Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-21 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 21, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :03 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Carl Welker presiding. Members present: Ransick , Stockwell , Weber, Willis, Hayduk, Welker Members absent : Rininger , Douglas , Lathram Also present: Senior Planner Mark Graham Planning Analyst Lauri Dannemiller Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid Business Development Coordinator Art Scibelli (entered meeting late ) II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 17 , 1999 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of August 17 , 1999 were to be considered for a p- proval. Stockwell moved: Hayduk seconded: The Minutes of August 17 , 1999 be approved as written . AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Stockwell , Hayduk, Ransick, Welker None Weber ,. Willi s Rininger , Douglas , Lathram The motion carried. III. ENGLEWOOD TOWN CENTER PUD Amendment CASE #PUD-99-01 Mr. Welker stated that staff has requested , via memo from Senior Planner Stitt , that the Public Hearing on the PUD Amendment be continued to November 2 , 1999. Brief discussion ensued . Weber mo ved: Willis seconded: 1999. The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-99-01 be continued to November 2 , 1 AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Stockwell , Weber, Willis, Hayduk, Ransick, Welker None None Douglas , Lathram, Rininger The motion carried . IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Urban Growth Boundary CASE #CP-99-02 Mr. Welker stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed amendment of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Stockwell moved : Ransick seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP-99-02 be opened. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Weber , Willis , Hayduk, Ransick , Stockwell, Welker None None Douglas , Lathram , Rininger The motion carried . Mark Graham , Senior Planner , was sworn in. Mr. Graham testified that the proposed amend- ment regarding the Urban Growth Boundary is in support of the Metro Vision 2020 plan of the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). This plan , which projects urbanized area growth to 2020 , is a guide for metro-area development. The plan is voluntary, has flexi- ble strategies , and incentives for member jurisdictions to adopt policies consistent with the re- gional plan. Mr . Graham stated that an important incentive to encourage support of the Metro Vision 2020 plan , is funding of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects. Jurisdictions that are members of DRCOG submit transportation projects to DRCOG , which acts as a clearinghouse for federal transportation funds . The submittals are evaluated and pri- oritized , and assigned points based on compliance with various criteria. Aesthetics and quality of life issues are taken into consideration in judging proposed projects. Transportation projects eligible for federal funding typically provide increased roadway capacity, improve safety , and improve or help achieve air quality goals. Mr. Graham stated that a resolution of support is worth 10 points in the evaluation, and an ordinance in support of the plan is given 20 points in evaluations. Mr. Graham stated that Englewood has applied for funding for several projects through the TIP funding. Mr. Stockwell asked for clarification on the importance of the points . Mr. Graham reiterated that the TIP applications are evaluated by a point system , and federal funding for the TIP proj- ects is administered through DRCOG . 2 • • • • • • Mr . Stockwell asked how growth will be stopped by support of the Metro Vision 2020 Plan . Mr . Graham stated that Englewood will not be impacted too much by this plan because our growth will be "infill ", and not growth and development of greenfields. Fringe cities such as Littleton, Aurora, Broomfield , etc . will be impacted by the MetroVision 2020 Plan. Mr. Gra- ham stated that plans of 1, 100 square mile development in the metro area are proposed . The Metro Vision 2020 Plan suggests scaling this area back to 700 square miles for metro area de- velopment. Mr. Graham reiterated that urban growth effects traffic congestion , air pollution and other quality of life issues. Mr. Weber asked what projects Englewood has requested funding for. Mr. Graham cited sidewalk improvements along South University Boulevard and along Belleview Avenue, as well as landscaping on U .S. 285 and South Santa Fe Drive. The City will be using TIP fund- ing for Broadway improvements from U.S. 285 to Yale in 2000. Mr. Welker asked what dol- lar value we are talking about. Mr. Graham stated that he did not have the figures in front of him, and would try to determine a dollar figure later in the meeting. Mr . Graham stated that the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in support of the urban growth boundary is an urgent issue. Staff needs to get the proposed amendment to City Council in October , and have it on second reading by Council in early November. DRCOG has indicated that as long as the support effort is "in progress ", applications would be consid- ered in a more favorable light. Discussion followed . Mr. Willis asked if the proposed amendment is approved, and an ordinance is passed by City Council, is Englewood more likely to get all four projects funded. Mr. Graham said that the City has been told that the points granted for ordinance approval will make a difference on the funding probability. Mr. Willis asked why Englewood , a land-locked City , would get funding versus a