Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-18 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 18, 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 City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chairman Waggoner presiding . Members present: Krieger, Parks , Roth , Schum, Welker, Waggoner Members absent: Willis, Lathram , Mueller (all members gave previous notice of ab- sence ) Staff present: Sen ior Planner Harold J. Stitt Senior Planner Mark Graham As sist ant City A ttorn ey N ancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 4, 2002 Chairman Waggoner stated that the Minutes of June 4, 2002 were to be considered for ap- proval. He asked if there were an y corrections or modifications . Roth moved: Schum seconded: The Minutes of June 4, 2002 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Krieger, Roth , Sc hum , Waggoner None Parks, Welker Lathram, Mueller, Willis The motion carried . Ill. SAFEWAY PUD 35 75 South Logan Street CASE #PUD 2001-02 Cha i rman Waggoner stated that the Public Hearing was closed on June 4, 2002, and the Planning Commission discussion was continued to this evening. A request has been re- ceived from the applicant asking the Commission to reopen the Hearing and receive addi- tional testimony; further, the applicant requests that the Hearing be continued to July 2 to provide them an opportunity to prepare amended plans for submittal. Mr. Waggoner asked the pleasure of the Commission. Krieger moved : Parks seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #PUD 2001-02 be reopened. H:\GROU PIBOA RDSIPLANCO MM\Minu1cs\Min u1cs 200 2\PCM 06-18-0 2.doc • • • Mr. Schum stated that he agreed with the motion to open the Hearing, and receive further testimony. Chairman Waggoner stated that he will be voting "no" on the motion to reopen the hear- ing; in his opinion it is not up to the Planning Commission to negotiate with the applicant on the proposed size of the station, and the Commission has received ample testimony and discussion from both sides . Mr. Parks commented that he recalled some discussion regarding security and safety of cus- tomers, and wondered if this deserves more attention . Mr. Roth suggested the Commission keep in mind how placement of a service station at a heavil y traveled, congested i ntersection, will affect the Transportation Plan. Ms . Krieger noted that the Commission did raise some issues after closure of the public tes- timon y, and that the applicant should be offered an opportunity to address those issues . The v ote was called : AYES: NAYS : ABSENT: Parks, Schum, Welker, Krieger Roth , Waggoner Lathram , Mueller, Willis The motion to reopen the Hearing carried. Chairman Waggoner asked staff if they had anything to add . Senior Planner Stitt stated that staff had no additional comments . John Beauparlant was sworn in. Mr. Beauparlant stated that he represented Safewa y Stores , Inc., and they have been working to revise the PUD plans to address as many issues raised by the Commission as poss ible. He stated that the revised site plan will be submitted to staff on Friday, June 21 . He asked that the Public Hearing be continued to July 2. Mr. Schum asked if the revised plans are for a smaller fueling station. Mr. Beauparlant stated that the fueling station will be smaller. Mr. Parks noted that some of the opponents present at a previous portion of the Hearing are present this evening. Dave Lawrence, 3531 South Logan Street, was sworn in. Mr. Lawrence testified that he owns the Subway Shop in the north perimeter shops . He stated that he would like to see the new plans. Mr. Lawrence discussed the parking spaces, and noted that 14 spaces next to the fueling station are "boarded off" from the north perimeter shops. He pointed out that there is also the phone book collection dumpster that has been allowed in the past, in addition to the garden center -both of these temporary uses take up parking spaces, and reduce the available spaces to less than what Safeway is supposed to provide. Mr. Law- H:IGRO UPIBOARDSIP LANCOMM\Mi nut es\Min utes 2002\PCM 06-18-02 .doc • • • rence then addressed the reduction in the parking space size. He stated that he has meas- ured the width of his vehicle, and a nine-foot wide space is "very tight" to open doors and enter or exit the vehicle. Mr. Lawrence also pointed out that the fueling station will be open to dispense gas from midnight to S a.m. with no kiosk attendant. He discussed the risk of fire and noted that people are tired of smoke in the air. Mr. Lawrence suggested that the revised plans won 't take away the problems that have been raised, and pointed out that the tankers still have to have space to come in to fill the underground storage tanks. Mr. Schum asked if Subway personnel were ever approached about this proposal, or in- cluded in planning the development -were there any meetings with the applicant. Mr. Lawrence responded negatively; he said that "someone said they were putting a little sta- tion in with a couple of pumps ." He stated that customers of his Subway shop will have to walk an additional 125 feet to get to his business; he likened this to someone wanting to go to McDonalds, the parking lot is full, and having to park at Taco Bell to walk to McDonalds. Mr. Lawrence