Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-07 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 7, 2006 I. 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 the Eng lewood Civic Center, Chair l<rieg e r presiding. Present: Absent: Staff : Brick, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Welker, Bleile, Mostell e r Knoth (Excused) Diekmeier (Unexcused) Tricia Langon, Senior Planner Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 11 , 2006 Mr. Roth moved: Mr. Hunt seconded: TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 11 , 2006 MINUTES AS AMENDED. Mr. Welker stated he had a correction on the top of page 5, first paragraph, last sentence . AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Welker, Brick None Mosteller, Bleile Diekmeier, Knoth Motion carried. Ill. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Welker moved; Mr. Hunt seconded: THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN CASE #USE2005-00010, 21 EAST BATES AVENUE BE APPROVED AS WRITIEN. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Welker, Brick, None Bleile, Mosteller Diekmeier, Knoth The motion carried. 1 IV. PU BLIC HEARING Case #USE2005-00011 3060 South Acoma Street Chair Krieger asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Bleile moved: Ms. Mosteller seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #USE2005-00011 BE OPENED. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Bleile, Hunt, Krieger, Mosteller, Roth, Welker None None Diekmeier, Knoth Motion carried. Chair Krieger asked staff to present the case. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner was sworn in. Ms . Langon stated the issue before the Commission is Case #USE2005-00011. The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use to allow a parking area for operable vehicles as a principal use within the MU-R-3-A Mixed Use Residential/Limited Office -Retail Zone District as part of a retail and residential mixed-use redevelopment at 3057 South Broadway. Ms . Langon stated the property was properly posted on February 20, 2006 for the required 15 days prior to the hearing and was published in the Englewood H erald on February 1 7, 2006. This was done in accordance with Section 16-2:3G of the Englewood Municipal Code. Ms. Langon stated the applicant could not provide certification as to the posting at the meeting, but the applicant will provide that certification to staff on Wednesday, March 8, 2006. The subject property is at 3060 South Acoma Street, mid block between West Cornell and West Dartmouth Avenue . It is approximately 4,600 square feet in area and has a street frontage of 3 7 112 feet, so it is a sub-standard lot. It is zoned MU-R-3-A, Mixed Use Residential/Limited Office -Retail Zone District. Parking for operable vehicles is an allowed use in this district if approved as a Conditional Use. Zoning of adjacent properties to the north and south is MU-R-3-A. To the east, the property is zoned MU-B-2, Business District, and contains commercial uses. To the west, across the street, the zone is MU-R-3-B, which is a mix of single unit and multi-unit residences. Residential uses are a mix of single and duplex units in the R-3-A district and the abutting property to the north is occupied by a duplex. Abutting property to the south is also a parking area. Prior to 1987 this property was a resid ential use and in 1987 the home on the property was demolished and a parking lot was put in. At that time, the property was zoned R-4 and 2 parking lot use was a permitted use by-right. In 2004, with the adoption of the Unified Development Code, two significant changes occurred: 1. the zone district was renamed from R-4 to MU-R-3-A and 2. The parking lot use that had been a use by-right under the old R-4 became a Conditional Use. This change in the Code is what necessitates this Public Hearing because the property is going to be redeveloped as a parking lot in association with a mixed-use development at 3057 South Broadway. Six parking spaces are proposed to provide parking for the mixed-use on Broadway. The focus of this Public Hearing is the parking lot in the MU-R-3-A district, it is not the standard or designs of the Mixed Use development. The proposal was reviewed by the Development Review Team, the City's seven departments that review proposals and permits. All departments and divisions accepted the proposed plan. The plan provides for one-way traffic circulation entering off Acoma Street and existing through the alley as it does currently in the existing parking lot. It maintains a district regulation that prohibits parking within the front setback of a residential zoned district and it also provides landscaping and screening to mitigate noise and light. The proposed parking lot also meets all applicable Englewood Municipal Code requirements. The purpose of this Planning and Zoning Commission hearing is to review the application and for Planning and Zoning Commission to determine, first, that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and second, that the proposal meets the five criterion of Title 16 and those are all found in 16-2-12 Conditional Use Permits. As a quick review the proposal does meet the Comprehensive Plan first because the landscape design of the parking area supports the Comprehensive Plan's goal of improved community cleanliness and visual beauty and the existing parking lot is total asphalt paving, not very pretty and does allow parking all the way from one end of the property to the other. The plan also supports the mixed-use development on Broadway and therefore supports and encourages mixed-use development to achieve a vibrant community. It also encourages housing that serves different life-cycle stages and provides a wider range of housing types. The Commission should review this application on the following criteria: 1. The use must be permitted as a Conditional Use in the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. In Table 15-5-1.1: Table of Allowed Uses, a parking area for operable vehicles as a principal use is permitted within the MU-R-3-A District. 