Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-07 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 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 the Community Development Conference Room in Englewood Civic Center; Chairman Welker presided. Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Lathram, Rempel, Stockwell, Waggoner, Weber, Welker Willis (entered late) Krieger, Rininger Senior Planner Stitt Senior Planner Graham Assistant City Attorney Reid Mr. Welker declared a quorum present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 17, 2000 Chairman Welker stated the Minutes of September 17, 2000 were to be considered for approval. Rempel moved: Weber seconded: The Minutes of September 17, 2000 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rempel, Stockwell, Waggoner, Weber, Welker None Lath ram Rininger, Willis , Krieger The motion carried. III. FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER 3301 South Grant Street Case# CU-2000-01 Mr. Stitt referenced the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission in January 2000 on this case. The Western Arapahoe County Homeless Alliance (W ACHA) requested approval of their proposed use of the premises as a Family Resource Center for families in need of temporary shelter. Mr. Stitt stated that in discussions with representatives of W ACHA prior to the Public Hearing, all parties knew that parking availability was a concern. When approval of the Condi- tional Use for the Family Resource Center was granted, the Commission included a provision requiring off-street parking located within 400 feet of the Family Resource Center. W ACHA representatives negotiated with St Louis Church and School, and with the Shrine Club, to allow H:IGRO UPIBOARDSIPLANCO MMIM inute<IMinutcs 2000\PC~ I l -2000A.J oe the Family Resource Center to use part of the parking these two entities have available; however, negotiations were unsuccessful. W ACHA has negotiated use of available parking in the general neighborhood, but this parking is not within 400 feet of the Family Resource Center. W ACHA is asking that the Planning Commission recognize efforts they have put forth to secure parking within 400 feet of the site, and to accept the parking locations they have negotiated as meeting the intent of the Conditional Use requirement. Mr. Willis entered the meeting during the above discussion. Mr . Stitt stated that the City of Englewood has a long-standing policy to not apply parking stan- dards retroactively to properties developed prior to implementation of parking standards . The property at 3301 South Grant Street was built in 1945 as a convent for nuns at St. Louis Church and School; parking standards were not adopted until 1955. Mr. Stitt stated that the situation for the 3301 South Grant Street property is not unlike many businesses located on South Broadway -they were developed prior to establishment of off-street parking standards, and do not meet current parking requirements . Mr. Stitt stated that staff supports W ACHA's request, and recommends that the Commission recognize the applicant 's good faith effort to comply with the Conditional Use parking require- ment, and accept parking arrangements negotiated as meeting off-street parking requirements. Mr. Rempel asked if any concerns were expressed by the neighborhood regarding parking . Mr. Stitt stated that neighbors very early in the process expressed concerns; staff has heard nothing recently. Brief discussion ensued. Stockwell moved: Lathram seconded: The Planning Commission recognizes that the Family Resource Center has made good faith effort to comply with off-street parking requirements im- posed by the Commission as part of the Conditional Use approval, and parking sites negotiated for use by clients of the Center are acceptable. Mr . Weber asked if there are not other tenants of 3301 South Grant Street. Mr. Stitt stated that Arapahoe House detox center still uses the basement of the building on weekends; individuals brought to the detox center are transported to a treatment facility in Aurora in just a few hours. There is very limited need for parking to support Arapahoe House. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rempel, Stockwell, Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Lathram, Welker None None Rininger, Krieger The motion canied. H:IGRO UP\B OARDSIPLANC OMM\M in uces\Minuces 2000\PC.-.f I 1·2000A.iJoc • • • • • • IV. EURA CONDITION SURVEY EURA ENGLEWOOD INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Graham stated that the Condition Survey and Industrial Redevelopment Plan are brought to the Commission to keep members up-to-date on redevelopment efforts in the General Iron Works (GIW ) vicinit y. Mr. Graham stated that the Condition Survey , commissioned by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority (EURA), and the Englewood Industrial Development Plan have been approved in draft form by the EURA. The EURA will receive these documents in fi- nal form at their meeting on November 3th , and are expected to approve the final documents at that meeting . After the documents are approved by EURA, City Council will receive the docu- ments and set in motion the process of forming the urban renewal district for the GIW area. Mr. Graham stated that the Condition Survey, or "blight" survey , and the proposed