Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-18 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 18, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order in the Community Development Conference Room at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Weber presiding. Members present: Welker, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Waggoner, Weber Parks, Alternate Member Willis, Rempel , Stockwell -entered late Members absent: None Also present: Senior Planner Mark Graham Planner I Bill Donnelly Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid Guest present: Don Roth , member of EURA, KEB and CEAC II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 5, 2001 Chairman Weber stated that the Minutes of September 5, 2001 were to be considered for approval. Krieger moved: Lathram seconded : The Minutes of September 5, 2001 be approved as written . Mr. Weber asked if there were any changes to the Minutes . No changes were made . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Waggoner, Welker, Weber None None Willis, Rempel , Stockwell The motion carried. Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT MGM Supply Subdivision Plat CASE #SUB 2001-03 Chairman Weber stated that the Findings of Fact for the MGM Supply Subdivision Plat • were to be considered for approval. H:IGRO UP'I BOARDSIPLANCOMMIMinuteslMinutes 200 1\PCM 09-2001 8 .doc • • • Mr. Waggoner commented that he thought these Findings had been approved at the previ- ous meeting. It was pointed out that the Findings were amended and expanded upon to encompass action taken at the September S1h meeting; therefore, staff brought the Findings, as amended and expanded, back to the Commission for consideration. Messrs. Will is and Rempel entered the meeting and took seats with the Commission. Lathram moved : Welker seconded: The Findings of Fact for the MGM Supply Subdivision Plat, Case #SUB 2001-03 , be approved. AYES: N AY S: ABST A IN: ABSE NT: Krieger, Lathram , Mueller, Waggoner, Welker N o ne Rempel , Willis, Weber Stoc kwell The motion carried. IV. GENERAL IRON WORKS Bates Station Framework Plan Mr. Graham introduced himself, noting that there were some new members since his last presentation before the Commission . Mr. Graham stated that: • The Bates Station Framework Plan is a policy document that will become part of the Comprehensive Plan , • It will establish goals, objectives, and urban design principles by which all applica- tions for transit oriented development will be judged. • This policy plan is similar to the Broadway Action Plan . • Implementation procedures of this policy will not become part of the Comprehen- si v e Plan , but will be addressed separatel y . • The Regional Transportation District (RTD ) will make a determination very soon re- garding approval or disapproval of the Bates Light Rail Station • The Urban Renewal Authority commissioned and approved a blight study of the General Iron Works area , and recommended creation of an urban renewal area by the City Counc i l. • Creat ion of the urban renewal area provides financing mechanisms to address needed infrastructure improvements. • A developer has been selected who is interested in doing a transit-oriented devel- opment on the General Iron Work site . Mr. Graham asked that Commissioners peruse the proposed Framework Plan, and let staff know if they feel the proposal establishes the proper guidelines to achieve the development we want. H:\G ROUP' BOARDSIPLANCO MM\Minutcs\Min utcs ~00 l\PCM 09-2001 B.doc • • Mr. Welker asked if the Planning Commission will review Planned Unit Developments and all development site plans that are submitted under this policy statement. Mr. Graham re- sponded that the selected developer had, at one time, expressed the opinion that he wanted to pursue Planned Unit Development approval of the project; however, Mr. Fuller- ton has recently determined that he can better achieve what he wants to do on the site by the normal zoning process. Mr. Graham stated : • Staff is proceeding with writing of a proposed transit-oriented development zoning ordinance. • This ordinance could be used in locations other than at the Bates Transit Station. • The proposed transit-oriented development ord i nance will not be an "over-la y" dis- trict. • It will require a rezoning application and approval to appl y the zoning to the land. • Transit oriented de v elopment should be in close proximity to the light rail station. • "Transitional" development would occur between the "core " part of the redevelop- ment area and the residential neighborhood. Mr. Welker asked if the industrial zone classification that is now imposed on land along the rail lines will be changed . Mr. Graham stated that a mass rezoning is not anticipated at this time; onl y for one or two ke y pieces of property . Mr. Welker stated that unless a property owner requests rezoning, the industrial zoning will remain in place -is this correct. Mr. Graham stated that more than likely it would remain the same unless a property owner specifically requests a rezoning . The proposal is not a "mapped zone district" -it will be a new zone district to be applied to land only upon specific application from a property owner. The issue of "spot zoning" was raised and briefl y discussed. Mr. Graham stated that applications pertaining to small sites scattered throughout the area might constitute spot zoning. But if a developer can assemble three or four, or more, properties and makes application, it might not be considered "spot zoning" even if not located right next to the transit station. Mr. Graham discussed the "mixed use " characteristics incorporated in a transit-oriented de v elopment, and pointed out that the industrial zone districts do not allow residential use unless it is a "caretaker unit". Mr. Welker discussed the complexity of the proposed framework policy. Mr. Welker stated that he preferred the "node" concept