Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-04 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 4, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. in Conference Room A of the Englewood City Hall, Chairman Welker presiding. Members present: Members absent: Se c retary's Note: Staff present: Rininger, Stockwell , Weber, Willis, Welker Lathram, Sauter Two vacancies M ark Graham , Senior Planner Lauri Dannemiller, Planning Analyst Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, 2000 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of March 21, 2000 were to be considered for approval. Rininger moved: Stockwell seconded: The Minutes of March 21 , 2000 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Stockwell , Weber, Willis , Rininger, Welker None None Sauter, Lathram The motion carried. III. HISTORIC DESIGNATION Skerritt House 3560 South Bannock Street CASE #HD-2000-01 Mr. Welker stated that this case is a Public Hearing on proposed historic designation of the site known as the "Skerritt House". Mr. Welker stated that he does have in hand a copy of the notice of Public Hearing, published in the Englewood Herald on March 17, 2000. He asked for a mo- tion to open the Public hearing . Willis moved: Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #HD-2000-01 be opened. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCO MM\Mi11utcs\Minu tes 2000\PC M 04-2000A.doc AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Rininger, Welker None None Lathram, Sauter The motion canied. Ms . Lauri Dannemiller was sworn in. Ms. Dannemiller stated that this application is for Historic Designation of the "Skerritt House", at 3560 South Sherman Street. Ms. Dannemiller briefly re- viewed the background material, which accompanied the application. She stated that staff has reviewed the application, and is of the opinion that this application does meet criteria to warrant designation as a historic property . Staff recommends approval of the application based on the following criteria: 1) The structure must be at least 50 years old. This particular structure was built in 1864. 2) The building or structure must have some connection to events or persons significant to the history of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, the State of Colorado, or the United States: The original owner, Thomas Skerritt, is considered by many to be th e "Father of • En glewood". • 3) The building or structure must exemplify or reflect the broad cultural, political , economic or social history of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Thomas Skerritt created an original homestead and owned, at one time, most of the land which became En g lewo od -from Quincy A ve nu e to Yal e, and from the railroad to Clarkson. Ms. Dannemiller stated that this concluded her presentation ; she would be happy to answer ques- tions. Ms. Dannemiller noted that Mr. Hank Long, Director of Library Services , applicant on behalf of the City of Englewood, is present. Mr. Welker noted that the Historic Preservation Ordin ance cites five criteria for an application to meet. Ms . Dannemiller stated that this is correct; however, the Ordinance , in § 16-4-24-D-l-a, states: "Only buildings or structures which have been in existence for at least fifty (50) years , or districts in which the majority of structures have been in existence for at least fifty (50) years may be designated; in addition: such building, structure or district must also meet one of the following criteria:" Mr. Willis asked if the Skerritt House has always been on the 3560 South B annock Street site . H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCO MM l.\1inutes\Minutes 2000\PCM 04-2000A.doc 2 • , • • • Mr. Hank Long was sworn in. Mr. Long testified that the original cabin constructed by Mr . Skerritt was moved to this site in 1864. The original site of the cabin was close to the river, but the cabin was moved from that site two years after it was constructed. Mr. Willis asked how many additions have been made to the original structure. Mr. Long stated that it is difficult to determine, but estimated probably four or five additions have been made. Mr. Long stated that the City of Englewood has paid for assessments of the building -structural, hazardous materials. Mr. Long stated that ultimate use of the building will be very limited -it may, after refurbishment, be used for City office purposes, or leased to a non-profit agency. It cannot be used for museum purposes. At the present time, the structure is not habitable. Mr. Willis stated that he recalled discussion of park development around the house. Mr. Long agreed that this idea had been discussed. There are other properties abutting the Skerritt property that the City would have to purchase to develop the park/open space around the house. Mr. Willis asked if there is an estimate on the cost to update the house. Mr. Long stated that re- hab of the house to "habitable" or "usable" condition is estimated at approximately $500,000. Mr. Willis asked if the City is exploring funding sources, and if funding is available through the Colorado Historical Society. Mr. Long stated that the City will be looking at a lot of outside funding sources. The City Council will have to make the decision whether to undertake the renovation of the structure now, or to delay it for a period of time. Mr. Stockwell asked if the original cabin constructed by Skerritt was moved, or whether a new cabin was constructed on the Bannock street site. Mr. Long stated that the original