Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-21 PZC MINUTES• • ~ I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY ROOM/CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 21, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Room of th e Englewood Civic Center, Chair Fish presiding. Present: Absent: Bleile, Brick, King , Kinton , Knoth (arrived 6:29), Madrid, Townl ey, Fish , Pittinos (arrived 6:09), Freemire (Excused) Staff: Mike Flah e rty , Deputy City Manager/Interim Community Development Director Also Pr ese nt: l?ll Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Harold Stitt, Senior Planner John Voboril, Planner II Audra Kirk, Planner I Dug an Comer, Deputy City Attorney Brad Meighen, Logan Simpson Kristina Kachur, Logan Simpson Brian Valentine, Kimley -Horn Associates Adam Harrison , Kimley-Horn Associates 11. STUDY SESSION Englewood Comprehensive Plan Update Harold Stitt, Senior Planner, shared the updated schedule of publi c meetings and a map with 13 neighborhood areas identified in the City . The neighborhood areas are designated to assist with small area planning as well as to identify needs specific to that area. Th e next two Planning and Zoning Commission meetings will include a study session to exa min e the various neighborhood areas. The neighborhood assessments will result in strategy and implementation recommendations. Mr. Meighen explained that by examining the City at a neighborhood area level , there will be more guidance for staff in the Comprehensive Plan when evaluating new development for suitability. !?] Mr. Meighen outlined the various qualities that will be evaluated in each neighborhood. He used the Bates Logan neighborhood to i I lustrate the criteria that wi 11 be used to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities in each of the neighborhood areas. As an • example of a catalyst in a neighborhood, he pointed out a school property that may be 1 • available for redevelopment in the future and suggested that parcel may be an opportunity to rezone in order to determine what that possible redevelopment could be. Discussion continued regarding the merits of changing zoning in some areas to encourage higher density and commercial enterprises. It was determined that the possibility of changing zoning from Sherman Street to Logan Street between Yale and Hampden will be presented at the community meeting for the area. Mr. Voboril added that feedback obtained from the community concerning the potential redevelopment of former school sites indicates a preference for more senior housing. Mr. Stitt and Mr. Meighen encouraged the Commissioners to comment on the draft of Neighborhood Assessment document. Note: After a brief break, the Commissioners moved to City Council Chambers for the remainder of the meeting and public hearing. ft] Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • April 7, 2015 Minutes Knoth moved: Bleil e seconded: TO APPROVE THE APRIL 7, 2015 MINUTES • Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. There were none. • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton , Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish None Non e Fre emire Motion carried. t?] IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #2015-01 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS & VARIANCES Knoth moved ; Bleile seconded: AYES: NAYS: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #2015-01 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS & VARIANCES AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION . Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth , Madrid, Townley, Fish None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Freemire 2 • • • Motion carried. ~ V. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #ZON2015-002 VACATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, GREENWOOD POINT APARTMENTS/AKA "THE BROADWAY" Knoth moved; King seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #ZON2015-002 VACATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, GREENWOOD POINT APARTMENTS/AKA "THE BROADWAY" AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish None None Freemire Motion carried. L!] STAFF PRESENTATION Audra Kirk, Planner I, was sworn in. Ms. Kirk reviewed the applicant's request and the history of the property. The application is to vacate the Planned Development (PD) on the property at 5312 Broadway Circle, Englewood, Colorado , known as the Greenwood Point Apartments. Ms . Kirk clarified that the property owner is CH Greenwood Point LLC, and not Colrich (which manages the property). t?] The vacation of the PD would result in the property reverting to the underlying zoning, MU-R-3-B without development restrictions other than what currently exists in the Unified Development Code. The prior amendments to the PD were reviewed . If the PD 1s vacated, new development could be reviewed and approved administratively. lf] Ms. Townley asked about the difference in density between the former R3 zoning and the current MUR-3-B. Ms. Kirk responded that they are the same. L!] Mr. Bleile asked if the current site building, size, density and parking are below the current development requirements . Ms. Kirk responded that they are well below current rQlations that could be approved administratively. Mr. Fish asked how many PDs are located in the City. Ms. Kirk responded that there are 20 other properties governed by PDs. Mr. Fish asked if they are similar types of properties to the one being addressed by the public hearing. L!] Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, was sworn in . Mr. Neubecker explained that there 20 PDs scattered throughout the City. Mr. Neubecker was unfamiliar with the original creation of the PD process. The PD process is no longer in the code. The PD process 3 • • • creates an overlay and does not affect the underlying zoning as opposed to a PUD that changes the zoning for a particular process. Discussion continued regarding the purpose of Planned Developments . ~ Mr. Fish inquired about the boundaries of the property. Ms. Kirk reviewed the map of the area illustrating the boundaries and the adjoining properties. The parcel is adjoining to Greenwood Village, Littleton and unincorporated Arapahoe County. t!l) The vacation of the PD would not create any non-conforming uses. Vacation of the PD would not change the underlying MUR-3-B zoning . The parcel would no longer be subject to the requirements of a public hearing to make changes within the development. ~ Ms. Kirk explained that the applicant is proposing to build a new amenity building. With the vacation of the PD , issues such as setbacks, height and other regulations per the UDC (Unified Development Code) for the zone district MUR-3-B would apply to any future development on the property. ~ APPLICANT TESTIMONY Brian Valentine, Kimley-Horn , 990 South Broadway Suite 200, Denver, CO, was sworn in. Mr. Valentine thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to present their case. Mr. Valentine represents Colrich , the property owners. He reviewed the history and other properties owned by Colrich in both the Denver metro area and nationally. He has worked on several properties that have undergone improvements after they were purchased by Colrich . t'il1 Mr. Valentine reviewed the property via a PowerPoint presentation . Through the review process with the City, it was determined that there are several barriers to adding an additional residential building at the east property line due to fire access requirements and constraints with utility service. ttll At this time, the owners are considering adding an amenity building, expanding the pool deck and remodeling the existing clubhouse . He stated that after meeting with neighboring residents , the developer may be willing to adopt a development agreement that would restrict building height on the east end of the property that is adjacent to Greenwood Village. Any such agreement would be a permanent condition recorded with the land. ttll Mr. Brick clarified that the Commission is not ruling on the merits of the buildings or amenities; he also asked about the financial impact of the PD on the property owner. Mr. Valentine confirmed that they are only seeking to vacate the PD and that the cost of bringing changes to the PD to the Commission are approximately $10,000-$20,000, which includes consultant expenses related to the public meetings, preparation for hearings and preparation of renderings . 4 • • • Mr. Bleile asked what the new building would be used for; Mr. Valentine responded that it will be a fitness center. Mr. Bleile asked if the developer has intentions to sell the property; Mr. Valentine replied that the company generally holds properties for long term investment. Mr. King inquired about the potential development agreement and the possibility of a height restriction on the east end of the property. Mr. Valentine offered that the details have not been established. Mr. King asked about the current building heights; Mr. Valentine responded that they are approximately 60 feet in conformance with the MUR-3- B regulations. tt] PUBLIC TESTIMONY Todd Biggs, 6 Sunset Lane, Greenwood Village, was sworn in . Mr. Biggs ' property adjoins the Greenwood Point Apartments property. He expressed concern about changes being made to the property without public review. His concern is about future development and building height on the far east end of the property . Mr. Bleile asked how Mr. Biggs' property would be affected should a building be constructed where the tennis courts and d~ park are located. Mr. Biggs responded that his privacy and views would be affected. Andy Buettner, 7 Sunset Lane, Greenwood village, was sworn in. Mr. Buettner is concerned about potential development on the east end of the Greenwood Point Apartments property. He is appreciative of the willingness of the developer to consider a development a§ement. Debbie Perry -Smith , 5475 South Clarkson Street, Greenwood Village, was sworn in. She presented an e-mail that was written by Greenwood Village City Councilman Jerry Presley who was unable to attend the public hearing. A copy was received for the record. She is in agreement with the previous testimony by Mr. Biggs and Mr. Buettner. ttlJ Mary O 'Brien, 5548 South Washington Street, Littleton , was sworn in. She is opposed to development at the east end of the property. ~ REBUTIAL Ms. Kirk responded to the question regarding the costs related to amendments to the PD; in addition to the costs outlined by Mr. Valentine it would cost the applicant $1,000 in fees to apply for a PD amendment. Ms. Townley asked Ms. Kirk if the developer would still be required to go through the Development Review Team process should the PD be vacated. Ms. Kirk responded that although the Development Review Team process is not mandatory for projects, it is highly encouraged as a valuable tool to address issues related to the development prior to formal submittal. 