also noted that when large tankers download fuel, fumes are noticeable for some distance away . He questioned whether these fumes would contaminate ingredients he uses to make the Subway sandwiches he sells. Dan Jensen was sworn in. Mr. Jensen testified that the proposed location of the fueling sta- tion is in a very busy, dangerous area . There is insufficient parking for people and cited parking by employees and customers of businesses across the street in the Safeway lot. Mr. Jensen stated he understood that there are 44 spaces committed to the north perimeter shops , and pointed out that 30 people work in the "strip mall". He stated that he is op- posed to the fueling station. Brenda Jensen was sworn in. She testified in opposition to the fueling station. She stated that she and her husband, Dan, own the Englewood Liquor Store, and also live in Engle- wood. She stated that parking sufficiency is a problem, and that the proposal is unfair to the strip mall businesses. Loren Burk was sworn in, and testified he is the real estate broker for Coastal Stations . Mr. Burk noted the proximity of other fueling stations and stated in his opinion the needs of the neighborhood and motorists are met. He is opposed to the proposed fueling station. Chairman Waggoner stated that the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing be continued to July 2, at which time revised site plans will be presented. He asked the pleas- ure of the Commission . Welker moved: Krieger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD 2001-02 be continued to July 2, 2002. Mr. Schum stated that there are a couple of Commission members absent this evening who have participated in other portions of the Hearing that should be present, but that he, per- sonally, is ready to vote this evening. H:IGRO UPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\M inutcs\Minutes 2002\PCM 06-1 8-02 .doc • • • Chairman Waggoner reiterated that the applicant wants to present plans down-sizing the fueling station , and that an opponent expressed a desire to see the new plans . Ms. Krieger stated that the Commission needs to extend the courtesy of viewing the down- sized plans. The vote was called : AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Parks, Roth, Schum, Welker, Krieger, Waggoner None None Mueller, Willis, Lathram The motion carried . IV. STUDY SESSION MX-TSA Zone district Senior Planner Graham asked w hether the Commission wanted to conduct the stud y ses - sion in the Council Chambers, or adjourn to the Community Development Conference Room for a more informal setting. Members of the Commission opted to do the study ses- sion in the C.D. Conference Room , and to complete the remainder of the agenda prior to adjourning to the stud y session. V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Staff announced that Debbie Lathram gave birth to a baby girl on June 15 1h; the baby is named Samantha Ly nn , and bab y and parents are doing fine. A floral arrangement has been sent to the family from the Commission. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated that she had nothing to bring before the Commission. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Parks asked if it is appropriate to inquire how the Alexan development is doing. He has heard some "disturbing news ", and asked if there have been any crime reports, whether there have been reports about anyone being "angry" about the development, or anything unusual occurring on the site . He stated that he understood that 90% of the residents, par- ticularly those over 50 years of age, have said that if they had an opportunity to break their H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Mi nut es 2002\PCM 06-1 8.02.doc • • • lease they would do so. He asked whether it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to ask them how they are doing. Ms. Reid noted that police reports filed are public record. She further noted that it sounds as though the issue is a landlord/tenant issue, and it is not the concern of the Planning Commission. The City is not involved. Mr. Stitt stated that Trammell Crow purchased the property that Alexan is built on; neither the City of Englewood nor the Englewood Environmental Foundation have control over op- eration of the Alexan development. Mr . Parks reiterated that discussion he heard from tenants was disturbing. Mr. Schum stated he had nothing to bring up. Chairman Waggoner asked what happens on the Safeway PUD. Does the process begin over with the submission of the revised site plans. Mr. Stitt stated that once the plans are submitted, they would be routed to other Departments, and probably taken through the Development Review process; if revisions are required the plans would be returned to the applicant for revisions before submission to the Planning Commission. Mr. Stitt stated that a PUD is, in fact, a "negotiated" plan, and a lot of the negotiations are between staff and applicant to establish agreement on size of buildings, parking, landscaping, points of ingress and egress, and so on. Mr. Stitt further pointed out that an applicant can always choose to bring a PUD forward to the Planning Commission without the "blessing" of the staff. He stated that negotiations regarding issues raised during