Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-22 PZC MINUTES, • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 22, 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 Englewood City Council Chambers, Chairman Douglas presiding . Members present: Hayduk, Lathram, Rininger, Weber, Welker, Dummer, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: Secretary 's Note: Also present: Tobin One vacancy Senior Planner Harold J. Stitt Assistant City Attorney Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 1, 1998 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of September 1, 1998 are to be considered for approval. Rininger moved: Lathram seconded: The Minutes of September l , 1998 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS : Lathram , Rininger, Weber, Hayduk, Douglas None ABSTAIN: Welker, Dummer Tobin ABSENT: The motion carried. Ill ENGLEWOOD TOWN CENTER Cinderella City Mall Redevelopment Planned Unit Development CASE #PUD-98-02 Mr. Douglas stated that this case was continued from September 1, 1998, and asked for a motion to reopen the Pub- lic Hearing. Weber moved: Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-98-02 be opened. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rininger, Weber, Welker, Dummer, Hayduk, Lathram , Douglas None None Tobin The motion carried. Harold Stitt, Senior Planner, was sworn in . Mr. Stitt stated that the presentation will be made by Mr. Hank Baker, Senior Vice President of Forest City West, the developer selected by the Englewood City Council to do the residen- tial development portion of the Englewood Town Center. Mr. Stitt reviewed the developer selection process fol- lowed by the City, noting that several months ago , a "Request for Proposals" was sent to 12 well known developers of residential property; six responses were received . These responses were reviewed by a selection team , and nar- rowed down to two candidates. These two finalists were asked to make a presentation to City Council. City Coun- cil selected Forest City to do the residential development. Mr. Stitt outlined the area proposed for housing develop- ment, noting that the eastern boundary would be South Galapago Street, and the western boundary would be South Inca Street; the residential development will be behind the retail development along West Hampden Avenue, and there is a parking structure proposed on the north between the residential development and West Floyd Avenue. Mr. Stitt noted that the information sent to the Commission in their meeting packets is what was presented to City Coun- cil. Mr. Hank Baker, Vice President of Forest City West, was sworn in. Mr. Baker stated that Forest City has been in business for 77 years , and is a family-owned business ; it is a publicly traded business , but 75% of the shares are owned by the founding family . Mr. Baker stated that Forest City very rarely sells residential properties that they build ; the majority of the residential properties are held by Forest City and managed by Forest C ity . Mr. Baker stated that Forest City has done developments in many major cities in the United States , and are becoming very in- volved in Denver with the Lowry Airbase redevelopment. Mr. Baker stated that Forest City is not only involved in development of residential properties , but has also done extensive retail development, office developments , and is holding approximately 5,000 acres of undeveloped land . Forest City will also be one of the major play ers in rede- velopment of the Stapleton Airport site , but this project won 't get underway for another two or three years. Mr. Baker assured members of the Commission that their redevelopment efforts in Englewood will not be diminished by other projects in the Denver metro area . Mr. Baker cited developments in San Francisco (Bayside Village), and in Irvine , California . He noted that in Irvine, the company built approximately 2,000 units per year, and built a total of 18 ,000 residential units in this project. He stated that both developments have been extremely successful. He also cited developments in North Carolina, Cleveland , and other metropolitan areas throughout the country. • Mr. Baker stated that there is a great opportunity in Englewood in the redevelopment of the former Mall site into a transit-oriented development. The residential project that Forest City is proposing is fairly low density -approxi-• matel y 350 rental units . Mr. Baker described the proposed residential development, pointing out that the parking structures will have retail businesses adjoining the street frontages ; there will be a concrete ceiling to the parking structures, and the residential units (three story, wood-frame structures) will be constructed atop the parking struc- ture . Mr. Baker stated that the residential units will have l 0% to 12 % studio apartments ( 450 square feet); 30% - 35 % will be one bedroom units , and the remainder will be two bedroom units . Amenities proposed include swim- ming pools , health club facilities , copy machine , fax machine , and computer facilities . There will be elevators from garage level to the residential floors ; the residential development will be gated , secure "communities". Mr. Baker stated that the proposed residential development will attract single people and empty nesters who no longer want the responsibility of maintaining a single-famil y home . Mr. Baker discussed residential developments built for sale versus those built for lease . He pointed out that when building "for sale ", the project build out is a lon ger process