Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-05 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 5, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. by Chairman Welker. Members present: Rininger , Willis , Douglas , Hayduk , Lathram, Ransick, Welker , Stock- well (entered meeting late) Members absent: Also pre sent: Weber Planning Analyst Lauri Dannemiller Senior Planner Mark Graham Assistant C ity Attorney Nancy Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 21 , 1999 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of September 21 , 1999 were to be considered for ap- proval. Hayduk moved: Ransick seconded: The Minutes of September 21 , 1999 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Willis , Hayduk, Ransick , Welker None Douglas , Lathram , Rininger Stockwell , Weber The motion carried . III. FINDINGS OF FACT Comprehensive Plan Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Case #CP-99-01 Case #CP-99-02 Chairman Welker noted that there are two sets of Findings of Fact; he asked that each case be considered individually . 1 Hayduk moved: Ransick seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #CP-99-01, amendment of the Compre- hensive Plan by adopting a new Course of Action in the Transportation Chapter, be approved as written . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Willis, Hayduk, Ransick, Welker None Douglas, Lathram, Rininger Weber, Stockwell The motion carried . Hayduk moved : Ransick seconded: The findings of Fact on Case #CP-99-02, amendment of the Comprehen- sive Plan by adopting the Urban Growth Boundary Plan of Metro Vision 2020, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Willis, Hayduk, Ransick, Welker None Douglas, Lathram , Rininger Stockwell, Weber The motion carried . IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Historic Preservation Ordinance CASE #ORD-99-03 Mr . Welker stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Douglas moved: Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-03 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Douglas, Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick, Rininger, Willis , Welker None None Stockwell, Weber The motion carried. Secretary's Note: Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on September 24, 1999. ' • • Lauri Dannemiller, Planning Analyst in the Department of Neighborhood & Business Devel- opment , was sworn in. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the proposed Historic Preservation Ordi-• 2 • • • nance will be an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 4 of the Englewood Municipal Code. The Historic Preservation Ordinance will be a new sub- section 24 to §16-4. Ms. Dannemiller reviewed the purpose of the proposed ordinance, point- ing out that the ordinance will provide a method to establish historic areas and landmarks for the educational, cultural and economic benefit of Englewood citizens . Ms. Dannemiller stated that only one new definition, "Historic District", is being added. Ms. Dannemiller reviewed the application process and information required as part of the application. Ms . Dannemiller stated that applications for historic designation will be considered by the City Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing, and a recommendation will then be made to City Council. Ms. Dannemiller then reviewed the criteria that the Commission must use when con- sidering a historic preservation application. Ms . Dannemiller stated that properties that have already received State approval may also be included on a listing of historic sites and/or struc- tures that will be developed after the ordinance is effective. Ms. Dannemiller stated that for- mation of a "historic district" will be voluntary. Mr. Stockwell entered the meeting at 7:15 p.m Mr. Welker questioned the statement " .... at least one hundred (100) percent of ... ". He com- mented that you cannot achieve more than 100 % , and the wording is awkward; he suggested a lower percentage requirement -such as 80 % . Ms. Lathram agreed that the required percent- age should be lower than 100 % . Ms. Dannemiller stated that one of the reasons the 100% figure is cited is that if a situation arises where one or two property owners do not want their property listed on a historic regis- ter, but the majority of the area is in favor not only of the historic designation, but of stricter standards, the issue of "takings" could arise if rehabilitation standards eventually become re- quired. Ms. Dannemiller discussed the six criteria cited for consideration in establishing a historic "district". Mr . Ransick asked if an area is given a historic district designation, how this designation will affect future development -will a homeowner be allowed to make changes to their existing home. Ms. Dannemiller stated that a property owner would be allowed to change the character of his own home . Ms. Lathram asked if a homeowner within an historic district, who wants to make changes to their house, would have to file a specific application, or would they go through the typical building permitting process. Ms. Dannemiller stated that applications would be through the typical building permitting process. Mr. Welker