Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-02 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 2, 1998 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 Commu- nity Room of Englewood City Hall , Chairman Douglas presiding. Members present: Dummer, Homer, Lathram , Rininger, Tobin , Weber, Welker, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: None (Secretary 's Note : 1 Vacancy) Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Coordinator Marilee Utter, Citiventures Suzette Emerson, David Tryba Architects Stuart (Skip) Miller, Miller Development John Loss , Miller Development II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 5, 1998 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of May 5, 1998 were to be considered for approval. Tobin moved: Rininger seconded : The Minutes of May 5, 1998 be approved as written . AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Lathram , Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Dummer, Douglas None Weber None The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Telecommunications Ordinance Case #OR-98-03 Mr. Douglas asked for a motion to ratify the telephone vote approving the Findings of Fact for the Telecommunica- tions Ordinance, Case #OR-98-03, which was conducted on May 5, 1998. · Horner moved: Tobin seconded: The telephone vote on the Findings of Fact for Case #OR-98-03, Telecommunications Ordinance, which was conducted on May 5, 1998 , is hereby ratified . AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Dummer, Horner, Douglas None Weber None The motion carried . PCM 06-98A IV. STUDY/WORK SESSION Cinderella City Redevelopment Update Mr. Simpson asked that everyone in attendance introduce themselves. He stated that the intent of this study/work session is to bring the Planning Commission up-to-date on status of the Cinderella City redevelopment. Mr. Simp- son stated that a great deal of progress has been made on the redevelopment project, and indicated a large display of a proposed schematic and a model based on this schematic. Mr. Simpson stated that work on the mall redevelop- ment bas been ongoing for a number of years. He discussed the efforts to determine uses to make the redevelopment a market driven project, and still take into consideration the need to address community values and cyclical market conditions . Mr. Simpson stated that the plan, as displayed at this meeting, is still "fluid", but is becoming more re- alistic and stable. Last Fall, City Council considered the concept of a mixed-use, transit-oriented development for the redevelopment site; the last eight months have focused on determining the feasibility of such a concept, prelimi- nary design proposals, researching a viable tenant mix, and promoting the project to possible tenant companies. The redevelopment project will be a significant stop on the RID light rail line along South Santa Fe Drive, and the City and RTD have agreed that the light rail station will be constructed, and ready for use when the light rail is opened in July, 2000. Mr. Simpson stated that the redevelopment project needs to provide and protect pedestrian access , pro- vide retail use, and be transit oriented. Also, the redevelopment project must be financially feasible. Mr. Simpson stated that the project is attracting not only local and regional attention, but national attention as well. Mr. Simpson recapped various facets of the proposed redevelopment: housing, entertainment, restaurants , general merchandiser, public meeting space, bike and hike paths, as well as the light rail station and bus route areas. Ms. Marilee Utter addressed the Commission, and discussed the challenge of designing a viable redevelopment project with challenging site constraints . There is a large parking structure that is unsound ; various financing proc- esses have been explored, and default on the Tax Increment Bonds issued by the EURA has complicated possible financing avenues. Challenges and directives issued by the City Council, which had to be addressed by the redevel- opment team, include: 1) The project must have long-term financial viability ; • 2) The project must be "special"; • 3) The project must create an "identity" for Englewood' 4) The project must make use of prudent city investment policies -no public vote should be required; 5) The project must be done soon. Various elements that the redevelopment team have to deal with include: 1) Transit-light rail center, buses , shuttle facilities through downtown, bicycle paths, vehicular access; 2) Civic/Cultural Center/Library/Museum of Outdoor Art; 3) Entertainment/retail; 4) General merchandiser; 5) Residential ; 6) Open space . Ms . Utter discussed creation of public infrastructure that over time will provide a grid pattern of streets and hik- ing/biking paths and will encourage further development. Ms. Utter emphasized that the plan is not done, and that signed agreements with the developer and tenants are not completed. The redevelopment team hopes to begin demolition of existing structures in August, 1998. The RTD light