Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-02 PZC MINUTESe CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7: 10 P .M. by Vice-Chairman Redpath in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, 3400 South Elati Street. Members present: Garrett, Homer, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer Members absent: Mason (entered the meeting late) Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Administrator Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Il. APPROVAL OF MlNUTES. April 18, 1995 April 25, 1995 Vice-Chair Redpath called for consideration of the Minutes of April 18, 1995. Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of April 18, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer None Shoop, Garrett Mason The motion carried. Vice-Chair Redpath asked for consideration of the Minutes of April 25, 1995. Garrett moved: Tobin seconded: The Minutes of April 25, 1995 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Garrett, Homer None Dummer Mason 1 The motion carried. Mr. Mason entered the meeting and Vice-Chair Redpath relinquished the Chair to Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason extended apologies for his late arrival. ill. CONDITIONAL USE Community Care Corp. 3527-3535 South Corona Street CASE #1-95 Mr. Mason stated that the issue before the Commission is continuation of the Public Hearing on the Conditional Use application filed by Community Care Corp. for property at 3527-3535 South Corona Street. City Attorney Brotzman addressed the Commission, noting that at the conclusion of the previ- ous meeting on this issue, he was asked by the Commission to research the proposal. Com- mission members had expressed concern about the five condominium units--would this be considered as five individual "group homes", or as one; there was also concern on the number of individuals proposed to be housed in each unit. Mr. Brotzman stated that his research finds that the treatment proposed by Dr. Bruno will be for "handicapped" children and adolescents. This finding means that the proposed residential treatment center falls within the purview of the 1988 Fair Housing Amendment Act, and the protection the Act provides for handicapped individuals in terms of housing availability. The applicant will have to comply with other regulations, but the Commission may not apply Conditional Use restrictions to the proposal. Mr. Brotzman recalled Dr. Bruno's testimony regarding the patients that will be treated at the center, and referenced a letter from Susan Landerson Epstein, legal counsel for Community Care Corporation, in which letter Ms. Epstein enumerates diagnoses for patients who will be accepted for treatment. Mr. Brotzman advised the Commission to confirm the factual basis that Community Care Corporation will be caring exclusively for handicapped individuals. Mr. Homer pointed out that a "group home" is not a use-by-right in the R-2 District, and asked if Mr. Brotzman's findings mean the City has no jurisdiction on control of location of "group homes" . Mr. Brotzman stated that this is correct. Mr. Brotzman discussed the licensing procedures that Dr. Bruno will have to go through, which procedures will address a number of the issues that were raised by the Commission, such as the five condominium units and the number of individuals assigned to each "home". Mr. Brotzman reiterated that the Commission must confirm that Dr. Bruno will treat handi- capped individuals exclusively. Mr. Horner asked if the restrictions on the number of individuals allowed per "unit" would still pertain. Mr. Brotzman responded affirmatively, and it is the responsibility of Code Enforce- ment to assure compliance. Mr. Brotzman stated that the determination is that the complex is "five houses with four people", and not one unit. Mr. Redpath and Mr. Horner asked for 2 e clarification that this proposal is for "five separate group homes"; Mr. Brotzman responded af- firmatively: it is five separate homes. Mr. Mason suggested the Commission needs to proceed with the determination that the treat- ment is exclusively for "handicapped." Ms. Tobin stated that she wanted to hear this stated by Dr. Bruno. Tobin moved: Redpath seconded: The Public Hearing be declared open to verbal testimony from applicant and audience. Mr. Horner asked for clarification of "handicapped", and what is meant by "staff". Discussion ensued. Mr. Horner suggested that rather than having the hearing reopened for general testi- mony at this time, he would ask staff to confirm the definition of "handicapped". In testimony Dr. Bruno previously cited a full-scale IQ of 75 or more; Ms. Epstein's letter says an IQ of 70. The issue of "live-in staff" versus "shift-staff" needs to be resolved. Even if Community Care Corporation uses three shifts for staff, why wouldn't this staff person be counted as a "resident". Mr. Horner requested that the City st,aff clarify the issue of "live-in" versus "shift staff", and whether this individual would be counted as one of the allowed residents per unit. Mr. Mason recalled that Dr. Bruno testified that there would be three staff shifts. Mr. Garrett commented that three shift-employees would equal one "FTE", and should be taken into ac- count. Discussion ensued. Ms. Tobin withdrew her motion. Mr. Redpath approved withdrawal of the motion. