Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-17 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 17, 1999 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 Englewood City Hall, Chairman Welker presiding . Present : Stockwell , Douglas , Hayduk , Lathram, Ransick , Rininger, Welker Simpson, Ex-officio Absent: Weber , Willis Also present: Senior Planner Graham Assistant City Attorney Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 3 , 1999 Mr . Welker stated that the Minutes of August 3, 1999 are to be considered for consideration . Douglas moved : Stockwell seconded : The Minutes of August 3, 1999 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Douglas , Ransick , Rininger, Stockwell, Welker None Hayduk , Lathram Weber, Willis The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Group Living Ordinance CASE #ORD-99-02 Chairman Welker stated that the Findings of Fact on the Group Living Ordinance Hearing, Case #ORD-99-02, are to be considered . Douglas moved : Rininger seconded : The Findings of Fact on the Group Living Ordinance, Case #ORD-99 - 02, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Douglas , Hayduk, Lathram, Rininger, Stockwell, Welker None Ransick Willis, Weber 1 The motion carried. IV. ENGLEWOOD TOWN CENTER PUD Amendment CASE #PUD-99-01 Mr . Welker noted a memorandum in the Planning Commission packet, asking that the Public Hearing on the proposed PUD amendment for the Englewood Town Center be further contin- ued. It was asked if it was necessary to reopen the Public Hearing and then continue the Hearing. Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that a motion continuing the Public Hearing to a date cer- tain is sufficient; the Public Hearing does not have to be reopened. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on Case #PUD- 99-01 to September 21, 1999 at the hour of 7 p.m. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Douglas, Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick , Rininger, Stockwell, Welker None None Weber, Willis The motion carried. V. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN 2000 through 2004 Mr. Graham stated that the Englewood City Charter requires that the Planning Commission consider and recommend a five-year capital plan to the City Manager. Mr. Graham referenced the FYCP, as prepared by City Budget Officer Clark, and cited items which the Commission had proposed earlier in the year for inclusion in the budgeting process. Mr. Stockwell noted that Item #432, audio signalization of crosswalks along Broadway, is a matter of concern by blind citizens. He stated that one person has addressed this issue with City staff and/or City Council requesting that all audio signalization be removed . He sug- gested removal of this Item from the FYCP list. Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson suggested that the item be retained on the FYCP list; as these suggested projects go through the budget- ing process , it may be eliminated . Ms. Reid suggested that it might be appropriate for the Commission to request further research and study of the issue. • • Mr. Douglas noted the "priority" columns, and the rankings assigned to the NBD requests. He asked if "1" is the highest priority, and "3" the lowest. Mr. Graham stated that this is the way it appears. Discussion ensued on assignment of rank for projects submitted, as well as estimated funding for the projects. Mr. Graham stated that on many projects, they will be "phased", with phase 1 being a study and /or design, and phase 2 being actual construction. • 2 • He also noted that this is a five year plan, and if a project is not approved for funding the first year, it may be funded in succeeding years. Mr. Simpson suggested that the Neighborhood & Business Development staff will try to meet with Public Works staff and discuss the priority ranking of the NBD projects. Mr . Graham stated that the 1979 Comprehensive Plan sets forth courses of action to be taken to implement goals cited in the Plan; projects that the Commission proposed, and that have al- ready been accomplished do, in many ways, support the implementation of the Plan. He ac- knowledged that many needed projects may have been overlooked or pushed back, and staff and the Commission are working to remedy this situation. Mr. Simpson agreed, and cited im- provements along Santa Fe Drive, the South Broadway Action Plan improvements, as well as the redevelopment of the Cinderella City Mall site -these all contribute to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Graham suggested that the Commission needs to prioritize projects they want staff to sup- port in budget meetings with the City Manager. Mr. Graham also suggested that it is helpful to have funds allocated in a budget that could be used to leverage other resources -many grants require matching funds, and it might be possible to redirect usage of some of the funds to use in conjunction with grant funds. Mr. Graham pointed out to the Commission that there is a difference in this year's FYCP in that there are several items included which do implement Comprehensive Plan goals; last year, there were numerous items included which were of • "maintenance" or "operating" budget orientation. • Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Douglas expressed concern regarding comments made by a member of the City Council that just because the Planning Commission "approves" the FYCP they, therefore, approve all projects contained within that FYCP . Mr. Douglas stated that the Commission did have an opportunity this year to provide input for projects they wanted to see funded, but have no explanation of projects proposed by other departments. The Commission has no knowledge of what any specific request is, nor any justification for the request. Mr. Welker agreed with Mr. Douglas, and expressed the opinion that the City Councilperson's comment was wrong. Mr. Hayduk asked what the responsibility of the Planning Commission is. Ms. Reid cited §58 of the City Charter, and quoted that section to the members of the Commission. Discussion ensued on "physical development of the City", and activities that may be under that umbrella. Mr. Douglas stated it appears that the Commission needs to develop a list of projects that need to be done, prioritize that list, and recommend that list. The issue of "approving" or "recom- mending" the entire FYCP with insufficient knowledge regarding the projects and/or requests contained therein was discussed at length . Ms. Lathram suggested that items suggested by the Commission and the NBD Department be prioritized and recommended. Mr. Stockwell sug- gested that perhaps the motion could just indicate that the Commission has seen the proposed FYCP program . 