rail stop must be open and ready for use in July, 2000; it is hoped that other facets of the redevelopment will also be open by 2000. Ms. Utter discussed the support that the redevelopment project bas received, not only from the Englewood community, but from entities such as RTD . She discussed an application filed with the FTA for $4,000,000 which, if granted, will be used in conjunction with construction of required and projected RTD parking facilities. Ms. Utter stated that at least 11 developers of high-quality residential units have expressed interest in the project, and the redevelopment team will schedule meetings with those firms. Sony Theaters is still committed to locating on the site, as is Wal-Mart. Child Care pro- viders are approaching members of the redevelopment team , and expressing interest in child care facilities in con- junction with the redevelopment; various retailers are also expressing interest in locating here. The old Cinderella City site is now considered a great "in-fill site" in the metro area, and is attracting a lot of interest. Ms. Utter reiter- ated that the community has responded very favorably to the efforts of the redevelopment team. PCM 06-98A 2 • • • • Suzette Emerson, of David Tryba' s architectural firm, presented several slides of the proposed redevelopment. Ms . Emerson provided narrative to accompany the slides. Ms. Tobin emphasized the need for safe areas for children to play, particularly children who may live in the residen- tial units . She also emphasized the need to make provisions for disabled citizens -ramps, elevators, nice, inviting places with shady trees to enable citizens to sit and rest. Ms . Tobin pointed out that Craig Rehabilitation Hospital is located at East Girard A venue and South Clarkson Street, and patients are encouraged to get out and about as soon as possible . Mr. Simpson stated that NBD staff is working on a shuttle service between the medical campus and the down- town/redevelopment area . Ms . Emerson discussed the residential component; these structures are proposed to accommodate home office or retail uses on the first level , with residential units on higher floors . Ms. Lathram inquired about the residential units; will they be for sale, or rental, and what the approximate cost will be . Ms. Utter stated that the residential units , if rentals , will probably rent for $900 to $1 ,200 per month . Mr. Rin- inger asked about the size of the units . Ms . Utter stated that size consideration has ranged from 800 to 1,200 square feet. Ms . Tobin asked whether units would have lanais or balconies for the residents . Ms. Utter stated that the de- sign features for the project have not been determined. Mr. Weber asked if on-street parking is allowed. Ms . Emerson responded affirmatively. Ms . Emerson showed a large detail of the landscaping along West Floyd Avenue , and treatment of the Floyd Ave- nue/Elati Street intersection. She briefly discussed the efforts to keep traffic impacts out of the north Englewood neighborhood , and the landscaping/street treatments to achieve that goal. Mr. Stitt addressed the Commission , and cited the following goals: 1) Maintain Englewood as a full service community; 2) Support a high density activity center within downtown Englewood; 3) Support the downtown as a regional activity center by focusing high-density , high activity uses such as retail , office, high-density residential, and a hotel/convention center; 4) Promote the regional nature of Cinderella City ; 5) Provide linkage between the redevelopment area and South Broadway; 6) Maintain downtown as a regional activity center with high concentrations of retail , office, and residential uses ; 7) Assure that the linkage between the redevelopment area and South Broadway is pedestrian-oriented; 8) Assure safe pedestrian linkage between the redevelopment area and surrounding neighborhoods; 9) Create open space in the downtown area; 10) Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for mixed use developments to encourage new development; mixed use would include high-density residential units , retail , and transit-related use; 11) Support and capitalize on the improvements to South Santa Fe Drive ; 12) Encourage development of high-density residential uses in the downtown area to provide housing for peo- ple who wish to live close to their place of employment; 13) Assist the RTD in developing a transit center in downtown Englewood. Mr. Stitt noted that all of these goals are contained in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan , and the 1985 Downtown Plan amendment. He emphasized that these goals are long-term goals , and it appears that many if not all of them may be addressed and accomplished in this redevelopment through the PUD process. He reminded the Commission that the PUD process is a "rezoning", with specific criteria on uses , design , landscaping , signage, fencing , among other things, shown on the site plan. Once the PUD is approved by the City Council, the development shall be to the crite- ria and specifications cited on that