Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-21 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 21, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room in the Englewood Civic Cen- ter, Chairman Waggoner presiding. Present: Absent: Staff Present: Guest: Lathram, Mueller, Parks, Roth, Schum, Welker, Krieger, Willis, Waggoner None Senior Planner Langon Senior Planner Graham Assistant City Attorney Reid Tina Axelrad, Clarion & Associates II. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STUDY SESSION MX-TSA Zoning Regulations Development and Design Standards and Guidelines Chairman Waggoner asked that everyone introduce themselves . Mr. Graham provided historical background leading to development of zoning regulations and development, design standards and guidelines for transit oriented development. The focus has changed from applying new zoning regulations the length of the light rail corridor to application of new regulations only in the transit station area {TSA). Clarion Associates has been engaged to prepare the zoning regulations and the development, design stan- dards, and guidelines. These zoning regulations will set forth permitted uses and establish parameters for development. Approval of the regulations and application to the land may be concurrent. Mr. Graham stated that the Bates Station Plan, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, was passed by City Council on second reading on May 20, 2002. The Bates Station Plan establishes the "framework" guiding the development of the zoning regulations, which will, when imposed on the land, implement the Comprehensive Plan for this TSA. Mr. Graham stated that there is a 10.5 acre parcel that will be considered for the MX-TSA zoning, with the possibility of an additional seven acres if the Winslow property is included. Mr. Graham stated that all structures on the GIW site have been demolished, and that RTD will be awarding bids for the maintenance facility construction on July 1. Mr. Waggoner asked if the MX-TSA is to be a specific zone district, and will it have specific boundaries . Mr. Graham stated that until the district is applied to the land, there are no specific boundaries. Mr. Graham suggested the possibility of rezoning the 10.5 acre site at the same time the district regulations are considered for adoption. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Minuta 2002\PCM OS·21~2.do< Mr. Waggoner asked if other property owners might request the MX-TSA zoning for their property. Mr. Graham stated that this is correct. Mr. Graham stated that the Mixed Use • (MX) designation will be applicable in several districts in the new UDC; however, the MX- TSA would apply only for transit station areas. Ms. Langon stated that there will be several Mixed Use districts: MX-B 1, MX-B-2, MX-TSA, and MX-11, for example . Mr. Graham stated that, for this presentation, all regulations that would pertain to the MX- TSA district were pulled into one document. When the UDC is finalized, some issues such as definitions, landscaping provision, signage, or parking requirements will not be included in the "district regulations", but included in general regulations applicable to all zone dis- tricts. Ms. Lathram raised the possibility of the MX-TSA applicability at the Oxford light rail station, or on Broadway. Mr. Welker stated that imposition of the MX-TSA would have to be in re- lation to a transit station. Ms. Krieger entered the meeting and was seated with the Commission. Ms. Lathram stated that she wanted to make sure the City does not find themselves in the position whereby anyone can ask for rezoning to the MX-TSA. Ms. Axelrad stated that it must be made very clear where this MX-TSA can be located . Mr. Schum asked if there was a limitation on size of parcels that can be rezoned to MX- TSA; he noted references to "three acres" contained in the regulations. Ms. Axelrad stated that there is no limitation, and that the three acre reference merely requires that any site three acres or more that has this zone designation MUST have a mixture of land uses. The Commission discussed Planned Unit Development regulation applicability for the Bates Transit Station Area. Mr. Graham discussed the difference in Planned Development versus the Planned Unit Development regulations. Mr. Welker questioned whether the Commis- sion wanted development of a "three acre parcel" to come before the Commission for ap- proval even if they do not want a zoning change. He stated he wanted to "make sure we have control over development even if it isn't in a TSA district." Mr. Graham asked that Ms. Axelrad be allowed to make the presentation, and that discus- sion follow. Ms. Axelrad gave a power-point presentation of the high points of the MX-TSA zone district, and of the Bates Design Standards. Ms. Axelrad emphasized that this is an "overview" presentation, and that in-depth discussion will come in subsequent study sessions. Points covered in the presentation include: Overview: • Project Objective #1: Draft new transit-supportive mixed-use zone district H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutcs 2002\PCM 0~-21.m .doc • • • • • • Project Objective #2: Draft new design standards and guidelines for development at Bates Station Area. Applicability: • Lands Immediately Adjacent to the LRT Station o The "Transit Village" in Bates Station Plan o General Iron Works and Winslow Crane Properties Intent and Purpose: • Encourage a mix of uses • Encourage intensities of development to support and benefit from light rail • Promote