The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-01-20 PZC MINUTES• ... CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COI\1MISSION January 20, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Douglas presiding. Members present: Dummer, Horner, Tobin, Weber, Welker, Cottle, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: None (Secretary's note: two vacancies) Staff present: Mark Graham, Neighborhood Community Coordinator Brad Denning, Planning Assistant Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 6, 1998 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of January 6, 1998 were to be considered for ap- proval. Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of January 6 , 1998 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Horner, Tobin, Weber, Welker , Dummer, Cottle, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT North Englewood Small Area Plan (NESAP) CASE #CP-98-01 Mr. Douglas welcomed members of the audience , and stated that this meeting is a continuance of the Public Hearing which was initially opened on January 6, 1998 . Mr. Douglas stated that if a citizen has signed up to speak , but had spoken during the previous segment of the Hearing , he will not call upon that individual to address the Commission. If, however , that citizen has additional information they want to impart, there will be an opportunity to do so after others 1 have been afforded the opportunity to speak. Mr . Douglas asked that audience members be courteous to whomever has the floor , and to limit comments to no more than five minutes in length. Mr. Douglas asked for a motion to reopen the Public Hearing. Dummer moved : Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP-98-01 be reopened . AYES: NAYS : Tobin , Weber , Welker , Cottle , Dummer , Horner , Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : None The motion carried. Mark Graham was sworn in , and testified that staff is requesting that public testimony be taken this evening, and that the Public Hearing then be continued to a date certain to provide the op- portunity to modify the proposed NESAP so that it may be more acceptable to the citizenry . Staff wants to continue working with owners of Atlas Metals (General Iron Works site ) and with members of the general public to develop a workable solution to problems and concerns of this neighborhood. Mr. Graham stated that staff did attempt to obtain the ownership infor- mation from Arapahoe County to facilitate notification of more people for this meeting ; how- ever , that information has not yet been received. Mr. Graham testified that the public partici- pation process has been on-going since August, 1997 ; it appears that there is a segment of the north Englewood area that does not feel they were included or involved in that process; staff wants to expand involvement in the public participation process to include this entire north Englewood area -resident and business owner. Mr . Graham also discussed development of three or four options for the redevelopment/revitalization of the area for the residents and busi- ness owners to consider. Dave Pascal , 2800 South Delaware Street , was sworn in . Mr. Pascal stated that he would have to agree with the concerns expressed on the Plan as it is presently presented, and alluded to rumors circulating regarding development of the Plan. Mr. Pascal stated that one of his ~_ajor concerns is that of the Englewood Depot , which was relocated to the site on West Dartmouth A venue within the last few years. Mr. Pascal advised the Commission that the State Historical Society has designated the Englewood Depot as a State Historical site; this will have to be taken into consideration in developing any Plan for the area . Mr. Pascal reiterated that the is- sue of the Englewood Depot is a major concern of his, and he wanted to hear something this evening on how this issue will be addressed. Mr. Simpson asked what rumors Mr. Pascal has heard. Mr. Pascal stated that Dartmouth A venue is proposed to be widened , which would impact the Englewood Depot site quite se- verely. The mixed use development shown on the draft Plan may also impact the site . Mr. Pascal stated that he wants a clear understanding of what "revitalization " means . 2 • • Mr. Welker asked if Mr. Pascal has participated in any of the dialog or meetings regarding the NESAP. Mr. Pascal stated he had not participated. He stated that another big concern to him is an increased traffic flow in the area; he pointed out that there are a lot of children who live in this neighborhood, and he wants to see this remain a quiet neighborhood. Mr. Pascal reiter- ated his question on the meaning of "revitalization". Doug Basset, 3104 South Fox Street, was sworn in. Mr. Basset stated that he is opposed to the Plan. He has lived in his home for three years; there have beeri several accidents at the intersection (Fox and Dartmouth), and he has had a jeep upside-down in his yard. He has renters with little girls who live in one of the units, and is opposed to increased traffic in the area. He stated that three or four times per week, the Police Department is pulling vehicles over on Dartmouth A venue, and it is frequently at night right outside his bedroom window. Mr. Dummer noted that traffic increases with an increase in population. He urged Mr. Basset to participate in the meetings and discussions to develop a workable Plan. Ms. Tobin commented that the Police Department places a "speed wagon" on various streets, which seems to slow traffic . She suggested that Mr. Basset might contact the Police Depart- ment regarding placement of this vehicle on Dartmouth Avenue for a period of time. Don Roth, 2830 South Sherman Street, was sworn in. Mr . Roth testified that he does not live in the