Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-21 PZC MINUTESAPRIL 21 1 1992 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman J. C. Schultz at 7:00 P. M. in the Englewood City Council Chambers. Members Present: Tobin, Covens, Draper, Glynn, Shoop, Schultz Martin, Ex-officio Dummer, Members Absent: Leonard (with previous notice) Also Present: Harold J. Stitt, Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 7, 1992 Ger lick, Mr. Schultz stated that the Minutes of April 7, 1992 were to be considered for approval. He asked if there were any corrections. Ms. Tobin asked that Page 14, Paragraph 4, be corrected by delet- ing reference to city Council which was attributed to her. Mr. Covens asked that Page 5, Paragraph #4, be amended by adding thereto: "All nine Planning Commission members raised their hand in the affirmative" after the first sentence. Gerlick moved: Draper seconded: The Minutes of April 7, 1992 be approved as amended. AYES: Covens, Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Shoop, Tobin, Schultz NAYS: None ABSENT: Leonard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. III. SMART GRANT UPDATE Recycling Pilot Program Brian Brown, Recycling Coordinator, reviewed the purpose of the SMART Grant and the results of the Recycling Pilot Program. The SMART grant was awarded to the cities of Englewood and Littleton on May 1, 1991, and the Grant will end on April 30, 1992. Mr. Brown noted that Englewood has been interested in recycling and solid waste issues for a number of years. A task force, the In- 1 tegrated Solid Waste Advisory Committee, was formed to study the issue. Representatives of the City Council and Planning Commis- sion served on this Committee, along with staff. Mr. Schultz and Mr. Covens were the Commission representatives on this Committee. The cities of Englewood and Littleton did comparative programs on recycling: Englewood had a volume based fee for trash removal; Littleton used the flat fee charged by the hauler. Recyclables were commingled in one eight-gallon bucket in Englewood collected weekly; Littleton source separated recyclables into bins col- lected biweekly. Composting information and education was also to be provided as part of the Grant; a composting site has been established in Lit- tleton and one composting seminar was conducted last Fall; a second seminar was scheduled for April 15, but was postponed un- til April 29. Pilot areas for the recycling project were designated in each city; in Englewood, the northeast quadrant of the City was cho- sen. There are three licensed haulers serving this area: BFI, Laidlaw, and Waste Management Denver -South; collectively, these haulers served approximately 2, 000 households. Subscriptions were mailed to all people enrolled with these three companies. When the subscription card and the $10 fee were returned to the office, the recycling bucket and the first 10 bags were delivered to the subscribing household, along with an informational booklet on the operation of the program. For every month a subscriber participated in the recycling pilot program, they were to receive one month credit on their regular trash hauling bill. Additional bags and program stickers for the Englewood program were offered for sale in both King Soopers and in Safeway. In Littleton, there was no change to the existing system, and the pilot program area was west of Windermere, north of Caley Avenue. The demo- graphics of the two areas corresponded very closely. The pilot program began on July 1, and ended December 27, 1991. At the time the pilot program ended, the individual haulers were free to off er their own recycling programs to the customers in the pilot area. Mr. Brown stated that five waste characterization studies were conducted; this meant collecting trash from 50 homes, sorting and analyzing the trash, recyclables, etc. from each of these homes. The same 50 homes were used for each waste characterization study to determine what effect the recycling program had on the volume of trash generated, the amount of recyclables thrown in with the trash, whether yard waste was decreased, etc. Studies were done on the trash generated by participants in the Pilot Program vs. non-participants. Mr. Brown cited the first waste characteriza- tion study, and noted that 51% of the waste, by weight, was yard waste. Subsequent studies revealed there was 12% less yard waste generated by participants on the volume fee program vs. the flat fee program. 2 Mr. Brown stated that following the end of the Pilot Program, door-to-door interviews were conducted of 50 homes to determine the number of residents living there, how they take care of yard waste; these homes were .of both participants and non-partici- pants. Mr. Brown pointed out that approximately 50% of the households interviewed use lawn services; the yard wastes are hauled away by these companies. An average of 2. 