3 • Mr. Simpson further discussed review of the FYCP methodology in more detail; he suggested that the Comprehensive Plan be further reviewed by staff, and an action plan identified on • goals and courses of action that still need to be accomplished. The Commission considered the items suggested by them earlier this year. Mr. Stockwell stated that he is in support of Items #430 and #431; he is also in support of item #434. Mr. Simpson clarified what the Entry Port Monumentation project entails, inasmuch as this was not a suggestion of the Planning Commission, but of NBD. This project will finance new signage for both boundaries on South Broadway -north and south, as well as both boundaries on U.S. 285 -east and west. This project will also finance new signage for parks in the City. Item #432, the Audio Crossing Signals on South Broadway, was discussed. Mr. Ransick stated that there is a group of people living in the vicinity of the Belleview/Broadway intersec- tion, and they train the blind in proper street-crossing procedures. He suggested that the staff might contact this group to get more information on the controversy regarding the audio sig- nalization. Mr. Stockwell stated that Mr. Vostry, Traffic Engineer, has been in contact with this group, and there seems to be dissension within that group itself on whether the audio sig- nals are worthwhile. Mr. Stockwell stated that Item #309, South Broadway Action Plan, is also worthy of support. Mr. Simpson stated that Items #309 and #311, City Beautification/Signage, are very closely tied. He described the efforts which are on-going to implement the South Broadway Action Plan, including underground overhead wires, new facade treatment for many businesses, new street lighting, and traffic improvements. Mr . Welker asked if these improvements address the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Broadway. Mr. Simpson stated that some of the traffic improvements, such as "bulb- outs", do address safety issues as well as providing a "traffic calming" effect. Mr. Welker asked for explanation for Item #435. Mr. Simpson stated that the City is applying for an Economic Development grant for $1,000,000; this grant, if approved and given to the City, will require $1,000,000 in matching funds. These funds ($2,000,000) would be used to implement Phase 2 of the redevelopment plan -work on Englewood Parkway, and demolition and clearing of the present City Hall site. Brief discussion ensued. Douglas moved: The Planning Commission recommend to the City Manager the funding of Line Items #309 --South Broadway Action Plan; #311 -City Beauti- fication/Signage; #430 -Pocket Parks; #431 -South Broadway Street Furniture; #432 -Audio Crossing Signals on South Broadway; #433 - Girard A venue Improvements; #434 -Entry Port Monumentation; and #435 -EDA Grant Matching funds for Phase II of the redevelopment project. 4 • • Mr. Hayduk asked if Mr. Douglas wanted to request additional research regarding Line Item • #432 . Mr. Douglas stated that he did not. Further discussion ensued. • • There was no second to Mr. Douglas's motion; the motion was declared dead. Stockwell moved: Lathram seconded: The Planning Commission approves and recommends to the City Man- ager the funding of Line Items #309 --South Broadway Action Plan; #311 -City Beautification/Signage ; #430 -Pocket Parks; #431 -South Broadway Street Furniture; #433 -Girard Avenue Improvements; #434 -Entry Port Monumentation; and #435 -EDA Grant Matching funds for Phase II of the redevelopment project. The Planning Commission also conditionally approves and recommends to the City Manager inclusion of Line Item #432 -Audio Crossing Sig- nals on South Broadway after further research and recommendation from staff. Discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas asked how the Commission will know what staff is going to find regarding Item #432 . Mr. Stockwell stated his view that the conditional approval and rec- ommendation is running up a "flag" for the City Manager and City Council that this line item needs more study . Further discussion followed. Mr. Welker expressed the opinion that he is not in favor of removing Item #432, and there may be a need to have funds in the budget to look at audio signalization . Mr. Douglas noted that the Commission "is acting on information that Casey got somewhere else", and that he, personally, knows nothing about the reported controversy on audio signalization. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Lathram , Rininger, Stockwell, Douglas, Welker None ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Ransick , Hayduk Weber, Willis The motion carried . Ms . Reid noted that when a board or commission member abstains from voting on an issue , they should give a reason for that abstention. She stated that typically , a conflict of interest is an acceptable reason. Mr . Ransick stated that this evening is his first meeting with the Commission, and he is not "up to speed" on issues before the Commission . Mr. Ransick stated that he really knows very little about this issue, and felt it better if he did not vote . 