Kimco seeks lower-density PUD at Englewood Plaza; council continues public hearing after hours of testimony

Kimco Realty and city staff presented a Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal Feb. 3 to redevelop the former Hobby Lobby property at 401 Englewood Parkway as a multi‑building, mixed‑use project with new apartments, a parking structure and an option for a hotel.

Planner Will Charles summarized the PUD request and staff and Planning & Zoning Commission recommendations. The site is in the MUB‑1 (Central Business) zone and inside the Transit Station Area (TSA) overlay, which sets a minimum density of 75 dwelling units per acre; Kimco asked the council to rezone the parcel under a PUD to allow substantially lower density (roughly 40–66 DU/acre depending on whether a hotel is added) because a major drainage easement bisects the parcel and constrains buildable area.

The proposal calls for a west‑side multi‑family building of at least 260 units, a parking garage and a second phase that would either be a branded hotel or, if no hotel partner is secured, an additional roughly 140 residential units. Kimco said the project would reduce surface parking from roughly 400 spaces to about 146 and rely on a garage to meet required parking. The plan would also expand the existing drainage easement (Little Dry Creek culvert) from 40 to 70 feet to preserve access for infrastructure.

Kimco land‑use counsel Carolyn White and Director of Development Mark Rickards presented design concepts and neighborhood outreach results. Outreach included two community meetings (March and September 2024) and briefings to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA); the DDA provided a conditional letter of support recommending up to 10% of units at 80–120% area median income (AMI), 5% fully accessible units, and a greenway treatment along Cherokee Street. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval with conditions that largely track the DDA suggestions and add public‑improvement commitments (ADA upgrades, pedestrian and traffic calming measures, and a multimodal fee in lieu).

Public testimony was mixed. Supporters and business leaders said the project would replace largely vacant retail with housing and a hotel that could spur economic activity; the DDA executive director said the project ‘‘would turn around a largely mostly vacant parcel that is creating a sense of blight and nuisance activity’’ and recommended conditional support. Opponents — including nearby residents and local business owners — warned of over‑densification, traffic and parking pressures and the loss of locally based, year‑round businesses. A nearby seasonal business owner and several residents asked the developer to consider a configuration that retained active small retail or entertainment uses rather than converting all space to apartments.

Council members pressed the applicant on multiple issues: whether a nationally branded hotel partner has been secured (answer: no; Kimco plans to market but wants PUD flexibility to convert to additional residential if a hotel is not available), how parking will be sized if the hotel is built versus residential, and whether the drainage easement work would be done now or left to the city later. Kimco said it preferred to retain PUD flexibility so construction could proceed if a hotel partner cannot be secured, and confirmed it would follow applicable drainage report and stormwater requirements at final civil permitting.

Procedural outcome: Council opened the public hearing, received extended testimony and then voted 6–0 to close the public hearing for that session. Councilors asked staff and the applicant for follow‑up written material on a few narrow issues (clarification of sidewalk/rail‑trail connections, drainage easement scope and timing, and documentation supporting proposed hotel parking ratios). After further discussion council set a procedural plan: the public‑hearing record will remain open and the item will be continued on the Feb. 18 agenda as a regular item for additional staff responses; the first reading vote on any ordinance will be scheduled at a later meeting to allow council time to review responses.

What to watch: the council asked for three staff/applicant clarifications before advancing the PUD: (1) how the proposed bridge/path and sidewalks will connect to the Oxford light‑rail station and whether the short northern access gap will be built as part of the project; (2) whether the city needs to expand or replace the Little Dry Creek culvert now (staff said the culvert is in good condition but under study and that the 70‑foot easement will preserve future options); and (3) documentation supporting the applicant’s requested hotel parking reduction (applicant offered to default to the city’s parking standard for hotels if council prefers).

The item remains under consideration; council allowed written submissions to join the record and scheduled additional staff follow‑up before a final zoning decision.