cabin was moved. Mr. Stockwell asked what the assessment on hazardous materials revealed. Mr. Long stated that lead paint and asbestos were discovered. He stated that the City of Englewood is waiting for in- formation from the Colorado Historical Society on ways to approach removal of the hazardous material. Mr. Willis asked if the $500,000 will improve the structure and make it habitable . Mr. Long stated that the $500,000 will enable the City to refurbish the house and make it usable -prevent the structure from falling down . Mr. Willis asked if the house is on a foundation . Mr. Long stated there is a partial foundation, but some of the structure has a "dirt" foundation. Mr. Willis asked about the garage on the site. Mr. Long stated that this will probably be torn down; it is not of historical significance, and was not part of the original "Skerritt property". Mr. Welker asked if there were further questions from the Commission. Stockwell moved: Willis seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #HD-2000-01 be closed. H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\."1inu1es\Minu1es 2000\PCM 04-2000A.doc AYES: NAYS : Weber, Willis , Rininger, Stockwell , Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Lathram, Sauter The motion carried. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. He noted that a recommendation would be forwarded to City Council for their final determination. Rininger moved: Willis seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that Historic Des- ignation of the Skerritt House , 3560 South Bannock Street, be approved. Mr. Welker asked if there was any discussion . Mr. Willis asked about securing the $500,000 needed to refurbish the propert y. Mr. Welker stated that securing funding is the responsibility of City Council. The vote was called. AYES : NAYS: Willi s , Rininger, Stockwell , Weber, Welker None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: L athram , Sauter The motion carried. *********** Mr. Welker suggested that the Region al Plan discussion be in "study session ", and that the re- mainder of the agenda be cleared before adjournment to study session . ********** IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Grah am stated that he had nothing to bring before the Commission . VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid brought nothing up for discussion. H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2000\PCM ()4.2000A.doc ' • • • • • • VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Welker stated that a letter of resignation from Bill Douglas, effective immediately, has been received. Mr. Douglas has taken a position that requires quite a bit of travel , and he would be absent from Commission meetings a good deal of the time. Mr. Welker noted that the Commission now has two vacancies. The issue of what constitutes a quorum was discussed. When the Commission has the full membership of nine , the quorum is five in attendance ; does five members in attendance still constitute a quorum when the member- ship has dropped to seven , or is it a simple majority of four members out of seven in attendance . Discussion ensued. Ms. Reid stated that she would research this issue and report back to the Commission at the next meeting . The formal meeting adjourned. Commission members relocated to the Community Room for the ensuing study se ssion on the Metro Vision 20 20 Regional Plan. * * * * * * * * * * Metro Vision 2020 -Regional Plan Mr. Graham stated that staff prepared a list of the concepts and objectives, excerpted from the Denver Regional Council of Government 's (DRCOG) Metro Vision 2020 Plan , and included this in the packet for this meeting. Mr. Graham stated that staff is asking whether the Commission feels the y ha ve discussed the various fa cets of the Regional Plan sufficiently to schedule a Public Hearing on inclusion of these facets as part of the Englewood Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Graham stated that the Regional Plan is important to Englewood, and cited the following: 1) Englewood's quality o f life is linked to the region . 2) Resolving region al quality of li fe concerns requires regional cooperation. 3 ) Metro Vision 2020 provides a mechanism for regional cooperation. 4) Adopting Metro Vision 2020 supports regional cooperation and quality of life in Engle- wood. 5 ) Therefore, inaction on Metro Vision 2020 may adversely affect regional cooperation, re- gion al quality of life , and Englewood quality of life. Mr. Graham noted that the State Legislature has not been successful in passing land use legisla- tion, and it appears the issue will be on the ballot this fall. Mr. Graham stated that the Regional Plan addresses issues such as open space , air quality, water quality, urban centers , and multimodal transportation. Englewood, alone, cannot resolve these issues , but with DRCOG's 40 member agencies working together, problems can be resolved. There can be great incentives for regional cooperation stated Mr. Graham, and cited the monies that have been received for South Broadway improvements; these are federal funds , which are brokered to participating municipalities by DRCOG . H:IG RO UP\BOARDSIPLANCOM M\."1 inu tes\Min ute s 2000\PC M 04 -2000 A.doc Mr. Graham discussed proposed funding for improvements in the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor, and noted that the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and • HUD are talking about $5,000,000 to $10,000 ,000 funding participation. Funds could be used