border or fringe jurisdiction. Mr . Graham stated that Englewood is impacted on infill development. Someone has to take responsibility for the growth within established areas, and Englewood is looking at the Santa Fe corridor to generate infill growth possibilities. The Commission and Council need to consider what the City's role will be -how do we accommo- date this possible growth . Mr. Hayduk asked if other municipalities are in support of the Metro Vision 2020 Plan. Mr. Graham stated that the support level is a "mixed-bag"; some of the fringe cities, such as Broomfield , want to continue their growth and are opposed to the Urban Growth Boundary element of the Plan. Mr . Graham stated that the proposed amendment will be to the Goals section of the Forward to the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. There are presently seven cited goals, and this would be added as an eighth goal. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Hayduk asked if the proposed amendment is added as Goal #8 , what is the course of action. Mr. Welker stated that the amendment can be used as a reference point when considering re- development projects , such as the CityCenter Englewood, or the General Iron site . 3 The "700 square mile" figure was discussed. Mr. Graham stated that the Plan does indicate flexibility in local control, and that figures other than 700 have been discussed in the policy • committee meetings . Mr. Stockwell asked whether the wording "approximately 700 square mile" could be used, and what impact this wording might have on future applications from Englewood. It was reiterated that there is flexibility contained within the wording the Metro- Vision 2020 Plan. Mr. Graham stated that he now has figures for TIP dollar values. In 1998, TIP granted $3,256,000 for the South Broadway project; these funds will be expended within this next year; a second project -Santa Fe Drive from Union to Belleview -received $5,700,000 in 1995 TIP funds; approximately $100,000 has been awarded for the sidewalk project along South University Boulevard. Mr. Graham estimated that approximately $100 ,000 has also been awarded for the sidewalk work along Belleview Avenue. Further brief discussion en- sued. Mr. Welker asked if anyone had further questions, or whether anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. No further questions were posed, and the member of the audience did not address the Commission . Hayduk moved: Weber seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP-99 -02 be closed. AYES : NAYS : Willis, Hayduk , Ransick, Stockwell, Weber , Welker None ABSTAIN : None ABSEN: Douglas, Lathram, Rininger The motion carried. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. Weber moved: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, Forward section, Goals, be amended by adding thereto the following statement: Support the regional strategic growth plan for the six-county Denver metro-area, Metro Vision 2020, including the Urban Growth Boundary, which encourages infill development and discourages urbanization be- yond a designated 700 square mile area. The motion was seconded. Discussion ensued regarding inclusion of the word "approximate" 700 square mile area. The vote was called: 4 • • ., • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hayduk, Ransick, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Welker None None Douglas, Lathram, Rininger The motion carried. Mr. Ransick asked when City Council will receive this recommendation. Mr. Graham stated that staff hopes to have the second reading on the Ordinance before Council on November 1, 1999. v. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Amendment Mr. Welker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Hayduk moved: Weber seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP-99-01 be opened . AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hayduk, Ransick, Stockwell , Weber, Willis , Welker None None Lathram, Rininger, Douglas The motion carried. CASE #CP-99-01 Mr. Graham apologized that the agenda title and staff report title are not worded alike . The proposed amendment will be to the Transportation Section of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, and will reflect acknowledgement of land use implications created by the light rail transit sys- tem and the improvements to South Santa Fe Drive . This will be a policy to provide guidance in consideration of land use issues in the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor. Mr. Graham noted that when millions of dollars are spent to improve transportation corridors, there are impacts on land use adjacent to and for some distance from those corridors. Mr. Graham stated that staff proposes to prepare an overlay district on the development and land uses that would be compatible with transit corridors and the light rail development. Mr. Graham stated that im- provements along the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor can impact the type of development that occurs within the next five to ten years. Mr. Graham stated that the City has engaged Mr. Ragonetti, a land use lawyer, to assist in preparing a plan that will address changes in land use, and yet provide protection to the property owner. Mr. Graham stated that staff encourages the adoption of the proposed amendment as written. Mr. Hayduk asked where this amendment will be in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Graham stated that the amendment is to the Transportation chapter of the Plan, as an addendum to the Courses of Action . 