Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-09 PZC MINUTES• • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMM I SSION July 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The study session of the City of Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Cen- ter, Chairman Waggoner presiding. Members present: Krieger, Lathram , Mueller, Roth , Welker, Willis, Waggoner Diekmeier, alternate member Members absent: Parks (no previous notice of absence ), Schum (notice of absence given ) Staff present: Senior Planner Graham Assistant City Attorney Reid Also present: Tina Axelrad , Clarion Associates Tim Leonard, Deepwater Point Compan y II. MX-TSA ZONE DISTRICT Ms. Axelrad stated this discussion w ill begin where the Commission discontinued discus- sion on June 18 -Page 6 . Ms . Reid asked for clarification of (E) (3 ) (b ) -is the 90 % calcula - tion to be done on total floor area (vertical ) or total floor area (footprint -horizontal ). Ms. Axelrad stated that she has not had an opportunity to test either proposal at this time . Ms. Axelrad addressed the issue of parking, and noted that parking as a primary use is dis- couraged in surface lots. Surface parking would be allowed on a short-term , interim use of a vacant parcel , and would be subject to specific standards. Mr. Waggoner asked what parking ratio is proposed . Mr. Graham responded that 2.5:1 is proposed, the one-half space is for guest parking, and can be located on-street. Mr. Welker questioned control of on-street guest parking, and how to determine whether it is, indeed, guests of a unit that are using the on-street parking sites. Mr. Graham discussed provisions to allow pooling of guest parking spaces -it could serve a specified number of buildings, or could serve the overall development plan (ODP) area. Ms. Axelrad stated that this parking area would be required within 200 feet of the area it serves, and could be only for guest parking. Ms . Krieger inquired about time restrictions -how long could guests be allowed to use the on-street parking. Mr. Graham pointed out there has to be some flexibil- ity for use of guest parking. Mr. Welker stated that it bothers him to count on-street parking as part of the required parking. He questioned whether this could result in an influx of parking by guests or customers in the residential neighborhood. • Surface parking lots as an interim use will be "time fillers " until the market allows full devel- opment of the ODP. Ms. Axelrad discussed §G Accessory Buildings and Permitted Acces- H:\GRO UPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\M inutc:s 1Minutc:s :002\PC:'>! 07..()9.0 2.doc 1 • • • sory Uses ; she pointed out that parking structures and parking garages that are accessory to a principal non-residential use, will be allowed. An accessory surface parking lot may be located within 400 feet of the principal use it serves, but are prohibited within the Transit Station Sub-areas. Mr. Waggoner asked how home occupations are defined. Ms . Axelrad stated that the home occupation definition is the definition contained within the existing Zoning Ordi- nance. She cautioned that a home occupation must not be confused with the live/work dwelling units that may allowed. Ms . Axelrad now directed discussion to #5, Density and Dimensional Standards. She noted that a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre is required. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that the density is based on the gross land area within the ODP. Mr. Welker pointed out that if this is true, square footage devoted to street rights-of-way and open spaces will be included when figuring allowable density. He stated that the 30 units per acre minimum seems quite high . Further discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that this means to determine residential density will appl y to the entire 10.5 acre site. Mr. Welker suggested that the consultant and staff do "testing " on this concept also. Mr. Graham cautioned that the Commission keep in mind that the development is to be transit-oriented, and pedestrian friendl y . The office building, for instance, may have a fairly small footprint, but be several stories in height. Ms. Krieger asked if there is anything in the proposal that prohibits more than one office building. Mr. Graham stated there is not. Ms. Axelrad acknowledged the need to revisit this provision. She noted that the transitional area will have a separate density requirement. Mr. Leonard commented that he represents owners of the Winslow property; they have done some "testing " of the 30 unit/acre requirement; these figures tend to discourage com- mercial development but encourage residential with structured parking. Mr. Welker reiterated his opinion that the minimum density is too high. Mr. Graham pointed out that The Fullerton Company is projecting 400 residential units on 10.5 acres , plus the 100,000 sq. ft . office building; this averages out to 40 d.u./acre . Placement of a maximum density cap was discussed . Mr. Graham discussed the impact that parking availability imposes on density requirements. Ms. Axelrad again reminded members that this is designed for a "transit-oriented" development. Maximum Building Height was then considered . Mr. Roth asked where the 85 foot maxi- mum originated. He stated that he understood maximum height allowed in the downtown area is only 80 feet in height; why would the height maximum be greater for a TOD next to residential development than that permitted in downtown development. Discussion en- sued . Mr. Graham noted