than the build out on for lease projects. He noted that some of the projects in downtown Denver have taken up to eighteen months to sell 30 to 35 units . Mr. Baker sug- gested that it would be difficult to do a "for sale " project on the subject site because of the projected low density. Mr. Baker also commented that even with "for sale " projects , 50% of the condominium units become rentals within one or two years. He also noted that on-site management in for lease developments provide a quicker means of ad- dressing problem tenants than do homeowner associations. Mr. Baker stated that Forest City takes great pride in the properties that they have developed and manage , and stated that with on-site management there is one place for the City and/or other tenants to come to if problems arise . Mr. Ha y duk asked what protection the City would have in the event Forest City decides to sell the residential devel- opment; would the City be granted first right-of-refusal to purchase and control the residential development, or could assi gnment of management responsibility be given . Mr. Baker acknowledged that Forest City does, on occa- sion , sell developments but that they are trying to develop and retain a "critical mass " in the Denver market, and the company has no desire to sell. Mr. Baker stated that sometimes "offers you cannot refuse " are made , and companies do take advantage of such offers. 2 • l , • • • Mr. Hayduk asked for clarification on the parking structure, retail and residential development as proposed . Mr. Baker stated that the parking structure will serve the residential units and provide some parking spaces for the retail businesses; 50,000 square feet of retail will be "tucked" in along the front and sides of the parking structure, and the residential units constructed atop the parking structure. Mr. Baker indicated that two sites on the overall plan that Forest City will be responsible for ; the remainder of the retail development and the theater will be constructed by Miller/Weingarten. Mr. Hayduk asked if a marketing study had been done to show the necessity for the development; how did Forest City arrive at the percentages Mr. Baker had cited. Mr. Baker stated that Forest City has looked beyond the specific boundaries of Englewood in determining the market area for the residential development, and did, in fact , consider the general Denver metropolitan area. Mr. Baker stated that with the residential development in close proximity to the light rail , the development could attract people who work in downtown Denver, or in the Denver Tech Center. Mr. Baker stated that Forest City specializes in developing "infill" sites. Mr. Baker stated that ifthe light rail/transit station had not been proposed for this redevelopment, Forest City probably would not have considered doing the residential section. Forest City has done previous developments along light rail lines , and the light rail line will make this project work . In terms of the percentage of unit mix , he suggested that it is "wild, best guess " to deter- mine the percentages. They have tried to propose a broad range of housing choices for the targeted market. Mr. Hayduk commented on the $600 to $1 ,200 in lease range for the units; he asked what will happen if the lease rate increases and tenants are lost because they cannot afford the rents. Mr. Baker noted that the average length of stay for a tenant is two years -they may purchase a home, or relocate to a different area. Apartments or for lease developments are for short term residency , but Mr. Baker also pointed out that the average length of home owner- ship is only four years. Mr. Welker asked about the population per unit. Mr. Baker stated that 2 to 2.3 persons per unit was the estimate . Mr. Welker asked for clarification of the parking structure; will a portion of the structure be below grade . Mr. Baker reviewed the proposal for the parking structures, noting that retail will be on the perimeters of the residential devel- opment, with berming and landscaping used to camouflage any portion of the exposed parking structures. Mr . Baker noted that Forest City and their architectural/development personnel will be working closely with Mr. Calt- horpe , and Mr. Tryba's architectural firm on design features. Mr. Welker inquired about latitude and variety in the development. He pointed out that the parking structure just south of West Floyd Avenue is in very close proximity with the established low-density residential development north of West Floyd Avenue . Mr. Baker suggested that there may be variables in roof lines. He also addressed possible future development on the site of the parking structure referenced by Mr. Welker, noting that if this part of the site were to be developed residentially , it probably would be built as rental and offered for sale within three to five years. Mr. Rininger asked why this same scenario could not be followed for the proposed 350 units to be built "for lease ". Mr. Baker reiterated that Forest City is in the business of building and holding rental apartments -they are in the business to build and hold. Building for sale is good, but if that is what the City is looking for , Forest City is not the company to do that. Mr. Rininger asked if any of the units that Forest City had built were subsidized-did they accept Section 8 tenants . Mr. Baker stated that they were not, and none of the units proposed in the residential development in Englewood will be subsidized. Mr. Baker noted that of the 67,000 units Forest City has sold, the