Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-19 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COl\11\flSSION August 19, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order in Con- ference Room A of Englewood City Hall at 7:05 p.m., Chairman Douglas presiding. Members present: Styes, Tobin, Weber, Welker, Cottle, Garrett, Homer, Douglas Members late: Dummer Members absent: None Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Coordinator II. AMENDMENT OF AGENDA. Weber moved: Garrett seconded: The Agenda of the meeting be amended to include a new Item IV, South Denver Medical Plaza Planned Development. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Welker, Cottle, Garrett, Homer, Styes, Douglas None None Dummer The motion carried. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 5, 1997 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of August 5, 1997 were to be considered for ap- proval. Tobin moved: Weber seconded: The Minutes of August 5, 1997 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Welker, Cottle, Garrett, Homer, Tobin, Douglas None Sty es Dummer 1 The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT. Cornerstone Park CASE #PD-97-01 Chairman Douglas stated that the Findings of Fact for the PD amendment on Cornerstone Park were to be considered for approval. Welker moved: Tobin seconded : The Findings of Fact for Case #PD-97-01 , amendment of Cornerstone Park Planned Development , be approved as written. Mr. Dummer entered the meeting while the motion was being made. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: Welker , Cottle , Dummer, Garrett, Tobin , Weber, Douglas None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Sty es None The motion carried. ********** Mr . Rob Mason, former Planning Commission member and Chairman, entered the meeting. Chairman Douglas presented Mr. Mason with a plaque expressing the appreciation of the Commission for his service on the Commission, and for his leadership in 1995 and 1996 when he served as Chairman. Refreshments and a brief discussion with Mr. Mason were enjoyed by members of the Com- mission . Mr . Mason thanked the members for the invitation to the meeting, and for the plaque. He then excused himself from the meeting. ********** V. SOUTH DENVER MEDICAL PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. 3299 South Lincoln Street Mr . Stitt distributed a memorandum to members of the Commission, with an attached letter from Mr. Kevin Gallacher, General Partner of 3299 South Lincoln Street Partnership . Mr. Gallacher's letter states: "Please be advised that the owners of South Denver Medical Plaza , 3299 Lincoln Street Partnership , declare the previous planned de velopment null & void. Veri- 2 • • • • • • ft.cation of receipt of this nullification from the City of Englewood would be greatly appreci- ated." Mr. Stitt cited the process to be pursued as set forth in §16-4-15 I of the Planned Development regulations: "/. Annual Review. If the application for building permits has not been made within two (2) years of the Planed Development approval, the applicant shall be notified in writing and requested to give cause why the Planned Development approval shall not be withdrawn. If the owner does not respond within sixty (60) days, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that the Planned Development approval should be withdrawn; the approved Development Plan may be declared null and void by the City Council, and written notice given to the property owner. Any subsequent Planned Development shall comply with the procedure set forth above." Mr. Stitt reported on recent conversations he has had with Mr. Gallacher regarding the subject site and the 1995 Planned Development. The original tenant is no longer part of the project; there are others interested in the site but the Planned Development, as approved, would not be functional. The PD was required only because of the size of the site; the development was ex- pected to comply with the underlying B-1 zoning requirements. Now, however, the PD regu- lations have been repealed and replaced with the Planned Unit Development regulations, and a PUD is not a requirement for development. Mr. Stitt stated that the 3299 South Lincoln Street Partnership is interested in getting development underway at the earliest possible time, and are of the opinion that the development can be accomplished under the B-1 Zone District to meet the needs of the prospective tenants. Mr. Homer asked if the Commission did not make some special agreement regarding parking for the Planned Development. Mr. Stitt stated that the applicants may provide parking on-site, or off-site within 400 feet of their use. In this case, the applicants secured a shared parking agreement with the Archdiocese of Denver to use parking used by St. Louis Church and School, but the parking was within 400 feet of the proposed medical plaza. Mr. Homer asked what the proposed development will be. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Gallacher has indicated there will be at least two buildings, possibly three. One of the buildings will be used as a renal lab area (dialysis); use of the other buildings has not been divulged. Mr. Hor- ner asked if the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to see the plans prior to devel- opment. Mr. Stitt stated that the plans will not be brought to the Planning Commission for re- view unless the applicant chooses to go through the PUD process. The plans can be brought to the Commission on an "information" basis. Mr. Stitt noted that it does not appear the devel- opment plans for the entire site have been firmed up; discussions have indicated that two structures will be on the west side of South Lincoln and a possible third structure on the east side of South Lincoln. Mr. Homer inquired if the name of the development would remain the same. Mr. Stitt indicated that this has not been determined, but he anticipated a name change. Mr. Douglas asked the pleasure of the Commission . 