asked , if homeowners were allowed to "opt out" of a district designation, will this affect funding possibilities for the remaining participants. Ms. Dannemiller stated that this should not affect funding . Mr. Welker asked what impact it might have were participants within a historic district to want stricter guidelines than those set forth in the ordinance. Ms. 3 Dannemiller suggested that an amendment to the historic preservation ordinance might be in order, or that it could be done on a voluntary basis with no enforcement powers from the City, • much as covenants are established and enforced. Ms. Reid stated that a homeowners associa- tion could be formed, and covenants applicable to this association written. She emphasized that covenants are not enforced by the City, but by a homeowner' s association. Mr. Stockwell asked if there is vacant land within a proposed district, and the property owner cannot be reached for signature -what impact will this have. Ms. Dannemiller stated that as the proposed ordinance is now written , the district could not be formed because the required 100% participation/approval could not be obtained. Mr. Hayduk asked what appeal process applicants who are denied may have . Ms. Dannemiller stated that typically, appeals are to the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Reid stated that denial of an application would be a "legislative" determination, and there is no appeal process except through the court system. Mr. Welker asked if there is a reason that "historic building" or "historic structure " is not de- fined. He stated that he would like to see such a definition included in this ordinance. Ms . Dannemiller stated that this can be easily done. Mr. Hayduk asked for clarification on "patterns and unifying elements". Ms . Dannemiller cited the Arapahoe Acres area in Englewood, which has similarity in construction styles as a "unifying element". She stated that this is the type of criteria that the Commission will have to consider. Mr. Welker asked what criteria applicants will be expected to provide. Ms. Dannemiller ref- erenced requirements cited under "Application". Additional narrative may be provided by the applicant to support the request for historic designation . Mr. Hayduk referenced the "Criteria", asking if it should be "either/or" in lieu of the all in- clusive "and". The present wording indicates that all of the cited criteria must be met before a structure or district can be considered for historic designation. Ms. Dannemiller stated that the 50 year age of a structure is a given requirement. Of the other elements cited, it is not neces- sary that all of them be met in order to justify an application for historic designation. Mr. Welker stated that if the word "and" is used, it indicates that all the cited criteria must be complied with. Mr. Stockwell supported changing the word "and" to "or". Mr. Stockwell asked if there is a need to require a written statement if an application for his- toric designation is denied . Mr . Welker asked if the Commission had further questions or comments. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-03 be closed. 4 • • AYES : NAYS: Hayduk, Lathram, Ransick, Rininger, Stockwell, Willis, Douglas, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Weber The motion carried. Mr . Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. Douglas moved: Rininger seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Historic Preservation Ordinance be approved, as written. Mr . Welker called for discussion. Ms . Lathram stated that she supported inclusion of a definition for "historic building " or "his- toric structure " . The format of the proposed ordinance was cited as a problem . Ms. Reid stated that the City Attorney's Office will redo the entire proposal into ordinance format, and that the inconsis- tency of lettering and numbering will be addressed at that time. She suggested that the Com- mission look at the content of the proposed ordinance, not issues such as lettering and num- • bering of sections. • The appeal process was again discussed. Ms. Reid reiterated that denial of an application for historic designation is a legislative decision, and cannot be appealed unless it can be proved that City Council violated constitutional rules in their determination ; then the issue will be taken to Court. In no event will denial be appealed to the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. The "100 3" issue was brought up for discussion . Mr. Welker stated that he has a problem with the 100 3 requirement, and felt the percentage should be lowered to a number which the legal department and City Council can support. Mr. Stockwell stated that if the 100 3 figure is used , this will provide encouragement for those seeking historic designation to make the effort to contact everyone in the subject area. Mr. Stockwell further pointed out that provision could be exempted on occasion if appropriate criteria is included in the ordinance . Mr. Welker stated that , in his opinion, the 1003 requirement is misleading, because participa- tion is on a voluntary basis. He stated that he didn't want to take someone's rights away from them . Mr. Ransick suggested that if