2. The proposal shall not create significant adverse impacts on either the existing development in the surrounding neighborhood or on any future development permitted by this Title. Significant adverse impacts include but are not limited to: a. Significant increases in traffic generation and parking. As previously stated, the site has been used as a parking area for several decades.; b. Lack of screening of parking. Landscaping will be added to buffer noise and light; c. Streetscape landscaping. Landscaping will be added to enhance the area and an improvement over the existing asphalt condition; 3. The number of off-street parking spaces shall not be less than the requirements of Section 16-6-4 of the Englewood Municipal Code. This condition does not apply. 3 4. The Conditional Use shall meet all other applicable prov1s1ons of the Englewood Municipal Code. The Development Review Team reviewed and agreed that all Englewood Municipal Code provisions are met by the proposal. 5. If the application is for a telecommunications tower or antenna, it shall also conform with any additional standards and requirements for such uses specified in Chapter 16-7 of the Englewood Municipal Code. The condition also does not apply. The three standards that apply are 1, 2 and 4. Staff feels that the proposal does meet the three criteria and does meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore staff is recommending approval of Case #USE2005-00011 . Ms. Langon stated she or the applicant would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Brick stated he did not see bicycle parking on the plan nor did he read anything regarding bicycle parking in the information. Ms. Langon stated bicycle parking would be provided for the development on the Broadway property. She stated this is a parking lot and parking lots do not require bicycle parking, development does as a building or use. Mr. Bleile asked Ms. Langon if the parking lot was owned by the Broadway property owner. She stated it was the same owner. Mr. Welker noted he did not see a specific note on the plans that the trash enclosure is a six foot high fence, but he said he did see in the notes that is what the plan is. Should that be required to be put on the plan as a solid six foot high fence around the trash enclosure? Ms . Langon stated that could be made a condition, but when the plans are submitted for the actual development of the parking lot that will be a requirement. Mr. Welker noticed the fence along the north property line is shown as six feet high in some locations and three feet high in others, but the description of solid is in the notes. Ms . Langon stated that was correct. Solid means that you would not be able to see through the fence, the three foot is within the first twenty-five foot setback and then it goes to a six foot. Mr. Welker stated he likes to see it on the plans because the solidness of it is what provides the barrier between the car lights and may help with the vegetation in some cases. Ms. Langon asked Mr. Welker if he would like to have it as a condition or just that it be noted on the plans when they are submitted for development. Mr. Welker stated he just wanted it to be part of the record . Staff will note that when the plans are submitted for development of the parking lot that that will be a solid enclosure . Mr. Bleile asked whether the Conditional Use hearing tonight would impact whether or not the proposed redevelopment goes forward or not. Ms. Langon stated yes, in the sense that if they do not have the parking on the site, then the applicant would have to provide parking in some other manner. 4 Mr. Welker stated he was changing his mind regarding the solid fence. He stated Ms. Mosteller pointed out to him that on the plans it calls for a chain link fence on the development of 3060 S. Acoma, which is not the same thing. Mr. Welker also noted that the lot number was incorrect on the plans . Ms. Langon stated the lot number will be corrected to show Lot 18. Chair Krieger asked the Commission if they had additional questions for Ms. Langon. They had nothing further. Chair l<rieger called the applicant, Richard Weigang, to the podium and he was sworn in. Chair Krieger asked Mr. Wiegang to testify that the posting was in fact done. Mr. Wiegang stated the posting was done for the required 15 days. Mr. Brick again asked about the provision for bicycle racks on either property. He stated two bicycle racks are required. Mr. Wiegang stated on the blueprint there are bicycle racks right to the east of the garages in the area between the building and garages. Mr. Brick thanked Mr. Wiegang for pointing it out. Ms. Mosteller asked Mr. Wiegang to briefly describe the lighting that is proposed . He stated there is none proposed. Mr. Wiegang thanked the Commission for hearing his case. Chair Krieger thanked Mr. Wiegang and asked if anyone else had any further questions or comments. They did not. Mr. Bleile moved; Mr. Brick seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #USE2005-00011, 3060 SOUTH ACOMA STREET. AYES: NAYS: Brick, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Welker. Bleile, Mosteller None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Diekmeier, Knoth Motion carried. Mr. Brick moved; Mr. Hunt seconded TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR CASE #USE2005-00011 TO ALLOW A PARKING AREA FOR OPERABLE VEHICLES AS A PRINCIPAL USE WITHIN THE MU-R-3-A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED OFFICE RETAIL ZONE DISTRICT WITH THE CONDITION THERE WILL BE A SOLID FENCE AND A s SOLID TRASH ENCLOSURE ALONG THE NORTH LINE. Mr. Bleile wanted to know what happens if the Commission approves the Conditional Use and the redevelopment does not go through. Chair Krieger stated the redevelopment, as she und ers tands it, is a use by-right so it can't not go through. Ms. Mosteller stated she was in favor of the Conditional Use because it meets all the requirements that are set forth in the Code, is an allowed use within the zone district, it has no adverse impacts on the neighborhood, in fact, I think it improves the neighborhood, it adheres to the Code and both directly and indirectly contributes to furthering our Comprehensive Plan. Chair Krieger agreed. Mr. Welker stated he felt the landscaping has been taken to a point where it sets an example that he would like to see rather than just throwing some wheel stops on some pavement and calling it a parking lot. Chair Krieger asked if there were any other comments. There were none . With no further discussion, the secretary called the roll. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Hunt, Krieger, Roth, Welker. Bleile, Mosteller None None Diekmeier, Knoth Motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VI. ELECTIONS Mr. Welker moved; Ms . Mosteller seconded : TO ELECT MR. ROTH AS CHAIR AND MR. BLEILE AS VICE CHAIR Chair Krieger asked if there were any other nominations. There were none. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Mosteller, Hunt, Krieger, Bleile, Roth, Welk er None None Knoth, Diekmeier 6 Motion carried. VII . DIRECTOR 'S CHOICE Ms. Langon congratulated Mr. Roth and Mr. Bleile . Ms. Langon stated the meeting on March 21 st will have the Findings of Fact of Case #USE2005-00011. She stated it was unlikely the handbook would be completed at that time. Staff will be presenting some economic development information at that meeting. Director Simpson and several planners will discuss economic development, letting you know what is going on and what is coming up in the City. There will also be a discussion regarding future economic development policies. On April 18t11, tentatively scheduled, is the Englewood Housing Authority Planned Unit Development Public Hearing. Chair Krieger asked if there would be a conflict for Mr. Roth to be in charge of that meeting. Ms. Langon stated there would not be a conflict. Ms. Langon stated a second Public Hearing will be held for an amendment to the existing Denver Seminary PUD. Details are not available at this time. An add itional topic in the future w ill be the budget i nformation. VIII. ATTORNEY 'S CHOICE Ms . Reid introduced Mr. Ron Fish, the new A lternate member. I X. COMMISSION ER'S CHOICE Ms. Mostell er asked Ms. Langon for an exp lanation for a form based code or the rehab codes that are trendy now. Ms. Langon stated the current code is a perm issive code and basically means if it is not written in the code then it is not allowed. There are form based codes and there are performance codes. They are those where in Districts most anything can occur provided you meet the performance standards. Our code is more prescriptive, it prescribes what is allowed, what is not allowed and it's more black and white. Under the other types of code, if you meet certain conditions, if you can meet certain standards, if you maybe provide extra of something, something else can be lessened. It's a more flexible method. Chair Krieger stated it is less zoned based. Ms. Langon agreed. It is a less formalized code and more based on performance. Ms. Mosteller asked Ms. Langon if she had seen anything on rehab code. Ms. Langon stated she is not familiar with that term. Ms. Mosteller stated she had seen it for the first time last week. She stated it was in an article about first ring suburbs and what some of the communities are trying to do. Ms. Mosteller said she would locate the article and get a copy to Ms. Langon for her review. 7 Mr. Bleile asked about the Denver Seminary. He stated he assumed that was on hold until the Public Hearing. Ms. Langon stated demolition has not begun. The work that has been done was done by the Seminary itself. They had to do the asbestos abatement prior to the closing. The property was purchased by Continuum Partners in December 2005. They have been considering different options. Basically, how much can they do in minor modifications that do not trigger the full amendment process. One area that is going to trigger the amendment process is parking. Discussions have been held, but Ms. Langon stated she could not discuss details at this time. She stated demolition could start late spring, early summer. Ms. Mosteller asked who is responsible for cleaning up the graffiti at the Denver Seminary site. Ms. Langon stated the current property owner is responsible and staff has been in discussion regarding that issue. The owner is somewhat waiting for the City's determination as to whether they had to go through the full amendment process. If not, they would probably move forward more quickly with the demolition. Th ey are also in discussion with the l<ent Village Homeowner's Association regarding the wall and the construction of that wall. Mr. Bleile asked if a new planner had been hired. Ms. Langon stated yes, in fact two people have been hired. The planning technician, Ryan Huffman, started on March 6th. The new planner starts on March 20th. Also, with Barbara l<recklow starting, as of March 20th we will be at full staff. Chair Krieger welcomed the new Recording Secretary and Mr. Ron Fish, the new Alternate. She also congratulated Mr. Roth and Mr. Bleile on their appointments. Mr. Roth stated on March 3th Englewood Urban Renewal Authority will be considering two proposals for the Acoma Street property. One of the proposals involves a theater and condos. The challenge financially for the City is to maintain the 100 parking spaces . He stated he feels it will be a boost for the downtown area . Mr. Hunt asked Mr. Roth just exactly where that project is located. He stated it is along Acoma b etween Old Hampden and Englewood Parkway. Mr. Roth also presented a flyer from a realtor that was distributed to his home. It stated the company was wanting to purchase five or more homes in the next ninety days. Mr. Welker welcomed the new recording secretary and alternate. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Barbara l<recklo , Recording Secretary 8