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman agreed to make copies of his memorandum to the Commission available to members of the public. Tobin moved: Horner seconded: The Planning Commission has been advised, and finds, that rules of the 1988 Fair Housing Amendment Act apply to the proposed residential treatment center for children and adolescents, under the management of Community Care Corporation at 3527-3535 South Corona Street, and is not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Shoop, Mason None Redpath None The motion carried. The members of the Commission asked City Attorney Brotzman to address the members of the audience regarding the Fair Housing Amendment Act and its application to the case at issue. 3 A short recess of the Commission was declared during Mr. Brotzman's discussion with the e audience. · The meeting reconvened, all members present. Garrett moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-95 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT South Denver Medical Plaza PD Pawn Shop Amendment King Soopers/Trolley Square PD Case #2-95 Case #13-94 Case #3-95 Chairman Mason stated that the Findings of Fact for Cases #2-95, #13-94, and #3-95 were to be considered for approval. Mr. Redpath asked about the written parking agreement between the South Denver Medical Plaza and the Archdiocese of Denver on Case #2-95. Mr. Stitt stated that he has a call in to the architect to determine the status of this Agreement. Mr. Stitt further stated that the Engi- neering Company has been in touch with the City Utilities Department regarding the City Ditch. Mr. Stitt stated that once these two issues have been resolved, staff is ready to take the recommendation to City Council for final consideration. Horner moved: Redpath seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #2-95 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Douglas, Dummer, Horner, Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Mason None Garrett, Shoop None The motion carried. Redpath moved: Horner seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #13-94 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Dummer, Homer, Redpath, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Mason None 4 ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Garrett, Shoop None The motion carried. Garrett moved: Tobin seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #3-95 be approved as written. Mr. Redpath inquired whether staff had any additional information regarding the Trolley Square redevelopment. Mr. Stitt stated that he would make a full report under Director's Choice; the applicants have made some redesign efforts regarding the "wall". AYES: NAYS: Garrett, Homer, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Redpath, Dummer, Mason None The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Stitt reported that the Trolley Square redevelopment Planned Development was taken to City Council at their meeting of May 1. City Council gave tacit approval to the redevelop- ment plan, and voted not to hold a Public Hearing on the proposal.· Staff has been instructed to meet with the applicant, representatives of Englewood Downtown Development Authority, and representatives of the Planning Commission to review the issues of concern. This meeting is scheduled for 2:00 P. M. on Thursday, May 4, in Conference Room A. Members of the Commission are welcome to participate in this meeting. Ms. Tobin, Messrs. Homer and Gar- rett indicated they would try to attend this meeting. Mr. Stitt briefly addressed the background of the King Soopers/Trolley Square site, and the thrust to encourage the redevelopment of the site. Mr. Stitt stated that he had some concerns regarding the Planning Commission's action on the Trolley Square Planned Development. Mr. Stitt stated that the application was denied, and no "directives" were given to the applicant on what the Commission wanted to see. The applicant would then have the option of modifying the Plan to comply with the directives, or asking that the Plan be carried forward to City Council as originally considered by the Commission; in this particular case on Trolley Square, this is what the applicant elected to do. Mr. Stitt sug- gested that on future considerations, the Commission might want to cite "a", "b", and "c" that the applicant must comply with to gain a favorable decision from the Commission. Mr. Red- 5 path commented that, in his opinion, the statements made during the course of the meeting e were pretty succinct--concerns were expressed with the lack of landscaping, treatment of the wall, and the applicant's rigidity of "sticking with that plan". Ms . Tobin expressed her dislike of the "negotiating" which was conducted between Mr. Sullivan of the applicant's team with the Messrs. Kaufman. Mr. Stitt agreed that the "negotiating" was inappropriate and the Chair should have so ruled. Mr. Garrett stated that he felt the Commission did a pretty good job of setting forth their concerns; he found the major concern to him was that Mr. Sullivan stated several times "this isn't the final plan". Mr. Horner stated that he felt that the Commission put the applicants on notice they should be concerned about the appearance of the development. Mr. Stitt suggested that if Commission members gave a reason for their vote , it will be of im- mense help to staff in writing the Findings of Fact. The wording of the Planned Development regulations was briefly discussed , with several members of the Commission and staff commenting on the "vagueness" of the provisions. Whether or not the provisions of the "Design Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings in the South Broadway Incentive Area" apply to the redevelopment project was dis- cussed. Mr. Stitt stated that his interpretation is that removal of the existing Broadway retail frontage , and replacement with a "new wall " does not fall under this provision because the wall is "new construction". When the project gets to the point of remodeling the King Soopers building , these provisions will apply. The loss of "urban character", the lack of a "design review board" in the City , and the lack of landscaping on-site for Trolley Square were all discussed , as was the 1984 agreement between the City of Englewood and Trolley Square to allow greenery in city right-of-way to be counted toward the minimum requirement for a development. This provision has since been included as a ,provision in the landscaping ordinance. Mr. Stitt emphasized that construction of a new development, an increase in gross floor area of 40% in an existing development, or a change in use would all require provision of more landscaping. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman cautioned that the Planning Commission cannot "design" a project , in that de- termining color , materials, etc. are not within the purview of the Commission. The height and scale of a feature , such as the wall , are appropriate to discuss. Mr. Brotzman stated that he is of the opinion that City Council understands and supports the action of the Commission on the Trolley Square PD. Brief discussion ensued. Ms. Tobin stated that she felt the Planned De- velopment was being "ramrodded through". Mr. Stitt read into the record a letter stating support of the Planning Commission for an appli- cation to Greater Outdoors Colorado for a grant to enable the development of a Parks and Rec- reation Master Plan. This letter is for the signature of Chairman Mason. Dummer moved: Garrett seconded: The Planning Commission approve the letter applying to Greater Out- doors Colorado for grant funding to develop a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 6 AYES: NAYS: Horner, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Garrett asked who on staff will serve as the "Acting Director" following Mr. Merkel's resignation. Mr. Stitt stated that no official announcement has been made regarding an Acting Director. Mr. Horner explained and discussed his concerns with the King Soopers redevelopment, and apologized to the staff if he upset them in any way.· Mr. Horner stated that he had attempted to reach Mr. Merkel several times prior to the meeting to discuss some of his concerns, and succeeded in doing so about 5:00 P.M. the date of the meeting. Mr. Horner stated that he is a landscape architect, and is sensitive to issues of design, landscaping and the general appearance of a project. Mr. Horner suggested that per haps the City does need a "design review board". Mr. Horner acknowledged that he did not like the feeling the plan "was being shoved down our throats", and the repeated statements from Mr. Sullivan that "this wasn't the final plan". Mr. Horner stated that he could not, in good conscience, approve what was presented. Mr. Mason stated that there is a used car lot to the north of the Gothic Theater, a former jeep dealer's lot, that has fencing on the perimeter of the lot in very poor repair. Mr. Mason asked how this fencing was permitted, and if it wa s approved, it should be kept in better repair. Mr. Stitt stated he would check into the matter. Mr. Mason reported that development of the Regional Park is moving along; however, he noted that the bicycle trail ends just before entering Englewood. He asked about the extension of this bicycle trail, and also about the bicycle trail extending from Little Dry Creek through the new Cinderella City redevelopment. Mr. Stitt discussed the funding for the bicycle trail extension through Belleview Park and along Big Dry Creek to tie into the trail by the golf course; !STEA funding was to be applied for to finance the development of this portion of the trail. Mr. Stitt suggested that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will probably address this issue when it is developed. The extension of the bicycle trail along Little Dry Creek to the South Platte River via Cushing Park is included in the Miller/Kitchell plans. Exact routing has not been confirmed at this point. Mr. Garrett asked about access to the bicycle route along the river from approximately Union Avenue. Mr. Stitt stated that he did not know specifically how this is accessed. Ms. Tobin inquired about plans for a "theater" similar to the Arvada Center for the Performing Arts in the new Cinderella City redevelopment. She stated that she understood the former Foley's structure will be retained and remodeled into such a facility. Mr. Stitt stated that the 7 redeveloper has indicated a desire to "scrape the site clean"; a multi-screen theater has b.een e proposed but no indication of a "performing arts" center was contained in their proposal. Mr. Stitt commented on a news article which appeared in the Denver Post on April 27, which indi- cated a "performing arts" center on the Phar-Mor Plaza site. Mr. Miller does not own the Phar-Mor site, and this is not included as part of his negotiations. Brief discussion ensued. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned. --- 8 •