majority of those units were subsidized in some way. However, their portfolio of 33 ,000 + units they currently own and manage are not subsi- dized. Mr. Dummer noted that Forest City wants to maintain control of their developments; how does Forest City deter- mine what type of retail they want to attract. Mr. Baker stated that Forest City has a full retail development branch in their company, and that during the course of their work on the Lowry site they have had contact with many retail- ers who could be interested in locating in the Englewood Town Center. Mr. Dummer inquired about the quality of restaurants that might be locating in the development. Mr. Baker suggested that they are considering a mid-range to casual. Ms. Lathram asked if Mr. Baker had a list of prospective clients for the retail sector. Mr. Baker stated that he did not have a list. Mr. Baker stated that there will be a variety of tenants ; most retailers don't want to talk to you until 3 they are assured the development will , in fact, occur. Mr. Baker stated that the Englewood Town Center develop- ment is a very important project to Forest City . • Mr. Rininger asked if any study had been done to determine the number of apartment units within a given radius of the site. Mr. Baker stated that his company has not. He reiterated that this development is driven by the transit- oriented character of the total development. He noted that "The Marks" on east Hampden A venue is a very nice development, but addresses a different market niche than the Forest City development will address. Mr. Rininger expressed his concern about transients in the Englewood area, and that this development will only add to the number of apartments. In his opinion, ownership of the units will lead to more stability for the project and the City. Mr. Rininger suggested that homeowner's associations for condominium developments do oversee and man- age developments. Mr. Baker noted that a homeowner's association could be dealing with an out-of-state owner, and resolution of any problem could take considerable time. An on -site manager for a "for lease" development has the option of eviction of a problem tenant if other resolution avenues are unsati sfactory. Ms. Lathram asked ifthe Irvine, CA project was similar to the proposal for Englewood. Mr. Baker stated that it is quite similar. He stated that there are two projects that Forest City did which are within five miles of each other in Irvine and Irvine Ranch . Ms. Lathram stated that she will be traveling to southern California this week, and may have an opportunity to view the Forest City developments . Mr. Dummer asked if this would be similar to some of the development occurring in LoDo. Mr. Baker said that Lo Do is a driving force for quite a few other developments. This proposal isn't completely new to Forest City ; he commented that their development in North Carolina is much larger than the ETC proposal. Mr. Baker reiterated that this is a good "infill site", and that each component supports the other, but they are not interdependent. If one component needs to be redeveloped earlier than others, it should not negatively impact the other components of the development. Mr. Welker asked when Mr. Baker anticipated this component of the development could be built out. Mr. Baker estimated they could get control of the land in March, 1999, and could be moving retail people in sometime in early • 2000. Their entire portion of the redevelopment could be wrapped up in mid-2000. Mr. Welker asked how long it is anticipated to get the residential component leased up . Mr. Baker stated that they could do at least 30 to 40 leases per month . Mr. Douglas asked about the parking spaces . Mr. Baker stated that 560 parking spaces will be provided in the parking structures . This will provide parking for each unit, plus additional parking for the retailers on their portion of the site. Additional parking spaces will be on-street for retailers /shoppers. Mr. Baker noted the possibility that some of the tenants of the residential units may not have the typical two cars per unit; in fact, some may not have vehicles but rely on the light rail , bus, and shuttle system which is proposed. Mr. Dou glas asked how the parking spaces will be designated . Mr. Baker said that parking spaces will be assigned ; there will be no charge to tenants for their parking spaces. Mr. Douglas asked how a for lease product versus for sale product would prolong the development. He noted that his home was built in 1954 ; it is in good condition , and is still being occupied. Cinderella City was opened in 1968 , and is being demolished . Mr. Baker stated that with the Forest City development, the City will have a "sophisticated owner/manager" who is interested in keeping their development/investment in good condition; Forest City is a long- term owner. Mr . Douglas stated that in his opinion , unit ownership would result in better maintenance from the in- dividuals. Mr. Hayduk asked whether a study was done regarding sale versus lease product. Mr. Stitt stated that when the RFP was sent out, the option was provided for respondents to propose either a for lease or for sale development. Of the six respondents, five proposed for lease developments. The two companies chosen by the selection team both sub- mitted proposals for "for lease " development. Ms . Lathram excused herself from the meeting . 