previously discussed -a larger transit-oriented district in very close proximity to the light rail stations, and a smaller, narrower, application of the district along the length of the rail line. He wants the City to "define the district". Mr. Stockwell entered the meeting at approximatel y 7:20 p.m. Mr. Graham emphasized the intent is to create "density" at the Bates station, and to transi - tion intensity of the development down to the existing residential neighborhood. • Mr. Welker discussed possible application of the transit-oriented regulations to areas along Broadway; he pointed out that commercial development is now limited to one-half block depth on both sides of Broadway. H:IG RO UP\BOARDSI PLANCOMM\Minutes \Minutes 200 I \PCM 09-200 I B.doc • • Ms. Lathram pointed out that there is only two blocks of industrial zoning/development be- tween the O xford Avenue light rail station and the residential district to the east. • • Ms. Krieger asked if the proposed regulations are designed for the Bates station, or can they also be applied to the Oxford station . Mr. Graham stated that the policy was written with the Bates stat ion in mind. Generally, it establishes a set of goals and objectives as well as urban design principles for transit-oriented development around any light-rail station . Mr. Welker stated that his concern is not so much with the wording of the goals, but the fact that it is "open-ended"; how does the City say "no " to something when the policies are so broad. He stated that he wants to be able to guarantee residents they will not be nega- tivel y impacted b y TOD . Mr. Graham pointed out that some of the provisions proposed ma y eliminate impacts -such as addressing non-conforming uses /structures: they could b e grandfathered in, or the non -conforming status eliminated in specific instances. Mr. Welker reiterated his desire to have the restrictions written "less broadly" -establish- ment o f a defi nitive boundary rather than "within a 10-minute walk ". Mr. Welker discussed the "order" that development in Englewood has followed, and geographical features , such as the South Platte Ri v er, that have been taken into account. It does not seem that we are try ing to maintain this "order" of development. Ms. Lathram asked if Mr. Graham wanted Commissioner's comments and opinions at this meeting. Mr. Graham stated that he does want Commissioner's comments, and if the Commission is comfortable with the proposed policy, staff would like to proceed to public hearing in the near future. Ms. Lathram stated that she wanted to see how this proposed policy will mesh with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan, such as the Housing, Business and Economic Devel- opment, Open Space, and Transportation. She pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan has been under revision for the last few years , and asked what the urgency is to get this piece adopted. Mr. Graham stated that he understood Ms. Lathram's point; staff is working on the draft of the Comprehensive Plan sections, and agreed there is need to get them back to the ad hoc committees, and before members of the Commission. Ms. Lathram re- iterated the need for the Commission to look at the entire package, and determine how the it all fits together. Mr. Graham pointed out that the Transportation section will not be completed for several months yet; follow-up meetings with the public are scheduled in early October, with the final report due a few months after that. Mr. Welker emphasized the need for the Commission to look at that section . He stated that if the Commission does not have input on the transportation issues they will not be able to address the proposed policy statement properly; he stated that the Commission cannot do anything in a vacuum -they have to have something concrete to work with . Ms. Lathram further discussed her concern with overlay of the zone district on other parts of the City. Mr. Graham pointed out that there are only three (possibly three if the Bates station is approved ) light rail stations where the district would be applicable. He ques- H:IGROUf'\BOA RDSIPLANCOMMIMinutcslMinutcs :OO llPCM 09-200 1 B.doc • tioned that an argument could be made that Broadway is "transit" oriented . Mr. Graham cited the need to review land uses near light rail stations, and when the Transportation Plan is drafted, it may be determined that the area near Broadway and U.S. 285, for instance, can support land uses of greater intensity than a typical downtown district. • • Mr. Welker discussed the need for information on traffic volume for Dartmouth Avenue and Oxford Avenue. How can the Commission consider the Bates Station policy without having all the information to determine how the pieces fit together. Mr. Welker stated that he has a hard time revising the Comprehensive Plan one section at a time anyway, and emphasized the need to incorporate information that is available into a "document" to re- view. Mr. Stockwell asked when ground will be broken for the GIW redevelopment/Bates Light Rail station . Mr. Graham stated that RTD will take control of the GIW site in December, 2001 . RTD will demolish the structures "to grade ", but will not do soil remediation before turning the south portion of the site to the developer in early 2002 . RTD would then begin development of their maintenance facility . The dev eloper for the south half of the GIW site would need close to a year to accomplish soil remediation . Mr. Graham estimated that to write, review, enact, and apply zone regulations and the Bates Station Framework Plan will take to mid-summer of 2002. Mr. Graham clarified for Mr. Stockwell that RTD can begin construction of their maintenance facility after the site is cleared; their proposed use is compatible with the existing heavy industrial zoning . Mr. Welker reiterated that if development is done through a Planned Unit Development (PUD ), the