Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-08 PZC MINUTES...... • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Community Development Conference Room -Englewood Civic Center April 8, 2014 I.CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :01 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Fish presiding. Present:Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Madrid (a lternate) Absent: F reem ire (Excused) Staff:Alan White, Director, Community Development Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner John Voboril, Planner II Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 18, 2014 Knoth moved; Bleile seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 18, 2014 MINUTES Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. The location of the meeting was corrected to reflect that the meeting was held in City Council Chambers and that Mr. Roth voted yes on Case #2013-02 Amendments to Small Lot Development Standards. AYES:Bleile, Brick, Kinton, Knoth, Roth , Townley, Chair Fish NAYS:None ABSTAIN:King ABSENT:Freemire • • • Motion carr ied. Ill.Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, presented information relating to the current PUD process and proposed changes to the code . The current PU D process wou Id be broken down into two parts, a District Plan and a Detailed Site Development Plan. The creation of two levels of plans would be more cost effective for developers in that the initial review of a District Plan would provide the entitlements necessary for the developer to proceed with the rezoning process with minimal expense. The Detailed Site Development Plan could be reviewed concurrent ly or separately, at the option of the developer. Staff researched the costs associated with the PUD process in other jurisdictions. Costs are assessed with flat fee with additional costs per acre of the development. Englewoods fees are generally in the same range as other communities. The fees are determined by City Council and would be charged for each review separately. Language has been added in the proposed amendment to include expanded detail for submittal requirements which will assist staff in the review process. Staff would include the determination of whether or not the project is in harmony with the adjacent properties during the review process. Terminology within the existing code is proposed to be updated to provide consistency throughout the code. The terms "compliance" and "consistency" were applied to the code appropriately when referring to code requirements and the Comprehensive Plan, respectively. Staff recommends that the proposed amendments be presented at Public Hearing as written. Discussion: Brick -Section 16-2-7 Official zoning map amendment includes a provision that PUD plans are compatible with the surrounding zone districts. The amendment would allow rezoning that is not the same as the contiguous area to allow more flexibility in the development, as long as the proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The compatibility of the PUD would be determined during the review process by Staff and the Commissioners . • • • Director White -The amendments provide efficiency of process and expand the latitude of flexibility with regard to development. By acting in advance of potential development with regards to zoning, the process will be easier for the developer and will save time by having the zoning already in place. The decision is ultimately with the Planning Commission and City Council as to whether or not the proposed PUD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Reid -Pre-application review and Neighborhood meetings requirement that the City would respond within 30 days. She felt that this time frame was too short and did not allow sufficient time for Staff to act on the request. Written comments, including notes from neighborhood meetings, are provided to the applicant. Knoth suggested that the time frame be changed to "30 days prior to Public Hearin g". The notes are provided to Planning Commission to aid in the decision making process. The notes are generally available within two weeks of the Neighborhood Meeting and are available upon request to the public. It was agreed that the 30 day deadline is not unreasonable. Chair Fish questioned Section 16-2(8) concerning the use of the word "possible" with regards to changes to existing base zoning. Mr. Neubecker responded that the reference is to land uses that are not permitted without a variance. Further discussion clarified that the section also exists in another part of the code. Chair Fish questioned the use of the word "in harmony with the environment" and the subjectivity of making that determination. Mr. Neubecker explained that the Commission would have latitude to make the determination of whether or not a proposed development fits with the surrounding area. Approval criteria "promoting health, safety and general welfare" as written in the amendment is included in the Comprehensive Plan . The review process provides an opportunity to determine what supports the Comprehensive Plan . Ms. Townley questioned the use of the term "promote" and suggested that "provide" may be used instead when referring to the Comprehensive Plan. By stating that certain qualities would be "provided" such as bike paths, the proposed development would be proactive in "p romoting health , safety and general welfare" rather than just meeting the minimum standards of the code . • The use of "promote" rather than "provide" would give the Commission greater leeway when reviewing a proposed PUD . Mr. Kinton added that it would be an opportunity for the Commission to raise the standards of development. • It was generally agreed that "promote" should be included in the language and that the terms and intent should be consistent throughout the code. The proposed amendments will make it easier for the applicant to determine what is needed and staff will have clearer direction when reviewing plans. The Commission supported this code amendment moving forward to a public hearing on April 22, 2014. IV.TSA Overlay Zone Districts John Voboril, Planner 11 , presented information related to the Transit Station Area (TSA) Overlay that would encompass the Oxford Station area. The boundaries for the TSA are still to be determined. He presented a map to illustrate the area as it exists currently. • Knoth co mmented that Englewood is becoming less industrial; Brick noted the n eed for jobs and light industry in the area. A primary factor in the evolution of the industrial area will be property turnover as dictated by the market. • Kinton commented on the lack of h e i g ht restrictions in the ex1st1ng 1-1 zone. Discussions r ega rdin g h e i g ht will co ntinue at another time. ~ Minimum line a l frontage and setbacks for the overlay district are derived from the Medical Zone District. It may be necessary to make these standards more fl ex ible for this area due to the unique features of the area. Mr. Voboril presented slides illustrating different approaches to setbacks and form based re g ulations. Vehicular traffic and parking can be controlled by implementing various design elements. In discussing the zone of transparency , it was agreed that the propo sed requirement for glass windows is acceptable. If a retailer wished to black out the windows, it would still provide the option for the next tenant to use the windows . Additional signage would be addressed through the Sign Code . • Required Front Street Entrance is not a co ncern at this time. Given the street pattern at the Oxford Station, the most like ly retai l lo cat ion wou ld naturally have two entrances. A property owner w ill a lways have the opt ion to seek a variance. Exemptions cou ld be granted for parcels that have unique characte ri stics. The Commission has the lat itud e to adjust the fo rm-b ased codes to be more flexib l e in the areas of the zone of transparency, street frontage and setbacks. Form based zoning is more difficult to apply to some sing le use and retail buildings than it is for multi-family residential or off i ce buildings. The standa rd s fo r land scap in g would be the same as the cu rr ent regulations for commerc i a l property. The goa l for the TSA area is to have responsible redevelopment to create a pedestrian fr iend ly environment. The zoning should be flexible enough to allow various types of development but with zoning code app li ed to ensure a cohesive area . The Commissioners ag reed that the focus shou ld be on the 112 mile radius immediately surround in g the Oxford Street Station. • V. PUBLIC FORUM Lewis Fowler, Englewood resident, co mmented on the potential redevelopment of the southeast area of the TSA. Vl.ATIORNEYS CHOICE The Commission does not currently have a n adopted Policy Handbook. The existing handbook wi ll be presented at the next meeting fo r adoption. VII.STAFFS CHOICE The next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission w ill be a Public Hearing for the PUD Process Amendments and a PUD app li cat ion that h as bee n reviewed by Staff. VIII.COMMISSIONERS CHOICE Bleile -Expressed thanks to Staff for the work on the PUD Process Amendments. Knoth -1) Thanked Mr. Neubecker for including the price of the PUD Process to the • deve l oper in his presentation to illustrate the cost and effort to rezone to PUD 2) Sales • • • of goods from a home (such as eggs) is being considered in Denver, interesting concept to consider Fish -He will be out September and October and informed the Commission that Vice Chair King will be conducting the meetings in his absence. Kinton-Inquired about the timing on the Next Steps Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Voboril replied that for the Next Steps Study, the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) has been drafted and is being reviewed by the attorneys in preparation for presentation to City Council. The Comprehensive Plan revision will begin in September and will take about a year to complete. Brick -Complimented Staff on the presentations . The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. /s/)ulie Bailey Recording Secretary