Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-04 PZC MINUTES' • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 4, 2013 Minutes and audio are available at: http://www.englewoodgov.org /lnd ex.aspx?page=l 52 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was ca ll ed to order at 7:00 p.m . in the Community Development Conference Room of the En glewood Civic Center, Chair Brick presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Roth, King, Knoth, Brick, Kinton , Townley, Fish, Welker Freemire (a lternate) A lan White, Comm unity Development Director Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Ass ista nt City Attorney • [).] • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 6, 20 13 Knoth m oved: Roth seco n ded : TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 6, 20 13 MINUTES C hair Brick asked if there were any m o difi cat io ns or correctio ns. AY ES: NAYS: ABS TA IN: ABSENT: Bleile, Roth, Knot h, Brick, Kinton Non e Townley, Welker, Fish, King None Motion car ri ed . ~ 111. STUDY SESSION Case #2012-07: PUD Amendments to Unified Development Code Mr. Neubecker asked for the Com mi ss io n's in p ut on the following amendments to the PUD process: Page 1 of 4 • • • • • Developing a two-step submittal process: District Plan and Site Development Plan • Eliminating the lapsing of approved Planned Unit Developments (PUD) • Requiring a Traffic Impact Study as part of the PUD District Plan • Allowing Planning Commission's decision on a PUD to be appealed to City Council • Removing the appeal process for Development Review Team (ORT) decisions • Removing the PUD District Plan Reversion process Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid stated that any final City decision is appealable to District Court; therefore, an appeal section is not necessary. With PUDs, the Commission only makes a recommendation to City Council who then approves or denies it. Mr. White responded that if it is not a complicated PUD, Council may not review the Site Plan. For example, Council can make a determination on the District Plan whether or not they want to see the Site Plan. If the Commission would deny or attach a condition to the Site Plan, the applicant may want to appeal that decision. Staff will revisit that section. Chair Brick asked for each Commissioner's input. Mr. Kinton: He supports the two-step process. He would like further discussion on a time limit on the PUD; it is important to him that the PUD is not granted with an unlimited timeframe. Perhaps the appl icant comes back to the Commission for an extension. Mr. Bleile: He supports the two-step approach; that the process can be separate or simultaneous. ORT should have clear submittal criteria with which to guide the applicant through the process in preparation of the Commission hearing. Ms. Townley: She supports the two-step process. She would like to see information regarding context or connectivity to surrounding areas from the applicant. She asked staff to review the terms "major modification" and "substantial amendment"; if meaning is the same, to use the same language throughout. Mr. Welker: He agrees that context is important. He favors clear guidelines and submittal requirements. He supports eliminating the PUD expiration. Mr. Fish : He encouraged expediting the process whenever possible. Mr. King: He agreed with expediting the process if possible. He supports the flexibility of being able to combine the process into one step if requested. Mr. Roth: He supports the two-step process. After hearing the discussion, he favors eliminating the PUD lapsing requirements. Regarding PUD District Plan submittal requirements, "perimeter setbacks and other setbacks as appropriate" are stricken out, but he doesn't find them covered in another section. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus that perimeter setbacks should remain in the District Plan submittal requirements. Mr. Roth asked staff to research why the minimum district size for the three various rezonings differ . Mr. White stated that the TSA portion is being reviewed in the context of the Light Rail Page 2 of 4 .. • • • Corridor Plan, and most likely will be revised in the future. Discussions have been held about possibly reducing the half acre requirement for a PUD. Chair Brick suggested discussing the rezoning thresholds at a future PUD amendment study session. Mr. Knoth: He suggested the Commission schedule a study session to review a developer's time and cost for a PUD submittal to gain another perspective. Mr. Knoth favors the two-step process. Chair Brick: He supports the two-step process and favors a meeting regarding the time and cost involved to apply for a PUD. Staff will make the revisions and bring back to the Commission for further discussion. IV. PUBLIC FORUM There was no public to address the Commission. [/] V. A TIORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated that the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority made a presentation at the September 3, 2013 City Council on the Acoma property. Further, a developer has been selected, and property sale negotiations are underway. VI. STAFF'S CHOICE The Light Rail Corridor Plan was adopted by City Council. The City applied for a follow-up grant to study the recommendations within the Plan , primarily the rail trail; pedestrian bridges over Oxford, Hampden, and Dartmouth; and protected bike ways along Dartmouth and Oxford. City Council adopted the Commission's recommendations on Distilleries and Breweries. Funds have been allocated in the 2013 and 2014 budgets for a Comprehensive Plan update. Future Commission meetings: • September 1 7: • October 8: • October 22: Zoning Text Amendments Acoma Property Update Public Hearing -Chick-Fil-A PUD Public Hearing -Home Occupations Staff is still researching a field trip . Pa ge 3 of 4 • • • .. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Kinton agreed it would be be n eficial to learn more of the applicant's perspective of the PUD process and how Englewood's process fits in w ith other Cities' requirements. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m . Page 4 of 4