5 • Mr. King asked about the review process; Ms. Kirk responded that plans can be submitted without going through the Development Review Team process but it would potentially take longer for the approval process if they had not previously been reviewed. ~ • • Mr. Fish asked if applicants propose ideas that may not be feasible would the Development Review Team offer feedback. Ms. Kirk responded that the Development Review Team consists of members of various departments including Public Works, Utilities, Fire , Building Division , Traffic, Wastewater as well as Community Development. If there are issues with the plan , comments are provided to the applicant. Mr. Bleile asked if vacating the PD would require a full Building Department permit review for future alterations to the property. Ms. Kirk responded that any permit would be subject to review for compliance with the UDC. Mr. Bleile asked if the current PD includes a height and density restriction. Ms. Kirk replied that the current PD has density and height limits of 60' (sixty feet). The density included in the current PD plan has a density bonus that would allow for greater density than the underlying MUR-3-B zoning. ~ Mr. Kinton asked if any precedence exists for vacating Planned Developments. He asked if there is a process to continue with notification and public input into further development. Ms. Kirk replied that there is not; that was the function of the PD. ~ Mr. Madrid asked about the previously mentioned developer's agreement. Ms. Kirk r~onded that the issue just became known prior to the public hearing. Mr. King asked if it is practical to develop the section of the property in question. Ms. Kirk indicated that it is permissible from a zoning standpoint but she could not comment on the opinion of other City departments. ~ Mr. Bleile asked if the PD limits the development with regards to heights and density. Mr. Valentine responded that the underlying zoning dictates the height and density of the development. ttlJ Ms. Townley asked if the company has any other properties that have development agreements. Mr. Valentine responded that they do have one in Denver that is being developed with height limits with waivers. r?ll Mr. King asked Ms. Kirk if additional documentation exists for the PD. Ms. Kirk replied that there is not. t?l1 Brick moved; Knoth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #ZON2015-002 VACATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GREENWOOD POINT APARTMENTS/AKA THE BROADWAY . 6 • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish None None Freemire Motion carried. ~ Bleile moved; King seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #ZON2015-002 VACATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GREENWOOD POINT APARTMENTS/AKA THE BROADWAY AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. ltil1 Discussion Mr. Brick reminded the Commissioners that the task is to decide whether or not to vacate the Planned Development. The Commissioners discussed the difference between a Planned Development (PD) and a Planned Unit Development (PUD). lfi] Mr. Kinton commented on the unique location and features of the subject property with r~rds to being a good neighbor to adjacent jurisdictions . Mr. Knoth stated that he feels this process is eliminating the need for time and resources to bring development issues to the Commission. Vote: ~ Bleile -By reverting back to the base district zoning, it allows for pro-development, lower cost of ownership that may be passed on to tenants; we want to make doing business with Englewood easier, prevents large increases in density. Brick -The original PD was perhaps created to be able to review the property. The Englewood Comprehensive Plan states that Goal 1, Objective 1.5 -shape the region pattern of growth and development by buffering and defining communities and 1 .6 - protect prominent visual features such as the Rocky Mountain Front Range and the South Platte River corridor . There has been a history of solid cooperation between Englewood and Greenwood Village. Because of the ambiguity of the PD document, he votes no because he believes the public should have input. King -Yes, continuing to require the landowner to amend the PD could negatively affect the property due to the costs involved with requesting a change. His recommendation is that the owner and the owner of the adjacent properties reach an agreement prior to the City Council decision on the matter . 7 • Kinton -Mr. Kinton concurs with Mr. Brick; we should take our neighbors into consideration. He is also concerned about voting for something that reduces the public process and public input. He is sympathetic to the applicant for the costs involved, but without precedent he votes no. Knoth -Yes, the requirement that the applicant submit to a public hearing is not in the best interest of our City. ~ Madrid -Yes, based on the testimony he does not see any additional gain in height or setbacks between keeping the overlay vs. the MUR-3-B zoning. The current administrative review process is adequate for this property. He also agrees that a developer agreement would be appropriate. If the developer chooses to increase density it will be in accordance with the City's goals. His vote is to remove the PD overlay. Townley -Yes, although the current PD provides a process, it also creates barriers to development and improving the housing stock within Englewood . A developer agreement would be the right thing to do and would be a good thing to have in place prior to the City Council meeting . ~ Fish -Agrees with the Commissioners who voted yes. He believes the Comprehensive Plan is very clear in its intent of Revitalization , Redevelopment and Reinvention that can only be implemented with flexibility to allow developers to change their properties • appropriately. • AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, King, Knoth , Madrid , Townley, Fish Brick, Kinton None Freemire Motion passes. VI. PUBLIC FORUM No members of the public had comment for the Commission. VII. ATIORNEY'S CHOICE Deputy City Attorney Comer did not have any comments for the Commission. VIII. STAFF'S CHOICE Mr. Neubecker reminded the Commissioners that the meetings on May 5 th and May 19th will begin at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE The Commissioners did not have any further comments. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. 61A A., ~Recording Secretary 8