immediate area, but still in close proximity. Mr. Roth expressed concerns about in- creased density proposed by the Plan, which seems to be in opposition to the desire of the resi- dents. People like the "small town atmosphere", and don't want to see a high density devel- opment. Mr. Roth stated that he does not like the idea of a proposed light rail station in con- junction with the Plan, noting that there is a light rail station at Evans A venue, and one is pro- posed in conjunction with the Mall redevelopment. Mr. Roth noted that there is no proposed parking area for either the Evans light rail station, or for the proposed light rail station in the NESAP. Where are users of light rail going to park their vehicles? On the neighborhood streets. Mr. Roth pointed out that freight rail lines will be only a few feet away from the light rail lines. The GIW buildings make a fairly good noise barrier of freight activities; but, Mr. Roth noted, many of the freight trains do stop to on-load or off-load during the middle of the night and if he can hear those sounds at his house on South Sherman, that noise must be inten- sified many times over for residents in nearer proximity. Mr. Roth reiterated there is a lot of activity on the freight lines between midnight and 4:00 a.m. Mr. Roth stated that he does think something needs to be done to help this neighborhood , but isn't sure that this Plan is good for either the neighborhood or the city . Ms. Cottle asked Mr. Roth what ideas he might have for the area. Mr. Roth suggested that possibly a light commercial development along the rail tracks would be acceptable, and im- provement of South Fox Street to more clearly delineate the residential neighborhood from the commercial/industrial activities to the west. Mr. Douglas asked if Mr. Roth envisioned a "business park". Mr. Roth stated this might be a more reasonable approach. 3 Louise Mumm, 3265 South Fox Street, was sworn in. Ms. Mumm stated that she has lived in her home since 1963. When Cinderella City was under consideration and construction, resi- dents along South Fox Street petitioned the City asking that South Fox Street be a cul-de-sac so that through traffic would not irilpact the street. This was not done. She now has nightmares about a "boulevard " going by the front of her house . Ms. Mumm asked why the GIW closed. Ms. Tobin suggested that many steel mills and iron works establishments closed because it was cheaper to obtain iron from foreign countries than to make it in the United States. Ms. Mumm noted that her husband worked for GIW for many years. She knows that some- thing needs to be done ; Cinderella City needs to have something done, and GIW will have to have something done, but she does not want to see a Fox Boulevard by her front door. B. J . Hodge, 3272 South Galapago Street, was sworn in . Ms . Hodge asked what homes are specified for demolition. Mr. Douglas stated that this cannot be answered at this time; the Commission is asking for in- put from the general public. Ms. Hodge stated that if this Plan is approved, many of the homes in the area will be taken. She stated that this Plan could not have been developed without something in the back of someone's mind regarding which homes will be taken, how many will be taken, etc. She stated that it appears the homes on South Galapago will be eliminated, and again stated that the Plan developers have to have something in mind . Ms . Hodge stated that the residents have the right to know if the home they own will stay or go. Ms. Hodge stated that she would like to see the homes remain ; she would also like to see improved lighting in the neighborhood , and would like to see a little more traffic in the entire area. Ms. Hodge stated that a City needs to grow, and growth will bring more traffic. Ms. Hodge emphasized the need to take the con- cerns of residents into consideration regarding the Plan, and stated that the "residents make Englewood." Ms. Hodge then discussed her concerns regarding asbestos removal, both from the Mall structures and from GIW structures. How will this removal impact the neighborhood; will this material be placed in dumpsters outside waiting to be hauled off. How will the neigh- borhood be protected during this process. Mr. Simpson stated that asbestos removal from Mall structures is going on at the present time; this material is not placed in outside dumpsters, but is immediately enclosed and removed from the City for disposal. Mr. Simpson emphasized the need for protection for everyone con- cerned -residents of the neighborhood as well as the workers removing and handling the as- bestos material. Ms. Hodge inquired whether Cushing Park will be eliminated or changed as a result of this Plan. Mr. Simpson stated that Cushing Park would not be impacted by the proposed Plan . Shirley McChesney , 3231 South Galapago Street, was sworn in. Ms . McChesney stated that she and her husband have lived in their home for 40 years, and they do not want to move. 4 They are happ y in this neighborhood. They have built onto their home , and put new siding on the home . Ms. McChesney stated that they have wonderful neighbors and reiterated that they do not want to move. Ms. McChesney stated that redevelopment of the Mall is fine , "but why do you have to bother us." Ms. McChesney stated that the train noises do not bother them. Ms. McChesney asked about the financing of improvements called for in the Plan, and com- mented that residents understand that the City is "almost broke ". Ms. McChesney asked that the Commission "please listen to us ". If they have to move , they would have to have money to purchase a new house , plus money to move. Ms. McChesney pointed out that whoever ac- quired the properties in the Plan would have to acquire "prime property ". Mr. Douglas stated that the Planning Commission is listening to the concerns of the residents. Mr. Douglas also pointed out that the Planning Commission will only make a recommendation to the City Council ; the Public Hearing process would be repeated before the City Council prior to enactment of this Plan or any Plan so recommended. Mr. Welker asked Ms . McChesney if she had been following the proposals for the Mall rede- velopment, and how does she feel this activity will affect her. Ms . McChesney stated that she thinks the light rail is a g ood thing , but parking for use of the light rail will affect them. She stated that the GIW site needs something , also. Ms. McChesney emphasized that the C ity needs shopping areas , more tax revenue -she acknowledged that we need some change, but asked that we "don't uproot people." Christine Vincennie Gartner and Peter Gartner , 2718 South Acoma Street, were sworn in. Ms. Vincennie Gartner testified that she and her husband have lived at this address for two years , and have been fixing the house up , doing things as replacing plumb ing , etc. She stated that their "dreams are balancing on the edge of a pit". She testified that they did go to some neighborhood meetings during the summer, and is aware this has been talked about for some six to eight months . She misses the convenience of the Mall. Ms . Vincennie Gartner testified there is a need to make something happen, but she wants to stay in her home to enjoy the fruits of the redevelopment/revitalization efforts . She testified that she is from New York, and never knew her neighbors there. She enjoys the small , home-town feeling that Englewood has , and knows who her neighbors are. Ms. Vincennie Gartner stated that she wants Englewood to be a better place to live, but reiterated her desire to stay in her home . She stated that the residents of this area are scared and frightened of change. She asked that the residents be included in the discussions and not be uprooted . Paul Apodaca , 3200 South Galapago Street , was sworn in . Mr . Apodaca stated that he has lived in Englewood about 45 years , with time out for military duty. He noted that a lot of things have been planned in Englewood that "just never panned out ", and cited Trolley Square. He stated that the community needs to be solvent and young again. Mr . Apodaca stated that C inderella City is a big joke -and is a joke throughout the State . He urged that the City spend money correctly , and don't disrupt what Englewood is . John Domingue , 3246 South Corona , was sworn. Mr. Domingue testified that he owns a small business at 2842 South Elati Street. Mr. Domingue agreed with other members of the audi- 5 ence that Englewood does have a home town feel, and stated that in his opinion a Plan of this magnitude will bring a "clash of values ". Is it to be a case of "out with the old and in with the new "? Is this what revitalization means ? He noted that the Plan mentions the need for low , mid , and high density development -he asked what is in the area now . Mr. Douglas asked Mr. Graham to address this question. Mr . Graham referenced a map on the front of the proposed Plan , stating that the Plan shows density based on existing zoning . Mr. Graham noted that there is quite a bit of industrial zoning in the area . Mr. Welker asked about the property between Dartmouth and Floyd ; will this be subject to zone change . Mr. Graham stated that it probably will change ; the light rail station may create a need for higher density zone classifications . Ms . Cottle asked if zone change suggestions could be included as a part of the Plan . She noted that it appears that there are people who have purchased homes located within the industrial zone district , or are living in a high density district even though they reside in a single-family home. Mr. Graham stated that the purpose of zone designation application is to encourage one type of use , and discourage other types of uses . Mr. Graham cautioned that development or redevelopment to any specific zone classification does not occur overnight . He also pointed out that changing zoning may create non-conforming status of some uses which impacts ability to remodel , add on to , or sell. Ms . Tobin asked if, in the instance of a zone district change, existing uses are not grandfathered in. Mr. Graham stated that this can be done; however , the non-conforming status will apply . Mr. Domingue referenced Goal #2 of the Plan , which is "Revitalize the North Englewood Neighborhood." He stated that he interprets this to mean "pack more people in there ." He then referenced Goal #3 , which reads: "Create a new 'front door ' from Santa Fe to the neigh- borhood , the redevelopment areas and the entire City of Englewood." Mr. Domingue stated that he finds this to be in conflict with Plan Objective #2 , which reads : "Orient traffic away from the interior of the neighborhood." He asked whether the objective of the improved iden- tity points to serve cars or people. Mr. Domingue referenced Goal #6, "Increase tax revenues from dormant property "; he asked for clarification of "dormant property ". He also asked what is meant by "strengthening " the neighborhood. Bruce Geller , 3155 South Elati Street, was sworn in. Mr. Geller stated that he has lived at this address one and one -half years , but grew up in Littleton so he is pretty well acquainted with this entire area. Mr. Geller stated that he attended a "watermelon social " last summer , but never heard anything discussed about the redevelopment/revitalization of the north Englewood neighborhood . He stated that a lot of residents of this area were "left in the cold " regarding notification. Mr. Geller stated that he doesn 't like the Plan. He bought a property that is