2 residents lived in the homes surveyed. A mail survey was also sent to both participants and non-participants. Mr. Brown noted that analysis of the Pilot Program has produced some interesting information: the volume based trash fee program produced less trash per capita than the flat fee program, and 74% of the participants did try to reduce their volume of trash and became more conscious of the need to reduce the volume of trash going to landfills. Mr. Brown stated that studies were also done on the length of time it took haulers to pick up recyclables: source separate (bin system) required one second per pound; commingled required 1.6 seconds per pound. However, it was found that there was a greater degree of contamination in the source separated recy- clable system than in the commingled system. Mr. Covens inquired whether the eight gallon bucket was large enough for the majority of residents participating. Mr. Brown stated that early on in the program, participants were advised they could place newspapers in a separate container outside the bucket, and approximately 65% of the residents di~ use a second container for newspapers. Mr. Brown acknowledged that had a larger variety of recyclables been accepted, the bucket would have been insufficient in size. The Englewood program was mod- eled after the Perkasie, PA program, which used five gallon buck- ets; however, they did not accept plastics of any type. Mr. Brown stated that the frequency of collection indicated a de- cided preference for collection of recyclables every other week rather than weekly. People are cognizant of the expense to the haulers, the wear and tear on the streets, and the added air pol- lution that would be generated by weekly recyclable pickup. The type of container --bucket vs. bin --was also a survey question, and 63% of the respondents overall preferred the bin system to 37% for the bucket system. However, when this is bro- ken down by age, the younger respondents preferred the bins; older respondents pref er the bucket because of the ease of carry- ing, and the decrease of the number of trips to be made to the curb. Mr. Brown stated that he would term the program a great success, with a 30% participation of the 2,000 homes in the pilot area. Mr. Brown pointed out that the haulers do not enjoy that percent- age of participation in their privately offered programs. Mr. 3 Brown attributed the outstanding participation in Englewood to the efforts made to publicize the program, both before the start- up, and approximately one month after it began. There was the initial mailing to all customers of the three trash companies; there was door-to-door canvassing in the pilot area by individu- als residing in the area; and boy scout troops were used to dis- tribute doorhangers reminding residents of the program following the start of the program. Mr. Brown stated that as far as the State is concerned, the Grant results indicate it did what it was supposed to do: a comparison of two different recycling/trash programs; it was a success in working with the haulers and fostered a closer working relation- ship with the companies and the City. Mr. Glynn inquired about recycling efforts in other communities. Mr. Brown stated that Denver is trying to do comparisons within their city, but have already discarded some ideas. Mr. Schultz stated that he had been told by the recyclable hauler he subscribes to that they did not want the newspapers placed in plastic bags. Mr. Brown stated that the mechanics of the program were discussed with all the haulers; ina~much as Waste Management Denver South has 80% of the customers in the area they were the lead company to clear matters with. However, after the program was operating, issues arose which had not been considered, or should have been addressed in a different manner, one of which was the placement of newspapers in "bags". Mr. Schultz asked how many people in the pilot area have contin- ued to recycle with their haulers. Mr. Brown stated that at the time the survey was mailed out, one month after the end of the pilot program, 70% of respondents had subscribed to their hauler's program. Mr. Brown noted that WMDS requires a $15 de- posit on the three bins; Laidlaw charges a monthly fee, as does BFI. Mr. Covens inquired whether the sale of regular trash and lawn/leaf bags decreased during the time of the pilot. Mr. Brown stated that this aspect of the program was not surveyed. The number of program bags used by participants is documented; for instance, both Laidlaw and BFI drivers wrote down how many bags were used by each participating household every week. Mr. Covens stated that at one time, the committee had considered making the program bags available at the City Hall, Library, and garden centers only, and not offering them for sale through the supermarkets. Mr. Brown stated that the bags were available at King Soopers at Trolley Square on a stand in front by the service desk; program tags were available at the checkout stands and at the service desk. Safeway had the bags on display on shelves by the checkout stands. All remaining bags and stickers at the supermarkets were collected at the end of the pilot program and accounted for. 4 •• Mr. Covens inquired about the billing process. Mr. Brown dis- cussed the operation of the credit/billing process. He acknowl- edged there was some confusion in explaining the billing credits to participants, particularly when the billing cycle for the hauling company did not coincide with the typical "quarterly" payment plan. Mr. Brown stated that there was also confusion be- cause some participants did not know who their trash hauling com- pany was. Mr. Covens asked about the hazardous waste facet of the Grant. Mr. Brown stated that this was applied for, but