the course of the Hearing can occur between the Commission and the applicant; these negotiations may require submission of revised plans for further consideration. He stated that a revised site plan will retain the same case number. Ms . Reid advised that once revised plans are submitted to the Commission, previously con- sidered plans are obsolete. * * * * * * * * * * The Commission recessed and relocated to the Community Development Conference Room for the Study Session on the MX-TSA Zone District. Ms. Tina Axelrad of Clarion Associates was present for the Study Session. Mr . Graham stated that the goal is to get through at least five sections of the proposed MX- TSA Zone District this evening. He asked whether "rules of operation" need to be estab- lished, such as one person speaking at any one time. He stated that he would like the Commission to reach "consensus" on issues covered, and asked that discussion stay on point. Section 1, Intent and Purpose, was then reviewed by Ms. Axelrad. The need for established boundaries was expressed; these boundaries should show the "core" of the development, H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutcs 2002\PC M 06-18-02.doc • • • the "transitional " development area, and the "commercial" development area. Mr. Welker stated that he cannot support the proposed zone district if he does not know the bounda- ries of the area to be so designated. Mr. Schum agreed there is need to establish bounda- ries. Chairman Waggoner commented that typically a buffer strip, or transitional area, between two zone districts comes from the parcel being rezoned. This buffer strip could be intensi- fied landscaping, or a varying degree of use intensity. He asked where these "transitions " will be when the MX-TSA is mapped -on the GIW site, or bordering the redevelopment. Ms. Krieger noted that the MX-TSA regulations, when adopted, could also be applied to the Oxford Transit Station area, as well as Bates. Discussion ensued on "transition " development. Mr. Graham pointed out that one of the features in the Fullerton development proposal that might be considered a "transition " is stepping of building heights from low to high (the office structure ) -lower structures would front on Elati and Bates , the taller office building situated on the southwest corner of the development area . Ms. Axelrad stated that use "intensity" is also a transition feature -resi- dential with limited retail on first floor to the more intense office building use . Mr. Welker asked if staff and Clarion are sa y ing that the total Fullerton development plan is the "core ", and that the "transition " would occur bey ond the boundaries of this develop- ment area . Ms. Axelrad answered affirmatively. Ms. Reid pointed out that a transition area may not be designated on someone else 's property. She suggested the need for clarity in defining "core" and "transition " areas. Ms. Krieger stated that she thought the transition area would have to occur on the land within the rezoning boundary. Ms. Axelrad stated that she needed to review the basic plan -the Bates Station Comprehensive Plan amend- ment. She stated that other uses will fill in around the core uses. Mr. Schum stated there are residential uses right across the street from the "core" use area . Ms . Krieger pointed out the residential uses located in the industriall y zoned area are non - conforming. Mr. Welker noted that the Commission is looking at a plan with buildings right up to the street line -this proposed development features "urban landscape" designs; he stated that the Commission will consider density, height of buildings and other facets that affect the total development. Mr. Roth pointed out that a logical extension of the MX-TSA zoning would be to the Wins- low property. Mr. Schum stated that development proposed in the Fullerton proposal could be "mirrored" on the Winslow site. Mr. Graham stated this is not necessarily correct; land considered for the MX-TSA zone designation should be in close proximity to a transit station . Further discussion followed . Ms. Reid noted that when rezoning of property is considered, one must take into consid- eration current zoning of the subject land and of abutting land. The Fullerton site is zoned H:IGRO UPI BO ARDS\P LANCOMM\Minutcs\Mi nutcs 2002\PCM 06-18-02 .doc • • • for 1-2, Heavy Industrial ; land immediately to the east, and most of that on the south of the GIW site is zoned 1-1, General industrial. Ms. Reid emphasized that the land is zoned for industrial use -residential uses in industrially zoned areas are nonconforming. When re- zoning is considered, the land designation is changed. If someone were to propose development around the transit station area, the design standards established in the Bates Station Comprehensive Plan amendment can be used to manage the impact of zone district regulations. Mr. Welker commented that the "transition element" is the only thing that makes this palat- able to him. Discussion followed . Mr. Graham asked that the Commission keep in mind the Comprehensive Plan is looking 20 years in the future. The ultimate redevelopment of the General Iron area will not be re- alized within one or two years. Mr. Welker stated that if the redevelopment stops at the boundaries