Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-12-16 PZC MINUTESPage 812 VII. PARKING MONOGRAPH CASE #23-64C The Monograph was discussed. Commission members commended the staff on the compilation of the Monograph. A schedule of regular and special meetings to be devoted mainly to the dis- cussion and study of the Parking Monograph was discussed. Rice moved: Touchton seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was declared adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 16, 1964 I. CALL TO ORDER . The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Touchton, Rice, Parkinson, Fullerton, Carlson, Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Whitcomb Also present: Messrs. Dial, Jameson, Eachon, Ludwig II. FINANCING OF PARKING LOTS -CITY PARTICIPATION· Mr. Carlson stated this special meeting was one of a series for discussion of the Parking Monograph, a study of the present and projected needs in the Core Area; the financing o f parking lots and related problems. The Planning Director pointed out there were four methods o f financing parking lots: 1) Municipal participation, 2) Private enterprise, 3) a joint agreement between a municipality and private enterprise, and 4) Urban Renewal. Chairman Carlson introduced City Manager Dial, who had been invited to attend the meeting and explain the part the City could plan in an o ff-street parking program. Mr. Dial stated that under Colorado Revised Statutes, §139-34-1(80) (1953) the City is authorized to provide off-street parking facilities by Ordinance. Throughout the discussion, he also referred to the various Charter provisions wherein the City is empowered to construct or install improve- ments within designated districts in the City. To assist in the discussion o f this subject, Mr. Dial presented the Commission members the following outline entitled "Financing of Off-street Parking." A. PUBLIC FUNDS. FINANCING OF OFF-STREET PARKING December 16, 1964 1. Authority to acquire and improve land. 2. General Obligation Bonds. (a) Debt limitations. (b) Vote requirement. 3. Operating revenues (or "pay as you go"). (a) Cash reserves. (b) Charges f or parking (gates, meters, other). 4. Parking meter revenue bonds. (a) Authority (b) Market ability and revenue requirements, including coverage. (c) Fiscal and bond services. 5. Public Parking authority. (a) Semi-public corporation. (b) Land acquisition. (c) Cooperation with municipality. I I I I I I Page 813 6 . Special Improvement District. (a) Authority --Charter Section 107. (b) Property owners could bear 100%, or less. (c) Lots could be initiated by petition or by Council (election?). (d) Could be used for one lot or for several parking lots. (e) Assessments. (1) Assessment must be related to benefit for each individual property (not necessarily for a given use of a property). (2) The interest on the assessment would be deductible on Federal taxes. (Assessment?) (3) Method of assessment. (aa) Square footage. (bb) Assessed valuation. (cc) Zoning class. (dd) Graduated benefit relating to distance from the parking lot. (4) With or without regard to improvements. (f) Problem of possible overlapping of assessment districts. (g) Length of bonds could be variable. (h) City might have to provide certain guarantees. (i) Problems. (1) Equity of assessing public parking lot cost against privately-owned property used for parking of customers. (2) Equity of assessing property for publicly-owned parking lot and then requiring compliance with the zoning ordinance parking standard. (3) Possible alternative might be to exempt properties within a parking improvement district from the zoning ordinance standards . B. PRIVATE FUNDS. 1. Present method o f providing parking collectively by individual merchants. 2. Possible private development of parking through a private parking corporation. C. JOINT, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC FUNDS. 1. Any combination of the above methods. 2. Park 'N Shop lot. 3. Proposed "NEW ENGLEWOOD" parking area. D. CONTINUING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION. 1. Cost of maintenance and operation will be determined partly by the cost of the initial improvement. 2. Operating c o sts will be determined partly by the intensiveness of enforcement of time limitatio ns and if time limitations are imposed and how. E. OTHER FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED. 1. Permanence of the parking area. 2. Flexibility in adjusting to changing conditions in parking habits. 3. Accessibility for motor vehicles. 4. Ease of transportation on foot to the shopping area. 5. Land acquisition methods. STANLEY H. DIAL City Manager SHD /ij Page 814 Mr. Dial explained that were the proposed parking lots to be financed by General Obligation Bonds, they would be subject to the 3% limitation of the valuation of the City as set forth in Section 104 of the Charter. At this time, this would be approximately $1,500,000.00. This method of financing would also be subject to the approval of the voters at an election. The "Operating revenues" or "Pay as you go" method of financing was then discussed. Mr. Dial pointed out that there are two alternatives under this method: (a) cash reserves and (b) "Charge for parking". He explained that there are no cash reserves available for pro- gram "a" at this time, inasmuch as the voters approved at the General Election the acquisition of the Norgren plant for the City Hall and the Council has made plans for the necessary re- modeling of the Norgren building. The Council has also provided for the construction of the Union Street bridge and has been requested to provide additional funds for Library purpos e s . Mr. Dial then discussed the merits of the "charge for parking" method o f financing and ex- pressed the opinion that this method would be feasible if it were put into operation on a long-term basis. It was suggested that one of the mo st practic a ble methods of successfully operating off-street parking facilities has been to lease the land and charge for parking. Mr. Jameson questioned whether this procedure would be satisfactory inasmuch as the Englewood business area is in competitio n with shopping centers offering free parking. Mr. Dial then pointed out that one means of financing this type of parking program is by the issuance of Parking Meter Revenue Bonds. This method would not be subject to approval by the voters; however, the rate of interes t is higher on this type of bond than on the General Obligation Bond. Furthermore, a municipality often has to pledge additional revenue in order to guarantee to the Bon d ing Company that the paymen ts would be met in the event the inco me from the proposed parking lot is not sufficient. The possibility of financing the off-street parking program under a p u blic parking authority was then discussed. Incorporated private investors can issue bonds for the financing of off- street