4 • ' , • • • Mr. Hayduk asked whether there would be any tax benefits to the City on a for lease versus for sale development. Mr. Baker stated that one company would be responsible for payment of the property taxes , rather than 350 individ- ual taxpayers. Mr. Dummer asked what the concern is regarding for lease versus for sale. Mr. Hayduk stated that he just wants to understand why the for lease product was chosen ; what is best for the City, what is the anticipated longevity of the development, and are there any tax benefits to the City . What is suitable for this development -can people afford $1 ,000 per month for a small rental unit. He suggested that the residential development should target Englewood residents . Mr. Dummer noted that the residential development will draw a percentage of people who work in downtown Denver, or at the Denver Tech Center, in addition to Englewood residents. Mr . Simpson was sworn in , and stated that the primary focus for the Commission deliberations must be land use ; the issue of sale versus lease isn't an area the Commission needs to be concerned with -City Council will address this issue . At the time the RFP was sent out, guidelines were set forth . The City Council has indicated a desire for resi- dential development in conjunction with the retail development, and that all development should be long-term . One of the most important goals staff, Council , and consultants have worked toward is to develop a framework for "sustainability". Mr. Simpson agreed that Cinderella City was opened for business in 1968 , and that a lot of people thought it would be a long time development; he noted that several other malls built in the same period of time are also experiencing serious trouble -loss of shoppers , etc. Mr. Simpson stressed the effort on this redevelopment to work toward "sustainability" -if market changes negatively affect one facet of the redevelopment, the total project will not fail -each component will have the ability to sustain itself. A grid street system will be developed in the redevelopment project. Mr. Simpson stated that the transit station and the residential density are important compo- nents of the project; suggested density was 30 dwelling units per acre . Tenants of the residential development may be people who opt out of heavy reliance on the automobile -rely more on rapid transit , bus system, etc. In short, we are looking at a different market segment than is typical of the Denver area . With the light rail line and the transit station coming to Englewood, the City has an opportunity to create something truly unique -to do this , we are ad- dressing a different marketing segment. Mr. Simpson noted that the one residential developer who presented a "for sale " proposal was for a lower density , more conventional housing product, and would be built out over a five-year period . Mr. Simpson reiterated the attempt to create a "community" with and within this redevelopment. He stated that he isn 't entirely sure who will choose to live in the residential units, but stressed the need to provide a variety of style and price range of housing in the City. Mr. Douglas commented that the goals cited in the Comprehensive Plan support this effort, and there is need for housing for higher-income people in Englewood . Mr. Simpson stated that we have said there is a need to increase housing ownership in Englewood, and he still sup- ports this goal, and the 350 rental units isn 't the only housing product we need to bring into the community . He noted that there we still need to proceed with development agreement negotiations , and we need to assure a quality development. He stated that he is very pleased that Ms . Lathram will be traveling to southern California, and will have an opportunity to view the developments in the Irvine area ; he stated that he was in southern California ap- proximately two weeks ago and viewed the Forest City developments . He stated that he was very impressed with those projects. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission . No one else in the audience addressed the Commission. Mr. Baker distributed copies of the Forest City annual report to members of the Commission . Mr. Stitt again addressed the Commission , asking that the Public Hearing on the ETC be continued to October 27 , 1998. On that date , a final , complete presentation will be made on the proposed Planned Unit Development. Mr . Stitt stated that staff and members of the consulting team are still working on design guidelines , and updating the traffic study ; both items are important pieces of the total project. Dummer moved : Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on the ETC Planned Unit Development, Case #PUD-98-02, be con- tinued to October 27 , 1998 , at the hour of7:00 P .M. 5 AYES: NAYS: Weber, Welker, Dummer, Hayduk, Rininger, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tobin , Lathram The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one addressed the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson stated that the staff has no other cases pending ready for Hearing before the Commission on October 6th , and s uggested that this meeting be cancelled. He stated that staff doesn 't know whether one issue will be ready for presentation to the Commission on October 20th or not. The meeting on October 6th was cance lled . VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid stated that she had nothing to bring before the Commission . Vil COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Nothing was raised for discussion. The meeting adj o urned . Gertrude G . Welty, Recording Secretary; f:\dept\n bdlgro up\boards\planco mmlminutes 9 8\pcm 09 -98 b.doc 6 • • •