Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-05 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 5, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meetin g of the City Planning and Zon in g Comm i ssion was cal l ed to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamb ers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Roth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff : Brick, Krieger, Knoth, Roth, Bleile, Mosteller, Diekmeier (entered at 7:05), Welker (entered at 7:05) Hunt (Exc used) Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Nancy Re id, Assistant City Attorney 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 21, 2006 Ms. l<ri ege r moved: Mr. Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 21, 2006 MINUTES AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Krieger None Bleile, Mosteller Hunt, Diekmeier, Welker Motion carried . Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Case #2006-07 Mr. Knoth moved: Mr. Brick seconded: TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #2006-07 AS WRITIEN AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth, l(ri eger None Bleile, Mosteller Hunt, Diekmei er, Welker Motion ca rri ed. 1 • • • VI. PUB LI C HEARING Case #ZON2006-00003 Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 1 Chair Roth stated the issue before the Commission is Case #ZON2006-00003, Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development. Amendment 1. Chair Roth asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Ms. l<rieger moved: Ms. Mosteller seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #ZON2006-00003 BE OPENED. AYES : NAYS: Brick, l<noth, Roth, Diekmeier, l<rieger, Mosteller, Bleile, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hunt Motion carried. Ms . Langon, Senior Planner, was sworn in. She stated the issue before the Commission is Case #ZON2006-00003, Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 1, which was a rezoning that was approved in 2004 by Ordinance Number 52, Series of 2004. The applicant is Continuum Partners LLC. Ms. Langon stated she already submitted for the record proof of the certification of postings. Ms . Langon stated notice was published in the Englewood Herald on November 24, 2006. This was done in accordance with Section 16-2:3G of the Englewood Municipal Code. The publication was officially entered into the record . The recommendation from the Community Development Department is for the Planning Commission to review the application and forward a recommendation to City Council for approval of the Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 1. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the PUD modifications under Amendment 1, to take public testimony, to make Findings of Fact based on the criteria and to make a recommendation to City Council. The original PUD was a rezoning of the site to permit the proposed development. The original PUD remains in effect unless it is modified by Amendment 1 provisions. The request to amend is for specific items or aspects of the original PUD, it is not a rezoning of the entire PUD. The issues considered tonight are addressed only through the proposed Amendment 1, which are site plan and layout configu rations, not the zoning. Any arrangements with outside groups previously discussed are civil matters and they are not part of Amendment 1. Requirements of other agencies or jurisdictions are not part of the Amendment 1 either. Comments submitted by Arapahoe County pertained only to the p1 eliminary submittal, not to the final submittal that you have before you this evening. Staff believes those comments have been addressed in the final submittal or they fall outside the realm of the amendment process. Staff w il l present an overv i ew and then the applicant will address the full application. The applicant and th eir team are available for questions . 2 • • • Per the original PUD the Denver Seminary PUD required that major modifications to the District Plan or Site Plan be amended only through the same process as the original PUD (neighborhood meeting, public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and public hearing before City Council). The site was occupied by a theological seminary for more than 40 years and was rezoned in 2004 from MU-R-3-B to PUD by JVF, LLC. In 2005 Continuum Partners purchased the property from JVF. A neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed amendment was held on October 12, 2006 and on October 30, 2006 the Amendment 1 application was submitted. It was reviewed by the City and all notices and postings were as previously stated. Amendment 1 does not change the general character of the development. It is still for-sale residential with a retail component. There are no changes to the allowed uses, building height, signage, fencing or density proposed in Amendment 1. Changes proposed include modification to the building configurations, building envelopes, landscaping, setbacks and the phasing of the project. There is also a reduction in the amount of retail space proposed and parking ratio. Outside of the site is a change in the tum lane configuration at Hampden and University to mitigate intersection conflicts that have been identified. The applicant is working on those issues with the Colorado Department of Transportation. The improved layout will function within the intent of the original PUD rezoning. Ms. Langon asked if there were any questions regarding the process. She said Mr. l<evin Foltz, from Continuum Partners, will address technical questions on the project. There were no questions for Ms. Langon. She introduced Mr. Foltz. Mr. l<evin Foltz was sworn in. Mr. Foltz introduced his team, Mr. Jeremy Bieker and l<evin McMahon from David Owen Tryba Architects, Mr. Stephen Wilson and David Center, MB Consulting, the civil engineers and landscape architects, and Mr. Steve Tuttle of Fox-Higgins Consulting, the transportation engineers. From Continuum Partners we have Ms. Justine Willman, Project Coordinator, Tom Gougeon, Chief Development Officer, and Mr. Rob Straka and Mr. Jim Hartman, Project Managers. Mr. Foltz stated Continuum Partners is a local company established in 1997. They are a long-term asset building developer, not a build and flip developer. At this time Mr. Foltz g2ve a powerpoint presentation on the entire