to purchase property for open space , improve wetlands along the river, or improve recreational as- pects along the river-such as for boating or kayaking. A commitment of $100K has been made for a study on the South Platte River to be done within the next 12 months. The Planning Commission needs to make policy statements such as: The South Platte River is a good location to develop for regional open space; or the City of Englewood is a good place to develop regional open space . Mr. Graham stated that it is important to have community support of the regional plan. He asked if members of the Commission felt that the concepts and objec- tives set forth by staff are something the citizens of Englewood can support . Mr. Welker referred to a notice from Arapahoe County regarding the County Open Space meet- ing, and inquired what the hierarchy is -City, to County , to DRCOG? Mr. Graham discussed the Arapahoe County open space committee , and the proposed open space sales tax that may be on the November ballot. Mr. Graham stated that cities generate revenues to develop an open space "buffer" around the edges of the urbanized area ; there are other funds available to add to this "buffer", and a municipality c an a lso apply for specific project funding . Ms. Dannemiller noted that there are several funding sources for open space; Arapahoe County could be a funding source , GOCO , which is funded by lottery f unds , is a source, and there are grants funds available upon successful application. Mr. Welker asked if the Arapahoe County open space plan overlays any open space plan that Englewood may develop. Ms. Dannerniller suggested that if the County does adopt an overlay open space plan , they would look at the Englewood Pl a n . Mr. Graham stated that there is a committee that is de veloping the County Plan; one member is from Aurora , and one member is from Littleton, but most of the members are from unincorporated Arapahoe County. Englewood does not have any representation on this committee. Mr. Graham stated that an invitation has been extended to this committee to address the Englewood City Council at their study session on April l01h; the County committee wanted some feedback from Englewood by April 1 ih. Mr. Welker noted that most of the South Platte River from Denver south to the Douglas County line is not controlled by Englewood. Sheridan controls development along a good portion of the River. Improvement of this ri ver corridor should be a high priorit y for all jurisdictions involved. Mr. Welker stated that Englewood needs to "make our presence known ". Mr. Graham stated that support for open space is quite good right now . Financing open space acquisition and development was discussed . Mr. Graham noted previous discussions regarding an "un-funded needs list" -needs that we know cannot be funded through typical budget channels , but could be funded with grants, or funds from cooperative ventures such as with the Army Corps of Engineers , EPA, and HUD . Mr. Willis stated that it is important to preserve open space within the City as well as along the • river. He stated that citizens need to be aware of this important need . • H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Minu 1es 2000\PCM 04-2000A.Joc I • • • Ms. Dannerrtiller stated that one of the goal s cited for improvements to the South Platte River is use for active recreational activities. She further stated that until a "plan" is in place, it is diffi- cult to request funds -granting agencies want to see the plan and know how the money will be used. Mr. Welker stated that Littleton is ahead of E nglewood regarding the improvements along the River, and reiterated that Sheridan controls at least one-half or more of the river from the Denver City lirrtits to Littleton City limits; he emphasized the importance of cooperation among Engle- wood, Littleton and Sheridan -and Denver, if possible -on the river improvements. Ms. Reid noted that if the County participates in the Metro Vision plan, it is important that the City has representation. Mr. Welker suggested that Englewood can make our presence known by attendance at the meetings even if we don't have someone appointed to the comrrtittee. Discus- sion ensued. Mr. Graham noted that many communities have already developed plans to deal with their sec- tion of the South Platte River; Englewood and Sheridan have not. Mr. Graham cited several agencies that may be of aid in purchasing property along the River-the State Division of Wild Life, the Water Conservation Board, and the State Parks Department. Once a policy is in place and a plan is developed , staff can then search for funding sources to implement the plan . Mr. Welker cited other waterways through Englewood in addition to the South Platte River, such as Big Dry Creek and Little Dry Creek. He noted that Englewood cannot control what Sheridan does along their section of the River. Ms. Dannerrtiller pointed out that by developing a coopera- tive effort, at least Englewood would have input, and rrtight exert some pressure to follow through on improvements. Mr. Welker stated that he thinks the issue of open space is clearer now than it was two years ago. The Planning Commission needs to pull everything together, and consider the development on both sides of Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Graham agreed that the need for open space and the improve- ments that can be accomplished are easier to visualize now that it's been "pioneered" on other sectors of the river. Mr. Welker stated that if