Plan. The approved site plan will govern the redevelopment of the mall area. Mr. Stitt emphasized that a lot of thought and planning has gone into the project, and there is a lot yet to be done . It is the responsibility of the redevelopment team, of the Planning Commission, and of the City Council, to make sure that the PUD does address all of the above cited goals . The Planning Commission represents the interests of the PCM 06-98A 3 community, and the redevelopment team needs input from the Commission, and from Council, to make sure the project stays on point. • Areas available to be used for such things as "prom night", or "after prom parties" were mentioned; Mr. Stitt stated that there will be civic space available. Whether it will be usable for the prom events cannot be determined at this time . Mr. Simpson stated that the redevelopment team has also tried to focus on use of out-door open space. Ms . Tobin asked what is being done to reinforce and support existing businesses. Mr. Miller commented that retail activity and competition actually is beneficial to the retail community . He stated that the EDDA has looked at the proposed redevelopment, as have other civic groups. A presentation will be made to the Englewood Chamber of Commerce membership in the near future. Mr. Homer commented on the challenge of linking a general merchandiser, other retail, civic/governmental offices, and residential uses into one development, particularly when the demographics of the area are considered. Mr. Hor- ner then discussed what he perceived as a Joss of public open space to private open space within the residential courtyards. He noted that the open space within the courtyards will not be accessible by the general public, and is very disappointed that public open space has been Jost. Mr. Homer suggested that the residential structures be in- creased in height to take advantage of the mountain view to the west; that developers might consider increased height and reduced lot coverage . Ms. Utter agreed that the western mountain view is extraordinary, but cautioned that the balance between per square footage cost to construct and per square footage price for rental or sale is very tenuous. Ms. Utter noted that another cost that developers will have to face is that of fill required on the site. Much of the demolition materials will be used for fill , but this will equate to approximately 20% of the total needed. Mr. Miller pointed out that the residential units , as shown on the schematic, are from one developer. The configura- tion and height could change once all the interested developers have been interviewed and a company designated to do the residential portion of the site. Mr. Homer reiterated that his primary concern is the loss of public open space. Mr. Simpson stated that one of the goals in the redevelopment is to create an 18 to 24 hour activity center, and to balance the values of a high activity center with open space. This is an issue that is yet to be settled. Ms. Emerson pointed out that there is not a loss of public open space, and the current proposal does , in fact, have a 60 ft. wide green space . It is apportioned differently than on a previous schematic which Mr. Homer viewed, but there is no net loss of public open space. Mr. Welker asked ifthe court yards had to be closed to the public . Ms. Utter suggested that developers will want the private green space for their tenants, and will want to keep the area closed to the public for security purposes. Mr. Welker commented that it appears we are trading one thing for another, and that he was also attracted to the greater landscaping feature of previous schematics . Ms. Tobin noted that in San Francisco, roof-top parks are popular, and suggested exploration of that for the roof of parking structures. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested that more "light shafts" through the parking deck to provide addi- tional lighting to lower levels of the parking structures be used. Several members agreed that the poor lighting of the parking structures at Cinderella City were a deterrent for people shopping at the mall -no one wanted to park on the lower level of the structure. Mr . Weber referenced a "dashed line circle" in the vicinity of Wal-Mart indicated on the handout. Mr. Miller stated that this indicates a turning radius for trucks at Wal-Mart. Mr. Welker asked about the construction materials that are being considered -will they be aesthetically pleasing, or cinderblock and concrete. Mr. Simpson stated that final determination on construction materials has not been made; however, construction materials, signage, landscaping, and other facets of the development will be indicated on the PUD when it is submitted to the Planning Commission. Ms. Utter reiterated the intent is to establish an identity for the City. PCM 06-98A 4 • • • • • Ms. Lathram asked how receptive merchants might be to local architectural standards. Mr. Simpson responded that he, Mr. Miller, and City Manager Sears met with Wal-Mart representatives, and it was made very clear