project. He compared the old PUD to the one he is proposing. Differences include: density reduction, both in the residential and commercial, parking and traffic circulation improvement, and phasing and schedule improvement. He stated probably the largest change to the design is the second phase by reducing and eliminating the townhomes along the northern border while keeping the two towers at their currently approved heights and configurations, but now extending the envelope slightly. Build-out is reduced from approximately 7 years to 5 years. Mr. Bleile asked why the lower density . Mr. Foltz addressed the residential density first. He said it was more of a scale issue, the massing of the project. The scale of the central courtyard having two large towers on either side was a hindrance to the functionality of the central courtyard . Also, they did not feel it 3 • helped the streetscape along the townhomes on the west side of the project....townhomes should face townhomes. On the north side it was a function of traffic circulation through the project and parking . The demands that the higher density along the north side will put on the project from a parking standpoint means bigger, deeper garages and the circulation through the garages is impacted. • • He stated it is very much the same for the retail. It is the scale of the buildings, how they relate in scale to the towers, and how the retail needed to be at the same scale as the townhomes. The townhomes and the retail need to fill out the base of the village. They did not want to keep pumping up retail square footage and driving parking demands up. Views from the towers are spectacular and we are now preserving more of those views along the west side . Mr. Bleile asked what retail has committed to the project. Mr. Foltz said at this time there is a bank . They are under negotiations with a private wealth management office, a fine dining restaurant, boutique grocer, pharmacy, florist, coffee shop, and various clothing stores . Mr. Brick asked what the price ranges were for the residential. Mr. Foltz stated it is between $500,000 and $2,500,000. The row houses are expected to be under $1,000,000. Ms. Mosteller asked what school district the project is in. Mr. Foltz stated it is the Cherry Creek School District. She also asked what the family friendly aspects of the project are. Mr . Foltz stated they will have a pool, fitness club, and a social club. The project is geared more to the empty nester, but with the townhomes it is a great project for families of all ages. Mr. Welker stated he can see some improvements in the site circulation and some of the massing. He said the row houses decrease the impact on l<ent Village because the height is minimized in that area of the project, but feels there is a tremendous amount of height and bulk in the proposed buildings in the second phase on the north side. He asked how many units are in the proposed second phase buildings. Mr. Foltz said approximately 165 units could be built out in the two buildings. Mr. Welker asked how that compared to what was proposed before. Mr. Foltz stated it would be compared to everything, including the townhomes that were proposed. He said the total number of units potentially is the same. The number of allowable units has not changed. Mr. Welker asked if it was safe to say there are 50 more units in the proposed tower complex than was in the original tower. Mr. Foltz said that is probably a fair range. Mr. Welker asked if the two wings were where the additional units would be . Mr. Foltz stated that was correct. Mr. Welker stated he ran numbers on the setbacks from the north towers to the north property line and according to his calculation it is presently shown in the range of 88 feet. Mr. Foltz stated that is correct. Mr. Welker said the protrusion of the two wings is another 59 feet. Mr . Foltz said that also was correct. Mr. Welker said as you move a massive building back toward the homes north of the property you are going to cast a same height shadow at least that 59 feet further in the winter time. Mr. Foltz agreed. Mr. Welker said because you are also massing further north and south the length of duration the shadow will cast is going to be also longer because the building has more depth north to south. Mr. Foltz agreed. Mr . Welker stated that is the negative impact of this design to the people who 4 • are living to the north, even though the other things seem to be all pos itiv e. The views for the people living to the north are also impacted. Since the towers have not yet been designed, right now you are basically allowed to go the full 300 feet east to w est and at least 165 feet high. It is not two littl e towers with a space in between. This is a fairly large massive building 300 feet long. It is more massive than what was previously p rop osed. He stated he felt Continuum was giv in g their own custome rs a good view, but at the subtraction of the rights of the other people. Mr. Foltz said again, it is designed as an envelope by which to work within. Mr . Welker stated he understood that, but yo u can build the envelope to the maximum in a ll dimensions so if the Commission a llo ws the enve lope to be that big, indeed we could expect it to be that big. Mr. Foltz agreed . • • Mr. Welker said the shadow lin e has not been decreased whatsoeve r. Mr. Foltz said we be li eve in the summer to the equ in ox the shadow line is reduced. Mr. Welker said in genera l you have not reduced by that setback any shadowing on any of the properties to the north. The proposed tower shadow is higher than the previous 46 foot high res id ential shadow. Mr . Foltz said he thought the previous shadow st ud y shows it a little b it differently. Mr . Welker said he felt they had not mitigated, in fact, he said he fe lt the new plan has exacerbated the shadowing effect and the bu il ding is 60 feet closer to the people to the north. Mr. Foltz stated the reason the proposed building was extended to the north was to give them the flexibi lit y to turn the building and improve the corridor and circu lation through the middle . Mr. Welker asked if there was going to be a separation between the two towers on the north . Mr. Foltz said that is definitely the intent, but ri ght now the buildings are not designed and we do not know exactly what the buildings will look