Plan are documents required by State Statute in order to create an urban renewal area . Mr. Graham stated that State Statute also req uire s that all property owners and tenants be notified by U.S. Postal Service 30 days prior to the date of Public Hearing creating an urban renewal area. Notice of the Public Hearing is also required to be published in the official newspaper 30 days prior to the da te of Public Hearing . Mr. Graham stated that to establish existence of blight, an area must meet a minimum of four criteria established by House Bill 99-1326. The criteria include such th ings as slum, deterio- rated, or deteriorating housing; predominance of defective or inadequate street layout ; unsanitary or unsafe conditions; en vironmental contamination of buildings or property ; inadequate public improvements or utilities , and several other criteria. Mr . Graham stated that Mr . Art Anderson, a former Estes Park urban renewal director, conducted the condition survey. Mr. Graham stated that the Condition Survey has identified problems in the s ubject area, and the proposed Englewood Industrial Redevelopment Plan sets forth a framework for resolution of those problems. A reasonable time frame for solution of c ited problems should be established. Mr . Graham stated that discussions with City Council have focused on a five to six year build- out period for new development on the south portion of the GIW site . The C ity must have funds to put in required infrastructure -street and sidewalk improvements, water and sewer capabili- ties, etc . -right now , these funds ar ~ not included in the budget. Staff will be requesting th at $1 million per year be set aside for the next five years to accomplish infrastructure improvement. The focus now is to establish criteria for use when reviewing development proposals expected to be submitted in February or March of 2001. Mr . Graham stated that the EURA will acquire the south one-half of the GIW site , and RTD will acquire the north one-half of the site for their light rail maintenance facility . The south half of the site , once acquired by the EURA, will be held by that body until a developer is selected and the property is sold. Mr. Graham reiterated that presentation of the Condition Survey and the Englewood Industrial Redevelopment Plan to the Commission is informational only . The Planning Commission 's in- volvement in the proposed redevelopment of this area will be consideration and imposition of the propo sed Transit O verlay Zone Districts ; a second discussion of the proposed districts is tenta- H:IGRO UPIB OARO SIP LANCOMM l.'•fo1u1<s\M inu1<• 2000\PCM I 1·2000A .Jo< tively scheduled for December 5th, and a Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for December 19 1h. • Mr. Graham stated that staff had met recently with representatives of the law firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti, which firm is drafting the overlay zone districts . The proposed overlay districts still need quite a bit of work, and Mr. Graham questioned that this in- formation will, in fact, be ready for the Commission on December 5th. Mr. Graham discussed proposed development of areas surrounding the light rail station, suggest- ing that density of 40 dwelling units ·per acre and up would be permitted in an immediate 14 mile radius , and the density be decreased to 20 dwelling units per acre in the next 114 mile radius. Mr. Graham stated that mixed-use development is being considered, with commercial activity al- lowed in the core 14 mile ring, but not in the "fringe" outer 114 mile radius. Mr. Graham referenced a map included in the Condition Survey , and noted that there are 13 resi- dential uses in the light industrial area to be included in the Plan area ; these residential uses are currently nonconforming. Under the proposed transit overlay district , these 13 residential uses may be considered conforming uses , or may redevelop to a use permitted in the overlay district. Mr. Graham discussed a proposed acquisition agreement between the EURA and RID . RTD will use the north one-half of the GIW site for the maintenance facility, and RTD has committed to Barton Brothers (current owners of the GIW site) that relocation costs will be paid by RID . The EURA could purchase jointly with RTD from Barton Brothers, or purchase separately. If the purchase is a joint activity , RID has made the commitment to pay relocation costs. • Mr. Stockwell questioned the implementation of the Plan . He noted that Mr. Graham had indi- cated the EURA would "hold" the property acquired by that body; this will stop all action by the private sector to acquire the property for development. Mr. Graham reiterated that the property will held by the Authority only until a developer is selected and the property is sold to that firm. An RFQ/RFP is being prepared for release in early 2001; responses will be evaluated by the re- view team in February or March. Mr. Waggoner asked if the Authority will sell bonds to finance the acquisition costs. Mr. Gra- ham stated that the Authority will not sell bonds; the City may agree to a short-term transfer of funds to finance the acquisition, and will be repaid at such time as the property is sold to a devel- oper. Mr. Waggoner asked if the proposed urban renewal district will be tied to the existing urban re- newal district that is in default, or will this be a new district. Assistant City Attorney Reid stated this will be a new district, and will not be tied to the existing district. Mr. Welker asked what part of the redevelopment would have to have PUD submittal and ap- proval. Mr. Graham stated that development plans would have to go through the development review process. Mr. Welker emphasized that when large parcels are being redeveloped, they must go through hearings and the public review process. Mr. Welker stated that he wanted to see this requirement included in the Plan. Mr. Welker stated that his intent is to protect the citizenry -he doesn't want anyone to feel that something is "rammed down their throats." H:\GROUP\BOARO S\PL ANCOMM \\1 in urc::-.