5 Mr. Stockwell noted the importance of this amendment in light of discussions regarding rede-• velopment of General Iron. Mr . Weber stated that it will also be of assistance with develop- ment and redevelopment along the South Platte River. Mr. Graham agreed, and commented that this is a statement/notification to people who own land in this corridor that the City of Englewood believes there is an opportunity for new, improved land uses and development and we would like to see new development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Welker stated that he is surprised to see this issue before the Commission as a Public Hearing at this time. Mr. Welker recalled a discussion before the Commission approximately one month ago , and he understood that staff was to do several studies and mapping of the area prior to amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Welker stated that he does not see the ur- gency on this issue at this time , and the Public Hearing seems premature in light of the work program previously delineated. Mr. Welker asked why staff is proceeding with the Public Hearing at this time. Mr . Stockwell stated that the City has to recognize the impact of light rail and improvements to Santa Fe on adjacent land use, and disagreed there was no urgency in the proposed amend- ment. Mr . Graham referred to the courses of action in the Transportation Chapter , and noted that many of the issues addressed 20 years ago are now coming to fruition, such as location of a transit center in downtown Englewood, and improvement of South Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Gra- ham stated that the Santa Fe improvements have created great impact on adjacent land uses , • and the Comprehensive Plan has to acknowledge this impact. Mr. Graham suggested that the proposed amendment is really only bringing the Plan up-to-date. Mr. Graham stated that staff would prefer to see the amendment receive a favorable recommendation from the Commission and go forward to City Council ; however , if the Commission is uncomfortable at this time , more time can be spent on the proposal . Mr. Ransick stated that the amendment , as he reads it , would not preclude development of bi- cycle and hiking trails and linkage with existing trails along the River. Mr. Graham agreed with Mr. Ransick 's statement. Mr. Graham also stated that a Comprehensive Plan cannot be project specific , but must address a "big picture ". Mr. Welker reiterated his concern that one month ago, staff was talking about doing various studies and amendments, and now the Commission is presented with the Public Hearing on amendment of the Plan . He asked if there will be other modifications to the Comprehensive Plan growing out of the studies that staff had mentioned one month ago . The change of the point of "downtown", as cited in the courses of action , from Broadway to Santa Fe was discussed. Mr. Welker stated that he does not feel that he ever thought of Broadway as the "downtown" of Englewood ; rather , he considered the Cinderella City Mall to be the "downtown". The location of a transit center from Broadway to Santa Fe is not that dramatic a change in his opinion. 6 • • Mr. Graham discussed a layout of topics that need to be addressed within the next nine months, topics such as open space, clean air, clean water, transportation, etc. Mr. Graham estimated one study session per month to devote to these topics. Mr. Graham stated that staff wants to make sure investors and property owners are made aware and acknowledge that land uses in this corridor may be changing. Mr. Welker stated that if he understood Mr. Graham correctly, it is staff's opinion that the "statement" -amendment of the Comprehensive Plan - be made up front, and the studies and supporting activities will follow. Mr. Graham re- sponded affirmatively. He noted that the study sessions will be open meetings -these issues cannot be deliberated in a sequestered setting; the stakeholders in this corridor must be notified that land uses may change . Further brief discussion ensued. Mr. Welker asked if any members of the Commission had further questions or concerns; did the audience have any questions. No one addressed further questions to staff. Hayduk moved : Willis seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP-99-01 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ransick, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Hayduk, Welker None None Lathram, Rininger, Douglas • The motion carried. • Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. Willis moved: Stockwell seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Chapter, be amended by adding the following statement to the Courses of Action: Construction of the light rail mass transit system through Englewood makes a dramatic change in the way the community is served by transit and offers significant new opportunities for the land that adjoins the line and surrounds the stations. Specifically, much of the adjoining land now in industrial and similar uses will become attractive for residential, retail and other commercial development which is advantaged by light rail ac- cess. Land use and zoning decisions should be closely coordinated with transportation system development to capitalize on these new opportuni- ties and to eliminate obstacles to them. Discussion ensued. Mr. Weber stated that the proposed amendment is overdue rather than premature, in his opinion. Mr. Welker stated that he was approaching the issue as part of the natural progression of things -what is the highest and best of the land . Mr. Welker stated that he would hazard a guess that a lot of the development in this corridor is "pre-zoning" -devel- 7 oped because of the rail line, Santa Fe, and the river. Unfortunately, much of this area has become a "dumping ground" for undesirable uses . The heavy rail system may no longer have • a regional impact, but the light rail and Santa Fe improvements will exert great influence on the adjacent area. Mr . Welker stated that the River is being cleaned up -from Littleton through into Denver -and could possibly be used for recreational purposes in the not too dis- tant future. Mr. Welker stated that he is concerned that the proposed statement may be "too final", and that his perception of a Public Hearing is that it is a final step -not a first step on an issue . Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ransick, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Hayduk, Welker None None Rininger, Douglas, Lathram The motion carried. VI. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Sign Code Amendment Ms. Lauri Dannemiller , Planning Analyst, addressed the Commission. Ms. Dannemiller stated that this is a review/study session on a proposed amendment to the Englewood Municipal • Code , Title 16 , Chapter 4 , Section 19 -Sign Code. A Public Hearing has been scheduled on this proposed amendment for October 5 , 1999. Ms . Dannemiller stated that the proposed amendments relate only to the South Broadway cor- ridor through Englewood, from Yale Avenue on the north, to the south City Limits. The South Broadway Action Plan (SBAP) was adopted several years ago to encourage improvement along the South Broadway corridor , and efforts are underway to accomplish these improve- ments . Businesses that are participating in the improvement project want to install new sign- age ; the current sign code , is a very good code, but is quite restrictive and inhibits creativity in signage or establishing "identity " of businesses. Staff would like to provide participating busi- nesses the opportunity to install creative and unique signage in conjunction with improved fa- cades, new fencing, and the general improvement efforts. Ms. Dannemiller stated that devel- oping a new philosophy in relation to signage for South Broadway frontage could result in an increase in square footage , location and types of signs available to the businesses. Ms . Dannemiller stated that she would review the proposed code , discussing the proposed changes in the course of the review. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the proposed changes in the sign code are noted in bold type , capital case . Portions of the existing sign code which will not be amended are in lower case , and not in "bold " type . Ms. Dannemiller reviewed the proposed changes page-by-page. Mr. Stockwell commented on references to "Department " -it's unclear what department; and other references to personnel 8 • • • • and departments are equally confusing. Ms. Reid reiterated Ms. Dannemiller's earlier state- ments that text that is not in "bold" type, and is in lower case, is existing verbiage in the Sign Code. Ms. Reid acknowledged that there are many areas of the Municipal Code in need of revision because of reorganization of departments, but that is not the scope of the proposed amendment before the Commission. Ms. Dannemiller continued with review of the proposed amendments. Mr. Welker asked if "projecting signs" would be allowed to project into the public right-of-way. Ms. Dannemiller stated that projecting signs may project into the public right-of-way but the signs must be a minimum of 10 feet above the right-of-way. Other signs discussed included marquee signs or awning signs. Ms. Dannemiller discussed the possible allowance of roof signage, animation of some signs, and flashing and blinking signs, banners, pennants, valances and wind signs, and wall murals. Mr. Welker discussed his concerns that the flashing, blinking or animated signage be restricted only to Broadway frontage, and not be allowed on the sides of buildings at intersections; he commented that the flashing lighting could impact residential uses on Lincoln or Acoma across the alley from the Broadway businesses . He suggested that there be location restrictions writ- ten into the text of the proposed amendment limiting location of the blinking, flashing, or ani- mated signage to Broadway frontage only . Mr. Stockwell suggested that the "designated sign areas" of the city be better defined in the ordinance. He also suggested that "arrow" signs at drive-in establishments be included as part of the signage package for that business. Ms. Dannemiller discussed membership of the proposed review committee, as cited on Page 10 of the proposed amendments; she also discussed the powers proposed for that review commit- tee . Mr. Stockwell suggested that approvals, conditional approvals, or denial of applications for creative signage be issued in writing. Mr. Welker asked about an appeal process for applicants. Ms . Reid stated that all appeals will be made to the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. Ms. Dannemiller discussed the sign area measurement section of the proposed amendment. She also cited and discussed definitions of various sign types. Ms . Dannemiller distributed a one-page synopsis of the changes proposed. Mr. Welker asked if any sign code changes have been considered for properties abutting U.S . 285, similar to the amendments proposed for the Broadway corridor. Ms. Dannemiller stated that this has not been considered at this time, but suggested that the area for creative signage could be expanded if that was the desire of the Commission and Council. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the proposed amendments, applicable to the South Broadway corridor, are a result of the South Broadway Action Plan . Staff is exploring ways to encourage and provide incen- 9 tives to businessmen/property owners along Broadway to improve the appearance of their busi-• ness properties. Ms. Dannemiller again stated that the proposed amendments have been scheduled for Public Hearing before the Commission on October 5m. Mr. Scibelli briefly addressed the Commission, and noted that several businesspersons wanting to make improvements , and want new, creative signage to be a part of the improvement pack- age . Staff is working on a multi-faceted program to revitalize South Broadway, and the pro- posed sign code amendment is only a part of the program. Other facets include underground- ing overhead utility lines , installation of new street lighting poles and lights. Staff has been working on the project for the last couple of years , and the project will continue for several years until it is completed. The existing sign ordinance is inadequate to address what mer- chants and staff want to see in the commercial corridor. Mr . Scibelli stated that there are some businesspersons making investments in signage under the existing code , and the signage just doesn't accomplish what the businessperson and staff are trying to achieve along Broadway. Mr . Welker asked if anyone had anything further to discuss on the proposed amendments . Ms. Dannemiller reiterated that this has been scheduled for Public Hearing on October 5th, and public notice of the Hearing has been given in the Englewood Herald. VI. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Welker noted that no one was present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Welker asked what was on the Commission agenda for October . Mr . Graham discussed the need to schedule study sessions throughout the next several months to address the different facets of the Metro Vision 2020 program -such as open space , clean air , transportation, etc. Mr. Graham stated that analysis of the Santa Fe/River corridor has begun, as well as mapping of the area . Consultants have begun working with staff on land use issues . Mr. Graham stated that he hopes to develop a very "action-oriented " document for this area -much as was done on the South Broadway Action Plan . Mr. Graham stated that the 1979 Comprehensive Plan is an "inward-focused " document, and we need to broaden the scope of the Plan in some areas . Englewood is impacted by neighboring entities -Denver , Sheridan, Littleton , Cherry Hills Village , and the activities of these entities may need to be taken into consideration . Mr. Gra- ham stated that he would hope that the study sessions generate free-flowing conversation be- tween Commission members and staff. Mr. Graham stated that other personnel -possibly Parks personnel -will be included for discussions on open space . Mr. Graham stated that the light rail station is scheduled to open in July , 2000 , and he would like to see the transportation section completed and moved forward to Council prior to that time . It was also noted that Commission agenda items scheduled are Public Hearings on the Historic Preservation Ordinance , and the proposed Sign Code amendment -both scheduled for October 5. On October 19, City Attorney Brotzman has indicated he will be present to discuss the 10 • • • • • Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Ordinance with the Commission. This ordinance was remanded to the Commission by City Council for rewriting and reconsideration. Mr. Stockwell asked about the Historic Preservation Ordinance . Ms. Dannemiller stated that the proposal will be voluntary designation of specific properties only; this would allow the property owner to take advantage for tax credits from the State of Colorado , or to have the property available for grant monies. Mr. Welker asked about an issue with tattoo businesses mentioned by Director Simpson at the previous meeting. Ms. Reid stated that this is a policy issue. The City is now in Federal Court on a suit filed by Remi Fields of the Mystic Emporium Tattoo parlor . Ms. Reid updated newer members of the Commission on the background of this issue, and why the City is now in court on the matter. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid said she has nothing to bring forward. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Stockwell provided an update for Commission members on City Council issues considered on September 20th. He noted that Forest City has withdrawn as residential developer in the CityCenter Englewood Project; however, a new residential developer -Legacy -was chosen by City Council at the meeting . The issue of theater procurement is not yet settled; the master developer is saying he cannot secure a theater. A new site plan has been chosen by the City , and the redevelopment efforts continue to move forward. Mr. Welker asked what action was taken on the group living ordinance. Ms . Reid stated that some amendments were made by the City Council ; the bill for ordinance was approved on first reading, and the public hearing was scheduled . Among the amendments was a definition of "dormitory ", a change in parking ratio , and clarification of "half-way house ". Mr. Stockwell stated that the art sculptures placed along Little Dry Creek have received ap- proval by FEMA, and will remain as located . Mr. Stockwell reported on the meeting discussing the fee structure for light rail ridership in Englewood and Littleton. RTD and the City have also met regarding the General Iron site. Brief discussion ensued . There was nothing further brought before the Commission; the meeting was declared ad- jo:tA ~ /~ - Gertrude G . Welty, R~cordind~ f:\de pt\n bd\gro up \board s\planco mm\minutes 1999\pcm 09-99 a.doc 11