like. Mr. Welker said that to him that would be a mitigation of that height and mass to have that open a nd may improve the views from those homes. Ms. l<rieger asked what the genera l reaction was to th e re sid e nt 's meeting. Mr. Foltz stated he cou ld summarize it as pos itiv e. There were more questions regarding improving the traffic than how the residents along the north are goi ng to be affected . Ms. Mosteller asked if Continuum has conducted a shadow study . Mr. Foltz said they extrapo lated from the origina l shadow study as to what the two addit ional w in gs would do throughout the year. Mr. Foltz said the General Contractor for the project is GE John so n Constru ctio n. Chair Roth thanked Mr. Foltz for his testimony. Mr. Stephen Tuttle was sworn in. Mr. Tuttle reviewed the traffic patterns, lane changes/improvements to Hampden Avenue and South University Bou leva rd an d bus stops along Hampden Avenue and South University Bou levard . 5 • Chair Roth thanked Mr. Tuttle for his testimony. • Mr. C. F. Morgan of l<ent Village was sworn in . He said he believes the project is a major step forward for the City and an asset to l<ent Village and the surrounding environment notwithstanding some of the problems that have been talked about. He thanked the developer for their cooperation and feels they are doing a good job. Mr. F.A. Pickard was sworn in . Mr. Pickard said he is part of the neighborhood and very proud of the neighborhood and feels this project is a significant improvement. He stated he was not aware of the neighborhood meeting on October 12 111 • He was interested in the pedestrian access from the west and was informed the Commission would address that question later in the meeting. Chair Roth asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. There was no one else. Mr. Welker asked Mr. Foltz to address the pedestrian access all around the project. Mr. Foltz stated the western border is l<ent Village and part of the requirements from the original PUD for the western and northern boundary is a sound wall that is a minimum of 10 feet high. There is no pedestrian access through to either the west or the north through the property. Off-site improvements to sidewalks will be made to connect up to existing sidewalks along Hampden and University as well as a sidewalk north of the project signal to Floyd Place along the east side of University . Chair Roth asked if there were any further comments or questions. There were none. t/is . Krieger moved: Mr. l(noth seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #ZON2006-00003 BE CLOSED. AYES: NAYS : Brick, l<noth, Roth, Krieger, Diekmeier, Bleile, Mosteller, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hunt Motion carried. Ms. Krieger stated she agreed with Mr. Welker that there is a lot of good in the changes that have been made such as the wider roadways and the smaller massing of the buildings, except for the largest building. She felt the largest building is a concern. She said overall, the project is a valuable asset to Englewood and felt it will be a quality project. Mr. Welker said he felt the aspects addressed at the meeting were beneficial. He stated from every point of view except for the people to the north it is all an improvement. • Chair Roth asked if there was any further discussion. There were none . 6 • • • Ms. l<rieger moved: Mr. Bleile seconded: CASE #ZON2006-00003, DENVER SEMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT 7 AS PROPOSED, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WIT/-/ A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: AYES: NAYS: PUD DISTRICT PLAN 7. The PUD District Plan is in conformance with the District Plan requirements and the Comprehens i ve Plan. 2. It is consistent with adopted and genera lly accepted development standards in the City of Englewood. 3. It is substantially consistent with the goals, objectives, design guidelines, policies and any other ordinance, law or requirements of the City. PUD SITE PLAN 7. 2 . 3. 4. The PUD Site Plan is also in conformance with the District Plan requirements. All required documents, drawings, recommendations and approvals have been r ece ived. The PUD Site Plan is consistent with adopted and generally accepted standards of development of the City of Eng l ewood. The PUD Site Plan is substantially consistent with the goals, objectives and policies and/or any other ordinance, law or r equirements of the City. l<noth, Roth, l<rieger, Diekmeier, Welke r, Mostell er, Bleil e, Brick None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hunt Motion ca rried. V. PUBLIC FORUM The re was no one present to add ress the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR 'S C HOICE There was no Director present. 7 ' . , • VII. STAFF'S CHOICE • • Ms. Langon stated the next meeting will be December 19, 2006, which will be a telephone poll to approve the Findings of Fact for Case #ZON2006-00003, Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 1. The January 9 111 meeting will be a Study Session to update the Commission on the Smal l Area Plan . The January 17 1 " meeting is on a Wednesday due to the Martin Luther l<ing, Jr . holiday. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid had nothing further. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Welker said for those of you who were not at the first meeting regarding the Denver Seminary there was a lot of the same discussion and co ncerns by the audie nce. A lot more peop le attended the first session . Ms. Krieger said she feels the lower attendance at this meeting shows the positive neighborhood fee lin g about the project. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m . 8 • • • The recording secretary conducted a poll of 9 Planning and Zoning Commission members via telephone for the approval of the December 5, 2006 Minutes and the Findings of Fact in Case #ZON2006-00003, Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 1. The December 5, 2006 Minutes were approved. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Roth, Bleile, Brick, Knoth, Krieger, Welker None Diekmeier, Mosteller Hunt The Findings of Fact in Case #ZON2006-00003, Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 1 were approved. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Roth, Bleile, Brick, Knoth , Krieger, Welker None Diekmeier, Mosteller Hunt