lanes someday, in fact, they are designing it to possibly accommodate four lanes in the future. He feels this should be neutral regarding the lanes. COMMISSIONER DEAN agreed. Spinelli, Cange, Spring, Dean Robinson FAILED FOURTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER DEAN referred to page 8, that the MOA Private Development s statement was that the UMED District Design Guidelines are not specific with labels and dimensions and do not meet the current code. She moved to amend and eliminate all pages from 42 through 46 since there are already design standards in Title 21. COMMISSIONER SPRING seconded. COMMISSIONER DEAN pointed out that if an additional set of design standards are created for just the UMED District, it would also create an additional layer of difficulty in developing anything in the UMED District. It would just make it harder and harder with a whole new level of bureaucracy. Page 13 of 19

16 November 9, 2015 Page 11 of 17 CHAIR ROBINSON restated the motion. COMMISSIONER SPRING asked for clarification since he is not as familiar with Title 21 Design Standards as others. He does not know exactly where the conflict lies, but he does know there are multi-family design standards, and asked if there were other standards that would conflict. COMMISSIONER DEAN replied that there are design standards for commercial, and she asked if it was necessary to add a separate set of design standards that do not apply to the rest of the city, but only applies to this one area. She thinks it is too confusing. MS. BUNNELL informed the Commission that they are not creating new design guidelines as these have been in place for the UMED District since However, the MOA wishes to be consistent with what is adopted and in place for the UMED District, which is allowed to continue to be consistent with what was adopted in 2003, and what has been used for the last twelve years. The new Title 21 will help direct development in the UMED District, and Current Planning staff relies heavily on these design guidelines, as well as the developers in the District. To eliminate them would interfere with what has been happening in that District because when a District Plan is in place, you can have area-specific design guidelines. Dean Spinelli, Cange, Spring, Robinson FAILED FIFTH AMENDMENT (later withdrawn) COMMISSIONER CANGE moved to amend and not reorder the plan priorities to make the University Lake Master Plan priority Number 7. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. CHAIR ROBINSON clarified that if this motion is denied, it will remain in the same order it is now, and if it passes there would still not be a difference. COMMISSIONER SPRING expressed that the Commission agreed with staff s disagreement regarding this, so this does not require a motion. After some discussion, COMMISSIONER CANGE WITHDREW his motion. FIFTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved to amend to delete 2-PK, Implementation Item 4.5.b, Park and Ride Option to support TDM shown on pages 50 and 51, COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING explained that the city cannot do anything about Park and Rides in the Mat-Su Borough as nothing will be implemented there. It is up to the Mat-Su Borough or Page 14 of 19

17 November 9, 2015 Page 12 of 17 DOT. The Park and Rides along the Glenn Highway, in his opinion, are not used a lot, and would not be a good monetary investment. This is considered a citywide issue and should be requested through the Metropolitan Transportation Plan that does not serve just the UMED District. He does not think it would have any effect on the number of cars going in and out of the UMED District if the Park and Ride is expanded to the Mat-Su Borough. CHAIR ROBINSON clarified that this is specific to 2-PK and not eliminating all TDM recommendations from the plan. Spinelli, Cange, Spring, Robinson, Dean SIXTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER DEAN moved to amend to delete the phrase, "Prohibit off-leash dogs in University Lake and Goose Lake parks. COMMISSIONER SPRING seconded. COMMISSIONER DEAN noted that University Lake is already a dog park, and the Commission should not suddenly eliminate it from being a dog park without the proper process. Adding this into the plan would make it permanent and not allow any changes to be made. CHAIR ROBINSON indicated it was a rather blunt statement and asked staff if there was anything in the plan, given that it was such an issue of a topic of conversation, that would still ensure the issue would be reviewed and dealt with presumably through the master plan process. MS. BUNNELL replied that staff is hoping the master planning process deals with it, but several organizations were adamant that off-leash dogs be either controlled or taken out of this park because the dogs are out of control and are continuously causing issues on organizational properties. This was a very valid issue heard in the UMED Steering Team s public meetings. Staff did receive approximately five s requesting off-leash dogs remain at University Park, but numerous others believe the dogs need to be eliminated. COMMISSIONER SPRING agrees with this as he has experienced the conflict on several occasions. He has heard people describe their conflicts especially along the multi-use path, and agreed with Commissioner Dean that a master planning process would need to be followed. COMMISSIONER DEAN feels this should be a Parks and Recreation Department issue, not a part of the plan. CHAIR ROBINSON pointed out this is an issue because it affects properties more than just Parks and Recreation. MS. BUNNELL suggesting adding the word consider to that line instead of deleting that language altogether. Page 15 of 19

