Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-27 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 27, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall , Chairman Bill Douglas presiding. Members present: Weber, Welker, Dummer, Hayduk, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Douglas Simpson , Ex-officio Members absent: Secretary's Note: Also present: None One vacancy Senior Planner Harold J. Stitt City Attorney Brotzman Public Works Director Esterly Assistant Fire Marshal Greene Marilee Utter, Citiventures, Inc . Suzette Emerson, Tryba Architects Paul Kreiger, Tryba Architects John Loss, Miller Weingarten Arnie Ullevig, Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig Business Coordinator Scibelli II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 22, 1998 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of September 22, 1998 are to be considered for approval. Rininger moved : Dummer seconded: The Minutes of September 22, 1998 be approved as written . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Welker, Dummer, Hayduk, Rininger, Weber, Douglas None Lathram, Tobin None The motion carried . III. ENGLEWOOD TOWN CENTER CASE PUD-98-02 Chairman Douglas stated that this Public Hearing, which began on September 1, was continued to September 22, and then continued to October 27 . He asked for a motion to re-open the continued Hearing. Tobin moved : Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD 98-02 be opened. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Dummer, Hayduk, Lathram , Rininger, Robin, Weber, Welker, Douglas None None None The motion carried. Harold Stitt was sworn in, and provided a background and update on the Hearing. Mr. Stitt reviewed the Planned • Unit Development District ordinance, and cited the following principles of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process: 1. Provide development concepts not otherwise permitted within conventional zone districts; 2. Encourage flexibility, unity , quality urban design , and diversity in land planning and development, result- ing in convenient and harmonious groupings of uses, structures and common facilities; varied design and site layout; and appropriate relationships of spaces to intended uses and adjacent properties ; 3. Provide the opportunity for unified development control for a single parcel or multiple properties ; 4. Ensure consistency with the Englewood Comprehensive Plan ; and 5. Provide for the public health, safety , integrity and general welfare, and otherwise achieve the purposes pro- vided in the Planned Development Act of 1972, title 24, Article 67 , C.R.S. 1973 , as amended . Mr. Stitt stated that the history of the subject site goes back many years -from the time the citizenry of Englewood voted to sell the one City Park for development of the Cinderella City Mall, which, when it opened in 1968, was the largest enclosed mall west of the Mississippi River. Cinderella City was unique in the Denver metropolitan area, and, indeed, unique in the nation . People drove hundreds of miles to shop at the Mall, and sales tax revenues from the Mall provided many opportunities for improved services and lower mill levies . As the Mall aged, and revenues began to decrease, the City Council and staff realized that something must be done to tum the downward trend around. A number of proposals and efforts over the years culminated in issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in 1994. Twelve responses were received, reviewed, and narrowed to four applicants . In January , 1995 , a City Advisory Group recommended to City Council that the Miller/Kitchell Development (joint venture) proposal for a retail/entertainment development be selected for the redevelopment of the Cinderella City mall site . Negotia- tion efforts with the land owner (KRA VCO/Equitable) continued during 1995 and 1996 , as well as negotiations with the Miller/Kitchell development team . In the Fall of 1997, the City was fortunate to participate in the Transit Ori- ented Communities Initiative program done by the Center for Regional and Neighborhood Action (CRNA) and Compass RPI. Participants in this process included Regional Transportation District (RTD) representatives , private transportation planning consultants, architects, planners , property owners/managers , developers, real estate consult-• ants, and market analysts. This process reaffirmed the importance of a transit oriented/mixed use redevelopment for the site. This concept has been pursued and refined in the ensuing 12 months . A residential component was intro- duced to the site in early 1998 , and Forest City West was selected to do the residential development phase of the redevelopment. Mr. Stitt noted the contributions that the Planning Commission has made over the past two years to strengthen the quality development of the proposed PUD : adoption of the new PUD Ordinance, adoption of the Large Format Re- tail Ordinance, and adoption of the improved Landscaping Ordinance . He noted that there will be other issues brought to the Commission during the course of the redevelopment process . Mr. Stitt also reviewed the several public forums and public input processes that have been accomplished over the past several years . This plan before the Commission is truly a cooperative plan reflecting . the wants and needs expressed by the Englewood