the plan w as in place, bicycle paths. could be ex- panded and improved, and that all development along this corridor wou ld be weighed against the plan . Mr. Graham pointed out that when the Comrrtission considers the Capital Improvement program, they could consider each request and deterrrtine whether it is really a "capital improvement pro- ject" or an operating budget expense if the concepts , objectives, and implementation plan were in place . Mr. Graham further noted that Community Development Director Simpson has asked de- partmental directors to attend the Commission meeting when the Capital Improvement Program is considered to discuss their requested projects . Funding was further discussed. Mr. Graham noted that the Army Corps of Engineers had come up with $9 ,000 ,000 within about three months time for a City of Denver project near Colfax; Englewood was asked to look at our section of the river, and if we were interested in their assis- tance. The Corps does request 25 % matching funds. Mr. Graham suggested that the City needs H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIPLAN CO MMl."1 inutes\Min utes 2000\PCM 04-2000A.doc to consider ways to get the matching funds so that we can take advantage of the Corps ' assis- tance . Discussion ensued. • Ms . Reid discussed improvement along Big Dry Creek, and the need to acquire additional right- of-way from properties west of Santa Fe . She questioned whether funds from Arapahoe County, if obtained, could be part of the matching funds required by the Corps of Engineers. Improvements along the Platte River were further discussed. Ms. Dannemiller stated that Den- ver has accomplished their improvements in phases. Mr. Welker stated he was sure both Denver and Littleton would be eager to see improvements made along the Englewood/Sheridan section of the river. Mr. Willis commented on the need to m ake Englewood citizens aware of the need for open space . Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated that we need to establish goals and determine the next steps that must be taken. He further suggested that he wanted to see "nodes " of development along the corridor to enhance the enjoyment of those using the recreational and open space ven- ues. Mr. Stockwell noted th at reference has been made during the course of the discussion to "acqui- sition " of land, both by purchase and by annexation. He asked if this "acquisition " is of unincor- porated land . Will the County allow cities to annex unincorporated land? Will the County argue against annexation ? Mr. Graham stated that a nne xation is allowed ; when properties are a nnexed , the county is no • longer responsible for services such as Sheriff's patrol , etc. Mr. Graham cited a couple of sites in the Englewood/Sheridan area that are unincorporated , and that the City might be interested in annexin g. One is currently being used as a "rec yclin g center", and would require quite a bit of clean up but it is 80 acres in size . Ms. Dannemiller stated that jurisdictions can purchase prop- erty without annexation, but if it could be annexed, it would be more beneficial. She discussed the Land Trust org anization , which can purchase property and hold the property in trust until the City can purchase it. Mr. Welker discussed the "high-water mark" along the river, and property ownerships along the river; he asked if this "high-water mark" was a given distance along the course of the river. Mr. Graham noted that there is an area along the river that Public Works is looking at for "roadway" purposes ; it could be a roadway , or it could be open space . Further discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated he would like to a firm understanding of the depth of this setb ack along the river, and explore the potential for bicycle paths and development of "park nodes". Mr. Welker stated that the City must also look to the north of U.S . 285 regarding the river/Santa Fe corridor improvements. This may be more challenging bec a use it appears to have more de- velopment along the corridor. Mr. Graham stated that there are a few unincorporated parcels in this sector, and agreed it does present more of a challenge. Sheridan properties north of U.S. 285 are pretty well developed, and de-annexation of a parcel to allow annexation to another munici- pality is very difficult to accomplish. Mr. Graham suggested that the Commission should view this as a "long-term" project -over 20 years. He noted that the life-span of a typical building is • H:IG ROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2000\PCM 04-2000A.d0< \ • • 30 years approximately; if the policies and plan were in place, at such time as the buildings reach the state where replacement is warranted, or the properties come on the market, maybe the City could step in and acquire the site . Several parcels north of U.S . 