Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-06 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 6, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Senti at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard Memb.ers absent: Also present: Powers, Ex-officio Becker Assistant Director D. A. Romans Don Ensign, Design Workshop, Inc. II.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • June 21, 1983 Chairman Senti stated that the Minutes of June 21, 1983, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: The Minutes of June 21, 1983, be amended by deleting paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 under Commission's Choice. Mr. Garson offered by way of explanation for his motion that this discussion should have occurred in Executive Session, and that his motion "isn't saying [he] disapproves· of what was said." He did feel, however, that perhaps the discussion should not be included as part of the record of the meeting. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Senti stated that after discussing this matter with Mr. Carson, he is inclined to agree that the paragraphs cited should be deleted. Mr. Stoel s ·tated that he could not agree to the amendment of the minutes by deleting the cited paragraphs·. He stated that he understood from discussions at the last meeting that there was no other way to handle the conderns of the Commission, and he felt that this must be dealt with in some manner. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Cars·on had specific suggestions on what would be done with. the discussion he wants deleted from the Minutes. He pointed out that thi:s discussion was in a public meeting and on the record. Mr. McBrayer asked what constitutes "minutes" of a meeting. He stated that he unders-tood tlie minutes are a record of the proceedings and discussions that occurred at a given meeting. If this is the case, he felt a problem that was-discussed at a meeting should be included in those minutes. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer commented that he was unable to be at the meeting on June 21, hut felt that if the discussion reflects the feelings of the Commission members it should be included as part of the minutes of that meeting. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that this matter was brought up under Commission's Choice, and that Mrs. Becker, who was a party to the discussion, is not -2- present at this meeting. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt everybody said what they felt at that meeting. Mr. Allen questioned if the Commission would be within their legal rights to delete this when it was part of the record of a public meeting. Therewasno second to Mr. Carson's motion to delete discussion under Com- mission's Choice. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of June 21, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: Carson, Senti ABSTAIN: McBrayer ABSENT: Becker Mr. Senti ruled that the motion carried. Mr. Senti stated that after discussion of the Commission, he would agree that it would not be proper to remove the sections of the previous minutes. III. DESIGN GUIDELINES CASE 1112-83 Mr. Senti asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Barbre moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #12-83 be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mr. Senti stated that he had in hand a copy of the public notice which was puo.lished in the Englewood Sentinel giving notice of the Public Hearing this evening. Mr. Senti stated that Ms. Powers and Mr. Ensign were both present, and would fie making the presentation on the Design Guidelines. Mr. Senti then aclmowledged the attendance of Mr. Jose' Corral of the El Tepehuan Restaurant in the 3400 block of South Broadway. Ms. Powers stated that the purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to incorporate design guide- lines that would apply to the 3200 through 3500 blocks of South Broadway. Ms. Powers stated that the City received funds in the 1982 CDBG from HUD for facade designs on these blocks, and funds were awarded in the 1983 CDBG from the State for the rehabilitation loan program for the businessmen who want to participate in the facade improvement program. Architects to do the design w.ork have been interviewed, and the firm of Abo-Gude has been selected. At such time as the contract between the architectural firm and the City is signed, an extensive out-reach program will be instituted to inform business- ...... • • • • -3- men and property owners of the availability of this assistance. Ms. Powers stated that the proposal is to pay up to $1,000 for facade design for each business. The Rehabilitation Loan Program will be used for the actual con- struction of the facades designed by the architectural firm. The lead bank in the consortium is the First Interstate Bank. Ms. Powers discussed the pro- posed loan program, noting that up to $5,000 can be loaned at "zero" interest rate, and all additional amounts of money may be loaned at 12.5%, and that the averaging of these rates will make low-interest loans available to the business- men/property owners. Ms. Powers stated that the design guidelines will provide standards for the architect in developing the facade designs. All businessmen and property owners who want to partake of the low-interest loan program must comply with these design guidelines, and other property owners that want to make improvements to their properties will also be expected to comply. Ms. Powers noted that the funds are available only for exterior improvements, not interior remodeling. Ms. Powers stated that the EDDA will be involved in the loan program, assisting applicants in completing the applications, and providing other assistance. Mr. Don Ens.ign gave a slide presentation to show what improvements along South Broadway could look like with the design guidelines. Mr. Ensign noted that one of the goals of the design guidelines is "continuity" and an attempt to get back to the original facades --usually bric~. Mr. Ensign pointed out the improved appearance with street trees, the recessing of the first floor of a structure to provide a weather protection area for pedestrians. Mr. Ensign mentioned technical problems that had to be taken into consideration, such as the location of the hotel, and cited problems in determining the best location to begin making the public improvements along Broadway. Mr. Ensign stated that the determination has been made that the City should consider straightening Floyd Avenue as it crosses Broadway and that private improve- ments proposed for the downtown area would not affect the public improve- ments if they were begun at Floyd Avenue and South Broadway. Mr. Ensign stated that it is proposed that parking can be retained along South Broadway on both sides of the street. Mr. Ensign reviewed other aspects of the de- sign guidelines, noting that signage would be confined to a given area on the building fronts, although temporary signs may be placed within windows. A percentage of glass on the first floor is a mandatory requirement, and specific recommendations for each building have been developed. Mr. Allen noted that a lot of public improvements have been depicted; he asked if the property owners would be expected to assist in providing these public improvements. Mr. Ensign stated that this would be budgeted as a public ex- pense. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood why the choice was made to begin the public improvements at the Floyd/Broadway area; and pointed out that if public improvements were made elsewhere along Broadway and a developer destroyed some of the public improvements, it would be the responsibility of the developer to replace the public improvements that were destroyed. He suggested that it would be worthwhile to do some public improvements in other areas along Broadway even though there is a possibility of future development disturbing those improvements. Ms. Powers pointed out that the City Council has not made the determination that Floyd Avenue will be straightened. The staff has been directed to de- sign the intersection and have the property appraised, but nothing further has been determined. -4- Mr. Allen asked if the City is going to condemn property so that the developer can buy it. Ms. Powers stated that there are properties listed in the Urban Renewal Plan for acquisition by the Authority, some of which will be sold to Brady Enterprises, or whoever the developer is. These properties are along the east side of South Bannock Street, and along the right-of-way needed for the Little Dry Creek improvements. Ms. Powers discussed the process for condemnation and immediate possession of the property by the Authority if the Authority is not able to acquire the property. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had invited Mr. Corral to attend the meeting, and asked Mr. Ensign to review what would be proposed. Mr. Ensign stated that the thrust of the program is to "take the plastics off and get back to the originals", and to try to have consistency in the buildings along Broadway. The design guidelines are one way to control development/redevelopment and work toward that consistency. Mr. Ensign noted that each property owner and businessman will have to talk to the architect and staff to determine exactly what is needed on the facade improvement of their property, and to gain an idea of the monies involved in the improvements. Ms. Powers discussed the need for an extensive out-reach program to make the businessmen and property owners aware of the program, and to educate them in relation to the assistance that is available. Ms. Powers discussed the ex- perience of the architectural firm of Abo-Gude and cited several locations in the metro area where this firm has done redevelopment designs. Mr. Corral stated that he saw a definite need to get the property owners interested in this program. Mr. Corral stated that he, for instance, did not own the building his restaurant is located in. Mr. Venard asked at what point a businessman and property owner is committed to proceed with the program --if they participate in the facade design facet of the program, does this commit them to do the actual construction and im- provement to the building. Ms. Powers stated that if a businessman/property owner participates in the facade design portion of the program, this is all he is committed to; this does not force a property owner to apply for the loan to do the actual improvements. Mr. Senti asked if there was any one who wished to speak in favor of the design guidelines. There were no other persons present who wished to ad- dress the Commission in favor of the design guidelines. Mr. Senti asked if there was any the proposed design guidelines. in opposition to the guidelines. Carson moved: one who wished to speak in opposition to There was no one present who wished to speak McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #12-83 be closed. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended to incorporate the proposed design guidelines. • • • • -5- AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 3718 South Broadway CASE #13-83 Mr. Senti asked if the Commission had any questions regarding the proposed Findings of Fact for the conditional use at 3718 South Broadway. Barbre moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact for 3718 South Broadway be approved and adopted as written. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. Senti expressed the appreciation of the Commission for Mr. Corral's attendance. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. There was no representative of the City Attorney's office present. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated that she had nothing to bring before the Commission. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Senti suggested that the Commission should be more careful in their dis- cussion of sensitive matters and problems with other City Departments in the future. Mr. Stoel stated that he feels it is unfortunate that this schism has oc c urred, but that no memner of the Commission suggested that this matter should be dis- cussed in Executive Session. Mr. Stoel suggested that perhaps there is fault on both sides in this issue • Mr. Allen stated that he would agree it would be better had the discussion occurred off the record; but, having occurred during a public meeting, he did not feel that the discussion could be deleted from the minutes of that meeting. Mr. Tanguma agreed that members should weigh their statements made in a public meeting. He did point out that there were times when matters should not be discussed in closed meetings, that the discussions must be public. -6- Mr. Venard stated that he felt everyone has learned something out of the dis- cussion, and suggested that if future similar matters of concern arise, that the Commission should consider going into executive session until a consensus is reached. Mr. Senti stated that the membership of the Commission is very strong, and when a Commission is strong, there are "toes that are stepped on", and that everyone has to realize this. Mr. Venard stated that he had found the DRCOG Planning Commissioner's Workshop to be very interesting and informative. He expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to attend. Mr. Senti stated that the Commission had a good attendance at the DRCOG work- shop. Mr. Senti thanked Mr. Corral and members of the Commission for their attendance, and declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P. M. • •