Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-19 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 19, 2000 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 Community Development Conference Room in the Englewood Civic Center, Chair- man Carl Welker presiding. Present: Krieger, Stockwell , Weber, Willis, Waggoner, Welker Absent : Lathram , Rempel, Rininger Also present: Senior Planner Mark Graham Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid Mr. Welker welcomed newly appointed members Cyndi Krieger and Kells Waggoner to the Commission . Mr. Welker gave a brief synopsis of projects the Commission is focusing on. II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 22 , 2000 Mr. Welker stated that the Minutes of August 22, 2000 were to be considered for approval. Willis moved: Weber seconded: The Minutes be a pproved as written. Mr. Stockwell asked that Page 8, Paragraph #5 be amended to reflect hi s s u ggestio n that the parking on South Galapago Street should be eliminated to ease the flow of traffic using South Galapago Street just south of U.S . 285. Mr. Willis and Mr. Weber accepted the amendment to the Minutes. The motion was called on approval of the Minutes, as amended. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Stockwell , Weber, Willis, Welker None Krieger, Waggoner Lathrum, Rempel , Rininger The motion carrie d. • Legal counsel and board members discussed when it is appropriate for members to abstain from voting, and when abstention might affect a vote of the Commission. Ms. Reid advised that H :IG R OU PIBOARDS IP L.~NC O M~1 \"1 i11 utc slM i11 utc s 2000 \PCM 09 ·2000 A.J•>< • whenever a member of the Commission becomes aware of a conflict of interest, the conflict should be so declared and the member should abstain from participating in discussion and voting on an issue . • • III. CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Mr. Graham noted that the Planning Commission has discussed the Five Year Capital Plan on three occasions: July 18 , August 8 , and August 22. The Commission has not, however, made a formal recommendation to the City Manager setting forth priority items as required in the City Charter. Mr. Graham stated that Senior Planner Stitt prepared a memorandum , included in the packet. citing projects included in the CIP which, in Mr. Stitt 's opinion , implement the Compre- hensive Plan . Mr. Graham stated that the CIP list could be forwarded to the City M a nager as written , or items can be added or deleted if the members so choose . Mr. Waggoner suggested that there are other projects contained in the 5-year CIP which may be of more benefit to the City than those cited, but may not support implementation of the Compre- hensive Plan. Mr. Stockwell asked if the list cited in Mr. Stitt's memo c an be used as an outline . He stated that he wanted some determination in compiling the list of recommended projects , and wants more information on several of the projects, i.e., what is "Oxford Traffic Calming." Mr. Grah a m sug- gested that the traffic calming e ffo rts o n O xfo rd Av enue ma y include c on s tru ctio n of median s . The project is linked to discussions we have had regarding the Oxford light rail s tation and the recreation center traffic generators. Mr. Stockwell stated he could not support spending $400 ,000 on a project he knows nothing about. Mr. Welker stated that he found the manner in which the projects have come to the Commission "disappointing," and that the list does not include any of the issues that the Commission has dis- cussed. Mr. Stockwell stated that s taff has "educated" the members on the CIP process, and the Commission members should ha ve the right to make an educated vote on the projects to be rec- ommended . The issue of "Oxford A venue Traffic Calming" was further discussed. Mr. Waggoner s tated that he had a problem with recommending this project when there was no knowledge of the calming method available to the members. Mr. Welker stated that part of the proposed $400 ,000 expenditure could be used to fund a study; he stated that he didn't feel this process is doing justice to what the City Charter e x pects of the Planning Commission . Mr. Welker stated that this is an "in-your face , shoved-down-our- throats" approach , and his first inclination is to vote no . Mr. Welker stated that he did not feel the Commission had sufficient information on the projects. Mr. Stockwell stated he wants more specific details on the "South Broadway Action Plan " - what is entailed in this project; what is "Broadway Street Furniture"; what is the "City Beautifi- cation/Signage" project. He suggested that some of these items might be a financial "buffer" and the funds not actually used for the cited project. Mr. Stockwell suggested a special meeting of H:\GROC P\BOA RD S\P LANCO MM\.