The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-11-20 PZC MINUTES• t • • • Planning an d Zoning Commission Public Heari ng Case #ZON2012-007 Sand Creek PUD , #ZON2012-008 W H In vestme nt PUD Novembe r 20, 2012 Page 1 of6 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 20, 2012 Minutes and audio are available at: http://www.englewoodgov.org/Index.aspx?page=l52 I. CALL TO ORDER [?lJ The regular meeting of the City Plannin g and Zoning Commission was ca ll ed to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Br ic k presid in g. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Roth , We lk er, Knoth , Fish , Brick, Kinton, Townley Freemire (a lterna t e) King (exc used) Alan White, Community Development Director Audra Kirk, Planner I Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 6, 2 012 [?lJ We lker moved : Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 61 2012 MINUTES Chair Brick asked if there were any modifications or co rr ectio ns. There were none. AYES: NAYS: ABSTA IN: ABSENT: Bleile, Roth, We lk er, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Kinton None Townley King Motion ca rri ed. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING [11) Case #ZON2012-007 Sand Creek Planned Unit Development and Case #ZON2012-008 W H Investment Planned Unit Development • • • Planning and Zoning Co mmi ss io n Publi c Hearing Case #ZON2012-007 S and Creek PUD, #ZON2012-008 W H Inves tm e nt PUD Novemb e r 20, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Chair Brick stated there are two cases to be heard tonight; they will be heard concurrently but each will require a motion and they will be voted on separately. Fish moved: Roth seconded: TO OPEN CASE #ZON2012-007 and CASE #ZON2012-008 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Kinton , Townley None None King Motion carried . [@) Ms. Kirk was sworn in and presented the case. The applicant has submitted two applications, Sand Creek PUD (referred to as the north property) and W H Investments PUD (referred to as the south property) to rezone the above parcels from 1-1 Light Industrial and 1-2 General Industrial zoning to a PUD Planned Unit Development. The proposed PUD will allow multi-family residential as a permitted use , in addition to existing industrial permitted uses. Conceptual site plans have been submitted because development on the two sites likely will not happen in the near term. As market conditions evolve in the future, site plans and details may change. Staff is recommending that when development is more certain in the future, site plans be reviewed at public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Ms. Kirk discussed legal descriptions of both properties, current zone districts, property location and surrounding land use, PUD procedures, background information of the property, neighborhood meeting summary, City department and division review, and an overview of both proposed PUD 's. [@) APPLICANT TESTIMONY The appl icant provided a slide show of the proposed PUD's. Mr. Vincent Harris, Planning Director for Baseline Corp., Mr. Fred Lantz, Traffic Engineer for Baseline Corp ., and Mr. Bryant Winslow, owner of the properties provided testimony. Issues discussed were contamination on the property, setbacks, height restrictions , examples of what buildings may look like, co-mingling of residential use along with industrial use, adding a provision that states the industrial uses go away when residential comes in, parking guidelines, density of development, is the Bates Station still an option, would applicant develop the property or sell to a developer, traffic flow and entrance placement to the development. • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case #ZON2012-007 Sand Creek PUD , #ZON2012-008 W H In vestment PUD November 20, 2012 Page 3 of 6 lll1 PUBLIC TESTIMONY Testimony was heard from: • Vera Montez • Patrick Draper • Matthew Reeves • Lewis Fowler lll1 Fish moved: Knoth seconded: TO CLOSE CASE #ZON2012-007 and #ZON2012-008 AYES: Bleile, Roth , Welker, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Kinton, Townley None NAYS: ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: King Motion carried. lll1 Knoth moved: Fish seconded: Discussion Points: THAT CASE #ZON20 7 2-007, SAND CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • Final site plan approval will happen at a later date and will n eed to receive Planning and Zoning approval and City Council approval. • Access to the future Bates Street Light Rail station platform sha ll be moved from the south property to th e north property. ~ Great project for this area; in favor of this type of development. ~ A PUD is appropriate for the area if the Bates Street Station Light Rail station is built; if not, density is too high. ~ Very concerned about mixing residential with industrial uses. ~ Need provision that industrial goes away when residential development occurs. ~ Planning and Zoning Commission should see a Site Plan; this is just a general District Plan. ~ Don't like request to remove the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council from Public Hearings to review Site Plan. • t • • • Planning and Zoning Commi ss ion Public Hearing C ase #ZON2012-007 Sand Cree k PUD, #ZON2012-008 W H In ve stment PUD o ve mber 20 , 2012 Page 4 of6 > Hard to make a decision without more information. > Needs open space. > Would flex