citizenry , addresses the transit needs of the community, and will once again provide a unique development on a 50 acre "in- fill " site in a first-ring suburban setting . Mr. Stitt noted that basic infrastructure is readily available -the street grid system will be recovered , water and sewer service are available , the plan provides protection to the residential neighborhood north of Floyd A venue , and provides integration with the commercially developed areas to the east along Broadway. The proposed PUD will enable development of a project that will be of high quality and sustain- able . Mr. Stitt reiterated that the issue before the Commission is a request to approve the District Plan of the proposed PUD . Mr. Stitt stated that members of the development team who have been working on this project are present, and will be addressing various segments of the proposal. Mr. Stitt identified the development team as Ms. Marilee Utter, owners representative ; Suzette Emerson and Paul Kreiger, Tryba Architects ; Amie Ullevig, Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig; John Loss of Miller/Weingarten development; and Robert Simpson, Director of NBD. Marilee Utter was sworn in . Ms . Utter testified that she was retained as the City's/owner 's representative . The de- velopment team have proposed a Plan they feel will be a national model for other transit oriented developments ; there is no other development they have been able to find that encompasses the various elements proposed in this • PUD. Ms. Utter discussed the efforts of the team to determ ine a way to make the "public/private partnership" hap- 2 ·' • • • pen . She stated that the land is now owned by the Englewood Environmental Foundation (EEF), and they will be in the process of transferring individual parcels to the different developers. The master developer, will be Miller/Weingarten ; this master developer will be responsible for construction of all infrastructure , the theatre com- plex, and a major portion of the retail development. Wal-Mart will design, within the PUD Design Standards, and build their own building; and Forest City West will be responsible for construction of the residential/retail mix ele- ments of the project. The Englewood Environmental Foundation (EEF) will retain ownership of the civic center and some of the parking areas . Ms. Utter stated that the overall budget for the project is approximately $125 ,000,000. Demolition , fill, infrastructure costs are estimated at $31 ,000,000 ; the City of Englewood is contributing $10 ,000,000 ; Miller/Weingarten will contribute approximately $10,000,000 ; Forest City will contribute approxi- mately $3 ,000,000 ; Wal-Mart's contribution will be $3,400,000 ; and RTD will be contributing $4,000 ,000. These expenses are required to prepare the site to construct buildings. Ms. Utter also noted that the City of Englewood will be paying for the rehabilitation of the former Foley's Building for use as the Civic Center. The City will be a very important co-anchor/developer in the project. Ms . Utter stated that long-term retail leases are being developed ; these leases will contain a "go dark" clause, which will enable the City to step in and assume control if needed . Ms. Utter discussed a common area agreement that is being developed . Common areas will be controlled by the EEF , and maintenance will be high-quality . The City Council has review rights for tenants considering locating in the redevelopment. Ms . Utter stated that the site plan will have specific building locations, shapes, and designs ; this cannot be prepared until specific tenants are identified. Mr. Douglas asked for further clarification on maintenance of common areas . Ms . Utter stated that an agreement for maintenance of common areas is very typical for retail -type projects ; each tenant will be responsible for the care of their specific site and grounds . But, maintenance of the streets , roads , the plaza, landscaping in public areas will be the responsibility of the EEF . Each tenant will contribute to a "pot" of money, and the amount they contribute will be pro-rated based on the "benefits" they realize from the common areas . The EEF will hire a contractor or mainte- nance company who will be responsible for maintenance of street sweeping, landscaping, snow removal , etc. There will be provisions included that will allow a tenant unhappy with the maintenance to do the work and then bill the common area maintenance contractor. Suzette Emerson was sworn in . Ms . Emerson stated that she is with Tryba Architects . They are very excited about the project. Ms. Emerson indicated the boundaries of the site --roughly U .S . 