Planning Commission and general public have an opportunity for review and input; however, development under "use by right" would not come before the Commission or Council, and the general public is denied an opportunity to review and comment. Mr. Welker stated that this redevelopment is key to the City, and "we don 't know what we will be seeing until it's designed"; he reiterated that going through the PUD process provides a forum for both the Planning Commission and the citizenry to review and comment on a proposal. Mr. Welker stated that the EURA does not review PUD and development site plans. Mr. Graham suggested the possibility of asking the developer to make a presentation to the Commission to demonstrate response to the RFP . Terminology in the Framework Plan was questioned -for instance, what is a "Secondary development area". Mr. Welker stated that he wanted to see the development plans for RTD's maintenance fa- cility. Discussion ensued. Ms. Mueller stated that she did not think the Commission will impede the process by asking to view development plans ; she did not think the right of re- view should be relinquished . Mr. Welker further discussed his concerns on "ambiguity" of the proposed zoning district, and acceptance of the framework plan not knowing how it fits into the overall plan. H:IGRO UP\BO ARDSIPLANCO MM\Minutcsl Mi nutcs ZOOll PCM 09-200 1 B doc • • • Mr. Graham stated that implementation regulations for issues in the Framework Plan will come before the Commission ; the Commission would determine whether proposals that are submitted are in compliance with the policy statement. He emphasized that the pro- posed Framework Plan is a policy approach to the redevelopment effort. He commented that it seems the Commission may prefer to see a "mapped" approach. Mr. Welker stated that he wants to be assured that no mistakes are made on this project; he doesn 't really know what the document before them means. He noted that developers look for loopholes in zoning regulations to determine what can be done on any piece of property. Mr. Weber asked if the de v eloper of the GIW site has seen a draft of the proposed zoning regulations. Mr. Graham responded affirmatively . Mr. Graham further stated that consid- eration has been given to moving all design guidelines into a separate section, and retaining the b as ic restr ictions suc h as hei ght restrictions, setback restrictions etc. in the body of the zon i ng regulations. Mr. Weber stated he felt it would be helpful if the Commission could see the draft of the proposed regulat ions . Ms. Lathram said she would be interested in see- ing the de v elopment plan proposed for the GIW site . Mr. Stockwell expressed his concern regarding traffic "round -abouts " and the dangers he feels they pose to pedestrians and bicy clists ; also that the y have been put in place without input from the Commission. Mr. Graham pointed out that there is nothing in the proposed Framework Policy that addresses the issue of traffic round-abouts. Mr. W illis asked what uses the City hopes to see in the redevelopment of the GIW site. Mr. Graham stated that owner-occupied housing i n a variety of market ranges is proposed, as well as office space and limited supportive retail activities, such as restaurants, coffee shops, dry cleaning establishments, etc. Mr. Graham stated that the target goal is 30,000 square feet of commercial use, a 100,000 square foot office building, and 400 residential units . This can equate to approximately 800 residents and 500 office workers on the 10 acre site. Mr. Graham stated that the minimum density was proposed for 40 units/acre; and that transit ridership is maximized at this density or above . Mr. Graham stated that the pro- posed housing units will provide a range of housing prices that Englewood does not now have. The City currently has onl y 169 condominium units . The price ranges proposed by the developer range from $150,000 to $400,000. Mr. Welker again discussed the need for PUD level review by the Commission, and the need for public input. Mr. Graham stated that he is not sure that an y developer can be forced to go through the PUD process if the development proposed is a use-by-right in the zone district. Mr. Welker suggested that requirements for Commission review of all site plans and development plans can be written i nto the TOD regulation s. Ms. Reid cautioned against imposing more restrictions on one method of development than on use-by-right de- velopments. Mr. Welker reiterated that there must be citizen input on the development proposal. He suggested that development on sites of one acre or more be required to go through the PUD review/approval process. This should not be left to staff determination with untested zoning regulations . H:IGRO UPI BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minu tcs\Minutcs "OOl l PCM 09-200 1 B doc • • • Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham pointed out the following: • "Plans " submitted thus far by the developer are "conceptual ", • No developer will expend considerable funds without knowi ng whether the transit station is , in fact, approved by RTD , and that funds are available to do infrastructure work -streets, water and sewer line extensions, etc. • Once verification of these issues is given to the developer, then design and refining a final development plan will occur. • The RFP did require one "signature building", conceptualized as the several story of- fice building. • A Development Agreement is being drafted; when signed, this Agreement will be binding on both the developer and the City . • This is an EUR A project, and property will be transferred to the developer only if the de v elopment proposal complies with all agreements and regulations .. Mr. Welker pointed out that there was a de v elopment agreement on the CityCenter site , also, and the promised theater w as not built. He wants to consider ne w