18 November 9, 2015 Page 13 of 17 CHAIR ROBINSON replied that would be up to Commissioner Dean. He remarked that he is unwilling to delete completely without adding language given how significant of an issue that it has been. COMMISSIONER DEAN agreed with Ms. Bunnell s suggestion to add the word consider. This would allow the door to remain open for changes. CHAIR ROBINSON restated the motion is to read, Consider prohibiting off-leash dogs at University Lake and Goose Lake parks. Dean, Robinson, Spring, Cange, Spinelli SEVENTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved to amend to add a new Implementation Item 7.1.b that reads, The Municipality of Anchorage shall develop a Transfer of Development Rights ordinance to facilitate appropriate employment growth and development in the UMED District. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. Robinson, Spring, Cange, Spinelli Dean FAILED COMMISSIONER SPRING expressed that if they were to open, the Planning Department still has an idea that this might be the time to explore this. It is not just a UMED District issue, but citywide. COMMISSIONER DEAN agreed with the idea and believes it does need to be citywide, especially if Providence is not to be dealt with in that area, but in an exchange with another side of town. By making this just within the UMED, it makes it more difficult than if it were citywide. EIGHTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER CANGE moved to amend to not limit the Implementation to B.1.A zoning for the UMED Village. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. COMMISSIONER CANGE thinks, in this case, the market should drive that and not the plan because of the compact sites, and other issues listed in the staff packet. CHAIR ROBINSON indicated his reason for supporting the amendment is that B.1.A is limited to the 30-foot height maximum, which there is quite a lot of development within the UMED area Page 16 of 19

19 November 9, 2015 Page 14 of 17 that already exceeds those heights. It seems appropriate to look at a scale that matches the different areas. Spinelli, Cange, Spring, Robinson, Dean NINTH AMENDMENT (later withdrawn) COMMISSIONER DEAN moved to amend to remove the TDM (Transportation Demand Management) recommendation. COMMISSIONER SPRING seconded. COMMISSIONER SPRING noted that the UMED already has TDM programs. UAA has a very strong TDM program, and he suspects that Providence has some type of carpool, and APU is most likely too small. Usually what happens in these cases when there are big institutions clustered together and a big employment center is that sometimes there is an overarching type of Transportation Demand Management program, and someone will be hired to be the TDM manager, and they will try to coordinate everyone into a carpool program funded by institutions. He does not believe that he will be supporting this. After some discussion, COMMISSIONER DEAN WITHDREW her motion. NINTH AMENDMENT CHAIR ROBINSON agreed that the area outside of these hard boundaries ought to be contemplated for future updates to the UMED plan whether it is south of Tudor, west of Lake Otis, or up north along Bragaw. COMMISSIONER SPRING moved to amend that the next iteration of the UMED District Plan consider areas outside the existing boundaries particularly in the area that might be redeveloped to support housing and commercial activities of the UMED district. COMMISSIONER CANGE seconded. Spinelli, Cange, Spring, Robinson, Dean TENTH AMENDMENT COMMISSIONER SPRING moved to amend to have the University Lake Drive Extension, as designated by a red line on page 51, be revised to reflect the APU Campus Endowment Properties Master Plan map, which shows the connection of University Lake Drive to the Northern Access Extension. COMMISSIONER DEAN seconded. Page 17 of 19

20 November 9, 2015 Page 15 of 17 COMMISSIONER SPRING explained that he is attempting to make sure there is not a dead end road, and that there is a continuous loop that serves the development plans of APU. It will eventually connect to the UMED Northern Access Road. CHAIR ROBINSON implied that APU shows the road on their master plan and asked if there was any harm in showing it in the district plan. He added that this does not apply to collectors. CHAIR ROBINSON restated the motion is to show the road as it is currently drawn to connect to Campus, but also connecting to Bragaw. Spinelli, Cange, Spring, Robinson, Dean COMMISSIONER SPRING added that he did not want to make a reference to the classification, but he believes that when the map of the transportation plan is updated, they should review it for the appropriate classification. It is currently not within the Commission s abilities to make that decision, but it will always have a lot of traffic. Plans need to be done ahead of time for new development areas with an idea of what type of facility is needed when beginning the development. COMMISSIONER CANGE also added that it brings some consistency between the APU Master Plan and the UMED Draft. MS. BUNNELL pointed out that the Commission mentioned that the APU road would connect to Bragaw. She clarified that it should have been to the Northern Access Road. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED Spinelli, Cange, Spring, Robinson, Dean COMMISSIONER SPRING finds that the UMED District Plan is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the Municipality of Anchorage. It serves to reinforce the notion that this is an important employment center. The fact that it also includes a redevelopment area, which is intended to provide housing and residential support for that employment center; and the public process seemed to be thorough and engaged all of the institutions in the area, which all seemed to approve the plan as adopted. Good job. COMMISSIONER CANGE added that the adoption as planned will maintain and improve the characteristics that make this area such an enjoyable place to live, work and play. He expressed that the Steering Team had a lot of input to the decisions to the draft plan, and the whole process Page 18 of 19

21 Page 19 of 19