this facet was broken out by the State and is the responsibility of the Tri- County Health Department. The grant to the cities was for $90,000, and the grant to Tri-County Health was $40,000 for the hazardous waste program. This will be a "stationary" site at the Englewood Servicenter; they will collect solvents, paints, auto batteries, etc. Mr. Shoop inquired if this would be an on-going program, or a test program, also. Mr. Brown stated that this would be a short-term collection program. However, the City does some collection of hazardous wastes and will be able to use the stationary pad at the Servicenter. Mr. Brown further briefly discussed the composting facet of the program, and pointed out that the seminar on April 29 will be a "hands-on" demonstration; Channel 2 TV will be doing a 30 second PSA on this demonstration. Informational materials are available through the Library, and through the Englewood and Littleton re- cycling offices. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Brown stated that riewspapers are shipped out of state for recycling; glass goes to Coors, as do aluminum products. Mr. Brown acknowledged that recycling is not profitable for trash haulers right now, but that the market for recyclable materials will grow. Mr. Schultz asked what is the bottom line on the Pilot Program. Mr. Brown stated that a volume fee for trash removal can work; the source separate bin system is pref erred to the commingled bucket; source separate systems are quicker for curbside pickup; and biweekly pickup is preferred to weekly. Mr. Covens asked if the City Hall paper recycling program is on- going. Mr. Brown answered in the affirmative. Mr. Draper dis- cussed the cost of recycled paper, noting it is more expensive than virgin product. Brief discussion ensued. Commission members thanked Mr. Brown for his informative presentation. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Swedish Medical Center Planned Development Amendment #3 5 CASE #2-92 Mr. Schultz stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #2-92, Amendment #3 to the Swedish Medical Center Planned Development, were to be considered for approval. Discussion ensued regarding left-turn movements on Broadway and Girard. Mr. Stitt emphasized that the proposed left turn move- ment is from Girard west bound to Broadway south bound. Mr. Draper and Mr. Schultz discussed the issue of left turning movements from Broadway north bound to the Parkway, with a spe- cial signal timing, but no provision being made for south bound Broadway to east bound Girard. If one direction can have a timed turning movement, can't the same timed movement be used to provide turning movements from the other direction? Mr. Schultz asked for a motion on the Findings of Fact. Gerlick moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact for Case #2-92, and refer them to City Council. AYES: Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Schultz NAYS: None ABSENT: Leonard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Martin stated that City Council passed the Concrete District, as amended, on first reading. Amendments included the removal of administrative costs from the assessments to property owners, and the deletion of installation of sidewalks on South Lowell Boule- vard and on West Belleview Avenue. A task force is still study- ing the issue of special district financing. Ms. Martin reported on the goals and objectives session with City Council on Saturday, April 11. Council is very "enthused" re- garding the proposed new Planning program. It was explained to Council that it will be the responsibility of the Commission to set the form of the program and to make recommendations. All members of Council indicated the Comprehensive Plan should be "more than what it is", and the fact that the updating has not been completed was discussed. There appear to be one or two sec- tions that may be ready for consideration by Council, but have not been presented to Council. Ms. Martin asked the Commission how they wanted to proceed at this point. 6 • Mr. Schultz stated that the goal of the Commission was to try to work on the various parts of the Plan simultaneously. Several sections, such as Housing, Economic Development, Parks and Recre- ation, and Transportation, have been considered, and some of them have been referred back to various departments for further modi- fication. There have been various reorganizations of departments and personnel throughout the City system, and the rewrites have not been brought back to the Commission, as requested. Mr. Schultz expressed the opinion that what has been completed should be adopted, or we need to begin from scratch again. Ms. Tobin stated that it should not be up to the Commission to hand carry everything through the City Administration; she was never aware that the Housing section had not been submitted to the City Coun- cil, and expressed the opinion that "this whole thing has been handled like a Chinese fire drill." Discussion ensued. Ms. Tobin stated that she wanted copies of the Housing Section for Commission members at the next meeting. Mr. Covens inquired what the State requirements are on Comprehen- sive Plans. Mr. Stitt responded that Comprehensive Plans may take any form, but a municipality must ~ave a Plan adopted. It is good idea to periodically review the