\l\.1111 utc:!'o !000\PC~ 11·.!000A .Jui.: • • • • Mr. Stockwell asked about composition of the development review committee; is this a public body. Mr. Graham stated that the development review team is composed of representatives of City departments that meet weekly or bi-weekly to review all plans submitted for permits to de- termine compliance with applicable City ordinances; the comments from departmental represen- tatives are noted on the plans and returned to the developer or contractor for correction or modi- fication. Mr. Stockwell stated that this process is staff driven, and eliminates public input. Mr . Welker stated that any development review must come through the Planning Commission, and reiterated his opinion that all large project activity must come before the Commission. Mr. Welker expressed his opinion that this entire redevelopment process is a major part of the Com- prehensive Plan. He emphasized that the larger the project, the more impact it will have, and the GIW and Winslow Crane sites are major areas to be redeveloped. Traffic created by redevelop- ment will have major impact on the area. Nlr . Waggoner agreed that whatever occurs in redevelopment of this area will have a major im- pact on the neighborhood. Mr. Stockwell stated he understood Mr. Graham to say that the development review team would make recommendations to the EURA and to City Council. Mr. Graham noted that the overlay district ordinances are not final yet, and he doesn 't know what the process will be. Mr. Graham stated that if the criterion he has cited is adopted, the overlay "circles" at the transit stations could apply at all transit stations -proposed Bates station, and existing Hampden and Oxford stations. Mr. Welker reiterated the need for public input -we need to be able to show that we asked for and received that input. Ms Reid pointed out that most Planning Commission determinations are recommendations to City Council. The City Council has the responsibility to make final deci- sions , but the Commission is a logical entity for the review process. Mr. Graham emphasized his desire to remove any impediments to review of plans for development, particularly on large par- cels , by the Planning Commission . Mr. Graham reiterated that the EURA is involved to acquire the south half of the GIW property, and hold it until it is turned over to a developer. The Authority is not going to be purchasing other properties in the area -there are no funds to do so . Discussion ensued. Assistant City At- torney Reid stated that the City wants to let the EURA handle this transaction -the City does not want to be a link in the ownership chain on this property. All redevelopment in this area will have to comply with zoning restrictions of the City of Englewood. Ms. Reid stressed the impor- tance of keeping the actions of the Authority separate from any actions of the City, but to also provide opportunity for public input. Ms. Reid further discussed the separateness of the Author- ity from the remainder of City government, pointing out that the Authority has its own legal counsel , and there are separate restrictions set forth in the State Statutes with which the Authority must comply . Mr. Welker again reiterated his contention that review of all development plans must come through the Planning Commission . Mr. Stockwell stated that, in his opinion , the proper order of H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM \Mi11utcs1Mi11u1cs 2000\PCM I 1·2000A.Uo<: procedure would be to progress from the review team to the EURA, to the Planning Commis- sion, and then to City Council. Mr. Graham pointed out that subdivision approval, street dedications, etc. -all facets of devel- opment -will still come to the Planning Commission. He stated that he is not, at this time, sure about the site plan review process in that the overlay ordinance has yet to be completed. He pointed out that a redeveloper may decide they do not want to go through a PUD process, but to develop in accordance with existing ·regulations, which may not require any review by the Com- mission. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that he would notify the firm writing the transit overlay districts that there needs to be requirements written in requiring that site plans must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Lathram asked when staff will know how the transit overlay district will be worded. Mr. Graham stated it is in the process of being written now, and again suggested that it probably will not be ready for presentation to the Commission on December 5th . Mr. Stockwell asked what the Commission is to do regarding the Condition Survey and the Plan . Mr. Graham reiterated that staff has brought the information to the Commission as that --infor- mation. No action on the part of the Commission is required. Mr. Graham pointed out that the • zoning issue (transit overlay district) is not linked to the purchase of the property. He estimated • that once the property has been sold to a developer, there could be six months of demolition and soils remediation on the site . Ms. Reid suggested that if members of the Commission have any comments on the Plan, now is the time to make them so they can be transmitted to Council. Mr. Waggoner asked if any residential areas are included in the mapped area shown in the Con- dition Survey . Mr. Graham stated that the Condition Survey included only industrially zoned properties north of Dartmouth A venue and east of Santa Fe . There are nonconforming residen- tial uses in the industrially zoned area. Mr. Graham further pointed out that the EURA is con- cerned only with the development of parcels labeled "A", "B", and "C" on the map. These let- ters correspond to the north and south portions of the GIW site, and to the Winslow ownership. Mr. Willis expressed the opinion that owners of residential property will be upset to learn that their property is called "blighted". Ms. Lathram agreed, and asked what will happen in the fu- ture -will residential properties be acquired by the Authority to further additional redevelop- ment. How does the Commission know what properties can be condemned. Ms. Reid pointed out that any property can be condemned. The City has condemnation powers , but it must be condemned for a "public purpose ", such as construction of a fire station or water plant. Urban Renewal Authorities also have condemnation powers under the State Statute , and any condemnation would have to be within the area outlined in the "Plan"; Authority condemna-• tions do not have to be for a public purpose . H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\Miuutes 2000\PC:.t I I ·2000A.<loc • • Mr. Willis stated he wanted to prevent future condemnations by the EURA. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker pointed out that the Plan and Condition Survey included only the industrially zoned area, and does not apply to the entire north Englewood area that was included in the failed rede- velopment Plan of two or three years ago. Mr. Stitt suggested that caution be used when talking about "condemnation", and pointed out that many people are under the impression that a property owner loses everything when the property is condemned. In fact, fair market value must be paid for the property; this fair market value is determined by a panel of experts, and funds must be placed in escrow to cover the cost of the ap- praisals and projected purchase price. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the EURA does not have a source of funds to pursue condemnation proceedings, and that acquisition of the south half of the GIW site may have to be with short-term advance of funds from the City . Ms . Lathram asked what impact the creation of an urban rene wal district will have on property values. Mr. Welker pointed out that the residential units indicated on the Condition Survey map are nonconforming in the industrial district, and may be of limited value for residential purposes. Mr. Willis asked how the transit overlay district will impact this proposed urban renewal district area. Mr. Graham again discussed the proposed "core" areas of the proposed 114 and l/2 mile radii around the light rail stations, and the hope to foster higher density residential development with limite d commerc ial activities in the inner 1.4 mile radius and lower density in the outer ring . Mr. Graham stated that the intent is to provide property owners with opportunities to redevelop their property , and provide zoning entitlements to encourage that redevelopment. Mr. Willis discussed the importance of tying development of the GIW site together with the CityCenter, and not have separate development enclaves . He also discussed the density pro- posed in the area, and questioned why the entire area isn 't proposed for the 40 dwelling units per acre . Mr. Willis noted that there will be road improvements going on along the I-25 corridor as well as Santa Fe Drive; more and more people will be using light rail, and may well want to relo- cate to an area within walkable distance to a light rail station . Discussion followed. Projected population for the City was discussed. Mr. Graham pointed out that previous Compre- hensive Plans have suggested a population up to 50 ,000 . Da ytime population of the City was also brought up for discussion. Mr. Welker stated that it will be a number of years before the City reaches the 50 ,000 population figure. Mr. Willis pointed out that the demographics of the City are changing -young families are buying homes and moving into the City. Further discussion on the proposed Plan and Condition Survey ensued. Mr. Stockwell asked if it would be helpful to have a recommendation of approval from the commission. Mr. Graham stated that if there is a consensus of the Commission, it could be included. Discussion followed. Mr. Waggoner stated that the Planning Commission should be included in the process , but he wasn 't sure