that the 45 ft. height at the transit station increases to 65 feet at Elati, and then steps up to 85 feet for the highest residential building, plus architectural fea- tures on the roof. The office building could be 115 feet in height. Mr. Welker stated that he did not like citing a maximum of so many feet PLUS so much footage allowed for archi- tectural features and equipment placement on a roof. He suggested that a maximum height be established, a specified height called out for architectural features and equipment H:'GRO UP'BOARDSIPLA NC OMM\M inuics\Minutcs 200 ~\PC~ 07-09-02.doc 2 • • • placement, and developable height determined from remaining footage. This method would provide developers, adjoining property owners and the community firm knowledge of the height of a structure. He noted that typically developers plan on a 12 foot height per story. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Graham discussed the 45° angle from street frontage to the 65 foot height. Mr. Welker pointed out that moving the building frontage to street front loses the 20 to 25 foot front setback. Chairman Waggoner agreed that the maximum overall height should be set forth -the maximum height to include height of architectural features and mechanical equipment placement. Building Setbacks and Build-to Lines were then considered. Ms. Axelrad noted that the set- back and build-to-lines are applicable to the transit village area, applicable on both the GIW site and the Winslow site if they choose to redevelop. Ms . Lathram stated that if the devel- opment abuts residential areas , she would have a problem accepting the zero setback. Frontage Requirements were discussed. Ms. Axelrad stated that 75% of the street frontage must be occupied by a building wall. She stated that this standard is typical in mixed use zone areas around the country. The remaining 25 % of street frontage may be used in a variety of ways, including pedestrian or vehicle access ways to interior or structured parking areas . Section 7, Review Procedure for Development in the MX-TSA District, was discussed. Ms . Axelrad stated that an Overall Development Plan (ODP ) is required for sites three acres or larger, and site plan review is required for all development subject to an approved ODP, as well as for development in a MX-TSA District on sites less than three acres in size . Ms. Ax- elrad stated that the review procedures would appl y city-wide for mixed use districts, and regulations setting forth the review procedure would be incorporated into the revised uni- form development code in a chapter de v oted to "procedures". Submittal, review, and ap- peal procedures were then reviewed by Ms. Axelrad. Members of the Commission ques- tioned the lack of review opportunities b y the Commission, as well as the proposed limited notification of the general public. Appeal processes from staff decisions to the Planning Commission, and to the City Council were also discussed. Mr. Graham noted that an ODP and site plan is required on development proposals three acres or more in size; a development proposal for parcels less than three acres in size re- quire a site plan and approval of a subdivision plat. Ms . Mueller asked if there is any way the Planning Commission could have review and in- put on ODPs without the public hearing requirement unless an applicant or abutting prop- erty owner appeals. Mr. Welker stated that he agreed the Commission needs to have re- view and input on development proposals. Discussion ensued. Ms. Axelrad pointed out there is opportunity for written comments from abutting property owners, but not public testimony; she did indicate that an opportunity for Planning Commission review and input could be written into the process. H:IGROUPIBOARDS\P LANCOM.\.l\Minu1cs\M inu1cs 1002\PCM 07-09 -02.doc 3 • • • Ms. Krieger stated that a Public Hearing will have to be held to change the existing zoning of the land to the MX-TSA zone classification. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker asked if three acres is what should be considered for ODP -should it be some smaller acreage -two acres , or two and one-half acres . He pointed out that the recent Safeway PUD was a one-half block site . He suggested that the ODP requirements be con- sidered for developments two acres or more. Ms. Lathram agreed; she noted that a devel- opment of one-half block in a residential neighborhood will have an impact on the sur- rounding neighborhood. Mr. Graham stated that the ODP size of three acres was corre- lated to the size of a city block -approximately 330 feet in depth by 660 feet in length. Ms . Reid asked who can file appeals. Ms. Axelrad stated appeals ma y filed by the applicant or an abutting property owner. The ODP would then go to the Planning Commission for Hearing. Mr. Welker further addressed t he minimum size requirements for zone district change, not- ing that the City does not "spot zone". M s. Krieger pointed that the strict standards are ap- plicable to larger sites , not small sites. Th e possib ility of a smaller site de v elopments was discussed. Ms. Ax elrad stated that there are three sub-areas to be considered: The major GIW (Fuller- ton ) site ; the Winslow property, and the remainder of the "transition " area in proximity to the Bates Station area . Ms . Krie ger as ked if the ODP /Site Plan process creates non -conforming uses. Ms. Axelrad stated that non-conforming uses are not created; it does pro v ide the opportunity to create a mixed-use de v elopment. Mr. Welker asked if adjacency requirements should be devel- oped. M