285 on the south , South Elati Street on the east ; West Floyd Avenue on the north, and South Santa Fe Drive on the west. There are three unique "zones" within this area, the first being the civic/entertainment/residential area; the second predominately retail with large format buildings; and the third the auto-oriented retail along U.S. 285 . Ms. Emerson discussed the grid street sy s- tem , noting that the plan includes a 60 foot greenway between the two residential developments . Special entry py- lons or entry elements are proposed at primary entry points. The Museum of Outdoor Art is proposing to locate in the Civic Center, and some of the sculptur e pieces will be display ed in the piazza and other public areas . Ms. Emer- son indicated the extension of the bicycle path, and the walls proposed to provide impact mitigation for the north Englewood residential community . Ms. Emerson referenced several display boards, and indicated the location of the RTD station , the bicycle paths, and discussed the treatment along Floyd Avenue to provide separation and pro- tection from through traffic. Ms . Emerson stated that the intent of the overall plan is to create an urban development that retains the main-street feel. The development team is doing market research, determining the amount of fill and final elevations of the site, and talking with prospective tenants . Ms . Emerson stated that the proposed development desi g n should be very "eclectic" -there should not be a "sameness" to all of the structures -that there should be distinction and character. Mr. Hayduk inquired about the residential frontage road , and asked what kind of wall will be along th is frontage road. Ms. Emerson stated they are proposing a si x foot (6 ') concrete/masonry wall -som ething to provide a shield for the residential area from the lights and sounds of the new redevelopment. Ms . Emerson stated that the points of ingress/egress from the north will be South Inca Street and South Elati Street. Existing Floyd A venue will become a "frontage road" to provide internal circulation for the residential district, but with no through traffic. Ms . Tobin asked how many traffic lanes will be on the frontage road. Ms. Emerson stated that the frontage road will be the width of an alley -two vehicles can pass . Ms . Tobin then inquired about the width of the street between the two residential developments -how many lanes will this street accommodate. Ms . Emerson stated that the street will narrow to one lane from two lanes ; diagonal parking will be allowed along the retail frontages in these two blocks . Ms . Lathram asked how many parking spaces will be in the diagonal area. Ms . Emerson estimated 25 3 parking spaces on each side would be diagonal. Ms . Tobin commented that it didn 't seem too inviting to go down to • one lane of traffic with on-street parking ; she noted that she owns a large van and questioned that such vehicles can be accommodated. Ms . Emerson stated that it is one lane , but that the lanes will be wide and should be safe. Mr. Amie Ullevig was sworn in . Mr. Ullevig testified that he is a principal in Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig, Traffic Analysts. Mr. Ullevig stated that his firm has been engaged to perform the transportation demand analysis for the proposed development. Mr. Ullevig stated that the site, when developed will generate approximately 24 ,000 trips per day. This project has many components -retail , residential , entertainment, and civic/cultural functions, and certainly meets the definition of"mixed use ." There is a percentage of the traffic which may be internal to the site - the traffic will not have to come into the project from "outside". Mr. Ullevig discussed peak travel times and de- mands on facilities ; he noted that the peak demands estimated for the redevelopment site are quite low compared to some other developments . The mixed use character of the development leads to the different traffic peaks -transit riders will typically not arrive at the same time, governmental employees will not be arriving at the same time the retail outlets open , and the entertainment facilities will have yet another peak time of arrivals. Mr. Ullevig stated that there will be 17 traffic lanes providing ingress/egress to the site. Primary points of access to the site from the south will be South Inca Street/U.S. 285 ; South Galapago/U .S . 285 ; and South Elati Street/U .S . 285 . The Inca and Galapago intersections will be upgraded with dual turning lanes and improved signalization . Mr. Douglas noted that traffic on U.S . 285 doesn't move very well , and asked the length of queue lines for vehicles waiting to make turns. Mr. Ullevig stated that length of storage lanes at the intersections, within the redevelopment site, will be 250 feet in length . The real problem is maintaining the traffic flow on U .S . 285. Mr. Douglas inquired about the traffic flow for bus traffic . Mr. Ullevi g indicated the bus routings ; buses will use Floyd Avenue, Englewood Parkway , South Elati Street, South Broadway and South Santa Fe Drive . West Floyd Avenue will have heavy bus traffic to access the RTD light rail station and the bus turnaround site . Mr . Ullevig stated that RTD has been involved in discussions of the traffic flow and demand analysis , and members of the development team have met with RTD representatives on several occasions. Ms. Tobin asked if any studies had been done on the traffic impact the proposed redevelopment may have on the residential neighborhoods to the south of U.S . 