walkability • Protect and connect existing neighborhoods Permitted Uses: • Allow a wide mix of uses o Residential, office, light industry, civic • Allow uses by-right versus conditional review Ms. Axelrad noted that there are also prohibited uses, such as drive-through establishments. Specific Use Standards: • Mix of principal uses required (Parcels 3+ acres) o At least 2 different uses o No 1 use may occupy more than 90% of net land area • Ground floor active uses (600 ft. from Station) o Allowed: Commercial, public, institutional, or live/work o Not allowed: residential o Immediate occupancy or design for future occupancy • Standards for Parking Garages o Active ground floor -50% of street frontage • Standards for surface parking lots o Interim use only o Cannot locate close to station ( 600') o Cannot locate next to each other Mr. Willis entered the meeting and was seated with the Commission. Ms. Axelrad noted that interim residential use may be allowed on the ground floor if the market is such that a commercial or other use cannot be secured. Ms. Krieger asked if a time limit is established -the interim use may continue for "x" number of months. Ms. Ax- elrad stated that no time limit has been established, but this should probably be considered. The point of measurement for the 600 ft. was questioned. Ms. Axelrad stated that the 600 ft. is measured from the actual transit station platform. Mr. Graham noted that a typical c.ity block is 660 feet in length from mid-cross street to mid-cross street. Ms. Axelrad continued the power-point presentation: H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PU.NCOMMIMinutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 05·21-02.doc Density & Dimensional Standards • Minimum Residential Density: 30 du/acre o Density is net of ROWs • Maximum Front Setback: 15 feet o Applies to first 30 feet of building height • Minimum Lot Frontage : 55-75% o Must be occupied by building wall Procedures for Review • Overall Development Plan o Master Plans for Parcels 3 Acres and Over o Administrative Review o Appeal to P /Z and CC o Call-up by CC Majority Vote • Site Plan Review o Parcels subject to ODP or Smaller than 3 acres o Administrative; appeal to P /Z and CC Mr. Waggoner inquired about landscaping. Ms. Axelrad pointed out that this zone district is "urban " in nature, not "suburban ", and the majority of the landscaping will be in the pub- lic areas. Ms. Mueller asked if there are plans to landscape within the 15 foot setback. Ms. Axelrad stated that it is not being required. She stated that the development will be similar to the CityCenter development -flower boxes and planters in front of the buildings, but no sod. Street trees will be planted. Mr. Welker noted that the density of 30 du /acre minimum is four times the density cur- rently allowed . Ms. Langon pointed out that the current R-3 Zone District allows 40 units per acre . Ms. Axelrad discussed the "minimum lot frontage", pointing out that from 55% to 75% of this frontage line must be occupied by building wall -this may be a decorative wall, with openings for pedestrian and/or vehicle access. Review procedures were discussed. Ms. Axelrad stated that the Overall Development Plan (ODP) requires a master plan for development parcels three acres or more. This "plan" will be taken through "administrative review", and appeals from that review process will be to the Planning Commission and then to City Council. Site Plan review is for parcels subject to ODP or smaller than 3 acres; the site plan is also subject to administrative review, with appeals to the Planning Commission and to City Council. Ms. Lathram asked if the administrative review process means that the Planning Commis- sion will not be involved in the review of the development plan. She stated that she had hoped the development on the GIW site would be done through the PUD process. She asked what kind of criteria will be established to govern the administrative review. Ms. Ax- elrad suggested the goals and objectives of the Bates Station Plan will be standards used in H:IGROUPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\M inutes 2002\PCM OS-2 1-02.doc 4 t • • • • • • the administrative review process. Rezoning of any site itself will have to come through the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Welker, Ms. Lathram, and Ms. Mueller all voiced the need to have public input on the development review process. Mr. Welker stated that he really takes issue with the pro- posed administrative review process and by-passing the Planning Commission in this step. Ms. Lathram noted that the MX-TSA could be applicable to the Oxford transit station area; residents near the GIW and CityCenter area may be aware of the redevelopment activities, but there still needs to be an opportunity to have public input. The Commission also questioned that the 600 foot distance is appropriate. Discussion ensued . Mr . Welker reiterated he wants a forum so we can see what is being proposed. Ms. Mueller asked what the Commission will see with a rezoning request. Ms. Lathram noted that when CityCenter was rezoned to PUD , a site plan was not seen. Mr. Schum noted that density is proposed at 30 units per acre "minimum". "A developer will love that". Mr . Waggoner stated that no rezoning request will be approved by "administrative review". It will have to go through the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and before City Council. Mr . Willis asked the difference in PUD versus the MX-TSA district. Ms. Axelrad suggested