the 1003 requirement is imposed, there could be one or two property owners who might feel they were "forced" into the district. Mr. Hayduk sug- gested that the 100 3 could come into play if an area wanting historic designation were desir- ous of stricter provisions. Mr. Stockwell stated that he would like to be very comfortable that every person in a proposed district is aware of the proposal and the process . He stated that he would like to have every 5 signature of every landowner to indicate their awareness of the proposal. He stated that awareness of a proposal and the process would not necessarily indicate agreement. He reiter- ated that he wanted to see the name and address of every property owner of any proposed his- toric district. Mr. Willis asked how public property , such as park , would be addressed in a historic district. Mr. Stockwell stated the public property would have to be so identified -park , or whatever. Ms. Lathram suggested that notification be given in the approved way . Mr. Willis suggested that possibly certified mail could be used for notification. Mr. Stockwell stated that the appli- cant must do their home work , and provide the Commission/Council a list of every property owner within a proposed district. Further discussion of the 100 3 requirement ensued. Mr. Willis pointed out that participation is voluntary ; is it necessary to require something that specific. He suggested the figure of 80 3. Ms. Lathram stated she would support 80 3 . Mr. Welker stated that 60 3 would proba- bly work just as well , but 80 3 would be OK w ith him. Mr. Ransick suggested requiring a 2/3 majority -66 3 . The 2 /3 figure (66 3) was acceptable to the members. Mr. Welker asked Mr. Douglas and Mr. Rininger if they would accept these friendly amend - ments to their motion . Both gentlemen responded affirmatively . Mr . Douglas restated the motion: Douglas moved: Rininger seconded : The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Historic Preservation Ordinance be approved , as amended: 1 . A definition of "Historic Building " or "Historic Structure " be in- cluded . 2. In "Criteria " -districts , the "written approval of at least 2 /3 of the properties within the district boundaries" shall be inserted, and the "at least one hundred (100 3) percent " shall be elimi- nated. 3. In "Criteria " -section 1 , replace "and " in number 2 , 3, and 4 with the word "or " at the end of requirement statements. Mr . Stockwell asked about inclusion of a written statement setting forth reasons for denial of an application . It was pointed out that the minutes of the meeting will be the written record , and will be forwarded to City Council. The vote on the motion was called : AYES: NAYS : Lathram , Ransick , Rininger, Stockwell , Willis , Douglas, Hayduk , Welker None 6 • • • • • ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Weber The motion carried. v. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Sign Code Amendment CASE #ORD-99-04 Mr. Welker stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed amendment to the Sign Code. Douglas moved : Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-04 be opened. Ayes: NAYS: Ransick , Rininger, Stockwell , Willis, Douglas, Hayduk, Lathram , Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Weber The motion carried . Ms . Dannemiller addressed the Commission, and stated that staff is requesting that the Public Hearing on this issue be continued to October 19th . It has been brought to staff's attention that City Attorney Brotzman has not reviewed the proposed ordinance in depth . Ransick moved : Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD-99-04 be continued to October 19 , 1999 . AYES: NAYS: Rininger , Stockwell , Willis , Douglas, Hayduk , Lathram , Ransick , Welker None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT : Weber The motion carried . VI. METRO VISION 2020 Mr. Graham addressed the Commission, and stated that when it was determined the Public Hearing on the Sign Code amendment would have to be continued, staff decided to schedule a study session on the Metro Vision 2020 Plan for this evening if this meets with the approval of the Commission. Possible dates for study sessions were briefly discussed. Mr. Stockwell asked when the Com- mission could expect to see information on the South Platte River/South Santa Fe Drive corri- 7 dor. Mr. Graham stated that information will be forthcoming; however, staff is trying to ac- commodate and work with the Commission's agenda. Mr. Graham estimated there will need • to be seven study sessions to review material related to Transportation and Open Space in the South Santa Fe/South Platte Corridor. Mr. Graham stated that staff is working on many of these facets concurrently, and estimated that the economics study will be completed before the end of November, 1999. The overlay of the South Platte River/South Santa Fe Drive corridor is underway, and may be completed by the end of October . Mr. Welker suggested completing the set agenda, adjourning the meeting, and reconvene as a study session in a less formal setting in the Community Room. VII. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission . VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Graham stated that he had prepared a memorandum regarding the TIP categories and ex- penditures which had been discussed during the course of the Public Hearing before the Com- mission two weeks ago. This memorandum and supporting documentation was included in the Commission 's packet for the meeting this evening . He asked if there were questions from the Commission regarding this information. No questions were posed on this information. Mr. Welker asked about the PROS Ordinance discussion. Ms. Reid stated that she understood that City Attorney Brotzman wants to take this issue back to the Parks & Recreation Commis- sion prior to appearing before the Planning Commission with the revisions. IX. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing to bring before the Commission. X. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Stockwell reported on actions taken by the City Council at their meeting on October 4th . This included approving a new plan for CityCenter Englewood. Mr. Welker what impact this new plan has on plans the Commission has reviewed and recommended: the site plan, the PUD, and the Subdivision. Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Graham suggested that the street layout will not change -water and sewer lines are presently being installed on the site, and are being installed in the project rights-of-way. The meeting adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. G~rtrude G . Welty, R~cording seCTa;y 8 • • • • • STUDY SESSION October 5, 1999 Commissioners relocated to the Community Room for the Metro Vision 2020 discussion. Mr. Graham stated that the Metro Vision 2020 Plan has been prepared by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Councilmember Habenicht is Englewood's representative on this regional board, and sits on the policy committee. Mr. Graham stated that Mr. Simpson and he attend the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC), and that Ms . Dannemiller attends the Regional Air Quality Control (RAQC) committee meetings. Ladd Vos try and Rick Kahm of the Public Works Department participate on the transportation committee. There is also a committee dealing with water quality. DRCOG is composed of 42 participating agen- cies, and work on the Metro Vision 2020 Plan began in 1992 . The reason behind this regional plan is to encourage participating agencies to adopt policies that guide the growth of the metro region. Mr. Graham stated that there are several "core elements" of the regional plan . These core elements are: 1) Extent of Urban Development; 2) Open Space; 3) Free-Standing Communi- ties; 4) Balanced, Multimodal Transportation System; 5) Urban Centers and 6) Environmental Quality. Mr. Graham stated that five of these core elements are applicable to Englewood; he commented that the free-standing communities addresses communities such as Castle Rock, Boulder, Longmont, etc . Mr. Graham briefly discussed the five core elements impacting the City of Englewood . He noted that the South Platte River is a focus in the open space element of the regional plan, but the 1979 Englewood Comprehensive Plan does not contain much on the river corridor. The CityCenter Englewood meets many of the criteria for the multimodal transportation system. Light rail is scheduled to be operational in July of 2000; bus service will be routed through the CityCenter to the light rail station; a Smart Growth Grant was received, and funds from this grant are used to explore and finance a shuttle service between the CityCenter and other parts of the City, such as the medical campus on East Hampden A venue. The environmental quality component of the regional plan was discussed. Mr. Graham noted that along the South Platte River/Santa Fe Drive corridor, a lot of the land is developed for industrial use. This area is being considered for additional open space and recreational ameni- ties . Mr. Graham emphasized the need to develop criteria stating what we want along the cor- ridor in Englewood, and to suggest amenities that will benefit the community. Mr. Stockwell stated that he is not familiar with development along this corridor; he stated that he wants to know the zoning, what areas present environmental hazards, how the land is de- veloped, whether a San Antonio riverwalk project is out of the question along the Platte. He stated that he wanted to know what communities abutting Englewood to the north and south are proposing, and what is existing in the corridor in those communities. Mr. Graham stated that examples from Denver and Littleton on the South Platte River/Santa Fe corridor will be forwarded to the Commission . 