Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-23 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 23, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Covens at 7:10 P.M. in Conference Room B of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Clemens, Covens Merkel, Ex-officio Members absent: Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick (all with previous notice) Also present: Councilman Alfred Vormittag, Jr. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 8, 1994 Chairman Covens asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of February 8, 1994. Tobin moved: Clemens seconded: The Minutes of February 8, 1994, be approved. Ms. Tobin suggested that the Minutes should reflect her question regarding fencing of the construction site for the Sinclair site. It was pointed out to Ms. Tobin that reference is made to the provision of fencing. Mr. Clemens offered an amendment on Page 3, changing "Highways" to "Transportation." The vote on the motion to approve the Minutes, as amended, was called: AYES: NAYS: Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Clemens, Covens None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Garrett, Gerlick, Dummer Mason The motion carried. ill. FINDINGS OF FACT Case #2-94 Case #3-94 1 Chairman Covens asked for consideration of the Findings of Fact on Case #2-94, Sinclair Marketing, Inc., Conditional Use. Covens moved: Clemens seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #2-94 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Clemens, Covens None Ger lick, Dummer, Garrett Mason The motion carried. Chairman Covens then asked for consideration of the Findings of Fact on Case #3-94, Nathan Elinoff, d/b/a Funtastic Nathan's Conditional Use. Clemens moved: Tobin seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #3-94 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Clemens, Covens None Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick Mason The motion carried. IV. STUDY SESSION Mr. Covens thanked Councilman Vormittag for his attendance at the meeting this evening. Mr. Covens stated that prior to getting into the Study Session topics outlined on the agenda, he wanted to review the 1993 Capital Improvement Program recommendations developed by the Commission. He distributed excerpted pages from the Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 1993, wherein the recommended projects were set forth. Mr. Covens indicated he wanted to use this list as a focal point for the Commission's consideration of "broad planning goals." The projects on the list were reviewed and discussed. One of the goals on the list is a variety of improvements in Belleview Park. Councilman Vormittag brought up for discussion the "airplane" in the Park, and ways to remove the plane or refurbish it to an approved standard of safety for children. Mr. Mason suggested that a new aluminum "skin" might be acquired and placed on the plane. He pointed out that this plane was one of only a few that were made, and obtaining "parts" for the plane would be difficult. Ms. Tobin suggested that "volunteers" could work on maintenance of the plane. Mr. Clemens suggested the Parks and Recreation Com- mission should be consulted on retention and/or maintenance of the plane. He commented that the plane is an "Englewood landmark" and many people identify the Park because of the plane. e 2 t Ms. Becker agreed with Mr. Clemens that the Parks and Recreation Commission must be con- sulted on this issue. Mr. Vormittag suggested members of the Planning Commission might discuss the issue with Councilman Wiggins. The involvement of the City with the regional park was discussed. Councilman Vormittag stated that in his opinion, it is basically a matter of policing, and suggested that possibly coop- erative policing could be worked out with Littleton; inasmuch as the Park is in Englewood's jurisdiction, actual arrests would have to be by Englewood personnel. Concerns he has heard voiced pertain to impairment of police radio transmissions because of the topography. Concerns regarding the safety of the improved underpass were discussed. Mr. Mason sug- gested the underpass could be "gated," and closed at 10 P. M. Mr. Clemens noted that traffic on West Belleview Avenue decreases during the night-time hours, and pedestrians should be able to cross West Belleview Avenue safely. Funding sources were discussed. Mr. Covens suggested the possibility of using funds from the !STEA grant. Mr. Covens asked for an update on Library issues. Mr. Merkel stated there is no substantial proposal for relocation or remodeling at this time, no funds are available, and voters would have to be asked to approve an increase in expenditures or entering into debt, were remodel- ing/relocation efforts to be approved, due to the TABOR Amendment. Mr. Shoop inquired about the shelter for the Horse Car and the elevator system that were to be constructed. Mr. Merkel stated that the construction bids came in higher than the estimate, so the proposal is sidelined. Mr. Merkel pointed out that the Commission will again be working with Capital Improvement Program projects in the next three months or so. Mr. Merkel then led discussion of the City Charter, which created the Planning Commission, and the duties and responsibilities with which the Commission is charged. There are two kinds of cities --statutory, and home rule. Englewood, by virtue of adopting the City Charter in 1958, is a Home Rule City, and has the ability to "self-govern." Duties charged to the Com- mission by the Charter include issues on zoning, subdivision, and development of a compre- hensive plan. There are issues on which the Commission must act prior to any action by City Council --such as zoning issues (rezoning, or new regulations); subdivision plats, etc. The Commission's charge is to oversee the physical development of the City, and make recom- mendations to the City Council regarding that physical development. Englewood is basically landlocked, and new "growth" comes from infill and redevelopment. Mr. Mason referenced "infill growth," and commented that "Auto Transport" at Quincy and Santa Fe has sold; he asked whether staff knew what was proposed for this site. Mr. Merkel stated