\1mutc:s\i."1 in utc:s 1()(X)\PC :-Vt 09-Z CXXl A.Joc • • • the Commission to review the detailed information prior to the Budget Retreat on September 30th . Mr. Waggoner stated that he is not comfortable making a decision on the list of projects as cited, but neither is he comfortable with Mr. Stockwell's suggestion. Mr. Waggoner stated that in his opinion, the recommendation should be based on the entire CIP and take into account the reve- nues that are available. Mr. Waggoner reiterated his opinion that Comprehensive Plan imple- mentation should not have the "highest priority"; there are other projects in the total CIP listing that would benefit the City far greater than the cited projects . Mr. Welker noted that the charge to the Commission by the City Charter is to implement the Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Welker reiterated that he does not see any input from the Commission discussions reflected in this list. Mr. Waggoner stated that the Planning Commission should be involved and review all projects that are s ubmitted for the CIP . Ms. Reid quoted several provisions from the Cit y Charter regarding responsibilities of the Plan - ning Commission . Mr. Weber stated that there is nothing stated regarding Commission re view of budgets on CIP requests. Mr. Stockwell stated that the specific details of projects should be understood by the Commission, and he wants to know how funds will be spent. Mr. Weber stated that the Com- mission doesn 't have much influence on the spending of the funds. Ms. Reid stated that the Commission needs to give a list of priority CIP projects to the City Manager: the Commission may make a list of priority items with no funds ci ted . Mr. Stockwell stated that if the Commission has to prioritize CIP projects , the members should have supportive documentation to justify agreement or disagreement with staff recommendation. Mr. Graham stated that if the Commission wants to set a special meeting, staff will get the de- tailed information to the members early next week. Mr. Stockwell asked that the concerns of the Planning Commission be made known to the City Counci I and staff at the budget retreat. He reiterated his desire for more detai I on how funds are expended. Discussion ensued . Mr. Graham suggested, regarding the Oxford Traffic Calming project, that it would be appropriate for the Commission to indicate they feel the 2001 expenditure of $400,000 is in conflict with the work on the Comprehensive Plan transportation element also scheduled for 2001. Mr. Welker agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Weber emphasized that the Commission should consider the project, and not the cost of the proje ct. The funding of the project, and how the funds are expended, is the responsibility of the City Council. H:IGRO UPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minu1es\M inu1es 2000\PC~ 09-2000A.Joc • Ms. Krieger stated that private citizens should have input on how funds are expended. • • Mr. Willis stated that he felt a brief description of the projects is adequate ; preparation of the list and the brief description of what different departments propose should be sufficient. Mr. Welker brought up the traffic study that the staff and Commission will be doing in 2001. Oxford Avenue is a major roadway, and has major intersections as well as heavy traffic genera- tors. Should the calming project go forward prior to the completion of the transportation study . Ms. Reid stated that the Commission could indicate that the calming project is important so long as it is done in conjunction with the Transportation Plan . Ms . Krieger noted that there ha ve been discussions regarding calming traffic on Oxford for man y years , and th at this project should have a priority -it is of great concern to man y people. Mr. Welker s ta ted that the Commission has a proposal to schedule a spe c ial meeting and get ad- ditional information before making a recommendation. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that it is his belief that the City Council will make budget decisions at the retreat on September 30. Mr. Waggoner asked if it was fair to assume that the funds for projects c ited for 2001 expendi- ture are , in fact , a vailable . He sugge s ted th a t the C e ntennial Park F ield a nd Trail sys tem be moved forward from 2006 to 2001. Mr. Waggoner pointed out that all of the projects cited in the list prepared by Senior Planner Stitt are c ontained in the 5-year Capital Impro vement Plan . He suggested that the Commission needs to say they are in agreement with the 5-year CIP. Mr. Welker asked if the Commission felt they could make that determination this e vening. Mr. Stockwell stated that he is not comfortable doing so ; the projects are "vague ," a nd he wants an- other meeting and specific information on the projec ts before he makes a determination . Mr. Waggoner s uggested that if members are not c omfortable with the list suggested by staff, the y c ould pull an y project listed in the 5-year CIP out and include o n the li s t, o r make a new list. Mr. Weber s tated th a t , in his opinion , the suggested list of projects is a good list. Ms. Krieger stated that she , too , would like to have more information , but in light of the date of the budget retreat , it does not appear that a special meeting of the Commission to review specific information is an option. Mr. Willis stated that he felt comfortable recommending all of the items on the list except for the Oxford traffic calming. He suggested getting a study done as a first step , but that the tot a l pro- ject not be written off. Mr. Waggoner suggested moving the budget