Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-16 PZC MINUTES, t CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 16, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. in Conference Room A of the Englewood City Hall, Vice-Chair Redpath presiding. Members present: Redpath, Shoop, Tob in, Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Charles Esterly, Ex-Officio Members absent: Weber (previous notice given); Mason (entered meeting late) Also present: Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 2, 1995 Vice-Chair Redpath called for consideration of the Minutes of May 2, 1995. Garrett moved: Tobin seconded: The Minutes of May 2, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Shoop , Tobin, Douglas, Dummer , Garrett, Horner, Redpath None None Weber, Mason The motion carried. Mr. Mason entered the meeting and assumed the Chair. ill. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1996 --2000 CASE #4-95 Mr. Stitt introduced Mr. Esterly, Director of Public Works, and Acting Director of Commu- nity Development. Mr. Stitt noted that Mr. Esterly is very knowledgeable about the Public Improvement Fund and the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Stitt reviewed the process which the Comm ission has followed in considering the Capital Improvement Program for the last few years. Included in the packets are the current CIP 1 budget, and the list of projects recommended by the Planning Commission in 1994 and in 1993. The Commission is asked to consider projects they feel will improve the City and the quality of life for the citizens of Englewood. It is the responsibility of the elected officials to determine how, when, and if, specific projects are funded. Mr. Esterly and Mr. Stitt discussed the sources of revenue for the Public Improvement Fund, noting that funds can be pulled from the PIF into the General Fund, and vice-versa. It was also noted that in the 1980's, the PIF funds were used to assist in financing improvements along Little Dry Creek, street improvements such as realignment of Floyd A venue, the Engle- wood Parkway, etc. Mr. Esterly noted that the PIF can carry funds over from year-to-year if earmarked for a specific project; for instance, the Commission could recommend that "X" amount of money be set aside each year for "X" number of years to fund a large project that would be difficult to fund in any one year. The issue of tax revenues from a new project being pledged to finance capital improvements in the immediate area of that specific project were discussed. In reference to redevelopment of the Mall, Mr. Esterly stated that it is his understanding that no tax revenues have been commit- ted to public improvements in the redevelopment area. At this time, the developer has pledged to finance and construct off-site improvements. Further discussion on capital improvement projects in conjunction with redevelopment of the Mall ensued. Mr. Stitt pointed out that when the Commission considered CIP projects in 1994, redevelopment possibilities for the Mall had not been determined, and in fact, there are still a number of unknowns on what will be needed inasmuch as the final redevelopment plan is not yet determined or approved. Vari- ous street improvements such as straightening South Cherokee/Englewood Parkway/Girard A venue were discussed. Linkage between the existing Plaza at Little Dry Creek and a new plaza area in the redeveloped mall, and street linkage between Hampden Avenue to Cushing Park through the redevelopment are possibilities which were discussed. The time table for the budget process was addressed. Commission members discussed projects recommended previously, and suggested new projects. Projects that Commission members felt were of prime importance are redevelopment of the Mall area and linkage of the redevelop- ment to existing business areas, both physically and visually; the need for a teen-center; im- provement and expansion of the petting zoo; access to City facilities for disabled persons; Li- brary improvements; realignment of southbound South Elati Street north of U.S. 285; under- grounding of overhead utility lines; streetscapes and a coordinated program to maintain and replace trees in public rights-of-way; subsidize tree planting programs for street trees, and en- courage planting of larger trees on new developments, such as Project BUILD; widening and lengthening the Broadway/U .S. 285 bridge; construction of sidewalks in areas where sidewalks are non-existent; additional restroom facilities in Belleview Park; additional funding for more Project BUILD homes. Mr. Horner excused himself from the meeting. Further discussion ensued on the projects for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program. 2 ' f Dummer moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission approve the following list of projects for in- clusion in the Capital Improvement Program for 1996 --2000, said list- ing of projects to be referred to the City Manager. STREET IMPROVEMENTS • Broadway/285 Bridge --widen and lengthen • Support Access Infrastructure to Cinderella City Redevelopment CITY IMAGE • Integration of Cinderella City Area to the remainder of the City • Forestry Program • Sidewalk Program --new sidewalks where presently non-existent • Undergrounding of Utility Lines • Project BUILD Expansion FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS • Library Services Larger Facility Media and Learning Center • Teen Center • Petting Zoo Relocation/Refurbishment • Belleview Park Bathrooms --Improvement and Addition • ADA Access to City Hall The vote on the motion to approve the Capital Improvement Program was called: A YES: Tobin, Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Redpath, Shoop, Mason NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Weber, Horner The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Esterly informed members of the Commission that Director of Libraries Long had applied for a grant for the restoration of Englewood Depot; Phase I of the grant has been funded, and the City has $100,000 in hand, with more funding due. 3 Mr. Stitt reported that the King Soopers Planned Development was approved by City Council on May 15. The wall along South Broadway will be no more than 3'6" in height, and may be less. Mr. Stitt stated that there are no cases pending for the meeting on June 6. He also stated that he will be out of town that week. VI. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Mason stated that Mr. Horner has discussed with Mr. Brotzman what the Commission may or may not consider under the Planned Development venue. He suggested the possibility of making this an agenda item. Mr. Garrett stated that Mr. Horner is concerned about the ap- pearance of projects , and suggested the Commission request a written report from Mr. Brotz- man on the scope of the Commission's authority for perusal prior to a discussion session with Mr. Brotzman. Mr. Stitt stated that the Planning Commission can act as an architectural review committee provided the ordinances granting such authority are in place; the existing ordinances are not spec i fic enough and staff has no guidelines to offer the Commission. Mr. Garrett asked how the Commission can acquire this authority. Mr. Stitt stated that we need to determine what authority the Commission has now, and then determine the guidelines that are needed to give the Commission the authority to act as an architectural review committee. Mr. Stitt stated that he would like to be present for the discussion with Mr. Brotzman on the Planned Development authority, and reiterated that he will be out of town the week of June 6. Mr. Redpath and Ms. Tobin also indicated they would not be present that evening. Mr. Mason stated that the City Charter delegates specific responsibilities to the Planning Commission ; if the scope of those responsibilities are changed , will this require amendment of the Charter. Mr. Stitt stated that the Charter assigns broad authority; it is his contention that the issue of architectural review can be within the Commission 's purview. Mr. Garrett asked if Mr. Stitt and Mr. Brotzman would review this issue and be prepared to discuss it with the Commission on June 20. Mr. Stitt stated that he will check with other metro jurisdictions to see what design review procedures they have, and whether this process is part of the role of the Planning Commission or of a separate body. Mr. Garrett asked if, on issues such as the Capital Improvement Program, the Commission could have a longer notification/discussion time. Staff agreed that this will be scheduled ear- lier in 1996. Mr. Mason discussed the possibility of setting a long-term agenda on items that members and staff want to discuss. He suggested the possibility of "revisiting" some issues in the future for further discussion and possible modification. Mr. Stitt agreed there are things that staff knows 4 the Commission will have to deal with; however, with limited personnel, staff does not have time to do a lot of research if it is not a hot issue. Staff was asked to look into what other communities do regarding architectural review; to work with Mr. Brotzman and Mr. Horner to determine information needed for the discussion on the authority of the Commission under planned development review; and to get a written interpretation of that authority from the City Attorney prior to the June 20 meeting. Discus- sion ensued. Mr. Douglas asked if there were any grounds for rejection of the most recent Planned Devel- opment considered by the Commission. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposal went through staff review and analysis , and he did not know of any point on which the Planned Development could have been rejected. Mr. Garrett felt that the right-in/right-out from Broadway is a pub- lic safety issue. Mr. Stitt responded that this issue had been reviewed by the Traffic staff and was approved. Pedestrian traffic versus vehicular traffic was discussed; Mr. Garrett expressed the opinion that the impact on pedestrian traffic had not been adequately considered. Mr. Douglas commented that Ms. Tobin has stated that Planning Commission can be sued as individuals; he asked for verification of this. Ms. Tobin asked that City Attorney Brotzman give an opinion on whether Commission members are subject to individual law suits because of action taken as a Commission member. Mr. Shoop asked that the Recording Sec retary write a letter to City Manager Clark asking that Harold J. Stitt be appointed to the posi ion of Director of Community Development. Brief discussion ensued. Shoop moved: Tobin seconded: The Recording Secretary be instructed to write a letter to City Manager Clark asking that Harold J. Stitt be appointed Director of Community Development. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Douglas, Dummer, Garrett , Shoop, Tobin, Mason None Redpath Weber, Horner The motion carried. Mr. Garrett inquired about closure of Qu incy Avenue. Mr. Esterly briefly discussed the Santa Fe Drive work program. He estimated that Oxford could be opened by Fall, 1995, but a clo- sure date for Quincy Avenue has not been determined. 5 There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned. 7 / Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secre 6