this is an important project for Englewood, and that specific standards will be imposed. The Wal-Mart representatives are aware of the large-format standards, which is part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and indicated they will comply with the City requirements . Mr. Miller agreed that the City has made it clear to Wal-Mart representatives what is expected, and that Wal-Mart understands that additional cost on their part may be required. Mr. Miller stated that Sony has a two-sided building -there are two "fronts" to the building. Mr. Welker asked ifthe theater will be devoted entirely to movie screens. Mr. Miller stated there will be no provision for live theater; any use other than screening of motion pictures would have to be at non-screening times. Mr. Miller stated there will be some space in the proposed City Hall area for meeting rooms and public use. Mr. Simpson discussed the civic center concept for the former Foley's building. If this building does become Civic Center, all administrative operations of the City will be located on the top floor of the building; the second floor will be used for municipal court functions, and council chambers. There may also be some space on this floor to ac- commodate the Museum of Outdoor Art (MOA). The first floor of the former Foley's building would be the new Library location . Mr. Simpson stated that the MOA is becoming more realistic in what they need and will do to facilitate their relocation to Englewood. If the relocation becomes a reality, they will be bringing about 25 to 30 pieces of outdoor sculpture to Englewood . Mr. Simpson emphasized that there is no performing arts (live theater) space proposed in the civic center building, but there would be a visual arts area. Ms . Lathram asked ifthe redevelopment team has considered the impact the new development may have on the City and its resources, i.e., crime and increased police activity. Is the City ready to increase the Police Force? Mr. Simp- son stated that the redevelopment will likely increase the crime rates , and that the Safety Services staff is involved in discussions regarding the project. Mr. Miller pointed out that the redevelopment will actually be a reduction in retail area from 1.4 million square feet to approximately 400,000 square feet, and there should not be the criminal activity that the City experienced during Cinderella City 's prime. Mr. Welker noted that criminal activity may actually move into the outer neighborhoods ; there will be a traffic increase which may cause more problems . Ms . Utter stated that the proposal has more points of access than Cinderella City had , and that these issues are being addressed. Mr. Homer discussed the EDDA plan presentation to the Planning Commission several weeks ago; he asked the status of that plan. Mr. Simpson stated that the EDDA proposal was presented to City Council on June l , 1998 . Mr. Simpson stated that Mr. Ron Straka, consultant hired by EDDA to develop their Plan , has been involved in the rede- velopment process for the mall site. Mr. Miller stated that one of Mr. Straka 's points is a straight alignment of West Girard/Englewood Parkway from Broadway west to the proposed civic center; however, there are structural im- pediments to a straight alignment. Mr. Weber asked if public concerts, such as are held in The Plaza at Little Dry Creek, were to be held in the plaza area in front of the proposed civic center, where could the band shell be located. Mr. Simpson stated that this is one of the design issues that has not been determined. Mr. Welker discussed on-street parking, and the possibility of widening the street to allow parking along both sides . Mr. Douglas stated that he did not want to see the street widened too much; he stated that Broadway is too wide, and it is intimidating to cross for some people. Mr. Welker stated that the City needs to do all it can to assure the retail shops will be successful, and that on-street parking in front of the shops might be a positive feature. Mr. Miller pointed out that at the present time, retail activity is proposed only on the comers of the residential structures; the remainder street-level frontage is proposed for home/office type activities . Traffic flow through the redevelopment area was further discussed. Mr. Homer commented he does like the pro- posed landscaping/buffer treatment along West Floyd Avenue; he suggested that this same design be extended along Floyd A venue at least to South Cherokee Street. Mr. Stitt discussed the goal of the redevelopment to restrict north/south movement of traffic through the neighborhood , except on South Inca Street and on South Broadway. Further discussion ensued on traffic impact, noise issues, and the desires of the community for a "grid system'', but people not wanting the traffic to go through their neighborhood. Mr. Welker asked how service vehicles will reach the businesses. Mr. Miller stated that buildings will be serviced by vehicles using the south side of Floyd Avenue; PCM 06-98A 5 these vehicles will not go through