3 Dummer moved: Weber seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Planned Development approved for South Denver Medical Plaza, 3299 South Lincoln Street, be declared null and void. AYES: NAYS: Cottle, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Styes, Tobin, Weber, Welker, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. VI. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S HANDBOOK. Chairman Douglas stated that this is a review of Draft I of the Handbook. Ms. Styes commented that, as a new member, she has found the Handbook to be helpful and informative. She stated that it is clearly written and straight-forward, and she has referred to it on several occasions. Mr. Garrett noted that the membership list for the Planning Commission needs to be updated. Mr. Horner discussed the "conflict of interest" provision on Page 13. Mr. Horner stated that he had discussed with Assistant City Attorney Reid, prior to the meeting on August 5, the fact that he is employed by RBI, a contractor doing work for South Suburban Park & Recreation District on Cornerstone Park, and that she advised him he could not participate in the discus- sion or vote on the issue. Mr. Horner stated that he was not, however, advised that he could step down and address the Commission as a private citizen on the issue. Mr. Horner stated that his "work group" is not involved in the work on the Park, and that he would not person- ally stand to gain financially from the amendment of the PD. Mr. Welker discussed his tenure on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and occasions when there was a conflict of interest for him -either as a neighbor of a case before the Board, or as an architect representing a client before the Board. Mr. Welker stated that he either stepped down from the Board for an individual case, or did not take his seat on the Board for the entire meeting when he was presenting a case. He stated that Board members were apprised of the reasons for his stepping down. Mr. Douglas agreed that conflicts of interest need to be brought into the open. He commented that when a member's employer is a contractor for a project and the employer benefits, all em- ployees stand to benefit also whether they are directly involved in the project or not. The public perception of impropriety on the part of a board or commission member was dis- cussed. Ms. Cottle commented that the conflict of interest issue was a topic at the DRCOG workshop she attended, and during the Citizens Planning Academy she participated in this last 4 • • • • • • Spring. Ms. Cottle stated that attendees were, in fact, advised to leave the room and not par- ticipate in any manner. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt commented that the impression is, even though a member may not be seated with the board or commission and is seated in the audience, that they may exert an influence on other members of the board or commission. Mr. Dummer suggested that the section of the Handbook pertaining to the State Statutes be "scanned" onto the computer to eliminate the photocopy "black edge". Mr. Welker referenced Page 27, and the statement mid-page that "applicants should have the right to appeal design reviews." He noted that applicants HAVE the right of appeal; however this statement does not indicate to whom the appeal is to be directed. Mr. Welker referenced Page 30, #3. Variance. He stated that when he was a member of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, "economic return" was not a cited reason on which to grant a variance. Mr. Welker referenced Page 37, paragraph #2; he asked if this section is clearly worded. Mr. Welker then referenced Page 39, "Public Meetings and Hearings". Mr. Welker noted that on August 5m, during the public hearing on Cornerstone Park PD amendment, the Commission voted to close the public hearing, and declared a short recess prior to voting on the issue. Many members of the audience apparently did not understand that the meeting would resume with further discussion on the issue, and left the meeting. He suggested that the Commission needs to clearly state when discussions will or will not resume if a recess is declared during the course of a public hearing. Mr. Homer referred attention to Page 60, Public Hearings Procedure, and noted that it states the "Chair declares the public hearing open"; he asked why a formal motion is made and a voice vote called to open a public hearing before the Commission. Mr. Stitt suggested that a motion and vote is a more formal way to open and close hearings; it provides members of the audience with notice that proceedings are commencing or receipt of testimony is ceasing. Ms. Cottle commented that the Lakewood Planning Commission takes testimony, but may not question an individual until all testimony has been received. The Commission must then recall anyone for whom they have a question. Discussion ensued. Ms. Styes stated that she could understand "declaring the hearing open" by the Chair, but felt that a motion to close the hearing should continue to be required. Ms. Tobin stated that she did not see any reason to change the current procedure. Mr. Douglas stated that he is not opposed to the formal motion/voting procedure to open the hearing, but suggested that a simple declarative would move things along. Mr. Welker asked why the called vote is "rotated", noting that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals uses the electronic voting system which locks in individual votes, and members have to cite their findings verbally. Discussion ensued . 