at what point. Mr. Rempel agreed it was a good idea for the Commission to be in- cluded in the process . H:IGRO UPIBOARDSIPLA NCOM Ml.'Vlinut<s\Minutes 2000\PCM l l-2000A . .Joc Mr. Graham reiterated that plans for development will come from a redeveloper, not from the EURA. The Planning Commission could be involved following the development review by staff to assure compliance with City ordinances , and modification by the applicant. Mr. Weber st ated that he sees no reason for the Commission to make a formal statement on the Condition Survey or Plan ; it was presented to the Commission as an informational matter. Mr. Willis stated that he agreed with Mr. Weber. Mr. Waggoner asked if RTD is tax exempt. Mr. Graham stated it is. He commented that there will be no property tax from RTD, or from the south one-half of the site while it is held by the EURA. Mr. Graham stated that both Arapahoe County and Englewood School District have to be noti- fied of the proposed formation of an urban renewal area, and that property tax will not be paid by RTD or by the EURA as holder of the south half of the site. Mr. Graham discussed steps re - quired to form a tax increment district , one of which is establishment of a base tax figure for both sales and property taxes . Mr. Grah a m discussed valuation of the GIW site by the County now , and noted that the majority of the va lue is in the land . When the south half of the site is redevel- oped and there are new structures and uses on the land, the property values and revenues to the City , School District , and County will increase. Stockwell moved: The Planning Commission has no problems with the EURA proposed Plan , but is of the opinion the Planning Commission should be involved in the process in future reviews of site plans and development plans. There was no second to Mr. Stockwell's motion. The motion was declared dead. V. DISCUSSION OF DUE PROCESS Assistant City Attorney Reid Mr. Graham stated that discussion of Due Process by the City Attorney 's staff has been sched- uled for some time, and Ms. Reid has agreed to present the issue at this meeting . Ms. Reid provided a history of due process , noting that it has been around since the Magna Charta. The theory of due process is that procedures must be followed and done correctly . Ms. Reid cited the Constitution of the United Stated, specifically the 5th amendment and the 14 1h amendment. Ms. Reid cited fundamental rights granted to all citizens , such as free speech, right of assembl y, the right to life, liberty , pursuit of happiness, and right to own property. Non- fundamental rights , or privileges , include having a driving license or zoning entitlements on property you may own. No rights may be taken from someone without following proper proce- dure. Ms. Reid stated that taking of private property by a governmental entity must be for "public pur- poses" -such as construction of fire stations , police stations, etc. The purpose of condemnation of any property must be related to a goal of the public. Procedures and restrictions must be rea- H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMivt \"1i11utesl."1iuu1 es 2000\PCM I l -2000A.Joc • • JI • • sonable for the situation and equitable for everyone. A board or commission may not act arbi- trarily or with capriciousness. Ms . Reid stated that if a board or commission follows due process in all deliberations and ac- tions, those actions and decisions are rarely overturned by the Courts. Ms. Reid cited procedures that must be followed in zoning issues: • Open meetings • Impartiality -no bias or conflicts of interest -abstain from discussion and voting; state why publicly • Only use testimony from hearing • No vote unless present at the hearing • Application requires necessary information • Adequate public notice • Public comment -person whose property is being taken or affected is allowed to be heard • Decision must be based on evidence only • Rules of procedure at the meetings are set forth -all parties must be treated as equally as possible • Reasonable results • Decision showing of rational basis for decision is based on evidence at hearing . Mr. Welker noted that when members of a board or commission visit a site, they need to be care- ful about engaging in conversation with the property owner or applicants ; they may be trying to sway opinion. Also, such discussions or phone calls regarding an issue should be disclosed at the time of the hearing. Brief discussion ensued. Ms. Reid reiterated the need to follow established procedural rules, make sure that adequate notice is given and the meetings are conducted openly and equitably for all participants. VI. PUBLIC FORUM No member of the general public was present. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr . Stitt stated that the annual holiday dinner for board and commission members will be on De- cember l41 h at Bogies Bar & Grill (the Englewood Golf Course). Invitations should be in the mail by the end of the week. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Nothing was raised for discussion. H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minuu:s\Minuu:s 2000\PCM 11-ZOOOA .Joc .· -' The meeting was declared adjourned. Mark Graham, Senior Planner • • H:IGROUPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\Mu1utcs\Minutes 2000\PC:vf 11 ·2000A.<loc 10