s. Ax elrad suggested that possibl y the "first degree " of adjacenc y must have a gi v en si ze , and that subsequent adjacencies could be smaller in size. Mr. Waggoner stated that he liked this approach, but doesn 't like the idea of spot zoning. Mr. Graham suggested that "small area plans " when developed could address adjacency requirements . Ms . Lathram excused herself from the meeting. Ms. Reid discussed concern regarding the 10-day limitations for notices to the public. She pointed out, for instance, that it would be difficult or impossible for the Planning Commis- sion to schedule a study session and a publ ic hearing within this 10-day time frame. Ms. Reid stated that everyone needs to look at the proposed time frame -in all practicality, the 10-day time frame is insufficient. Mr. Welker asked when the 10-day clock began. Discus- sion ensued. Ms . Reid advised that the Commission will need to determine what input they want to have. Ms. Mueller suggested a minimum of 15 working days be required . Mr. Welker agreed, pointing out that the Commission would typically have at least one meeting within a 15-day time period . Mr. Welker stated that even on sites in excess of three acres , there is no provision for a public hearing and public comment unless initial action by the City Manager is appealed. H:\GRO UPI BOARD S\PLANC OMM\M inutcs \Mi nutcs 2002\PCM 07-09.02.doc 4 • • • He stated that this is, to him, a problem because citizens need to know what is proposed and what could happen in their neighborhood. Ms. Axelrad pointed out that development standards will be available. The process, as proposed, is not a backdoor way to shut out the public. Ms. Reid stated that she does not find in the proposal a "requirement" that City Council has to hold a public hearing; it appears to be at Council discretion, or that Council can exercise their "call-up" option and schedule a public hearing. Ms. Krieger asked why the City Manager is designated as the approving authority; who will really review the ODP and site plans. Ms. Axelrad pointed out that it is the City Manager "or his designee" -possibly the Community Development Director or another member of staff. Ms. Reid stated that the City is looking at the possibility of imposing "impact fees" for de- velopers. Staff is looking into development of formulas, and a variety of issues upon which to base the formulas. If a development will impact an infrastructure of the City -for in- stance water and sewer capacities -then the developer would be required to contribute to improvement of that infrastructure . Ms. Axelrad stated that this concludes review of the MX-TSA Zone District regulations. Mr. Waggoner asked if Mr. Graham wanted to proceed to the Design Standards and Guide- lines. Mr. Graham suggested possibly waiting to begin review of this document until maps are available. Ms. Axelrad stated that maps of sub-areas are being prepared. Ill. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Mr. Graham stated that following the last meeting of the Commission on July 2, 2002, he and the consultant "brain-stormed" about inclusion of pedestrian /bicycle routes in the Analysis document. He stated that the Public Works Department has hired someone to specifically develop a bicycle master plan for the City of Englewood. Development of a bi- cycle routing plan is not and never was part of the contract with Carter-Burgess. Mr. Gra- ham suggested that the employee hired to develop the bicycle route master plan be invited to a Planning Commission meeting to discuss the bicycle trail system. He stated that we need to provide time for a trail system and link-ups to be identified, maps prepared, and a document formulated . Once this is accomplished, and is presented to the Commission, the document can be used as a tool to determine capital project funding needs to complete the system. Mr. Graham anticipated that the bicycle trail document will be similar to the Transportation Study, and possibly an adjunct to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Graham noted that RTD has indicated they will develop a bicycle trail from Yale to Amherst along the east side of their property; The Fullerton Company will be asked to ex- tend the trail south to the Bates Station along the west side of their property. Extension of the trail to tie into the existing trail at Dartmouth could then be advanced by placement on the "missing link list'. Mr. Waggoner stated that consideration needs to be given to how the DRCOG Plan, the City of Englewood Plan , and bicycle trail systems of other jurisdic- ltlGROUPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\MinuteslMinutes c002\PC~ 07-09-02 .doc 5 • • • tions mesh together. Mr. Welker stated that the trail should tie into the trail proposed along the South Platte River as part of the Open Space Plan. Mr. Willis asked if the trail system will be only for cyclists, or will it accommodate walkers, runners and joggers. Mr. Graham stated he didn't really know how it will be approached, but this is something to discuss when the Public Works employee appears before the Commission. Ms. Reid asked if this will be part of the overall traffic plan. Mr. Graham stated he under- stood that it will be up to the City to determine the routes, and how they can tie together; we will not be going back to Carter-Burgess to amend the Transportation Plan. Mr. Waggoner suggested that Carter-Burgess might include a statement in their Transportation Plan referencing the City's Bicycle Route Plan. He pointed out that the City has had a bicy- cle route plan