year for the Oxford traffic project to 2002 . Mr. Stockwell stated that the majority of the members have said the y want more information be- fore making a recommendation; in his opinion , it is inappropriate to take action at this time. Mr . Stockwell cited the funding for "pocket parks " -there is no indication where will these pocket parks be located. H:IGR OU l'\BO ARDSIP LAN COMM\\l u1 utcslM 1t1utc > ~OOOIPCM 09 ·2000A.J o< • • • Mr. Waggoner reiterated his question regarding the availability of funds for the projects budg- eted for 2001. Ms. Reid stated that she could not answer this. Discussion ensued. Stockwell moved: The Planning Commission table discussion of the CIP recommendation until staff can present the Planning Commission with details about the proposed projects and use of funds for projects cited on the prepared list. The information must be to the Commission in sufficient time that a prioritized list can be prepared and submitted prior to the City Council budget retreat on September 30, 2000. There was no second to Mr. Stockwell's motion; motion was declared dead . Mr. Stockwell stated that several issues which were raised by Commission members were not included in the 5-year CIP : 1) Bicycle and pedestrian lanes, 2) Infrastructure improvement at Galapago and U.S. 285, for instance. Mr. Stockwell stated that there are other issues that should be included, such as providing for the light rail maintenance facilities proposed for the General Iron Works site , and pedestrian bridges over Santa Fe to the Dri ve -in site a t U.S. 285 which he has learned is proposed for a bus storage lot. Mr. Stockwell stated that a lot of open space and recreation items are not being addressed by the list . Mr. Willis suggested that many of the Commission 's co ncerns may be resol ved once the Trans- portation Element is undertaken and completed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker noted that re- garding the bicycle/pedestrian paths -there a number of locations where trails are needed; he would like to see this included as a line item. Mr. Welker did point out that the Cinderella Twin- Drive-in is in the City of Sheridan . Mr. Stockwell urged the addition of bicycle and pedestrian path funding, and fu nding for the in- frastructure improvements at Galapago and U .S . 285 . Mr. Stockwell emphasized that funding for improvement of this intersection must be scheduled. Discussion ensued. Mr. Waggoner stated that he would include infrastructure improvement for the Galap ago/U.S . 285 intersection if it is included in the 5-year CIP. Mr. Stockwell assured Mr. Waggoner that this project is in the total 5-year CIP list. Waggoner moved: Willis seconded: The Planning Commission approve the following list of c apital improve- ment projects with the following modifications and additions: 1) Funding for the Centennial Park Field and Trail improvements be advanced from 2006 to 200 l ; 2) Funding for the Oxford Avenue Traffic Calming project be moved from 2001to2002; 3) Funding for bicycle and pedestrian pathway development be in- cluded. 4) Funding for infrastructure improvement of the South Gala- pago/U .S . 285 intersection be included . H:IGROlJP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\"1u1u1es\"1inu1es 2000\PCM 09 -2 000A.Jo.; • Mr. Waggoner pointed out that the Galapago/U.S. 285 improvements will ha ve to be done in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Highways; this is not a one jurisdiction responsi- bility . Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker declared a recess of the Commission. The Commission reconvened at 8:30 p.m .. Present: Absent: Krieger, Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Welker Lathram, Rempel, Rininger, Stockwell Mr. Waggoner stated that in review of the 5-year CIP Plan , he found where the Galapago/U.S . 285 project was proposed, but has been withdrawn. Therefore, he asked that the motion be amended to strike inclusion of funding for the infrastructure improvement at that intersection. Mr. Stockwell entered the meeting ; the determination on the Galapago/U.S . 285 infrastructure was explained to Mr. Stockwell. He stated that he did not agree that the request for funding should have been withdrawn, or should be eliminated from the motion . Mr. Stockwell reiterated his opinion that the withdrawal of funding for the infrastructure improvement w as wrong , and stated that he felt the Utilities request was being overlooked. Stockwell moved: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that storm drain- age improvements at Galapago/U.S . 285 be added to the 5-year CIP . • There was no second to Mr. Stockwell's motion ; motion declared dead. • The vote on Mr. Waggoner's motion, as amended by Mr. Waggoner. was c alled . Waggoner moved: Wi Ilis seconded: The Planning Commission approve the following list of capital improve- ment projects with the following modifications and addition s: Pro· ect 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Santa Fe & Broadway Landscap- mg S Broadway Action Plan City Beautification/Signage Centennial Park Field & Trail t Pocket Parks South Broadway Street Furniture Girard Ave Improvements Entry Port Monumentation Oxford Ave Traffic Calming $200 ,000 $200 ,000 $200 ,000 $200 ,000 $200 ,000 $200 ,000 $275 ,000 $275 ,000 $275,000 $275 ,000 $100 ,000 $100 ,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100 ,000 $100,000 $100 ,000 $100 ,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100 ,000 $100 ,000 $100 ,000 $100 ,000 $100,000 $180 ,000 $100,000 $100 ,000 $100 ,000 $400,000 $1,105,00 0 1) Funding for the Centennial Park Field and Trail impro vements be advanced from ~006 to 2001; 2) Funding for the Oxford A venue Traffic Calming project be moved from 2001 to 2002; H ·\G R Ol 'P\B OA R OS\PLAN('O MM \M in u 1 c::-;\M i 1 1u1 c:~ ~000\PCM 09 .