285. She noted that there are quite a few children in these residential areas, citing the location of Maddox Elementary School and the proximity of Flood Middle School. Ms. Tobin sug- gested that someone traveling on Oxford A venue might want to use one of the residential streets rather than South Broadway to reach the new retail area, and this will increase the traffic through the residential areas. Mr. Ullevig discussed efforts to minimize the "accidental tourist" throu gh residential neighborhoods, and noted that U .S. 285 in itself is a substantial barrier between the new development and the established areas to the south . Robert Simpson was sworn in. Mr . Simpson stated that Ms . Tobin has raised an excellent point, and that the devel- opment team has not addressed impact mitigation on the south neighborhoods at this time. Mr. Simpson assured Ms . Tobin that the issue of traffic impact has been raised before City Council , and that the overall City traffic pic- ture will be considered beginning in January. Mr. Simpson suggested that a City-wide traffic plan will probably result in an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan , and that Neighborhood & Business Development will be work- ing on this project very closely with the Public Works Department. Mr . Welker asked about the impact of eastbound traffic on U.S. 285 -what turning facilities will be available for those wishing to access the new redevelopment. Mr. Ullevig stated that there is one left-tum lane on U .S . 285 at South Inca ; a dual left-tum lane at South Galapago Street, and one left-turn lane at Elati Street. Mr. Welker sug- gested that this can slow the movement of traffic on U .S . 285. Mr. Ullevig stated that the timing of the signals will be dominant for U.S . 285 traffic. Mr. Welker expressed concern that the stacking for turning movement from U.S. 285 to the new development will slow the through traffic movement on the highway . Mr. Welker commented that in his opinion , the attention has been focused on traffic leaving the new development, not on traffic that may be ac- cessing the site via U.S. 285 . Mr . Ullevig stated that the anal ysis done by his firm has addressed both entry and ex- iting peak loads. Mr. Welker asked whether a comparison has been done with the projected figures to those from a number of years ago when Cinderella City was still an active mall -is the traffic volume and carrying capacity of the highway "as good, worse, or much worse". Mr. Ullevig suggested that it 's a "break-even" situation -noting that • there has been a considerable increase in the traffic volume just by virtue of the population growth in the area. He • estimated that U .S. 285 carries between 65,000 to 70 ,000 vehicles per day. 4 • • • Ms. Lathram asked what controls are exercised within the development for motorists, specifically for a motorist trying to get onto South Inca Street from Englewood Parkway. Mr. Ullevig stated that this area will be stop sign controlled. Mr. Weber noted that there appears to be a point of access at South Jason Street from U.S. 285. Mr. Ullevig stated that this point of access is right-in/right-out. At the present time, this point of access is only to the top level of the existing parking deck. A means to access the lower level parking from this access point should be considered . Ms. Emerson again addressed the Commission , noting that the Design Team is doing cost analysis regarding bene- fits of renovating the existing parking structure versus the cost of constructing a new parking structure . Paul Kreiger, Tryba Architects, was sworn in. Mr. Kreiger gave an overview of the proposed Design Standards and Guidelines prepared through a collaborative effort by their firm and NBD personnel. Mr. Kreiger noted that the Design Standards delineate the three zones , and individual parcels . Axial relationships , sight lines, special site ele- ments , special site markers, pedestrian and vehicular circulation , architectural character, public and private land- scaping, signage, building illumination, street furniture , site lighting and fencing , and special retail standards and guidelines are all addressed by the Design Standards and Guidelines. Mr. Kreiger noted that the appendix of the report contained 13 attachments, several of which are maps /drawings depicting the various elements of the plan - such as parcel designations , road type plans, parking plan, etc . Also included for reference is the adopted City of Englewood Landscaping Standards and the Englewood Sign Code . John Loss , Miller/Weingarten Development, was sworn in . Mr. Loss briefly discussed a performance schedule which was contained in the packet delivered to the Commission . Mr. Loss stated that two important dates on this schedule are November 2 , 1998 , at which time the basic development agreement will be executed between the City of Englewood and Miller/Weingarten ; and December 29 , 1998 , which is a "closing date " when all parties to this development sign the general agreement for the development. This is also the date when Miller/Weingarten needs to have the $31,000 ,000 to complete the infrastructure work brought to the table by all five parties of the develop- ment. Between November 2 and December 29 , there is a great deal of work to be done -agreements need to be finalized and signed with Wal-Mart, the Theatre, the Museum of Outdoor Art, and the residential developer. Nego- tiations on various construction elements need to be pursued and completed. Mr. Loss stated that Miller/Weingarten is obligated to tum a buildable site over to Wal-Mart by March 1, 1999 , and Wal-Mart proposes to have the building constructed and open sometime in the fourth quarter of 1999. Infrastructure work should be completed on the site by May or June, 1999 . The RTD light rail station must be up and ready for operation in Jul y, 2000. Other elements of the