that a PUD would be more wide open -it would address not only permitted uses, but set- backs, parking, landscaping. She stated that the MX-TSA zone district will apply to the en- tire 10 acre site. The MX-TSA does not have a minimum district size. Discussion ensued. Ms. Lathram stated that she recalled discussion of both the PUD procedure and develop- ment of a special zone district to accomplish the redevelopment of the GIW site. She stated that she recalled it was indicated that the special zone district (MX-TSA) is easier to get approval from the City. Mr. Graham stated that the goal is to simplify the process, and the intent is to raise the standards for those uses deemed undesirable, and to lower barriers for acceptable uses. Mr. Graham stated that the PUD process is great for some projects, but not for all. Mr . Willis stated that in his opinion, the GIW redevelopment will have a great impact not only on the immediate neighborhood, but the community as a whole. Ms. Lathram stated that this development will change what this area will look like, and it is really necessary to provide the public a chance to see what the City will be doing to redevelop the site. Dis- cussion followed . Ms. Lathram stated that she isn't sure the way the MX-TSA is written is the way the Commission wants to go. Further discussion regarding the "three acre " figure ensued. Mr. Welker suggested 3.5 acres. Ms. Axelrad suggested that points of compromise should possibly be included in the Overall Development Plan process. Mr. Welker stated that he wants an opportunity to H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPUNCOMM\Minutcs\Minutes 2002\PCM 05-21--02 .doc view where buildings will be, but doesn't want a document that dictates specifics. He wants to prevent development of "monstrosities". Ms. Reid suggested that the Commission keep in mind that the MX-TSA may be used in other locations, and that a basic MX district may be used throughout the City. Administrative review was further discussed. Mr. Schum pointed out that "administration" personnel can change from year-to-year, thus providing no continuity to the review process. Ms. Axelrad pointed out that no matter who is part of the "administrative" review process, the "cookbook" (district regulations) will still be available and provides the basis for the re- view process. Mr. Willis asked about the possibility of eliminating the administrative review and requiring that the ODP be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Welker suggested that numbers used, such as the 600' distance, or the 3 acre size, are arbitrary. Mr. Schum stated that we want new development, but do not want to give developers free rein. Mr. Welker agreed, and stated that he doesn 't want to establish road blocks, but the Commission needs to be involved in the review process. Ms. Lathram asked what we are trying to achieve this evening: are we working only on the first section this evening -the MX-TSA regulations, or is this an overview of the entire proc- ess. Ms. Axelrad reiterated that her intent was to provide an overview of the MX-TSA regu- lations and of the Bates Station Design Standards. Specifics will be addressed either later in this meeting, or in subsequent study sessions. Mr. Graham stated that Ms. Axelrad was asked to present an overview at this meeting; she will not be available on June 41h (the next Planning Commission meeting). Ms. Axelrad stated that if everyone is comfortable with the "big picture overview" at this meeting, she would continue with the Bates Station Design Standards presentation. Overview of New Bates Design Standards: Applicability & Purpose • Applicability: General Iron Works & Winslow Crane • Purpose o Compact development o Active and friendly pedestrian environment o Building design/architecture connected to area's industrial heritage o Usable open spaces and public amenities Structure and Flexibility • Standards ("Shall") and Guidelines ("Should") o Finding the right balance = On-going process • Built-in Mechanism for Developer Flexibility o "Alternative Compliance" allows waivers or modifications • • o City may allow a creative alternatives when it accomplishes the purpose of • the subject standard as good as, or better than, the standard H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCO MM\Minutcs\Minutcs 2002\PCM 05 -21-02 .doc , • • • Ms. Axelrad noted that "shall" is mandatory; "should" is advisory. She did note that it may be possible to waive "shall" in some instances. Building Height • Building height challenges o Allow enough intensity to support a mix for viable redevelopment o Compatibility with existing development o Protect significant views to mountains and Downtown Denver • Solution: Heights step down from station to edge o Maximum = 115 feet at Bates LRT station o Step-down = 65 or 55 feet as distance from station increases, and to protect mapped view corridors o Step-backs from street= 45 feet (light, air, human scale) A concept map was displayed indicating location of structures and suggested heights. Ms. Axelrad noted that the greatest height will begin at the transit station platform, and step down to street frontage height. Vehicle Access • Should respect and continue existing street grid • Streets must connect uses within the district to transit and to adjacent neighbor- hoods • Alleys allowed Pedestrian Access • Convenient and safe pedestrian connections o To Bates LRT station o Between uses in the district, and o To uses outside the district • Design of sidewalks and walkways o Minimum 