for a number of years. Mr. Willis expressed the opinion that Carter-Burgess did not listen to Planning Commission comments, and didn 't even acknowledge the Commission's concerns . He emphasized that the bicycle trail system will connect all sectors of the City. Ms. Reid pointed out that Mr. Woolfall's presentation covered what his contract required . Mr. Waggoner stated that the bicycle/pedestrian trail system isn't something that has been forgotten; it does, however, need updating . IV. COMMENTS Mr. Waggoner asked if Mr. Leonard would like to make any comments. Mr. Leonard stated that the Winslows are trying to get up to speed on the redevelopment proposals; they want to gain a better understanding of the 1-1 Zone classification they pres- ently have on their property, and what might be gained or lost if they chose to request the MX-TSA designation and redevelop their land. He stated that he thinks the Winslows would like the "adjacency factor" as discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Waggoner asked Mr. Graham what he envisioned Carter-Burgess may bring back on the design of the lnca/Galapago/Dartmouth intersection. Mr. Graham stated that a phased approach has been considered; in a way, it makes sense to get part of the redevelopment completed and see what traffic impact is created before determining improvements to the intersection. On the other hand, if the traffic created by the new development is volumi- nous, to try to improve the intersection to handle the increased traffic could seriously im- pact surrounding residential neighborhood that will have to accommodate the traffic for the interim period until the intersection improvement is completed . Ms. Krieger commented that she understood City Council felt that the Inca intersection was "pushed through", and that improvements on the Galapago Street leg of the intersection were only to carry truck traffic. Mr. Welker expressed his amazement that Council alleg- edly has this opinion. Mr. Waggoner commented that the one reason the improvements H:IGROUJ'IBOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutcs :002\PCM 07-09.02.doc 6 • weren't done 15 years ago was a State edict on distance factors between signals. Mr. Gra- ham stated that the Winslows have pointed out that the 70° curvilinear intersection impacts their ownership. Further discussion on alignment of Inca and Galapago ensued . Alignment of the southern leg further east was discussed, and the impact the eastern alignment would have on Cush- ing Park was cited. Ms. Krieger noted that she wasn 't sure the Park is "sacrosanct''. Mr. Leonard commented that Ron Straka, architect working with the Winslows, is of the opin- ion that the park is sacrosanct. He stated that the Winslows don't want to see a million dol- lar decision that seriously impacts usability of their property; and could create more prob- lems than are solved ; decisions need to be made for clearly stated reasons . Mr. Graham stated that other proposals for intersection modification have been considered ; but were narrowed down to the 70 ° intersection, or the round -about. Mr. Welker stated that it is imperati v e to have a "good intersection "; it is an important ele- ment in success or failure of an y redevelopment. Further discussion on possible locati on and desi gn of the intersection ensued . Ms. Krieger suggested using a little of Cushin g Park to align Galapago north and south of Dartmouth A v enue . Mr. Welker commented that this intersection ma y not need to be a 90 ° intersec- tion -one has to consider topo grap hy an d other issues. He noted drainage problems north • of Dartmouth Avenue, and the fact that storm water runoff ponds on the Winslow property. Mr. Leonard stated that there is a major sewer line on the Winslow property -about 30 ft . deep, plus other constraints such as COOT easements /ownership along the west boundary . Mr. Leonard briefl y discussed the Bates Stat ion and Mr. Fullerton 's expressed desire to ex- tend a bicycle path through not onl y his de v elopment but through the Winslow property. Mr. Roth asked if the Commission could be presented the same information that was made available to the Urban Renewal A uthori ty -depiction of structural bulk, ele vations, and sight angles. Mr. Graham stated he would arrange this . Mr. Welker noted the need for simplification of the MX-TSA information -summarize the information and highlight or bullet-point basic information. He would like to see something perhaps a little less concise, but more easily understood. He stated there are people who still do not want to do business in Eng lewood because they feel it is a difficult City to work in . He emphasized the need to have regulations that work for everyone, and can be un- derstood by everyone. Mr. Leonard stated that the Winslows are meeting with their attorney s on July 10 1 h. He commented that the redevelopment is "micro-managed very tightly", and it can lead to a "defensive" position by others . He agreed there is need to simplify the process. • Ms. Reid reminded the Commission that this is a study session , and that it appears to her that this is approaching a public hearing -the Winslow famil y, while not present in person, H:I GRO UPI BOARDSIP LA NCO MM\M inutes 1Minutes 2002\PCM 07-09 .02.doc 7 • • • are "represented" by Mr. Leonard. She reiterated that this is a study session and as such there must be limited input from members of the public. Brief discussion ensued. The meeting adjourned . H:IGROUPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2002\PCM 07--09-02.doc 8