~00QA J111,,'. • • • 3) Funding for bicycle and pedestrian pathway development be included. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Willis, Krieger, Weber, Waggoner, Welker Stockwell None Lathram, Rempel, Rininger The motion carried . Mr. Welker stated that the Commission has now approved the list of projects; how does the membership want to prioritize the list. Discussion ensued. Waggoner moved: Willis seconded: The Planning Commission approves the 2001-2006 Five-Year Capital Plan , with a further recommendation that the 10 projects that implement the Comprehensive Plan be given priority for funding . Those ten projects are: Pro·ect 2001 2002 2003 2004 Santa Fe & Broadway Landscaping $200,000 $200.000 $200,000 $200,000 S Broadway Action Plan $275,000 $275.000 $275,000 $275.000 City Beautification/Signage $100.000 Centennial Park Field & Trail t $1,105,000 Pocke t Parks $100.000 $100.000 $100.000 $100.000 South Broadway Street Furniture $100.000 $100.000 $100,000 $100.000 Girard Ave Improvements $100.000 $100.000 $100.000 $100.000 Entry Port Monumentation $180.000 $100.000 $100,000 $100.000 Oxford Ave. Traffic Calming $400.000 Bicycle/Pedestrian Paths The vote on the motion was called: AYES: NAYS: Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Stockwell, Krieger, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Rininger, Rempel, Lathram The motion carried. IV. ZONING CONCEPTS Tom Ragonnetti Tom Macdonald 2005 2006 $200.000 $200,000 $100 .000 $100.000 $100.000 Mr. Graham introduced Mr. Tom Ragonnetti and Mr. Tom Macdonald of the law firm of Otten , Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonnetti . Mr. Ragonnetti has been engaged to study and develop zoning concepts for the Santa Fe Drive/South Platte River corridor. H:IGR OU P18 0ARDSIPLANCOMM \"1inute<IMin utc s 2000\PC M 09-1000A.Jm: • Mr. Ragonnetti addressed the Commission, stating that a great opportunity has been presented to the City of Englewood with the light rail line and stations. The possibility of another LRT sta- tion will present many opportunities for property development/redevelopment along the corridor. The redevelopment could encompass residential, retail, or commercial oriented uses. Histori- cally. if the corridor were to be "rezoned" to allow this type of land use , existing industrial de- velopment would become nonconforming; the property owner of a nonconforming use cannot enlarge the structure or the business, and if the use is suspended for six months, future use of the property must conform to the new zone classification. Mr. Ragonnetti stated that it is not known how the market will respond to the light rail line . • • Mr . Ragonnetti stated that his firm is proposing the zoning concept of a temporary transit corri- dor overlay zone district, and a transit corridor permanent zone district. The overlay zone district would allow the underlying zone district to remain in place and existing uses to remain without a nonconforming classification ; but whenever a property redevel o ped it would be then be placed in the transit corridor permanent zoning. This process will not penalize industrial use owners, but will provide flexibility to transition the use and zoning of the corridor to a higher and better use. Mr . Ragonnetti discussed the need to get site plan approval and use permits from the City for the corridor. Mr. Welker asked about imposing a time frame on the transit overlay district. Mr. Ragonnetti discussed an amortization scale for nonconforming uses that can be used. If the City decides to use the amortization scale, nonconforming uses could be phased out. Mr . Welker pointed out that there are some residential uses existing in the industrial district today that are nonconform- mg. Ms. Krieger asked if the overlay zone doesn 't work to encourage redevelopment of the corridor, what happens then . Mr. Ragonnetti stated there could be a mixture of uses . He reiterated that as a property would change use , the City would transfer that property to the transit corridor perma- nent zone district. Mr. Stockwell took issue with the use of "nonconforming" and "overlay district" and Mr. Ragonnetti 's description of the function of the overlay district. He suggested that Mr. Ragonnetti was "playing word games" and that use of an overlay district would not trigger nonconfonnance of any particular use . Mr. Ragonnetti agreed that an overlay district does not cause a use to be nonconforming, because the underlying district restrictions remain in effect. However, existing uses would have to follow the site plan approval-use permit process to effect any change . Mr . Ragonnetti stated that an amortization