8-or 10-feet wide o Detached from curb with landscaping or tree wells in strip o Clearly marked when cross driveways or parking areas Ms. Mueller noted that commercial activities on the lower levels, particularly by the transit station, are allowed. She asked if any provision is included for these merchants to have ac- tivities on the sidewalk, such as a cafe providing outdoor tables for patrons. Ms. Axelrad stated that this type of activity might be allowed on the "setback" area, but not on the re- quired sidewalk; she cited need to maintain unimpeded sidewalk area for pedestrian use. Off-street Parking • Less parking required o Minimums lower (e.g. 1.25 per du vs. 1.5 or 2.0 per du) o Maximums applied (e.g., 1.75 per du) o Shared parking allowed as alternative H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minuies\Minutcs 2002\PCM 05-21-02.doc 7 • Location of parking o No surface parking between front door and street • Parking structure design o 80% of ground floor = active uses Ms. Axelrad commented that the required number of off-street parking spaces is lower than required in other districts, because of proximity to the transit station. Location of parking is restricted, and guest parking to serve the residential development is required. The ground level of any structure must have 80% of the area devoted to active "permitted uses", and not used for parking purposes. Building Orientation • Orient buildings to public street • Orient buildings to preserve views • Building entrances face street, plaza, or connecting walkway Architectural Design • Create unique, identifiable character and physical image for Bates area • Building design must exhibit "industrial" architectural theme o Raw, unfinished materials that relate to industrial history o Stones, metals, concrete, natural wood • Pedestrian -friendl y architecture o First-floor openings (doors and windows) o Entry emphasis o No blank walls o 4-sided design Adjacent Properties • Protect lower-intensity adjacent properties • Use building design and siting tools first o Height step-downs o Change in massing and roof form o Orient nuisance activities to interior • Landscaping/Buffer tools last Private Open Space and Amenities • Private breathing space for residents o Balconies, patios, courtyards • On-site public amenities o Plazas or patios o Outdoor public art o Rooftop terrace Ms. Axelrad stated that this is a lot of information to absorb, and suggested the need for several meetings devoted to discussion on a section-by-section basis. She advised that Clar- ion personnel are not available to attend the Commission meeting of June 4th . • • Mr. Graham noted that the second meeting in June will be June 18th. He suggested that • focus will be on the MX-TSA zoning regulations . He asked that members please peruse the K:IGROUPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\M inutcs\Mi nutcs 2002\PCM 05-21 ~2 .do<: ; • • • documents carefully, mark them up with questions and concerns and bring them to that meeting for discussion. Mr. Waggoner stated that at some point there must be a listing of Commiss ioner's concerns, and we need to address and resolve those concerns to provide direction to the staff and the consultant. Ms. Axelrad acknowledged that a sense of direc- tion from the Commissioners would be most helpful. Staff will have to determine the course of action to be followed after the Commission has gone through the proposed regu- lations . Mr. Graham stated that a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is re- quired on both the MX-TSA and application of those regulations to the land (rezoning), and referral to City Council for their public hearing process . Mr. Graham pointed out that a consensus of the Commission on the regulations is the goal; however, if some concerns cannot be resolved, the proposal can still go forward to City Council. Ms. Krieger asked when public comments would enter into the proceedings . Mr. Graham stated that during the Public Hearing members of the public would be provided an oppor- tunity to address the Commission . Mr. Graham pointed out that the EURA is also cons i dering the MX-TSA and the design standards. Mr. Graham stated t hat the EURA will turn the site to the developer, and deter- mine what infrastructure improvements would be needed . The EURA is also responsible for development agreements with whomever the developer might be . Mr. Graham asked that the Commission ask themselves whether the MX-TSA zone district will result in a neighbor- hood that the City can be proud of -imagine how this development may appear to other properties . Mr. Welker asked if the GIW redevelopment by The Fullerton Company will be the first test of the MX-TSA regulations . Mr. Graham responded affirmatively. He stated that staff is try- ing to pull everything together -it would be most desirable to have the zoning regulations, design standards, rezoning, and developers agreements all i n place b y the end of the year . Mr. Graham further discussed the negotiations the EURA is responsible for, and the MX-TSA regulations, design standards and approval process which is the responsibility of the Plan- ning Commission . He emphasized that the Planning Commission and City Council estab - lish the regulations for zone districts and rezoning, and the EURA is focused on elimination of blight conditions . Mr. Graham reiterated that the Planning Commission and City Council are responsible for establishment of zone district regulations and design standards . Mr. Willis asked if other jurisdictions