of the General Iron site , and if this is all that ever occurs, then the transitions should be within that develop- ment; efforts to mitigate the impact should regarded as though this is the only thing that will happen there . Mr. Roth pointed out that the URA Condition Study indicates the blight ex- tends beyond the General Iron boundaries . Ms. Axelrad directed the attention of the Commission to Section 2 : Re lated Plans, Stan- dards , and Guidelines. Th is section was reviewed with minimal discussion . Section 3, General Provi sion s and De finitions, was then discussed. Mr. Waggoner asked if there is not a section in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO ) that contains all definitions, and if this is the case , why are there definitions within the MX-TSA. Ms. Axelrad stated that Mr. Waggoner is correct, and when the Unified Development Code (UDC) is completed, all definitions will be compiled within one section . In the interim, however, definitions specific to the MX-TSA District are included in this proposed ordinance. Ms. Reid asked where the "Small Area Plan " would show up. Mr. Graham stated that the Bates Station Plan is a "policy plan"; "Small Area Plans" are implementation plans and have yet to be written. They would be part of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood . Mr. Welker referenced Page 3, #7, and asked if the figure of "600 feet'' should be retained in the definition, or whether this could var y from area to area . Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid suggested that the last sentence "The boundaries of a Transit Station Subarea shall be measured to be the total land area located within 600 feet from the outside edge of the RTD station platform " be eliminated . Further discussion ensued. Ms. Axelrad suggested the applicant can define the "subarea ", or establishing standards can be written into the guidelines. Mr. Graham discussed need for a reference point to use in mapping. Ms. Axel - rad suggested using the terminology of "immediate impact area " rather than a distance ref- erence . H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLA NCOMM\M in utes\Minutes 2002\PCM 06-18-02 .doc • • • Section 4, Allowed Uses and Use Standards, was then considered. Ms. Axelrad asked the Commission members to keep in mind the goal is to be "pedestrian friendly ". Chairman Waggoner noted the prohibition of tattoo and body piercing establishments, and asked about allowance or prohibition of adult uses -this does not appear to be addressed . Ms. Reid suggested that adult uses should be listed with the other uses that are prohibited. Ms. Krieger asked about "small treatment centers " i n the group living section . Mr. Welker asked about distancing factors on group homes and small treatment centers. Mr. Stitt sug- gested if there are distancing factors they be referenced in the definitions, but not in the Code section . Mr. Welker asked about pawn shops, group homes -he thought that all have distancing factors ; w i ll the distancing factors carry to the MX-TSA district. Ms. Axelrad stated that in developing proposed uses for the MX-TSA District, uses permitted in the B-2 and H i gh Den- sity R-3 Districts were reviewed. Chairman Waggoner asked about telecommunications facilities. Ms. Reid stated the tele- communications ordinance specifically addresses types of towers and facilities allowed, and suggested that the MX-TSA district reference the telecommunications section of the CZO. Ms. Axelrad referenced "D " on Page 5, Requirements for First Floor Principal Uses -Transit Station Subareas. This section will establish guidelines for first floor usage of buildings in the redevelopment area . The focus is to create a lot of activity for commuters using the light rail. She discussed one concept of the "live/work dwellings" -this could comprise two principal use s on the first floor . Discussion ensued ; the Comm ission suggested that the retail or "work" element be required to front on the street, with the res i dential use at the rear of the unit. Ms. Axelrad referenced Page 6, (E) (3 ) (b ), "No one use category listed in subsection (E) (1) shall comprise more than 90 percent o f the development site 's net land area . /1 Messrs Schum and Parks le ft the meeting. The 90 % citation was discussed. Ms. Reid asked if this provision can be interpreted to al- low a single use if the site is less than three acres. Chairman Waggoner suggested calcula- tions be done on floor area rather than land area . Mr. Welker stated that 90% seems too high . Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Graham noted that with the departure of Mr. Schum and Mr. Parks, there are five members absent; he asked if the Commission wanted to continue the discussion . Ms. Krieger noted that four members does not constitute a quorum . It was the consensus of the Commission that in the absence of five members, discussion be discontinued at this time. H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIPLA NCO MM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PC M 06-18-02.doc • The meeting disbanded at 9:15 p.m. - Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Seer • • H:IGROUl'\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutcs 2002\PCM 06-18-02 .doc