he is not aware of redevelopment plans for the site. The Planning Commission is, by Charter, charged with development of a Comprehensive Plan, and with periodic modifications and updates to that Plan. The initial Plan was adopted 3 in 1968, was revised in 1978, and the Commission started working on another revision in 1989. Generally, past revision processes have been accomplished by ad hoc committees com-e posed of members of the Commission, and select members of the citizenry and business com- munity, who worked on a specific "section" of the Plan. In 1992, the determination was made that the City wanted a "grass root visioning process, 11 which would be used in revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, Englewood By Design came about. This group has been meeting since last summer, and the "initiating committee" of Englewood By Design has developed an RFP (Request for Proposal), which was sent to seven consultants. Five responses have been received. The initiating committee will interview the consultants and choose one firm which will serve as "facilitator" for the stakeholder meetings. Mr. Merkel capsulized his comments thus far: the Englewood By Design proposal is the first step in a process that is intended to result in revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Merkel discussed the efforts expended by staff to determine the most productive way to pursue the "visioning" process; visits to other communities that have used this process, inviting representatives of those communities and committees to meet with Englewood By Design members to describe their process. The "most effective" processes were those which went to the "grass-roots, man-on-the-street" for input on what the community wanted. This gives the typical citizen a role in determining the destiny of his or her community. This "grass roots" direction was recommended by staff, and City Council approved it. Mr. Merkel emphasized that Englewood By Design is not "replacing" Planning Commission efforts, or doing the work for the Commission. Commission members will be involved in actually "revising" the Com- prehensive Plan which will grow from the Englewood By Design efforts. Membership on Englewood By Design has evolved from an initial invitation to 38 citizens, and is now a core of 12 -18 members who have continued to participate in the meetings. This group of citizens has put together the outline of the process, has developed the RFP, and has asked City Council for funding to hire a facilitator for the public meetings. Mr. Merkel stressed that the progress of this Committee is not being directed by staff, but by the citizen participants. Mr. Mason stated he understood the intent of the "visioning process" is to determine what the citizens want the city to become, to try to involve the people who have felt disenfranchised, and to develop "focus groups. 11 Mr. Mason indicated concern that staff is not more involved in collecting the information and providing some overall "management. 11 Mr. Merkel emphasized that staff is available as "resource personnel, 11 and does mailings, secures meeting locations, and makes recommendations. Englewood By Design wants to hire an impartial facilitator so that staff will not be overly involved in directing the process. Further discussion of the role of Englewood By Design and the Planning Commission ensued. Funding for the facilitator was discussed. Funds to hire this firm would be from the unappro- priated balance in the general fund budget. Ms. Becker stated she would like to know who the participants are on Englewood By Design and the initiating committee; she felt the Commission members would like to be in on the "ground floor" and know what is going on. Discussion ensued. Mr. Clemens asked whether e 4 staff envisioned meetings similar to those held recently on the future of the Mall as a result of the efforts of Englewood By Design; how will the "masses" be encouraged to become involved in the meetings. Mr. Merkel suggested that stakeholder groups could include school affilia- tions (administrators, teachers, parents, and children), the elderly, business people, etc. In- volvement of diverse groups is good; a lot of good ideas can be gleaned from discussions with all segments of the community. The meeting on January 8 involving members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce, etc. with representatives from Klipp, Colussy, Jenks, & DuBois, as well as representatives from MAS marketing, was briefly discussed. Ms. Tobin expressed concern that the proposal to relocate City Hall to the Miller field site had no publicity, and that residents of the area who might be affected were not aware of such proposal. Mr. Merkel em- phasized that this was an "idea," not a "proposal." Councilman Vormittag also pointed out that an idea had been advanced to move City Hall into the Mall. Ms. Becker commented that if these were conceptual ideas, they would not have been publicized, and voiced her opinion that planning commissioners should have been involved prior to discussing any such proposals with neighborhoods.. Mr. Merkel commented that it has been difficult for people attending the various meetings on Cinderella City to picture something that isn't there --to spark their imagination on what the site might be used for other than, or in addition to, a shopping mall. Mr. Covens· commented that the attention being paid to economic development issues and the Mall is good, but he wanted the Commission to get back to the sections of the Comprehensive Plan that have previously been worked on: Housing, Parks & Recreation, Transportation, the work of the Tri-Cities Committee on the Santa Fe project, and Solid Waste. He did not want to see everything that has been done thrown out, but it should not necessarily be "hung onto" either. Discussion ensued. Mr. Mason stated that people need something tangible --something to respond to. The in- formation that is made available must be clearly written and easily understood. He cited the problems on the paving districts that were on the November ballot, all of which were rejected. He expressed the opinion that the wording on the ballot contributed greatly to the defeat of these issues. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Covens commented that the Planning Commission continues to focus on "zoning" issues, and not on "planning"; he acknowledged that zoning is important, but feels that he is groping to understand and get into the role of the Commission. He wants to "take on some issues and get them taken care of. " Mr. Vormittag suggested that the Commission also keep in mind the issue of light-rail trans- portation. He summarized recent meetings he has attended regarding light rail, and the pro- posal to incorporate the Mall into plans for a light-rail stop. Ms. Tobin asked how much input citizens really have regarding the use of the Mall; whoever purchases the Mall will determine the ultimate redevelopment. Mr. Vormittag stated he felt the citizens will have influence on the ultimate reuse of the Mall; certainly any owner/redeveloper would want to avail himself of whatever information is available. Ms. Tobin inquired about using the Mall as a discount 5 center. Mr. Vormittag explained why a discount center cannot be considered at the Mall. Mr. Merkel pointed out that there will have to be Public Hearings concerning the redevelopment of the Mall, and these Hearings will be publicized; the citizenry will have an opportunity to give input during the course of those Hearings. Ms. Becker stated she found the survey done by MAS marketing to be most interesting, and commented that a lot of "leg work" has already been done which a new owner/developer will be able to use. Ms. Becker stated she wanted to discuss what the Commission will be doing over the next year, recalling that in the past there were sessions to "plan" rather than deal with the day-to-day issues that arise. Mr. Shoop inquired how much of the work the Planning Commission is "supposed to be doing" would be done by Englewood By Design. Mr. Merkel emphasized that Englewood By Design is to develop the "big picture" --or a list of wants and desires of the community; the Planning Commission will add policies and procedures to reach those goals (wants and desires). Ms. Becker commented that after Englewood By Design determines the "wants, 11 the Planning Commission then comes up with a plan to realize the "wants." Mr. Merkel agreed. Mr. Ma- son asked how these "wants and desires" would be implemented. Mr. Merkel suggested spe- cific objectives would be described to achieve an overall goal, citing a hypothetical desire of "improving downtown" --and citing ways this could be addressed by the Planning Commis- sion, through ordinance revisions, etc. Mr. Covens inquired about the Englewood By Design time frame. Mr. Merkel suggested anywhere from four to eight months, certainly within the next year. Mr. Covens discussed his view that the sections of the Plan were "building blocks; 11 and expressed the opinion that Englewood By Design would not be considering "building blocks" in their process . Mr. Cov- ens stated it appears the "Planning Commission will be coming in at the tail end" of the proc- ess, and he does not feel comfortable managing the plan because "we" did not do it. Mr. Mer- kel reiterated that Englewood By Design will be doing the overall umbrella, which may relate to segments of the Comprehensive Plan, but which may also cover many issues that are not related to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Covens reiterated his point of view that the charge to the Planning Commission is different from that to Englewood By Design. Mr. Shoop again commented that it appeared Englewood By Design would be doing the work for the Planning Commission. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Clemens suggested that City Council should clarify to the Planning Commission, and to Englewood By Design, the interrelation of the two projects. Clemens moved: Covens seconded: The Planning Commission request a meeting with City Council as soon as possible, that the City Council be asked to address and define the role of Englewood By Design and the role of the Planning Commission, so that both bodies have an understanding of how they can and should be working together to accomplish the common goal of a Comprehensive Plan. 6 \ Ms. Becker suggested that if the Commission can get this information from City Council , and have the issues clarified, it would take staff out of the middle. Brief discussion ensued. The vote on the motion was called. AYES: NAYS: Shoop , Tobin, Becker, Clemens, Mason, Covens None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick None The motion carried. Mr. Shoop reiterated his opinion that Englewood By Design is going to be doing the work for the Planning Commission, and that the Commission will be "writing the preface." Further brief discussion ensued , with Director Merkel explaining that such a scenario is not what is envisioned. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was ·present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Merkel updated members of the Commission on the Adult Business amendments now be- fore City Council. Council held a Public Hearing on the amendments, as recommended by the Commission, on February 7; some revisions were suggested, and a new Council Bill has been prepared and will be heard at Public Hearing on March 7. City Council will be able to ap- prove either of the Bills following the second Public Hearing. Discussion followed. The de- bate has centered on the definition of Adult Bookstores, and whether exceptions should be al- lowed. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Merkel stated that the CGP is getting ready to make a recommendation to Council on solid waste. VI. COM1\.1ISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Becker asked for clarification of the term "!STEA." This is the "Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ," a federal grant program. Ms. Becker asked for clarification of "CGP." This is the Clean, Green and Proud Commis- sion , which is the Keep America Beautiful affiliate for the City of Englewood. Brief discussion again occurred on the issue of the airplane in Belleview Park. 7 There was no further business brought before the Commission; the meeting was declared ad- journed at 9: 15 P .M. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre 8 '