Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-21 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 21, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood Civic Center, Chair Waggoner presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Waggoner, Welker Adams Senior Planner Tricia Langon Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 23 , 2003 Chair Waggoner stated the Minutes of September 23, 2003 were to be considered for approval. Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Roth seconded: The Minutes of September 23, 2003 be approved . Chair Waggoner asked if there were any corrections or modifications to the Minutes. Ms. Krieger stated there was a correction on page 18; Mr. Welker is referred to as "Chair Welker." Chair Waggoner asked for the vote on the amended Minutes. AYES: NAYS : Bleile, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Welker, Waggoner None ABSTAIN : Diekmeier ABSENT: Adams The motion carried. Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #CP-2003-0 2 Chair Waggoner stated the Findings of Fact for Case #CP-2003-02 were to be considered for approval. Ms . Krieger moved: Mr. Schum seconded: A rehearing be held on Case #CP-2003-02, Broadway Plan 2003 . 1 • • • Ms. Reid stated if the Commission wished to take more testimony a rehearing was needed . If the Commission wants to discuss the case amongst the members and take a new vote, a reconsideration was needed. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Welker Waggoner None Adams The motion carried by a vote of 7-1. Chair Waggoner confirmed the case would need to be republished. Ms. Reid stated that was correct. Chair Waggoner asked if the rehearing countered any actions b y City Council. Ms. Reid stated the Commission 's Findings of Fact would not be sent on to Council; therefore, City Council will not take an y action because the case has not been officially referred to them. A public hearing before City Council won't be scheduled until they receive the Commission 's Findings of Fact. IV. PUBLIC HEARING Case #VAC 2003-01 Chair Waggoner stated the issue before the Commission is Case #VAC 2003-01 , Vacation of the Trolley Square Planned Development. Chair Waggoner asked staff to present its case . Tricia Langon , Senior Planner w as sw orn in. Ms . Langon stated the case is a request b y Dillon Real Estate Compan y to v acate the Trolle y Square Planned Development. The procedure is for the Commission to consider the issue and make a recommendation to City Council. She stated the Commission will be discussing a Planned Development (PD ), not the Planned Unit Development (PUD ) that the Commission often discusses . Ev en though it is not a public hearing, the Commission will make Findings of Fact which will be sent to City Council. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend to City Council to vacate the Trolle y Square Planned Development, provided a Development Agreement is prepared allowing for property dedication for future roadway improvements to the West Flo y d Avenue portion of property should it be needed . The site, known as Trolley Square, is 5.5 acres in area, zoned B-1 Business District, and is addressed as 101 Englewood Parkwa y. The site is currently occupied by King Soopers Supermarket and two retail buildings; one along Englewood Parkway and another at the northeast corner of the site. This site does not include the Kaufman's retail store. The PD is an overlay which added requirements and standards that were overlaid on the underlying base zone district requirements. The PD regulations were first established in the City in 1972 and provided minor flexibility and development opportunities. The regulations did not rezone the property, which is one of the key differences between the Planned Development, which was an overlay, and the Planned Unit Development, which rezones the property. In 1984, the site was developed as a use-by-right, meaning it followed the B-1 zone district regulations and it was a use allowed in the zone district. Compliance with PD 2 • • • regulation was not required at that time. The grocery store and two-level shops along Broadway, a two-level parking structure, and a one-story retail along Englewood Parkway were in the development. In 1994, the B-1 regulations were amended to require any property greater than one acre in area be developed under the PD standards. This property was redeveloped in 1995, and because of its size, 5 .5 acres, it triggered the one acre requirement for a PD. The development did not utilize any of the PD flexibility options, such as setbacks or parking adjustments . It went strictly by B-1 zone district standards. In 1996, the PD regulations were repealed ; the City no longer has PD requirements. There is no procedure to vacate an existing PD ; however, in the PD Ordinance, there was a method to void a PD that was never developed . The current situation is a PD was developed, but it serves no real purpose at this point. Therefore, Dillon is requesting the PD be vacated to remove that extra layer. There were two conditions required in the Trolley Square PD, and