the residential neighborhood. Mr. Welker stated that the "double street" is a good beginning to protect the residential community to the north . Mr . Welker suggested that a bicycle path be included • along the north side of Floy d A venue . Mr. Welker asked if the proposal entails removal of any residences. Mr. Simpson stated emphatically that the plan does not require the removal of any residence . Ms . Tobin urged that the redevelopment be very well lighted . Mr . Simpson and Mr . Stitt discussed the proposed schedule for consideration of the PUD ; the public hearing is ten- tatively schedule for July 21 , and a special meeting tentatively scheduled for July 28. Mr . Simpson stated that City Council has asked for an "aggressive" review schedule, and to meet Council 's request this may entail special meet- ings of the Planning Commission, and of the City Council. Mr . Stitt further explained the PUD process , noting that a "community meeting" may be scheduled prior to the date of the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission . Mr . Simpson stated that Council would like approval of the PUD by October, 1998 . Mr . Homer asked ifthe PUD approval was needed prior to demolition of the existing structures. Mr . Simpson stated that it is not needed prior to demolition ; however, there are commitments to RTD to have the light rail station con- structed, tested for operation, and ready to open in mid-July, 2000 . Also , Wal-Mart wants to have their business open by Fall, 1999 . Therefore , the Ci ty has "stepped up to the plate" and will begin demolition of the structure in August; this is anticipated to be a several month process. Mr. Stitt stated that the RTD light rail station requires a four to five month testing process, so in reality the structure mu st be constructed in very early 2000 . Mr. Miller commented on the cyclical nature of the market , and that the economy is very good right now but could tum at any time . Mr . Miller stated that Wal-Mart has ex pressed an interest in buying their own "pad". Ms. Rininger asked ifthere is sufficient parking for the RTD light rail/bus operations. Mr. Simpson and Mr . Miller both responded affirmatively. Ms . Emerson stated that RTD projects need of 900 spaces by 2015 ; these spaces can be provided upon opening of the light rail center rather than being phased in. Mr . Douglas asked who will determine whether the proposed residential units will be rental or owner/occupied. Mr . Simpson stated that the units are proposed to be occupied by 2000 ; the un its will be built for condominium use , but may be leased initially . Mr . Welker stated he did not want to see 350 rental units in the redevelopment. Mr . Doug- las stated there may be greater stability with owner/occupancy of the units . Mr . Miller again stated that the redevel- opment team will be talking to 11 developers who have expressed interest in doing the residential development; once those conversations have taken place, the redevelopment team will have a better idea of lease versus owner occupancy . Ms . Utter stated that some of the developers may propose "life-style units " which are a little different than the typical rental ; these people may be empty-nesters, or people who enjoy traveling and don 't want to be both- ered with typical home /lawn maintenance of ownership . Mr . Rinin ger suggested that the units be increased in size . Mr. Welker agreed to the need for up-scale units -include two master suites , or adult-oriented residential develop- ments . Mr . Miller pointed out that the demographics play an important part in the redevelopment effort. Mr . Miller stated that within a five-m ile radius , the average yearly income is $32 ,000 ; the average yearly income for the Denver metro area is $49 ,000 . Th is is a wide span to be bridged . Mr . Simpson recapped concerns and comments of the Commission, those pertaining to: Open space Design of center street Transportation linkage Height of residential ADA compliance Lighting -surface and parking structure levels Construction materials Noise control PCM 06-98A 6 • • • • • Mr. Simpson thanked members of the Commission for their interest and comments. He also thanked Ms . Utter, Ms . Emerson, and Messrs . Miller and Loss for their attendance. IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson stated that he had nothing further to bring before the Commission. Brief discussion ensued on the approval schedule for the mall redevelopment. Mr. Simpson stated that a meeting has been scheduled with the residents of the North Englewood neighborhood for June 17th, at which time traffic is- sues within their neighborhood and through their neighborhood will be discussed. Further brief discussion ensued. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE No member of the Attorney's staff was present. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Nothing was brought up for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned . Gertrude G . Welty , Recor ing Secretary f:\dept\nbd\group\boards\plancomm\minutes 98\pcm 06-Sa.doc PCM06-98A 7