development must be completed and ready for occupancy between December, 1999 and July , 2000. Mr. Loss stated that from this date, they have 21 months to complete this project. Mr. Simpson again addressed the Commission and briefly summarized the presentation . He expressed thanks to members of the Commission and to the audience for their patience on this matter. Mr. Simpson stated that there has been diligent work on this redevelopment project for over five years to bring it to this point. This project is very exciting , and exemplifies creation of a new community within Englewood . The PUD addresses the street system, ingress /egress to the site, mixed use development, development standards --all of which will provide a long-term, sustainable development. The City is also gaining a two acre park in the center of the civic/cultural area, which will be a gathering point for parades , display of sculpture, and a place for people to gather. The proposed development also protects existing neighborhoods and integrates the new development with existing business community. There will be long-term control through the EEF /City ownership, the development agreements , and the PUD . This devel- opment will be a "model" for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in Denver and throughout the nation . Staff asks that the PUD be recommended to City Council for approval. Rosemary LaPorta was sworn in . Ms . LaPorta stated that she is in favor of the proposed PUD . Ms . LaPorta recalled that several years ago, when discuss ion of the redevelopment effort first began , a young man stood before City Council and stated that this City needed "pride". Ms. LaPorta stated that this redevelopment effort, encompassing the cultural elements and inclusion of the Museum of Outdoor Art , is a definite plus for the City and will provide the "pride" the y oung man referenced . Ms. Tobin asked about parking for RTD ; how many spaces are designated for the RTD light rail. Mr. Simpson stated that the parking structures shown will provide "shared" parking . Ms. Emerson stated that Walker Parking has 5 done research regarding the parking, and suggested that RTD cannot use all of the parking , and that some parking • spaces will be reserved. Ms. Emerson stated that the parking will be shared by those using light rail, the govern- mental/civic/cultural element, entertainment facilities, and the retail businesses. Mr. Weber asked about the bicycle path; he suggested that there may be a lot of people traveling by bicycle from the north to get to the site. The path, as indicated by Ms. Emerson, appears to be on the perimeter of the development. Where do these individuals get off the path to access some point of destination within the site . Ms. Emerson stated that the intent was to keep the bicycle path close to, but not go through the center of the development, to tie the ex- isting bicycle path along Little Dry Creek into the path at Dartmouth . Bicycle commuters can get off the path and get to the piazza, and that RTD has plans to have lockers for bicycles . Further discussion ensued regarding bicycle paths and pedestrian traffic . Ms. Emerson indicated sidewalks and crosswalks on the display boards. Mr. Dummer asked how much tiered parking is proposed. Ms. Emerson stated only the southwest comer will be a parking structure. Mr. Dummer inquired why a parking structure is not also proposed on the north portion of the site to serve the RTD light rail. Mr. Dummer cited problems at the light rail station on South Broadway with insufficient parking to accommodate the light rail ridership . Ms. Emerson agreed that there will need for additional parking in the near future. Ms . Utter also addressed the parking issue, noting that RTD is also very concerned; additional funding to build the parking structure sooner rather than later has been discussed. Mr. Dummer inquired about the bus tum-around ; what is the origin/destination of the buses . Will they all be coming from and going to downtown. Will this serve as a bus terminal. Ms. Emerson stated that there are several bus routes which will be using this tum-around/terminal area. Buses will continue to stop along Broadway . Ms . Utter stated that this development will encourage people to explore modes of transportation other than the private automobile. Mr. Douglas asked about the topography of the site; where are the "holes" that require fill, what will the finished grade be in comparison to street level. Ms. Emerson discussed the topography, notin g that once the existing struc-• ture is down the site will have a slight bowl shape. They want to achieve a "smooth and gentle grade", and elimina- tion of retaining walls on the perimeter of the site. Mr. Douglas asked where flood waters would drain. Ms. Emer- son stated that they would drain into the Little Dry Creek drainage system ; there are no plans for a water retention system on-site. Ms. Emerson stated that approximately 350 ,000 cubic yards of fill is required ; approximately 30,000 cubic yards can be recycled from existing concrete on the site. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. No one responded. Mr. Douglas then asked if anyone else on the Commission had questions to ask of the development/presenter team. No further questions were asked. Mr. Douglas called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PU D-98-02 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hayduk, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin , Weber, Welker, Dummer, Douglas None None None The motion carried. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Douglas declared a recess of the Commission at 9:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m.; all members of the Commission were present. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 • • • • Mr. Douglas asked for a motion to approve the PUD . Tobin moved: Lathram seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Englewood Town Center PUD District Plan, Case # PUD -98-02, be approved with the following conditions: 1. Submission of a utility plan for Commission review prior to the start of new construction within the PUD. 2. Submission of a drainage plan and a grading and erosion control plan for Com- mission review prior to the issuance of the first building permit within the PUD . 3 . Submission of a signage plan for Commission review prior to the issuance of the first sign permits within the PUD. Mr. Douglas asked ifthere was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Tobin commented on the importance of the District Plan , and the importance of the three conditions imposed on the approval of the District Plan. Ms . Tobin further stated she was impressed with the time and quality of work that the development team has devoted to development of this Planned Unit Development District Plan. Ms . Tobin noted that a lot of community input was provided on development of the proposal. Mr. Hayduk reviewed a listing of permitted uses and contrasted some of the uses proposed as "permitted" that were previously listed within the B-1 District as "conditional '', such as night clubs . Ms. Lathram asked if there are any restrictions on the location of night clubs in proximity to the residential uses. Ms. Tobin stated that the City does have an ordinance addressing noise restrictions , and there is also a curfew restriction in the City ; she felt that the City has sufficient restrictions in place to assure a night club would not become a nuisance. Mr . Stitt stated that the PUD is a new zone district; some use that may have been permitted or conditional in a B-1 or B-2 zone district does not necessarily carry over to the PUD district regulations. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that the development team determined allowance of night clubs would contribute to the "mixed use " character of the redevelopment, and is in keeping with the entertainment element of the theatre . Mr. Rininger expressed concern on the minimum size of residential units proposed . He stated that 450 square feet for a residential unit is very small. He suggested that a minimum size should be 800 square feet to 1,000 square feet. Mr. Douglas agreed that 450 square feet seems quite small, but was of the opinion that a minimum size of 1,000 square feet might be too large . Mr. Rininger suggested that the residential units could be increased in size , and the height of the structures increased to allow for the same number of units. Ms . Lathram pointed out that adding an additional floor to a structure increases the cost, which would be passed onto tenants leasing the units . Mr. Hayduk asked why Mr. Rininger was suggesting larger apartment units . Mr. Rininger suggested that larger apartment units would attract more quality tenants , and they might want to stay in the rental market for a longer period of time. Mr. Hayduk pointed out that housing market surveys were done, and it was the opinion of the housing developer that the smaller units would rent. Mr. Hayduk asked if the Commission is getting into design elements when discussing re- quiring larger rental units . Mr. Douglas pointed out that there are minimum floor area requirements cited in the residential zone districts. Mr. Welker suggested that individuals who may want to live in this residential area may not want a lot to take care of, and may not have a lot of possessions. Mr. Welker suggested that Forest City knows their market and imposition of a larger unit size could impact other elements of the development. Mr. Welker stated that the Commission doesn 't know that increasing the size of rental units will , in fact , make it a more viable, high- end project. Mr. Welker emphasized that the residential developers are not designing for , nor expecting to rent to, families . Further brief discussion ensued . Rininger moved: The minimum floor area for rental units in the Forest City development be increased to 650 square feet. There was no second to Mr. Rininger's motion ; Chair declared the motion dead . Traffic patterns were further discussed. Mr. Douglas stated that he felt the development team has done a very good job mitigating traffic impacts through the residential neighborhood. 7 Ms. Tobin stated she would like to see more parking designated for RID use . Mr. Douglas stated that part of the • point of the development proposal is to share parking facilities; not all of the uses will experience peak traffic de- mand at the same time. Mr. Welker stated that he is also concerned about sufficient parking; he questioned how the use of the parking spaces by light rail riders can be controlled . He acknowledged that this is a problem that will be considered "eventually"; he reiterated there will be a shortage of parking, and if funding can be found to construct the second parking deck it should be done now. Mr. Welker acknowledged that parking lots can be located else- where, and light rail riders bused in. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else on the Commission had issues they wanted to discuss . He then called for the vote on the motion to recommend approval. AYES: NAYS: Lathram , Rininger, Tobin , Weber, Welker, Dummer, Hayduk, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. City Attorney Brotzman asked that the Findings contained on Pages 5 through 8 of the staff report be adopted as the Findings of Fact on this case . Members of the Commission reviewed the Findings contained within the staff report . Mr. Douglas asked for a motion adopting the Findings . Rininger moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission adopt the following as the Findings of Fact for Case #PUD- 98-02. 1. The P UD District Plan is , or is not, in co nformance with th e District Plan requirem ents and the Comprehensive Plan ; and The proposed Englewood Town Center PUD is in conformance with the applicable requirements set forth in Section 16-4-15 E, 3 e . PUD District Plan. The 1979 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as part of the Central Business District. The Compre- hensive Plan has established goals and policies for the Central Business District of the City. The Town Center PUD specifically addresses the following goals and policies: Goals • Support the Downtown as a Regional Activity Center by focusing high-density, high activity uses within that area. Such uses would include retail , office, high-density residential , and a hotel/convention center. • To promote the regional nature of Cinderella City . • To link Cinderella City and the Broadway/Acoma area so that they complement one another. Policies • A concentration of high activity uses should be encouraged in the downtown to provide a focal point for the city . Downtown should be a location for work shopping, living , and playing with aesthetically pleasing ar- eas for rest and relaxation. • To provide hous ing for workers and encourage home ownership, residential condominiums should be pro- vided within the downtown district, • To preserve and protect the existing single-family residential nature of the surrounding area from commer- cial encroachment, Floyd and Eastman should be strengthened as barriers to further commercial expansion to the north. 8 • • • • • • Downtown should be maintained as a regional activity center with high concentrations of retail , office and residential uses . • The downtown area should be de veloped under a coordinated theme . • Public transit should be strengthened with a transit center linking the downtown to the regional transporta- tion network. • The link between Cinderella City and South Broadway should be pedestrian-oriented, with retail use at ground level in buildings bordering the West Girard Mall. • The proposed redevelopment should be linked to surrounding neighborhoods with safe pedestrian connec- tions . • Usable open space should be created in the downtown . • The image and character of the redevelopment should be aesthetically pleasing to attract people. 2. All required docum ents, dra wing s, referrals , recommendations, and approvals have been rece iv ed; and All items required for the Town Center PUD District Plan and have been reviewed and approved except as noted. All items are on file with the Department of Neighborhood and Business Development: a . b. c. d . e . 1. 2 . 3 . 4. 5 . 6 . 7 . 8. 9 . 10 . 11. 12 . 13. 14 . The name and location of the proposed development; and The names , addresses and phone numbers of the applicants , owners , developers and designers of the development; and Documentation confirming that the applicant has legally sufficient interest in the property proposed for development, or is the duly authorized agent of such a person; and An American Land Title Association and American Congress on Survey ing and Mapp ing , Land Title Survey (ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey) and Urban classification ; and A PUD District Plan , drawn at a scale of not less than one inch per fifty feet (l "=50 ') along with north arrow, written and graphic scale, of the proposed development. (District Plan Map is at a scale of l "= 150 '.) The District Plan shall be of sufficient detail to determine impacts, both on-and off-site that may require mitigation . The District Plan shall additionally show or stipulate the general location , arrangement, extent, and character for the following , where applicable: Adjacent streets and proposed points of access ; and (See Attachment 4) Existing zoning and land use within at least three hundred (300) feet of all property boundary lines ; and (See Attachment 3) The existing topographic character of the land and existing natural features ; and Location and descriptions of any existing utilities or easements on the property ; (Existing utilities will be replaced based on th e approved utility plan submitted prior to th e start of new c onstruc- tion .); and Location and size of proposed land use ; and Approximate location and height of proposed structures referenced to lowest finished floor eleva- tion of the structure; (This information will be included as part of th e P UD Site Plan submittal and review.); and Parking plans