9 Mr. Ransick discussed the difficulty he experiences in getting from his house on the east side of Englewood to the river. He emphasized the need for improvement in traversing across busy thoroughfares such as South Broadway, Santa Fe Drive, U .S. 285, etc. He suggested that by exercising some vision and making a few changes , the quality of life for Englewood residents can be improved. Mr. Ransick stated that if people cannot get to the river to bike, except by putting the bike atop the car and driving to the river -the purpose of recreational activities along the river is defeated. Mr. Welker stated that he agreed with Mr. Ransick -it is difficult to cross the busy streets -particularly if one is afoot or on bicycle. He stated that there has been discussion on cross-overs, and creation of hiking/biking paths that can be extended. He stated that the City needs to give serious consideration to these possibilities. Mr. Graham cited the bicycle trail through Cushing Park, which ties into Dartmouth and crosses Santa Fe to tie into the river path; however, there is no north/south extension of this trail. Mr. Willis questioned how Englewood would go about developing presently zoned/developed industrial land for recreational purposes, if the intent of Metro Vision 2020 Plan is to encour- age recreational development along the Platte River. Mr. Graham stated that DRCOG has de- veloped a much more detailed plan for open space ; the objective of the Planning Commission is to develop policies to address a change of land use. Mr. Graham briefly discussed the "land trust " program wherein property is purchased and held in trust as open space or for future rec- reation facility development. Mr. Welker discussed financing for parks and open space, and noted that South Suburban Parks & Recreation District seems to put financing plans on the ballot. He pointed out that the Englewood Parks and Recreation Department does not. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stockwell asked if eminent domain can be exercised to acquire the land. Mr. Graham stated that the City of Englewood does have the power of eminent domain ; however, funds from GOCO cannot be used for development of the open space if the land is acquired through eminent domain. It would serve our purposes much better if the land were to be acquired on the open market. Access to and from the river was discussed again. Mr. Stockwell asked for an overlay indi- cating means of pedestrian access to and from the river; he wants this overlay to show differ- ence in access widths and elevations. Mr. Welker asked if there is continuous public access along Big Dry Creek to the Platte River. Brief discussion followed . Mr . Ransick stated that he would like to see development promoted wherein people who bike or hike along the river, or who may pursue other recreational activities along the river, would avail themselves of coffee/bagel shops , restaurants , etc . 10 • • • • • Mr. Graham stated that one thing the Commission can suggest which could impact the entire City, is that more "pedestrian friendly" sidewalks be developed City-wide. He noted that the curb, parking strip, and then the sidewalk is much more walkable and pedestrian friendly than the Hollywood-style sidewalk, curb, and gutter combination. Mr. Welker noted that West Quincy west of South Broadway is a very wide street; is there ex- cess right-of-way along this street that could be used for other types of travel -bicycle trails, for instance . Mr. Graham stated that the typical street right-of-way in Englewood is 60 feet, with a roadway of 36 feet or more. Mr. Welker also noted development along West Oxford Avenue -the recreation center, a light rail station to be developed, the underpass at Santa Fe, and then the Englewood Golf Course. Mr. Douglas asked if it would be possible to add a trail system along Oxford now that the improvements for light rail and Santa Fe are pretty much accomplished. Mr. Graham stated that it is generally much less expensive to develop trails during the course of major construction projects rather than trying to add to a finished project. Mr. Graham stated that Englewood can submit up to eight (8) projects for TIP funding; we have submitted five projects this year. He emphasized that there need to be "plans" on the shelf, with specifics on costs and improvements -a "guess" request cannot be submitted. Mr. Ransick stated that he would like to see a list of things that we "could do" along the Platte River/Santa Fe corridor . He also wants to know what is located in this corridor. Mr. Willis asked if there is a lot of momentum for the Metro Vision 2020. Mr. Graham stated that it is the "carrot " for communities applying for federal funding; it is not, however, the "only game in town". Mr. Graham cited funds from GOCO and the land trust program earlier addressed. Mr. Willis questioned whether funding could be withheld from an agency unless that agency went on record in support of the regional plan. Discussion ensued . Mr. Graham stated that Metro Vision has an underlying assumption that the core city , down- town Denver , is important to the entire metro area; the central city provides venues that subur- ban entities do not or cannot provide -the zoo , the sports arenas, Elitches, Denver Art Mu- seum, etc. Discussion of Englewood 's 1979 Comprehensive Plan followed. Mr. Graham noted that one of the proposals in this Plan is that of a one-way couplet of some streets to increase handling capacities of these streets. Is this proposal really workable 20 years after the Plan was drafted ? Mr. Graham stated that while the 1979 Plan is really quite a good Plan, there are some house- keeping measures which need to be addressed. Ms. Lathram asked if there is any street or trail system in use along the River? Mr. Graham stated that he could not answer that at this time . Mr. Ransick discussed a bicycle trails system along at least a portion of the corridor; he did note that no one is coming off that trail system into Englewood to visit coffee shops or restaurants . 