sur- rounded by residential development, and doesn 't want traffic caused by offices or institutional buildings going through the area . Mr. Geller stated that he has a mountain view from his back yard; if this redevelopment with four or five story buildings is approved, what happens to his mountain view . He stated that he enjoys running , but this is not a "pedestrian friendly " neigh- borhood , and pointed out traffic barriers (heavily traveled streets ) he encounters in his runs . Mr. Geller stated that he also enjoys walking through his neighborhood , and likes to walk to 6 Cushing Park. He stated that this Plan will detract from the Park. Mr . Geller addressed the "transit-oriented" designation on the Plan, but noted that it appears to be much the same Plan even if the light rail station does not happen. He suggested that the Plan be "resident ori- ented". Mr. Geller stated that he had done some research in the Englewood Public Library, reading copies of old newspapers; he noted that much of the changes in this neighborhood have been done within the last 35 years: close the bridge over Dartmouth, this could decrease traf- fic; demolish the mall structures and sod this area over and turn it back into a park. Upgrade single-family homes; rather than building another light rail stop between the mall area and Evans Avenue, get RTD to provide small circulator buses much as they are doing in Boulder. Encourage motorists to use Evans Avenue or U .S. 285, even if speed bumps have to be in- stalled on Dartmouth every two blocks. The neighborhood doesn't need an increase in traffic cutting through, this would add nothing to the living experience . Mr. Geller urged that a pro- gram be set-up to help people fix up their properties. Mr. Geller suggested that he now has a "deep distrust of City government", and that 25 years from now he may be told it's his turn to sacrifice his property for a new Plan. Karen Mccumber, 2949 South Elati Street , was sworn in. She testified that she purchased her property seven years ago, it has been rewired, replumbed, and fixed up . Her property is zoned for mid-density, and she understands from the Plan that it is one of the homes to be de- molished. She stated that her children attend Bishop Elementary School, they do not want to leave, and that it is unfair for anyone to come in and tear her house down. Jeff Claxton, 2923 South Delaware, was sworn in. He stated that he is opposed to the Plan, and is concerned about increased traffic on West Bates. It appears his home will be leveled . He has been a home owner here for three years. He stated that there have been problems with some of the properties and landlords. One of the problem properties is a Section 8 house next door to him; he discussed the drug deals that occur at this property, and his attempts to get this issue resolved. Mr. Claxton stated that there are a lot of rentals in the area, and some land- lords take interest in the maintenance of their property; others do not, and show up only to pick up the rent check. Mr. Claxton expressed concern about the high density development that is proposed, noting that typically investors purchase townhomes or condos and they have no accountability to the neighborhood . Mr . Claxton reiterated his opposition to the Plan. Rick Smith, 3133 South Acoma Street, was sworn in. He stated that he purchased his home two years ago, and this Plan shows that his home will be in jeopardy . Mr. Smith stated that he had attended the NEON meeting of last week . The City needs to do something with problem properties rather than going in and tearing people's homes down; this is a "cold-hearted" ap- proach. Rosemary Chase, 3075 South Delaware Street, was sworn in . Ms. Chase stated that she was born and raised in Englewood, and has lived in her home since 1950. She stated that she is worried about having someone come in and tear her house down . She stated that widening streets would increase traffic problems. Ms. Chase stated that she lost her husband a year ago, she lives alone, and would have no one to help her if she were forced to move. 7 Karleen Redle , 2719 South Bannock Street , was sworn in . She stated that her family has lived in this house since 1940 . It is very misleading to say that because the east side of South Acoma Street is zoned for higher density that this is what is there . This area is developed with single-family homes . Ms . Redle said that it is a "cop-out" to say that because it is zoned for specific development that the City can force that type of development. People who live there regard it as a single-family area . She stated that it is "misleading " to say that opportunities for businesses will be improved by changing a neighborhood . Ms . Redle stated that she and her mother have walked along South Broadway , and viewed the conditioh and type of uses along that street. The only way , said Ms. Redle , that we can improve business is to look at what the residents need ; in viewing the uses along Broadway , she suggested that very few of the exist- ing businesses are relevant to the needs of the neighborhood . Ms . Redle then discussed the demise of the Mall , noting that rents were too high , and businesses could not afford them. She stated that she now shops Southglen Mall , and finds no lack of customers at this Mall. She stated that the Plan for Cinderella City redevelopment looks good , but urged that "someone needs to go around and find out what kinds of business Englewood needs and wants." Don 't just tum this over to a developer -find out what people in the neighborhoods want. Ms. Redle stated that Cinderella City was the sort of place that a lot of people walked to -if something similar were to be developed , this could result in a traffic decrease. She noted that there