including: location , drive-thru and access point, stacking , drive aisles, standard parking space , disabled parking, compliance with ADA requirements , loadin g, fire lanes, dimen- sions , quantity of park ing spaces, and internal circulation of parking areas or structures ; and The character, and appro x imate location and density of all dwelling units , if applicable ; and The approximate location and area of open and recreation space ; and Identify conceptual landscape plans including typical materials or conceptual landscaping and irri- gation criteria if different than City of Englewood Landscaping Ordinance criteria; and Identify transitional buffer areas requiring fencing and landscaping between incompatible uses; and Identify pedestrian circulation routes including sidewalks, bus stops , bike paths ; and Dimensions of separations between buildings , streets, and other features; and Areas subject to five year and 100 year flooding , retention areas , detention areas and surface drainage; (A drainage plan and a grading and erosion control plan will be s ubmitted prior to th e issuance of the first building p ermit within th e P V D.); and 9 15 . 16 . 17. 18. Signage plan including; location , size, architectural elevations and illumination; (A signage plan will be submitted prior to the issuance of th e first sign permit within the PUD .); and Fire hydrant locations; and Traffic Plan describing external circulation of vehicles entering or leaving the site (See attached Memo from Chuck Esterly, Director of Public Works); and Other elements such as conceptual architectural and building designs, facade treatments, and exte- rior building materials, as necessary to establish how the proposed PUD zone district will relate to adjacent properties ; and f. A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve; its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan , and how the proposed PUD district will relate to adjacent property . Where the applicant 's objectives are not in substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the statement shall include the changed or changing conditions that justify approval of the proposal ; and g . A general statement of the anticipated legal treatment of common ownership and maintenance of such areas , if applicable ; and h . A general indication of the expected schedule of development indicating : l. The approximate date when construction of the project can be expected to begin ; and 2 . The stages in w hich the project will be built; and 3. The common areas including but not limited to open space, drive a isles , parking and service areas that will be provided at each stage ; and 1. Other information deemed nece s sary, reasonable , and relevant to evaluate the application . 3. The P UD District Plan is con s istent with adopted and g enerally ac cepted standards of development in the City of Englewood; and • The proposed Town Center PUD District Plan is based on and consistent with the existing B-1, Busine ss District regulations. The PUD District Plan replaces the current B-1 Zone District regulations with regula- tions specifically designed to permit and foster a high quality transit oriented development. While the pro -• posed Town Center development could proceed under the current B-1 zoning, the PUD will provide a higher level of control of the development. This control is necessary to protect the long-term interests of the City and also ensures the proper integration of the development into the fabric of the community. 4. The PUD District Plan is sub stantially co ns istent with th e g oals , objec tives, des ig n gu idelin es, policies and any other ordinance, law or requirement of th e Ci ty; and The proposed Town Center PUD District Plan is in conformance with all other ordinances, laws and re- quirements of the City . Based on the project needs , this PUD has been designed and will provide for the long-term control and vision for this site . 5. Wh en th e P UD Distric t Plan is within th e En g le wood Downtown Developm ent A uth ori ty (EDDA ) area, th e Plan is cons iste nt with the EDDA approved des igns, polic ies and plans . The PUD District Plan is consistent with the EDDA approved designs , policies and plans . AYES: NAYS : Tobin, Weber, Dummer, Hayduk, Lathram , Rininger, Douglas Welker ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: None The motion carried . Mr. Douglas thanked members of the development team and members of the audience for attending the meeting . IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one addressed th e Commission . 10 • ... • • • V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission . VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE City Attorney Brotzman stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission . VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Dummer asked what is being constructed on a large vacant lot south of West Evans Avenue. Mr. Stitt stated this is an office/warehouse development, which is a permitted use. Ms . Tobin asked if staff had obtained any information on a Private Club at Kenyon and Jason. Mr. Stitt stated that he had asked Code Enforcement to check it out and report back, but has heard nothing from them. The meeting was declared adjourned. - ertrude G . Welty , Recordmg Secretary f:\dept\nbd\group\boards \plancomm\minute s 98\pcm I 0-9 a .doc 11