space be allowed? > Too many unresolved issues. Comments from Commission: Mr. Fish said while the general nature of this project in many ways is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and I would like to see this area go this direction, there are too many unresolved issues with the applicant's presentation and inconsistencies such as not addressing how the zoning fits together. This would create a mixed zoning in the area. It is way too speculative. Mr. Welker said he wanted to let everyone at the hearing know he is not against development in this area. He said he doesn't believe this property currently has the t y pe of request before us that is verifiable to the people who live there and to the City. Ms. Townley said she definitely wants to see development in the area. There's just not enough information to approve. Mr. Bleile stated this particular property has some tremendous potential for everybody involved and would like to see it redeveloped to its highest and best use. He felt the applicant's intent is to do the right thing . He stated he understands Mr. Winslow's need to keep his business going there at this time and is fine with having both residential and industrial uses, but there could have been additional detail provided to the Commission. ~ AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Motion failed. ~ Knoth, Brick Bleile, Roth, Welker, Fish, Kinton, Townley None King Welker moved: Bleile seconded: TO INCORPORATE THE DISCUSSION FROM CASE #ZON2 0 7 2- 007 INTO THIS CASE. CASE #ZON20 7 2-008, W H IN VESTME N T PLA NNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: .. • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case #ZON2012-007 Sand Creek PUD, #ZON2012-008 W H Tnvestment PUD November 20, 2012 Page 5 of6 • Final site plan approval will happ en at a lat er date and will need to receiv e Planning and Zoning approval and City Council approval, and • Delete "a nd attached town home use " from C 1 a of the PUD District Plan Developm ent Standards. Discussion Points for this case were included in the previous PUD. Mr. Bleile wanted the applicant to know the Commission is not against the development of this property. We want to see it happen. He asked that they not give up on it and go away. He said he would be very amicable to seeing some further discussion occur. If the Commission's concerns are addressed in a future presentation it's a no brainer. Mr. Fish said with some modifications this could work for all. Mr. Welker said he is very much in support of Roadmap Englewood. His problem with what was proposed tonight is that it isn 't concrete enough to give us assurance, to the city and to the people we represent of what is going to happen there; that happens at the Site Plan review. Allowing residential on the property is not the problem. Ms. Reid said the Commission could take a short recess and let Staff and the applicant work on wording the Commission is having difficulty with. Mr. Welker said , in his opinion, it's not a five to ten minute solution. He suggested the discussion continue to a date certain. Chair Brick asked the members if they wanted to take a recess to allow Staff time to add a condition or have him call for the question. Consensus was to not take the recess time; Chair Brick called for the question . Comments from Commission : Ill) AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Motion failed. Knoth, Brick Bleile, Roth , Welker, Fish , Kinton, Townley None King IV. PUBLIC FORUM ~ Mr. Fowler wished to speak about the Sand Creek property. The Commission invited him to attend a future Planning and Zoning meeting to discuss. .. • • • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Case #ZON2012-007 Sand Creek PUD , #ZO 2012-008 W H Inv estment PUD ovember 20, 2012 Page 6 of6 V. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE [!] Ms. Reid had nothing further to report. VI. STAFF'S CHOICE 1?11 Director White provided an update on future meetings. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE [!] Mr. Roth stated he hated to vote down something that will ultimately be a big plus for the City; the proposal just wasn't well enough developed. Mr. Bleile stated he hated voting no too on a project that will ultimately happen. He thanked the applicant and everyone who attended. He asked the applicant not to think tonight's decision was a rejection. Mr. Freemire stated it was very difficu lt to watch what he watched this evening. In this case yo u have industrial today right next to single family residential; that isn't going to change. The question is, what gives you the greater probability of improvement in the future for the lives of the citizens and also helps the commercial or industrial property owner to accomplish their goals and also allows us the opportunity to move forward and be able to move closer to the City's long-term goals. You can't say no and then say yes to the applicant. He suggested the Commission take a good serious look at this and create an environment whereby we can be a community that would be responsive and receptive to ideas that maybe require something a little bit different than what was done before. If this was putting lipstick on an otherwise industrial property to enable it to sell or to position it to sell , then what we've done is we've delayed that process. The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. ~~~d.tary