Plan, but there is cer- tainly nothing "magic" about every 10 years. Mr. Stitt stated that there has been a section added to the Comprehensive Plan regarding the downtown redevelopment, so the Plan has been par- tially updated since it was adopted in 1979. Ms. Martin stated that she understood there were discussions at the administrative level that all sections would be referred to City Council at the same time --not on a piece-meal approach. Ms. Martin asked that the Commission give staff direction on how to proceed at this point: do they want City Council to adopt the sections that are completed now? Mr. Covens suggested that the format for the updated Comprehen- sive Plan be a "shorter document". Discussion ensued. Tobin moved: Gerlick seconded: The Planning Commission ref er the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan to City Council for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan. AYES: Dummer, Gerlick, Glynn, Shoop, Tobin, Covens, Draper, Schultz NAYS: None ABSENT: Leonard ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. 7 Ms. Martin stated that the Commission and administration are con- sidering a fairly intensive program, and we are in the budget process for 1993. Council is willing to consider putting some resources --"contract employees" --at our disposal to work on the updating/development of the Comprehensive Plan. They did suggest that possibly an ad hoc committee of the Commission could come up with recommendations for the remainder of the Commission to consider on the ultimate form of the Plan. Ms. Tobin stated that she is of the opinion that all members of the Commission should be involved in this determination --not an ad hoc commit- tee. Discussion ensued. Mr. Covens stated that he wanted to see what has been accomplished with the SMART Grant refined and incorpo- rated into the new Plan; this is a record of what we have done. Mr. Covens urged that the 10 years in the future aspect be dropped; look at what we are today, and where we may want to be in three to five years. Mr. Stitt suggested that staff develop a presentation on Compre- hensive Plans --what they are, other styles and formats, etc. and bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Stitt pointed out that zoning is to reflect the Comprehensive Plan, not vice-versa. Staff will put together the elements of a Comprehensive Plan, and what it is designed to do. Mr. Stitt pointed out that there will be redevelopment in Englewood, but not a lot of new development, and that members may be surprised at how much of the 1979 Plan will not change taking into consideration today's . character of the City. The 1979 Plan is not totally useless; however, there is a need to come up with a plan to foster redevelopment of areas of the City. The need for time to work on the planning process was considered. Saturday meetings were brought up by Ms. Tobin; no one was inter- ested in pursuing this suggestion. Extra meetings were mentioned as a possibility, as were early study sessions, or devoting a meeting when there is nothing else on the agenda to this topic. Ms. Martin stated that staff will look at what is scheduled for the next several meetings, and schedule times to focus on the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Martin distributed a handout of a session to be held during the CML meeting on Wednesday, June 17, which she felt would be of interest to Commission members. The CML conference is in Ft. Collins this year, and if members want to attend, to please notify Secretary Welty so that reservations can be made. Mr. Stitt stated that the Budget process requires the Planning Commission to consider and recommend to the City Manager a list of Capital Improvement Projects for the next five year period. This recommendation is required to be submitted 90 days prior to September 15, when the budget is to be submitted to City Council. However, negotiations with the administration have allowed the 8 Commission a little leeway on this issue, and the meeting of June 2 will be devoted to presentations on the Capital Improvement Projects requested by the various departments; the Commission must then consider all the requests, prioritize the requests, and make a recommendation to City Manager Fraser no later than June 16. Information pertaining to the Capital Improvement Projects will be submitted to the Commission in their packets on May 29. Mr. Stitt discussed the need for the Commission to determine the process to be fallowed on the Planning program before us, so there may be an assignment of resources. The possibility of "neighborhood meetings", maybe even in someone's home, was dis- cussed. Mr. Dummer suggested that specific agendas or topics be set forth at these meetings. Mr. Covens suggested that members of the Commission might want to choose one or two areas of par- ticular interest to them to concentrate on. He stated that he would like to work on the Transportation issue. Mr. Draper stated that he also wanted to work on Transportation. Mr. Stitt reported that City Council received the recommendation on SMC Planned Development Amendment #3, and have scheduled a Public Hearing on this issue for May 18. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. There was nothing brought before the Commission, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P. M. 9