to vacate the PD those must be addressed. As outlined in the staff report, one condition dealt with the dedic ation of land on West Flo y d Avenue for future roadway work, if needed. The other condition dealt with future improvements to the roadwa y, if required, on Englewood Parkway . The Public Works Department reviewed the conditions from the original PD. The y f eel the first condition which would allow for the option of a right turn lane from West Floyd Avenue onto South Broadway is still a valid issue and recommends reserving that option . However, the y feel it is not necessar y to maintain the PD just for that option; a separate Development A greement between the City and King Soopers would suffice . The second condition re garding Englewood Parkwa y was imposed in the ev ent widening the road was ever required . At this point, the Public Works Department does not believe that option is necessar y. Maintaining the PD , strictl y for those conditions, is not necessary. The PD was required on this site onl y due to its size; it did not utilize an y of the flexibility options within the PD regulations; and it was developed strictly by the B-1 zone district standards . Further, Condition 2 is no longer needed, and Condition 1 can be achieved through an agreement. The Trolley Square PD does not add value to the development because the original and existing development are under B-1 regulations ; the development meets all those requirements and regulations . The overlay adds time and expense to the property and encumbers the property for an y future development or sale. The PD is recorded against the property. Maintaining the PD adds an additional, unnecessary regulatory layer; the City must maintain the repealed Ordinance on this property. The PD overlay adds no real value to the development since the development did not take advantage of the PD flexibility options and the development complies with current zoning regulations . It also complies with draft Unified Development Code requirements; therefore, staff recommends that the Commission recommend to City Council the vacation of the Trolley Square PD overlay and return the site to the standard B-1 Business District zoning status, provided a Development Agreement is executed between Dillon Real Estate and the City of Englewood regarding potential roadway improvements along West Floyd Avenue. 3 • • • Mr. Welker asked if the PD stipulated where buildings are located on the entire site, similar to a PUD. Ms. Langon stated it did not; the PD was reviewed as to where buildings were located, but unlike the PUD, the Commission did not have any design control. Mr. Welker asked if the PD restricted King Soopers from developing the Broadway frontage. Ms. Langon stated any changes to the PD would require King Soopers going through the entire PD process. The Commission still would not have design criteria to review. Mr. Welker stated if the property reverted to B-1, the Broadway frontage could be developed, but under the PD it could not. Ms. Langon stated under the PD , development of the Broadway frontage would require a public hearing for an amendment to the PD . Mr. Welker confirmed the Kaufman 's property was excluded from the PD even though there is condition on the PD for a turn lane on Englewood Parkway. Ms. Langon stated that was correct and was another reason why the Public Works Department determined the condition was no longer valid because only a short turn lane would be possible since the Kaufman property would still exist. Mr. Welker asked if the Kaufman property had the same issue. Ms. Langon responded that it didn 't because it was not a PD . Chair Waggoner stated the dedication was not for a turn lane it was for sidewalk . Ms. Langon stated that was correct; it was also for an y future road improvements such as widening the road or creating a turn lane into the King Soopers ' development. Mr. Schum asked if there was sufficient p a rking on the site . Ms. Langon stated the site meets the parking requirements . Mr. Schum asked if the front edge of the property were developed, would King Soopers need to come b ack to the Commission through the PUD process for the parking . Ms. Langon stated th at an y development done under the B-1 district standards would need to conform to the parking requirements, landscaping, etc. There would not be a requirement for them to do a PU D b ec ause that would rezone the property, and there is no purpose in rezoning the property since the grocery store and retail is a use b y right within the B-1 District. Mr. Welker stated there is a new curb cut on Broad w ay, as well as turn lanes that took awa y parking which was originally on the west side of Broadway. He asked if that was something the Commission had control over based on the PD in that it would need to be brought back and looked at b y the Commission or could those turn lanes and curb cut disappear without Commission review. Ms . Langon stated from her understanding of the previous staff reports, only a couple of parking spaces were lost for the bus stop which is between the entrance and Floyd Avenue . Chair Waggoner asked whether or not the Commission should wait on the approval of the vacation until the Development Agreement is recorded . Ms. Langon stated the Commission can make the recommendation to City Council to proceed with the vacation with the condition that the document be prepared . The Development Agreement would need to be approved by City Council. Mr. Schum asked if the property owners have fully agreed with the Development Agreement. Ms. Langon stated that was her understanding . Chair Waggoner stated there appeared to be conflicting statements within the staff report. It states that Condition 2 is no longer needed, yet it also states that in the future the City 4 • • • may require dedication of sidewalk area along Englewood Parkway. Ms. Langon explained that some portion of the sidewalk is on King Soopers' property. If necessary in the future, the City would either require dedication of that land or a pedestrian easement. Mr. Schum asked if the dedication should be required as part of vacating the PD . Ms. Langon stated that could happen under the standard development permitting process . More material and every portion of sidewalk surrounding the site would need to be looked at. Mr. Welker stated the differences between the two parts of the property is that there is some desire to maintain the dedication because the use would be a roadway which is a completely different issue than a sidewalk which could be accomplished through an easement. Ms. Langon stated the dedication for the roadway is only to maintain that option for the future. Mr. Diekmeier clarified that the Dillon Company would like to vacate the PD to remove one encumbrance. He asked if there was any potential benefit or loss to the City or the citizenry by vacating the PD. Ms. Langon stated vacating the PD removes an additional layer of bureaucracy. The PD process was a vague process which is why it was repealed and replaced with the PUD. As an o v erla y, the PD did not provide any value . Ms. Langon reiterated the only reason the site is a PD is due to its size. Ms . Krieger moved; Mr. Schum seconded: To approve vacation of the Trolle y Square Planned Development with the condition that a Development Agreement between the City and Dillon Real Estate Company be recorded prior to the vacation of the Planned Development. There was no further discussion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members. A YES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Bleile, Diekmeier, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum , Waggoner, Welker None None Adams The motion carried by a 8-0 vote. IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon reminded the Commission of the Community Meeting on Thursday, October 23 at 6 :30 p.m . in Council Chambers regarding the Broadway Plan 2003. Staff will review possible dates for the rehearing on the Broadway Plan. Chair Waggoner clarified that the Commission would be starting over on the Plan . Ms. Reid stated she would need to do some research on the rehearing process . Since there was a hearing, the Commission can take into consideration the Minutes which have been approved and the 5 • • • testimony received at the public hearing, and then take additional testimony and put it all together; or the Commission can start all over. Chair Waggoner stated that City Council is desirous of making some changes, and the Commission has already recommended some changes. He asked if there was any reason why all those changes could not be incorporated into the Plan before it came back to the Commission for rehearing. Ms. Reid reiterated she would need to do additional research on the issue. Discussion ensued. Chair Waggoner stated it would be his preference that the document be changed prior to the rehearing. Mr. Welker agreed. Mr. Schum asked Ms. Reid to e-mail the Commission with the procedure after her research is complete. Ms. Reid stated she would do so. Mr. Bleile asked whether a study session would need to be held if the document was changed. Ms. Reid stated it would depend on whether the Commission wanted a study session or if staff recommended it. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid asked the Commission if they had any questions on the CityCenter project update. Ms. Reid explained that there is an ongoing dispute between Trammell Crow and Miller Weingarten regarding leasing the remaining retail space . VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Schum stated he was pleased with the Commission's decision on the Broadway Plan . Ms. Krieger clarified she made the motion for rehearing because at the neighborhood meeting it was mentioned that the Plan would come back to the Commission for another public hearing. ·She stated the citizens are already angry, and the Commission should follow through on what the citizens were told. Mr. Roth commended Ms. Krieger on a job well done at the October 15 neighborhood meeting. Chair Waggoner asked staff to compile the Commission's packet following the agenda 's order. There was no further discussion. The meeting was declared adjo urned at 7:45 p .m . 6