development on a case-b y-c ase basis . He noted that amendments can easily be made to PUDs, and reiterated citizenry has the right to see and comment on an y development proposal. Mr. Graham pointed out that markets influence what can ultimately be constructed in any development. Mr. W illis asked about the rumor he has heard about relocation of the Englewood Depot to the redevelopment site. Mr. Graham stated that relocation of the Depot to a closer prox- imity to the rail lines i n the redevelopment site has been discussed. The developer has ex- pressed the desire to use the Depot as a sales office for a three-year period, and would re- hab the structure to provi de up-to-date plumbing, heating, and electricity; it would be re- turned to the Englewood Historical Soc iety once use as a sales office has terminated, and the building would be in usable condition. Mr. Graham stated that the City did check with the State to determine if any o f the State funds used for the initial relocation would have to be repaid if it were to be relocated again ; it is his understanding that the State would prefer to see the Depot located closer to the rail line to reflect its initiall y intended use . Mr. Willis stated that the proposal to relocate the Depot to closer alignment with the rail lines i n the proposed rede v elopment area is a great idea, so long as that site will be a permanent loca- tion . He questioned how man y relocations the basic structure can withstand . Mr. Graham stated that the Developer and City will work to make the Depot an integral part of the Bates Station development. Ms. Mueller reiterated that the Commission needs to view all information before making a determination on the Bates Station Framework Plan. Pedestrian and bicycle routes were briefly addressed . Mr. Graham stated that the proposed GIW development encourages pedestrian and bicy cle travel to and from the Bates station site. Mr. Weber asked what types of "civic" buildings were anticipated in the GIW redevelop- ment. Mr. Graham suggested that the Depot, if relocated, would be a civic building; open space, parks, would all be considered civic amenities . H:IGRO UPI BO ARDSIPLANCO MM\Mi nutes\Mi nu tcs :?OOl lPCM 09-2001 B.doc • Discussion ensued . Members of the Commission indicated that they wanted to see the draft TOD regulations, the RFQ and RFP, as well as the ad hoc committee reports on the Housing, Parks and Open Space, and Business and Employment sections of the Compre- hensive Plan. Mr. Willis also asked for copies of conceptual plans submitted by the devel- oper. Mr. Graham indicated that staff will assemble this information, and get to the Com- mission as soon as possible. • • The Chair asked Mr. Roth if he wished to address the Commission. Mr. Roth stated that he was interested in discussions regarding this redevelopment. He did point out that the GIW land has a higher elevation than the Civic Center site, and that a 12 to 14 story structure will have an adverse visual impact for residents east of South Broadway. Many of the homes east of Broadway were built to take advantage of the mountain views. He urged that impacts on properties east of South Broadway be kept in mind when reviewing development plans . He suggested that "towers" in the redevelopment are not necessary. The lowering of structures, but increasing footprint size to meet minimum requirements of the RFP was discussed . Mr. Graham pointed out that greater bulk at lower level could im- pact other facets of the development plan, such as provision of open space and park area. Mr. Welker stated that he had no problem with the minimum of 40 units per acre; he does not want to see a "ghetto" in 20 years . Ms. Mueller expressed her opinion that use of the PUD review/approval process will pro- vide greater flexibility for the developer and for the City . Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid reit- erated earlier statements on exercise of care on telling people what can and cannot be done -it can be a "taking" and the City would be liable for damages. When restrictions on land development are written, it is impacting a property owner's right to use of the land. Mr. Graham asked the Commission what they want the underlying zoning to be. Mr. Welker stated that he wants definitive boundaries, and does not want something "broadly" written. He would like to see the TOD restricted to a "node" around a transit station. Brief discussion ensued . Mr . Graham reiterated that staff will gather information cited by the Commission, and get it to them sometime this week. V. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Roth was asked if there were additional issues he wished to discuss with the Commis- sion. He stated there were not. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr . Graham said he had nothing to discuss . H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\MinutcslMinutes 200 llPCM 09-200 I B.doc • • • VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid said she had nothing to bring before the Commission. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Willis asked about the RFP for the former City Hall site, 3400 South Elati Street. He stated he would like to see development proposals that have been submitted. Ms. Reid stated that she didn't know what the status is on this project; she believed that proposals were submitted, and that the review committee is negotiating with Mr. Cliff Weinberger. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Stockwell referenced the Noise Attenuation Policy from Public Works Director Ross, citing Page 3, 111-8 and suggested that there could be legal problems as a result of this pro- vision . Mr. Stockwell also cited verbiage concerns on Page 5. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p .m. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre H:IGROUPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 200 I \PCM 09-2001 B.doc 9