285 , both within and without the City, were discussed. Funding options were further considered. Mr. Graham pointed out that GOCO will not grant Legacy funds for a simple plan -the plan must indicate phases of development and a variety of programs that the funding will advance . Amendment process of the Comprehensive Plan was discussed. Mr. Graham stated that he and Harold Stitt have been working together on this process. Mr. Stitt has suggested that the Plan itself contain concepts and objectives, and that a separate , supporting document for implementa- tion of the concepts and objectives will be written. Mr. Willis asked if any of the DRCOG member municipalities have voiced opposition to the proposed Metro Vision 2020 Region a l Plan. Mr. Graham stated th at a couple of the peripheral cities -such as Thornton and Broomfield -have expressed some opposition. These cities want to maximize the build out of their are a ; this would lead to a build-out greater than the y are pres- ently able to serve . However, DR COG has 90 % of the participatin g jurisdictions in agreement with the Regional Plan. Discussion ensued. Mr. Willis suggested that increased density will come once the light rail system is running . Mr. Graham discussed the need to determine the width of the transit corridor -should w e antici- pate increased density demands only on the east side of the corridor, or also on the west side . Mr. Graham noted that the area around the Oxford A venue light rail stat ion is developed with industrial use s, and the Hampden A venue station is in a mixed-use PUD de velopment. He noted that staff is still talking to RTD about a third light rail stop in the GIW vicinity. Mr. Graham urged the Commission to "envision " de velopment they want to see along the Platte/Santa Fe cor- ridor. He emphasized that City Council relies on the Commission to make sound study of an is- sue, and recommend actions to the Council. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker noted that whate ver plan the Commission develops don't have to be too detailed, and don 't have to have the support of the entire citizenry . Mr. Willis agreed that "concepts" need to be in the pl an , but not specifics . He did urge th at communication be improved to m ake the citi- zenry more aware of the Region a l Plan and the benefits and ramifications of participation. Mr. Welker noted that any changes need to be done in "baby steps ", and pointed out that people may have problems accepting change in their neighborhood. Ms. Dannemiller stated that community participation is necessary to the success of any program. If ad hoc groups are formed , a represent ative of the Commission should also be in each group to keep them focused. Ms . Reid commented on the community participation on the Broadway cor- ridor improvements ; the community involvement process has worked quite well on this project. The Commission discussed earlier efforts to develop a neighborhood improvement plan, and the • problems that were arose from this effort. Mr. Welker expressed the opinion that the neighbor- H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Min ute s\Min utos 2000\PCM 04-2000A.doc hood residents were not sufficiently involved in this effort, which led to the myriad of problems . Mr. Graham stated that after the proposed small area plan was formally "dead-filed", staff con-• tinued to work with several residents from the area. A major concern to these residents was the issue of traffic -both traffic on Dartmouth A venue and the prob lems children and adults had crossing this busy street to reach Cushing Park, and the issue of heavy truck traffic through the neighborhood to and from the GIW site. Mr. Graham stated that a new property owner on the GIW site has generated quite a bit of large semi-truck traffic through the neighborhood, and the residents are not pleased. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham cited another neighborhood, in the southwestern portion of the City that had also become concerned about truck traffic and the pro- posed use of property as a waste transfer station. These citizens have worked with staff, and the City now has control of the proposed waste transfer site, and West Union A venue has been posted regarding heavy truck traffic. Citizen involvement on issues is very important to reach workable solutions to issues. Discussion ensued regarding a recent article in the Denver Post regarding the bridging of streets; some are used for pedestrian bridges , and others have been developed as open space, with green - ery developed on these "bridges". Englewood streets that are difficult to cross , such as Dart- mouth A venue , South Broadway, U.S. 285 were cited as possible "bridging" projects. Mr. Welker stated th at he did not want to see Dartmouth Avenue treated as a "barrier", nor does he want to see division of the north Englewood area into two separate neighborhoods. Mr. Graham again asked members of the Commission if they felt ready to proceed to Public Hearing on the Regional Plan. Discussion ensued. Mr. Willis stated that Commission has not discussed the issues pertaining to Environmenta l Quality at all , and suggested the need for more • discussion on Urban Centers and Transportation. Staff will place the Re g ional Plan discussion on the agenda for April 18th following the Public Hearing. Staff will prepare a more complete justification. It was suggested that staff also route the proposed Regional Plan amendment to other departments for their review and comment. Ms. Reid suggested that members of the Commission get any comments to Mr. Graham as soon as possible for inclusion in the justification. Discussion ensued . Mr. Welker suggested that in addition to discussion on the Environmental Quality issues , the Transportation section might be discussed with updates on the proposed shuttle service . These items will be on the agenda for April 18. A tentative public hearing date of May 16 th was pro- posed. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the study session was declared adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Seer ary H:IGRO UP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Miuutes\M iuutes 2000\PCM 04-2000A.doc 10 •