have similar regulations, and what jurisdictions has Clarion worked for. Ms. Axelrad responded that Denver has mixed-use zone districts, and that Colorado Springs and Arvada are writing these districts . Nation-wide, Portland and Beaverton, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington all have transit-oriented zone regulations. Ms. Lathram asked if there was "hard" information that could be given the Commission to re- view. Mr. Graham noted that a model "transit district" paper was sent to the Commission several months ago . Ms. Axelrad noted that this model transit district paper is very good. Ms . Axelrad also pointed out that nothing the Commission has before them has not been done by another jurisdiction. Ms. Reid suggested that if Commissioners so desired, they could go the web pages of the aforementioned cities and research the zone regulations. H:IGRO UPIBOARDS\PLA NCOMM\Minutcs\Minutes 2002\PCM 0'-21-02.doc 9 General discussion ensued. Mr. Willis wanted assurance there is no conflict between the goals and responsibilities of EURA and the Planning Commission. He stated he wants to • make sure that everyone is on the same page, and working together. Ms. Krieger commented that the EURA and Planning Commission purposes may not be the same -each board may approach the review from a different perspective. Mr. Welker stated that we need to be sure both perspectives are addressed in the regulations. Mr. Roth stated that he is also a member of the EURA. A primary objective of EURA is to cure the blight conditions that led to creation of the urban renewal district. Mr. Roth refer- enced a presentation to the EURA a couple of months ago regarding building mass on the GIW site. The power-point presentation at that time made the building mass seem over- whelming to some, and the height step-backs proposed in regulations before the Commis- sion help address these concerns. The EURA is also dealing with the developer, and over- seeing the writing of development contracts. Ms. Langon stated that Clarion Associates will gather all comments, and address those con- cerns. She emphasized that the Commission is responsible for establishment of zoning re- quirements. The Bates Station Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was discussed. Mr. Graham stated that some minor modifications were made after the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Members of the Commission asked that an up-to-date copy of the Bates Station • Plan be provided to them. Agenda issues for June 4 were discussed. It was noted that a PUD public hearing was con- tinued to June 4. Mr. Graham stated that staff could discuss the traffic impact analysis on that date, or ask Mr. Woolfall from Carter-Burgess to attend. He stated that staff is of the opinion that traffic issues will be first and foremost in the public concerns. Or, he sug- gested there might be the possibility of a separate meeting regarding the traffic impact analysis with Traffic Engineer Vostry, Public Works Director Ross, and Mr. Woolfall all in attendance to discuss the study. Mr. Graham pointed out that following the demise of the North Englewood Small Area Plan a few years ago, staff did meet with residents of the area and addressed several concerns regarding traffic. This resulted in some additions and modi- fications to signalization and signage to better control traffic, particularly in the Bishop Ele- mentary School area. Mr. Welker discussed the issue of street alignments, and the need to address this. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Graham suggested that the Commission and staff, with assis- tance from Clarion Associates, review both the MX-TSA and the design standards before getting into discussion on the traffic impact analysis. Ms. Langon asked members of the Commission to keep all of the materials they have, and bring them to subsequent meetings regarding these issues. • H:IGROUPIBOAJlDS\PLANCOMM\MinutcslMinutcs 2002\PCM 05-21~2 .doc 10 \ • • • Mr. Welker stated he will not be in attendance on June 4. Mr. Parks stated he would not be in attendance on June 4. Ms. Lathram noted that she may not be in attendance on June 4 -her baby is due on June 7. Ill. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated that the City Council has scheduled a study session with the Planning Commission on June 3 at 6:00 p.m. She asked what topics the Commission would like to discuss with the Council. Mr. Willis stated that he wanted to discuss CityCenter Phase II development, and pedes- trian access. Ms. Reid asked if they wished to discussed board composition. Commissioners indicated they did not. Mr . Welker stated that Council just needs to appoint another alternate mem- ber. Ms. Langon asked for a headcount on members that will be attending the June 3 meeting. Ms. Krieger and Messrs. Schum, Waggoner, Willis, and Roth indicated they will be in atten- dance. Recording Secretary Welty was asked to call members to remind them of the Council Study session . Ms. Langon asked for clarification on whether the TOD discussion is to be placed on the June 4 agenda. Consensus is that it was not to be on the June 4 agenda. V. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Nothing was brought forth for discussion by Ms. Reid. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Nothing was brought forth for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned. - Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre H:\GROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutes 2002\PCM OS-21-02 .doc I I