11 Mr. Welker discussed the Riverpoint Development in Littleton; there are no fences or barriers for those residents who want access to the River corridor. • Mr. Stockwell stated that on the overlay map he had previously discussed, he also wants to see the streets so that connections with Denver, Littleton, and Sheridan can be viewed. Mr. Willis stated that he understood that one of the goals of the regional plan is to tie the community parks into river corridor access; is this an accurate understanding. Mr. Graham responded affirmatively. He discussed the aid that Englewood has provided to Sheridan, and will probably continue to provide . Mr. Graham noted that in addition to Denver, Sheridan, Englewood, and Littleton abutting the river corridor, unincorporated Arapahoe County land parcels are also in this corridor. Staff is studying the linkages between these various entities . Mr. Graham stated he would like to suggest an order of review of the core elements of the Re - gional Plan. First point of focus would be land issues along the light rail corridor. Staff wants to know what the land uses in the corridor are before the light rail line opens in July. Second point of focus would be land use issues along the River corridor. He explained that there is considerable discussion of development potentials along the light rail corridor ; there is less pressure for development along the river corridor. Mr . Graham stated that he has begun the mapping process for the light rail corridor, and the river corridor. This process has yielded several large sheets depicting the shape of the various parcels, as well as over 100 pages of supporting documentation . This project is still incomplete . Mr. Stockwell expressed the opinion that land uses will be different along the light rail, the South Santa Fe Drive , and the South Platte River corridors. He wanted to see the land uses along each of these three corridors, and also the supporting documentation Mr. Graham al- luded to earlier . He asked about environmental impact statements on development along the corridors. Mr. Welker discussed the proposal to increase the density in Englewood, noting the proposal for additional dwelling units in the CityCenter Englewood, as well as a potential for residential development on the General Iron Site . Mr. Douglas expressed the opinion that increased den- sity is inevitable if sprawl is to be controlled ; there will have to be increased density -either through redevelopment, or development of vacant sites within a municipality . Mr. Welker noted that when Forest City was involved in the CityCenter redevelopment, their proposal was for almost 350 units -none of which would allow children, and were not for long-term resi- dents ; all units were to be rentals. He stated that he fully supports the concept of creating jobs for the residents who chose to reside in Englewood. Mr. Welker reiterated his previous con- cerns about ease of crossing Broadway and other highly traveled rights-of-way, and stated that unless crossing Broadway is made easier , neither the new development nor the Broadway re- development project will be viable projects. Discussion ensued . Mr. Welker expressed the opinion that the 20 year old Comprehensive Plan is part of a larger problem , and needs to be updated. He stated that the South Broadway Action Plan is a step forward . Further discussion ensued. 12 • • • • • Mr. Douglas asked what distance factor Mr. Graham is using to map the corridors. Mr. Gra- ham suggested that he is using 1300 feet east along the light rail corridor, and 1300 feet west of given tangents along the river. Mr. Douglas noted that the Commission will be considering land use issues along the light rail line; is the Commission supposed to link the land use to the light rail. Additional discussion followed. Mr. Douglas suggested that, in all probability, properties west of light rail will be less impacted by that use than properties east of light rail. Mr. Stockwell noted that just because there is a light rail station every 10 blocks doesn't mean there aren't other streets and uses in the corridor that should be considered. Mr. Douglas asked if there is some type of shuttle that will be in place with light rail opens. Ms. Dannemiller stated that , while there is an ad hoc group working on a shuttle system, in all probability there will be no shuttle system in place by July, 2000. Funding is a problem the ad hoc group needs to address; they are looking at a regional system which will tie the medical campus, school sites, and CityCenter together. The system might be expanded to the west of Santa Fe in the future . Mr. Graham stated that he appreciated the Commission's time and attention, and staff will be back for another study session on the Metro Vision 2020 program at a future date. The study session disbanded . G(rtrude G . Welty, Reco;ding Secretary f:\dept\nbd\group\boards\plancomm\minute s 1999\pcm I 0-99a.doc 13