Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-02 PZC MINUTES.. '· • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 p.m. in Conference Room A of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Welker presiding. Present: Hayduk , Ransick, Stockwell, Weber, Douglas, Welker Absent: Lathram, Rininger, Willis Also present: Senior Planner Graham Planning Analyst Dannemiller II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 19, 1999 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of October 19 , 1999 were to be considered for ap- proval. Douglas moved : Stockwell seconded: The Minutes of October 19 , 1999 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Ransick , Stockwell , Weber , Douglas , Welker None Hayduk Lathram , Rininger, Willis The motion carried . III. ENGLEWOOD TOWN CENTER PUD Amendment CASE #99-01 Chairman Welker noted a memorandum in the packet from Senior Planner Stitt regarding the proposed PUD amendment for the Englewood Town Center. This memorandum, dated Octo- ber 21 , 1999, states that the Englewood Environmental Foundation has requested that the PUD Amendment request be withdrawn at this time; when major development issues have been set- tled , the Foundation will resubmit a request for amendment to the PUD . Members of the Commission acknowledged the request from the Englewood Environmental Foundation to withdraw the application . 1 • • • IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr . Graham stated that there is a meeting Thursday evening , sponsored by RTD , in the Com- munity Room of Englewood City Hall. The meeting, focused on the General Iron site devel- opment , will be from 5 :30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., with the presentation scheduled for 6 p.m. Mr. Graham stated that there is to be computer visualizations of the maintenance facility they pro- pose . Mr . Douglas asked how much space is proposed for the RTD development. Mr. Graham stated that the maintenance /storage facility will encompass a portion of the GIW site , and ex- tend onto property in the City of Denver. Approximately 9 acres of the GIW site , and 11 acres in Denver will be developed for the RTD project. Mr. Graham stated that City Council and staff have neg o tiated with RTD regarding the proposed development. He pointed out that RTD is a quasi-governmental agency , and does not pay property taxes. Mr. Graham com - mented on the relationship of the RTD to the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that staff has asked City Council to keep options open on the type of development that may ultimately occur on the site. He noted that City Council did approve an Intergovernmental Agreement to use $100 ,000 of the Brownfields Grant funds to pur-sue environmental assessment on the GIW site . Mr. Douglas asked how many people would be employed by the RTD development. Mr. Gra- ham stated that the figure has ranged from 100 to 300 , but he has also heard that the 300 figure is not realistic. There will be three work shifts , and it will be a 24-hour-per-day operation. Most of the fleet of cars will be stored on this site -a storage capacity of 100 cars . Drivers will be using this site , so there will be locker space provided for the drivers; machinists and cleaning crews will also be headquartered on the site. Mr. Graham did state that the really heavy maintenance of cars -motor replacement, etc., --will remain at the Osage site . RTD has estimated that there could be one or two large trucks per day coming to the site loaded with maintenance materials and equipment. Mr. Stockwell asked about residential de velopment on part of the GIW site . Mr. Graham stated that design concepts have been discussed, and street grid patterns have also been dis- cussed. He has seen nothing on building elevations, or further refinement of the initial propos- als. Mr. Graham stated that the Planning Commission meeting on November l6tl1 will be devoted to presentation of the underlying principles and guidelines for the overlay zone district that is proposed for the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor. Further discussion of the Metro Vision 2020 and open space will be delayed until December . 2 • • • VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE No one from the attorney's office was present. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Stockwell reported on the City Council meeting of November 1; the MOA expenses for the first year are estimated to be $226,000; thereafter , it will cost the City $96,000 yearly to have the MOA in the CityCenter. The Group Living Ordinance as approved on second reading by a vote of 6: 1, Councilman Waggoner voting in opposition . Mr. Stockwell stated that there were many people in atten- dance at this Council meeting , a great number of them parents of children who are in Commu- nity Cares group homes. Citizens concerned about location and operation of group homes were also well represented. Comments made to Council included that it is unreasonable to de- clare a group home a nuisance if one of the children has one misdemeanor -this is not done on a privately owned single-family residence. The distance factor was disputed by Community Cares officials; parking ratios are too high; and the issue of whether existing group homes are "grandfathered" in was raised. Mr. Stockwell said that Community Cares states that the group home on South Corona Street is a "mental health facility". If this group home had accepted youngsters from correctional facilities before this Ordinance went into effect , they were not in compliance and still won 't be in compliance . Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated that he anticipated there will be revisions and refine- ments to this ordinance; if it doesn 't survive a court challenge it will be before the Commission and Council again. Mr. Douglas stated that one reason for the big problem is that the South Corona Street group home doesn't fit into that neighborhood , and should not have been al- lowed. Brief discussion ensued. The regular meeting adjourned . Gertrude G. Welty, R~cording S~ci~tary f:\dept\nbd\gro up\boards\plancomm\minute s 1999\pcm l 1-99 a.doc 3 • • • STUDY SESSION Mr. Graham stated that this is a continued discussion of the Metro Vision 2020 Plan. He refer- enced an outline he had prepared posing questions to be considered on a Multimodal Transporta- tion System , Urban Centers , Environmental Quality , and Open Space. Mr. Graham stated that over the past several meetings on discussion of Metro Vision 2020 , the Commission has come to consensus on: 1. Some residential growth can be absorbed in Englewood. 2 . Transit corridors could accept some density . 3. Other residential development could occur as infill development in existing residential zones . 4. Increasing residential densities should be accompanied by increased open space. Mr. Graham discussed the possibility of Englewood accepting 1 3 of the projected growth cited in the MetroVision 2020 Plan ; this would equate to approximately 7 ,000 additional resi - dents . Mr . Graham stated that infrastmcture sizing is important when considering density in- creases . He stated that he has discussed the increased density issue with the Englewood Utili- ties Department; they have designed the water and sewer system to accommodate a 70 ,000 population. However, they have indicated that if the Theological Seminary site were to be re- developed for high density , there would be insufficient water /sewer capacity to accommodate the increased density . Mr. Graham discussed the relation of the Comprehensive Plan and amendments thereto, to the Capital Projects budget process, to a physical development. He advised that zoning changes and development efforts should be related to the Comprehensive Plan -are the proposed changes compatible with the intent of the Plan policies. The Comprehensive Plan is a begin- ning point ; policies and guidelines should be included in work programs. Mr. Graham asked the members of the Commission if they are comfortable with the pace the staff has set on discussion of the Metro Vision Plan, and with the information that has been transmitted . Mr. Ransick stated that the information contained in the latest packet was very informative and helpful to him . Mr. Douglas stated that the discussions are entitled "Metro Vision 2020 ", but he felt the issues being discussed aren 't really part of the Metro Vision 2020 Plan. Ms . Dannemiller stated that Metro Vision 2020 is setting parameters, and the Commission needs to determine how Englewood addresses each of these several sectors that fit within the parameters. Mr. Douglas pointed out that we talk about MetroVision 2020, but seem to focus only on the Santa Fe cor- ridor. Mr. Graham stated that MetroVision 2020 really applies to the six county area. Mr. Graham stated that the Commission has to consider the policies set forth in the Metro Vision 2020, and adapt them to Englewood ; the Plan is meant for wide application . 4 • • • Mr . Stockwell stated that Englewood needs to tie into metro area programs such as bicycle trails, and street grid systems; he reiterated the need to fit into the larger plan . Mr. Stockwell stated that he found the demographic information contained in the latest packet most helpful. Mr. Welker stated that in his opinion , the Comprehensive Plan is the responsibility of the Planning Commission -what we see for the City in the future. We do need a forward looking document , such as MetroVision 2020 , plus our localized vision , to tie into the larger picture. Mr. Welker suggested that if the determination is made that increased density is not what we want in Englewood , under the City 's Comprehensive Plan we have the ability to draft policies that would not allow increased density . Or , we can look at the South Platte River and light rail and determine whether increased density should be allowed along this corridor . Mr . Welker stated that he would not want to sacrifice open space for increased density or new residential development. Mr . Welker agreed with Mr. Graham that the Commission and Council need to consider the impact of increased density and new development on infrastructure aspects such as utilities and traffic. Mr. Douglas stated that increased density will happen over a period of time , and the City of Englewood needs to plan for it. Mr. Welker asked if we want to redevelop more industrial area for residential purposes? Mr. Ransick stated that he would want to see analysis of what is gained versus what is lost. Previous study session discussions indicated that residential devel - opment brings in little revenue through property tax , and does not pay its way for city services provided. What would the impact be on revenues by lost property tax. Mr. Welker agreed that the City has very low property tax. Mr. Douglas stated that people drive to work and back home every day . He stated that the idea of having job opportunities within walking dis- tance of residential uses is appealing . Discussion ensued . Mr. Welker stated that he wants to keep a mixture of residential , retail , and industrial uses in the City of Englewood . Mr. Stockwell stated that he would prefer to see a move away from industrial development. Mr. Graham discussed the need to reconcile job and housing opportu- nities. Mr. Welker stated that there are some industrial uses that he would like to see move from the City of Englewood , citing recycling uses , trash businesses, and similar heavy uses . There are a lot of clean industrial businesses that do not present a risk to the environment or quality of life for Englewood residents . Mr. Ransick asked if this is an appropriate time to discuss reduction of traffic and allowing small businesses within walking distance of residential development. He discussed the distance from his residence to retail outlets along South Broadway . Discussion ensued . Mr. Welker suggested that the area around the medical campus might be an area that could support small retail businesses . Mr. Welker noted that West Oxford Avenue and West Quincy Avenue are two streets that have excess right-of-way that could be converted to a bicycle paths and/or bus lanes with "nodes" of development at key intersections. West Oxford will not only provide access to a light rail station, but extends through Sheridan. Mr . Stockwell suggested extending the bicycle routes and bus /shuttle service along Oxford and /or Quincy Avenues to South Clark- son Street on the east. 5 • • Reduction of the distance to five blocks between residential neighborhoods and the nearest "business node " was discussed. Consideration of a "transportation plan" was brought up. Mr. Graham stated that this will be on the work program for 2000. Mr. Welke r stated that the Planning Commission definitely needs to be involved in development of this transportation plan . ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The Commission declared a recess at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. with Douglas, Ransick, Stockwell , Weber and Welker in attendance. Mr. Hayduk had excused himself during the recess . ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The Commission then considered the Urban Centers section of the outline prepared by Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham noted that Urban Centers are activity centers, and generate jobs and revenue. He stated that there are five or six different kinds of urban centers , such as neigh- borhood centers , community centers , activity centers , maximum use regional centers and em - ployment centers. Mr. Graham noted that the City of Englewood presently has a density of eight dwelling units per acre on average. It was pointed out that residential development recently proposed for the CityCenter site was focused on attracting the young, mobile, professional person/couple. The units were not designed for purchase, or for families. Mr. Graham pointed out that Englewood is a "starter home " location for young people -their first home; homes are afford- able in Englewood . Then after a few years, and one or two children , this couple needs a larger home -none that they like are availab le in Englewood, so they relocate to another community. The children mature, go to college, and move into their own homes; at this time the larger house becomes burdensome to this couple, who sell it and may choose to come back to Englewood to a smaller house and yard. Many people have expressed a desire to be able to enlarge their "starter home" so they wouldn't have to sell and relocate ; unfortunately , present zoning regulations are so restrictive this cannot be accomplished . Mr. Welker stated that some Englewood neighborhoods are "coming back ". Mr. Ransick asked if there is only one "urban center" in Englewood , or could there be more . Mr. Graham stated that there are two obviou s transportation corridors -South Broadway and Santa Fe; either of these transportation corridors could lend themselves to development of an urban center along its length. Mr. Welker commented that in his mind, the downtown Broad- way area and CityCenter are one urban cente r. Mr. Ransick discussed the Belleview/Broadway area , and suggested that this can possibly de- velop as an "activity center" for adjacent residential development. Brief discussion ensued. The Commission then began discussion of the Environmental Quality portion of the outline . Mr. Graham stated that more traffic contributes to air pollution by increased auto emissions. 6 • • • Additional streets and roadways may needed to accommodate additional traffic , and these streets and roadways may require more sand during winter months which also contributes to air pollution. Development which would encourage pedestrian activity rather than vehicular activity was raised as an issue for discussion . Mr . Douglas stated that if citizens are asked to leave their vehicles at home to cut down on air pollution, it should be made convenient for those people to do so and to get to the light rail stations . Mr. Douglas stated that retention of open space should be encouraged , as well as encouragement of higher density development near light rail lines/stations. Mr. Graham suggested that neighborhood "nodes" might be troublesome for some neighbor- hoods; people won't want traffic activity that retail nodes might bring into their neighborhood. Mr. Ransick stated that he had lived in the Mission District in San Francisco for a number of years, and is accustomed to a high density living environment. He asked how the low density residential areas can be balanced with the desire for ease of accessibility and nearness of small retail centers -where you can walk to pick up a gallon of milk. Mr. Graham noted that in studying the demographics of areas along the corridor , there are two distinct block groups south of Oxford -high income, high net wealth. These residents will not welcome "retail nodes " in their area. Mr. Welker commented that many re s idents enjoy a mountain view and this is an important feature of their home . Discussion ensued. Mr. Stockwell discussed the need to develop a 20 year vision of what we want to see the City become. Further discussion followed. Mr. Graham noted that he and Ms. Dannemiller had toured along the South Platte River on bicycle, and suggested that members of the Commission might want to do the same. Mr . Ran- sick stated that he has been exploring ~he river area more, and keeping a journal on the types of wildlife he has seen. Mr. Ransick suggested that the Commission and staff continue discussion on Environmental issues and Open Space on another evening. Mr. Graham reminded members of the meeting on November l61 h, at which time three modu - lar proposals for the GIW site will be available. He suggested that staff will be back before the Commission with more Metro Vision 2020 discussion in early December , and more detail on the Santa Fe/Platte corridor overlay concepts in early January. The study session ended at 9:30 p.m. Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secre ry \\en g_ch lsys\d e pt\nbd lgro up l board sl pl a nco mml minutes 1999\pcm l l-99 a .doc 7