5 Mr. Douglas asked for definition of "administrative hearing". Mr. Stitt suggested that a hearing on a conditional use revocation is an administrative hearing. He further suggested that • the majority of hearings before the Planning Commission are administrative, and not judicial or quasi-judicial hearings. Mr. Douglas asked if this is the same reference contained in the Zoning Ordinance revision. Mr. Stitt stated that the Zoning Ordinance references "administrative variance", which would be handled by the administration. Mr. Douglas noted that on Page 60, it states that the Chair will "announce the agenda". Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested that the Procedures section be summarized and made available on a one or two page handout for the Chair and members. Mr. Homer suggested that this summarization also include the information found on Page 40 regarding public meetings. Setting time limits for adjournment of meetings was discussed. Ms. Tobin stated that if citi- zens are present at a particular meeting, they should be heard; the meeting should not arbitrar- ily be closed at a given hour. Continuing hearings to a date certain was discussed. Mr. Welker referred to Page 4 7, and suggested that the responsibilities of the administrative officer, or ex-officio, be delineated in addition to that of the secretary and the Planning staff. He also noted that there are two sections, #5 and #9, which refer to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and that one should be eliminated. It was generally agreed that this entire section needs further editing and revision. Mr. Homer referenced Page 55, and suggested that Landscaping Plans be added as an Action Item. Mr. Stitt stated that landscaping plans come to the Commission for approval only in conjunction with a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Welker suggested that Planned Development also be added as an Action Item in addition to the "rezoning" for a PUD. Mr. Stitt acknowledged that the PD regulations still have to be taken into account as they apply to existing developments approved prior to PUD enactment. Mr. Douglas referenced Page 59, 1 d., and questioned use of the word "morals". Ms. Styes commented that "morals" are defined by the community as a whole. It was suggested that the word "morals" be stricken from this section. Mr. Homer asked why the Commission has to have Findings of Fact on cases. Mr. Welker commented that Findings of Fact for Board of Adjustment and Appeals cases address specific criteria, which the Findings for the Planning Commission do not do. He asked what the Commission Findings of Fact mean. Mr. Stitt stated that the Findings of Fact establish a basis for a decision of the Commission. Mr. Stitt stated that the Findings of Fact for the Board of Adjustment are very condensed. Mr. Homer asked if the Commission did not like the way Findings of Fact on a case are written, can the Commission "vote down" an issue that was ap- proved in a prior meeting. If this occurred, would it call into question the status of the PUD, subdivision, 0r whatever the case pertained to -what the Commission would be saying, basi- cally, is that the Findings as presented are not true. Mr. Welker stated he felt this would be possible. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the Findings of Fact establish a record that the decision of 6 • • • • • the Commission was based on given facts. Mr. Welker noted that Board of Adjustment mem- bers have to state the reasons for their vote, and asked whether Planning Commission members should not be required to state reasons for their vote. Mr. Garrett stated that the statements from the members would then be incorporated into the Findings of Fact. Mr. Dummer pointed out that the general discussion of issues among Commission members establish the basis for the vote; he asked why the "reasons" have to be restated. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is a quasi-judicial body, and the Planning Commission is not. He reiterated that the Findings of Fact are to establish a basis for decisions made by tiie Commission. Mr. Welker emphasized that the Findings of Fact do not include discussion, however the Minutes do. Brief discussion ensued. Ms. Tobin suggested that the Planning Commission should not have to pattern their procedures ·after another board a member may have previously served on. Mr. Douglas agreed that there are different procedures to be followed for each board, and, indeed, for like boards in different jurisdictions. Mr. Homer asked if members of the Commission choose to state a reason for their vote, will that be noted in the Findings of Fact. Mr. Homer was told that the reasons, if stated, will be incorporated into the Findings. Mr. Dummer suggested that this not be a mandatory require- ment. It was the consensus that Page 64, 2 a, be amended to state that "Each Commission member MAY state the reason for his or her decision." Mr. Douglas referenced Page 61, regarding proof of publication and posting. He noted that sometimes staff presents all documents, and other times applicants present the certification of posting. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas suggested that staff present all documentation regarding proof of publication and posting to the Chair. Mr. Stitt agreed this is probably the best procedure to follow. Ms. Cottle commented that it is helpful to have the staff report reflect comments from other departments on an issue; even if there are no comments, it is helpful to know that an issue has been referred to other departments. Mr. Stitt agreed that this procedure will be followed. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff make the modifications noted, rework spe- cific sections as noted, and submit a second draft to the Commission prior to adoption. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt presented Ms. Cottle with a certificate of appreciation signed by Mayor Burns for her participation in the 1997 Lakewood Citizens Planning Academy . This participation required attendance of meetings over a three month period of time. Ms. Cottle, Mr. Douglas, Mr. We- 7 ber, and Mr. Welker were all participants; the Messrs. Douglas, Weber and Welker were in attendance at the City Council meeting of August 18th to receive their certificates. • Mr. Stitt distributed postcards setting forth dates, times, and locations of meetings for the North Englewood small area planning effort. These postcards have been mailed as of today to all residents and businesses for the area bounded by West Yale A venue on the north, South Broadway on the east, West Floyd A venue on the south, and South Santa Fe Drive on the west. Mr. Stitt stated that members of the Commission are welcome to attend these meetings if they so desire. Mr. Stitt reported that at the meeting of August 18th, City Council approved on first reading an ordinance approving a sale and transfer of property agreement between the City of Englewood and Equitable Assurance, Inc. The second reading of the ordnance will be scheduled on Sep- tember 2nd, and the Ordinance will be final 30 days after publication. Mr. Stitt stated that there are no cases scheduled for the evening of September 3rd. This is a Wednesday evening because of the official Labor Day Holiday on Monday, September !5 1 • After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that this meeting be canceled. Mr. Stitt reported that the City has entered into an agreement with CRNNCompass RPI to per- form a study on the Cinderella City mall site. This is an eight-week process, with the final re- port expected by the end of October. The study will focus on "transit oriented development" on the site, and will be supportive of the light rail system which is to be developed along the western boundary of the mall site. This CRNA/Compass RPI group will be comprised of 20 to 30 professional people; they will be studying three sites in the metro area: Cinderella City, Ridge Home in Wheat Ridge, and a site in Aurora in the vicinity of East Alameda and I-225. However, the Wheat Ridge and Aurora sites are at least 10 years down the road, and this group is interested in a project with a shorter anticipated development time -specifically, the mall site. This study group's efforts will dovetail with the DRCOG 2020 process for urban centers. They are interested in proving to the metro area that a transit-oriented development can be successful. Mr. Weber asked if this is a paid group. Mr. Stitt stated it is a free service from the profes- sionals who have volunteered to serve as members of CRNA/Compass RPI. Ms. Tobin asked if this meant that "the shopping area Englewood so desperately needs is going by the way-side." Mr. Stitt stated that it does not mean that at all. It is the intent that a Plan for development will be in place by the end of October; Miller/Kitchell may be a part of the redevelopment effort, or they may not be. Ms. Cottle asked if the City is accepting liability when we assume ownership and control of the mall site. Mr. Stitt stated that he has not been too involved in who will be doing what regard- ing remediation; however, the first step would be termination of the lease with Montgomery • Wards, which may require delicate negotiations inasmuch as the company has declared bank-• ruptcy. However, best case scenario indicates that the lease is terminated, the premises va- 8 • • • cated, and remediation scheduled to begin shortly after the first of the year. It is anticipated that remediation will take anywhere from 60 to 120 days. Mr. Weber asked where the Selby property is located. Mr. Stitt stated that this is a five acre parcel directly to the north of Cinderella City , on the west side of South Huron Street. It has been used for parking, and the City wants to gain control of this property. An Intergovern- mental Agreement with RTD has been signed to provide a given number of parking spaces for the light rail system, and this parcel is needed. Ms. Tobin asked if the light rail station has been relocated. Mr. Stitt stated that the light rail station location is pretty well fixed. Brief discussion ensued. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin stated that she will be on vacation the end of September and first part of October, and will probably miss meetings in this time frame. Ms. Tobin also reported that two of her grandchildren have been returned safely to the United States , and are with their mother. She stated that this is a great relief to her. Mr. Homer asked the date of the next meeting. Mr. Stitt stated that with the cancellation of the September 3rd meeting , the next meeting will be September 16 . There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording S;c ctary "1bdtgroup \boards\pla11comm\mi11utes 97\pcm 08-97b.dtx: 9