are a lot of senior citizens living in the area that is proposed for revitalization ; these senior citizens are concerned about meeting their tax bills , and paying medical bills . Ms. Redle stated that she understands the Plan views the redevelopment/revitalization proposal from the point of view of people who stand to make money , but the Plan fails to address the needs of people with limited budgets. She urged that the Commission keep in mind what has been said: people who live in this area like the small town environment ; they live in their own homes, and want to know their neighbors . She also urged that the City look at the neighborhoods as they exist today , and maybe change the zone classification to more accurately reflect present develop- ment. Andy Aspenwall , 3121 South Acoma Street, was sworn in. Mr. Aspenwall stated that he had been watching the GIW site for the last 15 years or so , and that it is looking more "decrepit" every year, and does not reflect well on the City of Englewood. Mr. Aspenwall stated that GIW is past its time , and that something needs to be done ; however, he does not agree with the Plan . He suggested that the Plan be focused on the GIW site, not on the surrounding residen- tial neighborhood. Mr. Aspenwall reiterated that he realized that something must be done , but expressed his opinion that this Plan will not be successful. * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Douglas declared a brief recess of the Commission at 8 :25 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 P.M.; all Commission members present. * * * * * * * * * * 8 Ann Nabholz , 2990 South Delaware Street, was sworn in. Ms . Nabholz asked the indulgence of the Commission to address members of the audience. She stated that she shares the con- cerns of the neighborhood residents regarding the Plan in its present form. Ms. Nabholz stated that she is third generation to live in her home, and understands the concerns of people who don't want to lose their long-time homes. Ms. Nabholz stated that she has received over 50 telephone calls from residents of the area, as well as two letters. She advised members of the audience that a meeting has been scheduled with Mr . Rosen of Atlas ~etals in two weeks time. Ms . Nabholz asked that members of the audience give thought to what they would like to see in redevelopment of the GIW site. Ms. Nabholz agreed that the residents of Englewood do like the small town atmosphere, and want to retain that feel. Paul Apodaca again addressed the Commission, asking what we are doing here : are we con- sidering the well-being of the community, or are we "profiting developers who don't live in the area". He asked that residents of the area consider whether they want to live in New York, or in Colorado. Marvin Hall, 2800 South Elati Street , was sworn. Mr. Hall stated that the "Plan is a beautiful Plan, and it may be worth the $25, 000 paid for it;" however, he stated, "it is money wasted". This Plan might be sold to some other city and our funds recouped through that process, but "it is pretty clear that the people in this neighborhood are insulted and don't want this Plan in any way shape, or form." Mr. Hall noted that Mr. Graham requested early on in this meeting that the Public Hearing process be further continued. He asked why this would be considered -none of the residents want the Commission to grant any more time to this Plan. Mr . Hall addressed the issue of the moratorium, noting that this has affected the value and salability of industrial properties in the area and that it is an illegal moratorium. Mr. Hall stated that the industrial property owners have been "damaged", and that any Court would consider that dam- age has been done. Mr . Hall stated that the people want answers to their questions. Mr. Hall reviewed copies he has received of contracts with Civitas and the public/private partnership with David Cohen. He alleged that the "Freedom of Information" Act was abrogated by the Civitas Contract, and asked what "compensation" was being paid to Mr. Cohen. He noted that the contract with Cohen is a five-year contract, but does not say how Cohen Brothers are paid; he wants an answer on this question. Mr. Hall alleged that enactment of Ordinance #33 and the recent extension of that moratorium is part of a "surreptitious" plan developed by Mr. Co- hen, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Simpson. Mr. Hall stated that he "demands" that Ordinance #33 and the extension be revoked -Mr. Hall emphasized that he "is not asking , [he] is demand- ing". Mr. Hall urged that an additional three months not be granted to staff, and reiterated his allegation that the City has already taken property through the moratorium imposition. He stated that no one would want to purchase property with such a "cloud" hanging over it. There was no logical reason for the moratorium imposition; he has talked to other people, and they do not believe that any part of this Plan makes any sense . Mr. Hall asked why anyone would consider placing a hotel or high density development adjacent to railroad tracks, and in close proximity to the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Hall suggested that infrastructure financing would have to be by "urban renewal bonds ", and reminded everyone that the tax increment bonds floated by the Urban Renewal Authority are in default. 