parking facilities. The Corporation could then lease the land back to the City at a rate that would amortize the outstanding bonds. Mr. Dial pointed out that the public parking authority does not have the power to condemn land for parking lots, but stated the City could condemn on its own behalf, then lease the land to the parking authority for control. Special Improvement Districts, according to Charter Section 107, may be created for any purpose; Mr. Dial stressed this Section of the City Charter does not say specifically that the City can acquire land under this provision, however, he felt it would be permissible. The Improvement District could be initiate d by petition, or could be at the determination of City Council. It could be assessed 100% against the property owners, or the City could share in the assessment. The method of assessing the properties for the parking improvements was d iscussed. It was pointed out that the properties assessed must have a direct relationship to the improvement; also the assessment would be based on the benefit to the property, not the use of the land. Discussion on assessing of the properties ensued. Mr. Parkinson asked if, once the assessment were established, whether or not it could change with the use of the land. Mr. Dial replied the assessment would be constant, and could not change, even if the use o f the land were up- graded. The possibility of overlapping assessment districts was discussed; it was felt this could be done if a property benefitted from two separate parking lots, possibly by graduating assessments on a distance basis. The standards set forth in the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in regard to parking lots --lots mu s t be within 400 feet of the property and within the same z o ne district or R-4 District --were discussed. Mr. Ludwig commented that the Commission should work toward a comprehensive plan, encompassing more than just -off-street parking lots; he felt if this were done, the acceptance would be more wide-spread and would be accomplished more easily. A recess was called at 9:45 P.M. The meeting was again called to order at 10:00 P.M. Maintenance of the parking lots was discussed. Mr. Dial stated he felt this was a very significant factor to be considered. He pointed out that maintenance on a free parking lot would be painting of the parking stalls and overlay repair; this would vary with the size of the parking lot. Mr. Rice asked if the parking lots would be "open" parking lots, such as the present Ambrose-Williams parking lot, or if there would be an attendant in charge, and if so, whether or not an operating district could be formed encompassing the improvement, maintenance, and operational phases. Discussion ensued. The Commission expressed their appreciation to Mr. Dial for his presentation. III. ENGLEWOOD UNLIMITED. Mr. Eachon and Mr. Ludwig, representatives of Englewood Unlimited, were present to discuss the position of Englewood Unlimited in regard to private financing of parking lots and similar improvements. Mr. Ludwig discussed the financial status of Englewood Unlimited and pointed out that at this time, it is a matter of encouraging people to participate. Mr. Eachon stated that Englewood Unlimited is a member of the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission, and can sell stock to interested property owners in the Business area. Mr. Eachon pointed out that the intent of Englewood Unlimited is to acquire land within the Commercially zoned area for improvement. Mr. Eachon commented that if t h e Core area of a mu n icipality weakens, the entire community is adversely affected. Angle parking on South Broadway was discussed. Mr. Ludwig commented that in his opinion, off-street parking lots would haveto be provided before the angle parking could be removed. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Eachon and Mr. Ludwig were thanked for their presentation and interest in the off-street parking prob l em. I I I I I I Page 815 IV. NEXT MEETING DATE. The Planning Director stated the next regular meeting date would be December 30, 1964, and that Mr. Eitel of the Planning Department staff would be present. Rice moved: Parkinson seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was declared adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 30, 1964 The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Whitcomb; Rice; Fullerton; Carlson Members absent: Touchton, Parkinson Also present: Tom Eitel II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Carlson stated there were two sets of Minutes to be approved; those of December 9, 1964, and December 16, 1964. Mrs. Romans stated that it had been suggested that the Minutes of December 16, 1964, be amended by deleting a quote accred"ted to a person at the meeting. She asked the feeling of the Commission on the present method of distributing the Minutes of the various City Departments, City Council and the press prior to approval by the Commission; or whether, in fact, they are not official Minutes until they are approved and, therefore, should not be released in advance. Mr. Parkinson entered and was seated with the Commission. Very thorough discussion followed on the distribution of the Minutes prior to approval by . the Commission. Mr. Fullerton stated he felt the Council should have the benefit of the Minutes sooner than the proposed procedure would allow. Mr. Parkinson asked about the memorandums sent to the City Council from the Planning Commission; that is, if they would also be delayed by the proposed procedure? Mrs. Romans replied the memorandums are sent as an attachment to the Minutes, but a direct memorandum would be sent to the City Council through the City Manager. Mr. Parkinson then asked about the possibility of preparing Minutes for distribution within the City offices only, and labeling them "unofficial". Rice moved: Whitcomb seconded: No Minutes of the City Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and actions be distributed until they have been declared official Minutes as presented or as amended by the members of the Planning Commission. Further discussion ensued. Upon call of the role, the vote: AYES: Fullerton; Parkinsoni Rice; Whitcomb; Carlson NAYS: None ABSENT: Touchton The motion carried. Mr. Rice commented he felt Minutes should reflect what was said at a meeting, and what happened at that meeting. If one were not satisfied with a quote credited to him, he could make a retraction at the next meeting. Fullerton moved: Parkinson seconded: The Minutes of December 9, 1964, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. Parkinson moved: Fullerton seconded: The Minutes of December 16, 1964, be approved as corrected. Mr. Rice commented he felt this was not a correction of actual happening, but a correction of intent. Rice moved: The Minutes of December 16, 1964, be approved as written. Discussion f ollowed.