5 Mr . Hayduk stated that he was not in attendance when the Commission discussed the requests to be included in the FYCP, and therefore did not have a good understanding of the process • followed to develop the requests . VI. SOUTH SANTA FE/SOUTH PLATTE CORRIDOR Land Use Study Mr . Graham addressed the Commission, and stated that this is a preliminary step in a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding land uses in the South Santa Fe/South Platte River corridor. Mr. Graham stated that the State Department of Transportation has expended $70 ,000 ,000 on improvements to the Santa Fe corridor in widening and grade separation im- provements; the Federal Government will spend $177 ,000 ,000 on the light rail improvements - in the southwest corridor -these light rail improvements will run along South Santa Fe Drive on the east side . The result of these investments is the possible creation of new land uses along this corridor . At the request of the Englewood City Council , NBD staff is to take a "big picture " look at the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor , identify stakeholder groups who have an interest along this cor- ridor, and research a possible amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Graham discussed the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Metro Vision 2020 Plan , which ad- dresses the need for open space and steps to preserve open space areas . Mr. Graham sug- gested that any plan for land use changes along the South Platte River must also address the preservation of open space along the river. Mr. Graham stated that the preliminary outline , before the Commission this evening, will be taken before the City Council in approximately two weeks . The City has engaged special legal counsel to assist in drafting a land use plan that provides protection to the City from property owners who may disagree with a proposed change of land use on their site . Mr. Graham esti- mated that over the next two months , the plan will be developed , the scope of the plan will be defined , and the proposal will be taken through the process of public information and input. Mr . Graham stated that the boundaries of the plan will extend roughly Yale to Belleview. He no ted that Englewood has very little contiguity with the South Platte River , so the staff will also be working with Sheridan personnel , as well as Littleton and Denver . Continuity along the river corridor is important , and both Denver and Littleton are working on open space pres- ervation along the river . Mr. Graham suggested an east/west boundary of approximately one- quarter mile either side of the light rail line, and one-quarter mile either side of the river. Over 1 ,000 different properties have been identified in this corridor area ; change in land use will have an impact. Mr . Graham stated that land cannot be removed from developed use and converted to open space without major impact. M r. Graham reviewed his work on the South Broadway Action Plan , and suggested much the same format for this proposed study. He noted that the initial document on the SBAP wa s re- duced to "concepts , strategies , and actions "; this format will be fairly easy to attach cost ele- ments to , and will be an as s istance in future FYCP budgets. 6 • • • Mr. Welker stated that he is extremely pleased that staff is bringing this proposal to the Com- mission very early in the process; he noted that it is difficult to really discuss and consider a proposal in an "adversarial" setting such as a Public Hearing . Mr. Welker also noted the need to get grass roots input before a plan is developed. Mr. Simpson stated that there will be a City Council study session on August 30 , at which time this proposed plan outline will be discussed . He suggested that staff will be back before the Commission on September gm to further discuss this and other significant issues . Mr . Graham asked that Commission members give thought to who the stakeholder groups might be who need to be involved in the development of the plan; are the boundaries as cited previously appropriate -too wide, or too narrow. Mr. Graham stated that staff needs to begin mapping and inventorying the existing land uses in this area . Mr. Welker stated that once the area is specifically determined and mapped, he would like to see the map; he suggested the possibility that some areas may need expansion, or reduction. Ms . Lathram stated that she would also want to see the mapped area of the proposal. Mr. Simpson commented on the evaluation of unincorporated properties during the course of the process , as well as other properties that might impact the corridor. Mr. Ransick asked if it would be possible to see plans from Denver and Littleton; Mr. Welker agreed , and also agreed with Mr. Graham 's earlier assertion that continuity along the corridor • is important. • Mr. Stockwell asked for a copy of anything on paper. He also asked if Jefferson County has done anything like this. Mr. Simpson stated that it is his belief the only community really ad- dressing the issue is Denver. Mr. Graham stated that there is a lot of information that is on the Internet, and stated that the DRCOG has a number of documents pertaining to their Metro Vision 2020 and Open Space Plan on the Internet. Mr. Welker asked that the Commission be provided "hard copies" of information. Mr. Graham suggested that notebooks be developed for all the information that will be forthcoming on this proposed plan. Mr. Graham noted that the goals and courses of action set forth in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan are still pretty on-target: improvement of the Santa Fe corridor and an improved trans- portation system. Open space also was stressed in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Gra- ham stated that the Federal Government is starting to look at 20-year planning process, and may consider even a 25-year planning process. Mr. Simpson stated that the 1979 Comprehensive Plan is a very "forward thinking " document, and is still quite good . 7 VII. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr . Simpson asked that Commission members mark their calendars for September gm -the Planning Commission meeting will be in Conference Room A that evening; the Labor Day Holiday interrupts the meeting schedules, and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will be meeting in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Simpson stated that the agenda for September gm will include discussion on a "Creative Sign Code" for South Broadway , as well as discussion of the Metro Division 2020 Plan. On September 21 st, the Commission agenda will include the Public Hearing on the Englewood Town Center PUD amendment , and a Public Hearing on the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Simp son suggested that the agenda for October 5m may include the Parks, Recreation and Open Space ordinance , and a proposed ordinance addressing tattoo establishments. Mr. Simpson discussed the South Broadway improvement project (implementation of the SBAP), and noted that improvements have been made on 10 businesses, and the improvements range from new facades to new signage , landscaping , and wrought-ironwork fencing. Several other business owners have expressed interest in the program . The undergrounding of over- head electrical lines begins this week in the Tufts to Mansfield sector of South Broadway. This will result in the replacement of existing light poles and light fixtures , and eliminating the visual pollution of overhead lines. The NBD Department is also working , in conjunction with the Englewood School District , on improvements to Flood Middle School properties; the two entities will share the costs of the improvements, which include landscaping and new fencing . Mr. Simpson discussed traffic improvements to South Broadway ; funding from CDOT and FTA will pay for improvements from U.S. 2g5 to Yale Avenue . Application for these funds was made in 1993 , and the funds were received this year. Improvements are focused on pe- destrian and bicycle safety , improvement of traffic flow patterns , and aesthetics -the installa- tion and planting of medians . Mr. Simpson stated that CityCenter Englewood is progressing; the Master Developer Agree - ment with Miller/Weingarten has been signed earlier this week . This signing enables the City to implement the plans approved by the Commission and City Council. Saunders Construction has been signed as the contractor to do the infrastructure work on the site -road construction , installation of water and sewer lines, and other infrastructure work. Calcon Construction has an approved contract , and they will do the rehabilitation of the former Foley 's building so that • • the City Hall offices can relocate to that site; completion is scheduled on this contract May • 15 th. The Saunders contract is for $19. 5 million, and the Ca Icon contract is for $9. g million . g • • • Staff is reviewing the site plans for WalMart which were submitted for building permits; the first set was rejected because of noncompliance with requirements. The plans have been re- submitted and are under review. The closing on sale of the property is now scheduled for September 10th, and groundbreaking is scheduled for early October. A contract has been approved with Kimley-Horn, transportation consultants working with City staff to develop a shuttle connection between the medical campus and the downtown Englewood/CityCenter area. A Smart Growth grant on transportation was awarded to the City , and these funds must be expended by the end of December, 1999. Mr. Simpson discussed the efforts of the CityCenter Englewood developers to procure a thea- ter for the redevelopment site . There has been a change in the market for theaters in the last several months, and most theater chains are not expanding , or not building the large multi- screen theaters of the past several years. If a theater is not signed, this will result in a six to eight acre site that will be available for other development venues. Mr. Simpson stated that what made development of this site with a theater so exciting and practical was the viability of "shared parking". The integrity of the basic overall plan, as approved by the City, remains in place, and infrastructure construction will go forward. The Group Living Ordinance is going forward to City Council on September 7th. Staff is also involved with Arapahoe County on their "Consolidated Plan", which allocates Community Development Block Grant funding to cities. In the past these funds have been as- signed to the Housing Rehab Program. There are some changes with this program, and under this plan we will looking at a five-year window, and looking at other projects that can be funded with CDBG funds. IX. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid introduced herself to Commissioner Ransick, and stated that if any Commission member had questions on procedural matters or other issues pertaining to the Commission , to feel free to call her . X. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Welker welcomed Mr. Ransick to the meeting; he suggested that all members introduce themselves and provide a brief synopsis of their careers . Mr. Stockwell noted concerns with the PROS Ordinance that there were no "guidelines" so far as height, setbacks, etc. He noted that the placement of art work in Little Dry Creek channel is being contested by several citizens; these pieces of statuary have been placed within the 100 year flood plain in violation of guidelines from FEMA. Mr. Welker discussed the voting by members on issues that come before the Commission. He recalled the City Attorney's Office had written a memorandum setting forth a legal definition 9 of "Conflict of Interest ". He asked if this memo could be located and up-dated. Mr. Welker suggested that typically , abstention is for a "conflict of interest ", or not being present for dis-• cussion. He noted that if a member has a conflict of interest they should so advise the mem- bership prior to commencement of the discussion , and to refrain from participation in that dis- cussion. Mr. Welker stated he would like an update on the Broadway activities; the merchants group met once and he and Mr. Weber were invited to that meeting . A "steering committee " was then formed , and he has received no notification of further meetings. He stated that he would like to be kept informed of these meetings. There was no further business brought before the Commission; the meeting adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty , R~cording Secretary f:\de pt\n bd\gro up \boards \pl anco mm\minutes 1999\pcm 08 -99 b.doc 10 • •