9 Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. No one indicated a de- sire to address the Commission at this time. Mr. Douglas asked the pleasure of the Commission. Welker moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP 98-01 be continued to April 21, 1998. AYES : NAYS : Weber, Welker, Cottle, Dummer, Horner, Tobin , Douglas None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mr. Simpson addressed the Commission , and stated that there a lot of issues were raised dur- ing the course of this meeting and the initial hearing on January 6th . It is clear that this Plan is not supported by the neighborhood. However , there are points of the Plan which are worthy of continued consideration, such as protection of the residential area from the increased traffic and industrial development impact. Mr. Simpson stated that staff wants to work with the neighborhood to address the concerns raised , and to see what modifications can be made to the Plan to address those issues. Mr. Simpson pointed out that some residents have said that something does need to be done to help the neighborhood -this is the basis from which staff would like to work. Ms. Cottle asked if a compromise could be reached, can the Public Hearing be resumed earlier than April 21. Mr. Simpson stated that he is aware that everyone wants answers to their ques- tions and concerns quickly. He advised that staff will be working with the residents and get- ting back to them before bringing a modified Plan back to the Commission. The issue of noti- fication was briefly discussed. Ms. Tobin advised that anyone living or owning property in this area must be notified. Ms. Hodge asked, from the audience, whether the issue of homes that will be taken versus those homes that will remain would be considered . Mr. Douglas advised Ms. Hodge that the hearing has been continued, and that comments from the audience cannot be accepted at this time. He stated that this is a period for discussion among members of the Commission, but that under the Public Forum section of the agenda , members of the audience can address the Commission . Mr. Welker discussed his desire to have input from the Planning Commission in this process prior to April 21. Mr. Douglas asked if the Commission could enter into any type of discus- sion on the proposed Plan at this point in time, inasmuch as the Hearing has been again contin- ued. Ms. Reid stated that any discussion by the Commission this evening would be a deviation from the normal procedure , which is closure of the public hearing followed by discussion be- fore reaching a decision . Ms. Reid noted that there will be two new members by the April 21 10 meeting, and while these new members will be participants in continued Public Hearing proc- ess on April 21 , they would not be privy to any discussions among Commission members prior to that date. Ms. Cottle asked if discussion would be permissible were it to focus on what the Commission wants staff to do between now and April 21. Mr . Welker asked if the Commission had the option of taking action at this meeting , and allowing reconsideration of the modified Plan as a new item. Ms. Reid pointed out that the Commission has made a motion to continue the Hearing to a date certain; if the membership wants to change its mind and close the Hearing , discuss the issue , and then vote on the issue , they may do so . However , the Commission will have to vote to reconsider the motion to continue the Hearing. Mr. Welker stated that part of his concern is that the Plan which will before the Commission for their consideration in April is not what is before the Commission at this time -there will have been significant changes to the existing Plan. Will it be helpful to the staff to have the Commission make a statement on record , or can this be discussed in a study session outside of the Hearing structure. Ms . Tobin asked whether posing questions for staff to research would be permissible . Ms . Reid suggested that this could be done under the Commissioner 's Choice section of the agenda . Discussion ensued . Mr. Simpson suggested that the Commission could recons ider the motion to continue ; could close the hearing , direct staff on information to be researched , or deny the Plan. Mr . Homer pointed out that there are still meetings that will be held with property owners , and the meeting mentioned earlier by Ms. Nabholz; he wants to hear the results of these meetings , and is not ready to close the Hearing on this process and begin anew . Welker moved: Weber seconded: The Planning Commission reconsider the previous motion to continue the Hearing . AYES : NAYS: Welker , Cottle , Dummer , Weber , Douglas Homer , Tobin ABSTAIN : None ABSENT : None The motion carried . Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker reiterated his desire for the Commission to have input on the process rather than remaining silent until April. Mr. Homer pointed out that members of the Commission are not "daily players ", and staff will be in meeting with the residents and Atlas Metals personnel. Staff will get back to the Commission on the happenings and he wants to hear the results of these meetings and discussions before making a determination . 11 Mr. Weber asked if members wanted to express their opinion regarding what they favor in the Plan and issues of disagreement with the Plan. Ms. Cottle asked if there is anyway to close the hearing, discuss the issues among the Com- mission, and then vote to continue the hearing on April 21. Ms . Reid stated that if the Hearing is closed and discussed and the Commission votes on the matter , the vote could be to disap- prove the Plan; it would go to City Council with the recommendation that it not be approved. She questioned whether this is what staff wants to have happen -she suggested that staff could withdraw the request for approval. Ms. Reid stated that if the Commission wants to consider a new Plan, the process will have to begin from scratch . Mr. Simpson suggested that possibly the best procedure to follow is to close the hearing, deny approval of the Plan, and provide staff direction . Mr. Welker noted that a lot of people feel an urgency to not allow the process to continue, and he feels a need for the Commission to make some response. If this issue were to be tabled and the City steps back until April 21, he felt we would right back to where we were on January 6th . Mr. Horner pointed out that Ms. Nabholz said she could not support the Plan as pre- sented, but did advise members of the audience , and the Commission, of a scheduled meeting with representatives of Atlas Metals . Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson suggested that if the Commission decides to deny approval of the Plan, there is a need to address issues raised by the neighborhood. Mr. Simpson reiterated the suggestion it might be best to close the Hearing, deny the Plan, and direct staff to start anew . Ms. Reid cautioned the Commission that if they make the determination to "kill" this Plan , any testimony and information that has been elicited during the course of this Hearing cannot be any part of the consideration of a new Plan. Ms. Reid further advised that the moratorium earlier referred to was imposed by City Council, and only City Council can rescind that mora- torium. She stated that she understands this moratorium has been extended to mid-July, 1998; by denying the Plan, this has no effect on the status of the moratorium. Mr. Dummer asked why the moratorium was imposed unless it was part of this Plan. Mr. Simpson stated that the Plan and the moratorium are two separate issues . Mr. Graham ex- pressed the opinion that their is a small "linkage" between the Plan and the moratorium, inas- much as the moratorium was enacted to provide a window of opportunity to develop policies and guidelines to mitigate impacts of industrial uses, specifically heavy industrial uses. Mr. Graham stressed the need for establishment of such policies, and staff is endeavoring to get these policies in place prior to the July 13th moratorium expiration. Ms. Cottle asked whether staff would consider not developing a new Plan, but just visiting the zoning issue -adjusting the zoning to reflect what is developed now, not what "could be". Mr . Graham reiterated the need for policy guidelines. 12 Mr. Douglas asked if this Plan is not approved, will it still be forwarded to City Council . Mr . Simpson stated that the Plan will not be referred to City Council unless it is with a favorable recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Dummer asked if it will be easier to deny approval and for staff to begin again. He noted there is also fear from the impact of the moratorium that needs to be addressed. Mr. Simpson reiterated that staff's objective is to provide protection to the residential neighborhood from the impact of undesirable industrial development. He stated that one of the things staff has heard during the course of this Hearing is that the neighborhood has problems with this particular Plan. These concerns can be addressed head-on , or the Plan can be denied and efforts be made to define what the neighborhood wants. Mr. Horner suggested that this can be done now; he is concerned that if the process is aborted now , the entire momentum for improvement and revi - talization is dead . Mr. Horner stressed that this process which has been begun should not be stopped . Mr. Welker and Mr. Dummer agreed that the process must continue. Brief discus- sion ensued. The previous motion to continue to April 21 was cited , and brought up for vote: Welker moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP-98-01 be continued to April 21 . AYES: NAYS : Cottle , Dummer , Horner , Tobin , Welker , Douglas Weber ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried . Mr. Douglas announced that the Public Hearing has been continued to April 21 , 1998. IV. PUBLIC FORUM Mr . Douglas stated that members of the audience were welcome to address the Commission , but advised that testimony on the NESAP could not be taken in this section of the Agenda . Mr. Dean Buffington, owner of 590 West Bates Avenue, addressed the Commission, stating that he has been in attendance at the last two meetings, and has heard everything that the Commission has heard . The Commission has said they are listening to the concerns of the residents and property owners , yet the determination to grant another three months to work on this Plan was approved . Mr. Buffington expressed dismay with the process , discussion , and decision of the Commission to grant this continuance. He asked how much more testimony in opposition to this Plan the Commission needed to hear to realize that the neighborhood does not support this Plan. Mr. Buffington also addressed his concern with the notification process of public meetings , emphasizing that he , at no time , received notification of any of the meet- ings . 13 Mr. Dummer asked if Mr. Buffington had heard comments made by members of the Commis- sion and stressed the need for development of policies and guidelines to provide some protec- tion to the residential neighborhood from adverse industrial development. Mr. Dummer stated that the Commission cannot repeal or rescind the moratorium inasmuch as this was a City Council action. He acknowledged that there is some minor linkage between the imposition of the moratorium and the Plan. Mr. Buffington stated that he attended the meeting with the Commission two weeks ago ; at- tended the meeting sponsored by NEON one week ago, and this meeting tonight , and he has heard no testimony in favor of this Plan. He suggested that you cannot modify something that no one is in favor of sufficiently to make it acceptable. He reiterated "what more do you need to know " to deny this Plan. He stated that he would have thought , if the Commission was lis - tening to the testimony , they would have been aware of people 's feelings . Ms . Cottle suggested that while there is much that needs to be modified in the Plan , there are also a lot of positives . She stressed the need for a plan and policies to be able to change or im- prove anything in the neighborhood . Ms. Cottle also advised that all members sitting on the Planning Commission are Englewood residents , and serve as an advisory body to the City Council. Ms . Cottle emphasized the need to get citizen input to enable the Commission to make an informed recommendation. Mr. Douglas stated that people did express their fears ; if those fears can be addressed and the Plan modified there is the potential for a positive step for the neighborhood. Mr. Douglas stated that he well understands that people don 't want to have to move out of their homes , or lose their businesses -these are justified fears . Mr . Welker urged that Mr . Buffington and other members of the audience attend the meetings regarding NESAP . Ms . Reid reminded the Commission that the Public Forum is an opportunity for any audience member to address the Commission; whatever is said cannot be considered as part of evidence for a Public Hearing. Marti Kucharski , 511 West Dartmouth Avenue, addressed the Commission. She also dis- cussed the notification process and stated that she and her husband again walked their neigh- borhood this past weekend to remind residents of the meeting. Ms . Kucharski stated that there will be a meeting on February 6th as a group of citizens -they want to formulate their own in- put on a Plan for the area. They want to meet with members of Atlas Metals , and a meeting with Mr. Rosen and Ms . Hall has been scheduled. Ms. Kucharski stated that this issue cannot keep dragging on. She suggested that right now, the problem of the neighborhood isn 't with GIW -it's with this Plan. Ms. Kucharski suggested that the holiday season was spoiled for the entire neighborhood because of the fears engendered by this proposed Plan. She again urged that the City should "get on with it or get out of it "; stop this and don 't drag it on. 14 Marvin Hall again addressed the Commission, and suggested that if this Commission is an ad- visory board to City Council , they can advise the City Council to rescind the moratorium. Mr. Hall reiterated previous statements during the course of the Public Hearing that imposition of the moratorium is a "taking" of property rights , restricting right to use land, and a violation of his constitutional rights. Bruce Geller again addressed the Commission, and suggested that in whatever manifestation this Plan comes up again , he would like to see some of the business owners do better mainte- nance of their properties. He stressed the need for improved property maintenance in the neighborhood. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson said he had nothing to bring before the Commission . VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated that she had nothing to bring before the Commission . VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Ms . Tobin stated that she has several questions she would like to have addressed by staff in relation to NESAP . 1. How will increased density affect school enrollment. 2. How much property will be taken off tax rolls in this Plan. 3. Has a light rail stop in the neighborhood been approved . 4. Why is the City "entrance" being changed to West Dartmouth rather than U.S . 285 . Ms . Cottle stated that her requests of staff include : 1. Create a map of current land use in this neighborhood. 2. Recommends that discussions occur with business property owners as well as with resi- dential property owners ; that the view points of all be taken into account on both prior and future testimony . Communication must be improved . 3. Recommend that a traffic study be done on Yale Avenue , South Fox Street , South Elati Street , South Delaware , and West Dartmouth Avenue. Other means to divert truck traffic around the neighborhood need to be explored , and a means to restrict neighbor- hood traffic to "local traffic " also needs to be explored. 4. A report on discussions ~ith RTD on the feasibility of light rail and a station in this neighborhood. Mr. Welker discussed his concerns with the proposed NESAP. 1. The Plan , as presented , is more complex than it needs to be . Address simple, real is- sues -don 't try to fix everything at one time. If the issue is GIW, address it. 2 . There is a need to separate the industrial traffic from the residential traffic; if this means moving industrial traffic further west -even to Galapago, so be it. 15 3 . Consider the impact on adjoining properties of Dartmouth A venue improvements. 4 . Consider Galapago Street as a north/south access route . 5. Is "transit-oriented " the way to go? Consider all traffic impacts . 6. Housing density -is it advisable to consider construction of high density housing, or make this an area of single-family homes. 7 . Look at some form of beautification -trees in the parking strips , etc. 8. Wants to hear more discussion on changes in the neighborhood -new businesses in the area. Consider ways to limit the worst of industrial uses. 9. Consider both Dartmouth and Bates Avenues , Yale and Floyd Avenues as east/west streets through the neighborhood. Mr. Horner stated that he would concur with concerns presented by Mr . Welker and Ms. Cot- tle. Mr. Horner also urged that residents and property owners of the neighborhood stay active; this is encouraging to the Commission members when there is active participation on a project by the public. Mr. Douglas asked if there was further discussion. Hearing no further discussion , the meeting was declared adjourned at 10 P.M. ·Gertrude G. Welty , Recordifli Sectary ldeptlnbd\group\boards\plancommlminutes 98\pcm 0 I ·98b.doc 16