scale in conjunction with the overlay district would probably get some properties into a permanent transit corridor zoning in a shorter time-frame . Ms. Krieger asked if a nonconforming use was one that the City might want to have remain , will there be provisions to allow the City to approve expansion or improvement of a nonconforming use so that use would stay . Discussion ensued. Mr. Ragonnetti stated that boundary lines for the overlay district and permanent transit corridor district need to be determined. Mr. Graham agreed that the staff and Commission need to work out the details -will the boundaries be a given radius from the transit stations, or a linear corri- H :IGR OU P\B O ARD S IPLA NCOM~1 \"1u 1 u1e sl.M 111 u1 es lOOOIPC M 09· l OOOA .U<lC • dor. He stated that we also need to figure out whether we can incorporate open space along the river as part of this process, or whether this is addressed as a separate item. • • Mr. Welker questioned the timing for the proposed temporary transit corridor overlay, the per- manent transit corridor district, and the effort underway to reorganize and rewrite the zoning or- dinance and other development codes. Mr. Graham stated that he anticipated that the final pro- posal for the transit overlay and permanent districts could be before the Commission within four weeks. Mr. Stockwell asked about funding from GOCO, and asked if the Commission was not to study every property within this corridor. Mr. Graham stated that he did not think each piece of prop- erty will be studied; he noted that the Urban Renewal Authority has some detailed information on some of the properties north of Dartmouth A venue . Mr. Graham stated that the issue now is does the Commission want to move forward with the zone concepts as delineated by Mr. Ragonnetti. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Ragonnetti reiterated that if the City uses the temporary transit corridor overlay concept the City won't lose anything . Creation of the permanent zone district does provide the City some time. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham suggested that an advantage to the overlay zoning is that it provides opportunities to the property owners to change the use of their land. but should not engender neighborhood opposition that a formal rezoning procedure might. The review process and site plan requirement process were further discussed. Mr. Ragonetti stated that the Santa Fe corridor is a long corridor; he suggested that the Commis- sion could consider creation of a "narrow corridor with nodes and tendrils" for the new zone concepts, or the radius around the LRT stations . Additional discussion followed. Mr. Welker asked what the Commission is being asked to do . Mr. Graham s tated that s taff wanted the Commission to become familiar with overlay district concepts. He stated that he is not aware of other transit corridor overlay zones . If the Commission is of the opinion that this is not an acceptable concept to pursue , other avenues can be explored. Mr. Graham recalled an ef- fort two or three years ago when staff and the City tried to develop a "small area plan" for the north Englewood area, and it was not well accepted. Mr. Graham stated that we are looking for a process that wouldn 't have the downside of upsetting a neighborhood. Using an overlay process will allow time for changes to occur dependent on the market; if nothing has happened within five years, the district could be repealed. Mr. Graham stated that staff is looking for a consensus of the Commission on whether or how to proceed. Mr. Welker stated that he feels the proposal is timely, and would agree to use the narrow corridor with nodes and tendrils approach and overlay district. Mr. Waggoner asked how this would affect an area where additional parking might be needed . Mr. Ragonnetti stated that the City would include parking lots/structures as a permitted use in the overlay district. H :IGROlJP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\\1u1utc>\~l111u1<> 1000\PCM 09 -lOOOA .Uo.; • • Mr. Waggoner asked if proposed Amendment #24 (growth limitations) passes, how will this af- fect planning . Mr. Graham stated that the 1969 Comprehensive Plan projected Englewood to have a population of 50,000 by the year 2000; the projected land use plan used in that Compre- hensive Plan indicated a large area north of U.S. 285 developed for multi-family use. Amend- ment #24, if it passes, would allow Council to create a committed growth area. Mr. Graham stated that the infrastructure is in place to support the population growth, and development wouldn't have to go back to a vote of the people. Mr. Graham noted that the 1979 Comprehen- sive Plan was amended almost a year ago to adopt the metro growth provisions of Metro Vision 2020. Mr. Welker asked how Metro Vision 2020 will work with the proposal along the conidor. Mr. Graham stated that the land use changes in the light rail conidor will make good use of the light rail transit line and station. Mr. Weber asked if there was still discussion about an additional transit station in the General Iron area. Mr. Graham stated that there have been discussions , and that a study has indicated a possible 800 users for an additional station . If some of the conidor area redevelops for higher density residential, this will increase potential ridership. Council will have to request RTD to construct an additional station -possibly in the Bates vicinity . Mr. Welker asked if there are other areas where the "node" approach on the overlay district could be considered . Mr. Stockwell again raised the issue of the Cinderella Twin theater being used as a bus shelter, and that the City should consider this proposal. Mr. Graham stated that staff will plan on moving ahead with the zoning concepts as outlined this evening; drafts of the districts using the narrow conidor/nodes/tendrils concept will be to the Commission al the ncxL meeLing . The Commission thanked Mr. Ragonnetti and Mr. Macdonald for their attendance and presenta- tion . V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VI. DlRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Welker asked if there is need to have a meeting of the Commission on October 3rd, or to cancel it as suggested by staff because of the R ai!Volution Conference. Mr. Graham stated that the Commission made the recommendation regarding the CIP earlier in this meeting; there is nothing on the agenda for October 3rd . H:IG ROU PIB OAR DSIPL ANCO MM\\'1inu 1c;\Min u1cs 1000\PC M 09·1000A .un<: 10 • • • The meeting of October 17th was discussed. Mr. Graham suggested that the overlay district draft ordinance will be on this agenda. Ms. Reid stated that she will not be in attendance at this meet- ing . VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid brought no issues forth for discussion. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Chairman Welker suggested that, inasmuch as we have two new members , all members intro- duce themselves and provide a brief synopsis of professions , civic activities, etc . Mr. Willis asked if staff knew why traffic at Dartmouth and Santa Fe was being monitored. Mr. Graham s ugge ste d this ma y be a state monitor. He also noted that after the Small Area Plan for North Englewood failed a couple of years ago, staff worked c losel y with several residents of the area to try to resolve traffic issues -particularly on Dartmouth Avenue. City staff from the Po- lice Department. the Traffic Engineering Division. Public Works and Communit y D evelop ment held several meetings with the residents to discuss the concerns, and to resolve the problems. There is increased enforcement in the area, and, in his opinion , a better neighborhood under- standing that if one effort to resolve traffic is undertaken, it may impact another portion of the neighborhood . Mr. Stockwell discussed the importance of shuttle buses and bicycle/pedestrian trails. He sug- gested that bicycle trails need to be viewed as utilitarian rather than just recreational , and that a bicycle trail grid system -north/south, east/west -needs to be developed for people who use a bicycle as a transportation mode . Mr. Stockwell noted that the 1979 Comprehensive Plan makes mention of an ice skating rink. He would like to see serious consideration given to development of such a rink ; he discussed the difficulty parents experience trying to find a rink available for children interested in learning to skate and play hockey. Mr. Stockwell stated that he agreed with Planning Analyst Dannemiller that it should be a City policy and goal written in the Comprehensive Plan that the City acquire land for open space. Mr. Stockwell s uggested that a goal be written to require "x" amount of open space be required of new developments depending on the size and type of development. Mr. Welker stated that if the Comprehensive Plan identifies an open space area this can be tied into new development. Mr. Waggoner asked if RTD is doing any parking surveys to determine needs for additional parking. Mr. Graham stated that staff met with Mr. Claflin of RTD one week ago. Mr. Claflin is aware of parking needs, and RTD is monitoring the stations and parking lots along the route. Mr. Claflin indicated that RTD feels that riders that cannot find a parking space at the closest sta- tion may drive to the next station to find a space . Additional parking spaces have recently been opened for the Mineral LRT station . Mr. Graham commented that he recently drove the area of H :\GROL'P\BOARDS\PLAN CO MM \.~li11utc)l\i\1111utc s !000\PCM 09·2000A..Joc 11 • • • the Oxford station, and about two blocks north of Oxford on Windermere, there may have been about 400 feet of open space on-street. Mr. Graham stated that there are still options for addi- tional parking at the Oxford A venue LRT station. Mr. Welker stated that he thought the Commission was to get information on the ridership, use of buses, parking needs , etc. following the opening of the light rail line and station . Discussion en- sued. Mr. Welker referenced the discussion on site plan approval. Mr. Stockwell stated that any site plan submittal must come to the Planning Commission for consideration. There was no further business brought before the Commission for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned. 1u~.l~f~ Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Se;rary H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutcs\M in utes 2000\PCM 09-2000A.doc 12