Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-08 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBrayer at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Venard, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson Members absent: Also present: Romans, Ex-officio Stoel City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Senior Planner Susan King Melvin Minnick, Urban Renewal Authority II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 18, 1983 Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of the January 18, 1983, meeting were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Minutes of January 18, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: McBrayer, Allen, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Venard ABSENT: Stoel Mr. McBrayer noted that the abstentions on the vote were a result of members' absence from that meeting, and the Minutes would stand approved as written. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would entertain nominations for Chairman for the year 1983. Mr. Carson nominated Mr. Milton Senti to serve as Chairman. Mr. Barbre seconded the nomination. Mr. Allen nominated Mrs. Marjorie Becker to serve as Chairman. Mr. Tanguma seconded the nomination. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were further nominations? No further nominations were made, and Mr. McBrayer declared nominations for Chairman closed. Mr. Milton Senti was elected Chairman of the Commission by written ballot. Mr. Senti assumed the Chair, and expressed his appreciation for his election as Chairman. Mr. Senti then called for nominations for Vice-Chairman. -2-' Mr. Carson nominated Mrs. Marjorie Becker as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Tanguma seconded the nomination. McBrayer moved: Allen seconded: Nominations be closed, and Mrs. Becker be elected Vice- Chairman by unanimous vote. AYES: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: Stoel The motion carried. Mrs. Becker expressed her appreciation on her election as Vice-Chairman of the Commission. * * * * * * * * * * Mrs. Romans suggested that the Commission might want to proceed to Public Forum, Director's Choice, and Commission's Choice, at this time, and then relocate to the Community Room to discuss the Downtown Development Zone District, inasmuch as members of the Urban Renewal Authority, the Downtown Development Authority, and the City Council have been invited to attend this discussion. * * * * * * * * * * V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one addressed the Commission under Public Forum. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is proceeding on the revision of the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance; copies of the revisions are being given to the City Attorney's Office as soon as the staff has completed them. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff will be working with Assistant City Attorney Holland on the administrative section of the Ordinance; this section and the mixed use districts are the only sections that have yet to be revised and/or written. When the revisions are completed, it is proposed that there be special meetings to review the revisions with the Commission before going to Public Hearing. Mrs. Romans reviewed several matters that will be before the Commission in the near future, among them being the parking plan for the Swedish/Corona Cooperative development at South Corona Street and East Girard Avenue. A rezoning application has been scheduled for public hearing on March 8, 1983; this concerns property in the 3100 block of South Downing Street and four lots on South Corona Street. The applicant is requesting a change from single-family to medium-density residence. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this request is contrary to projected development by the Comprehensive Plan. An application for a condominium planned development will be heard at public hearing on February 23, 1983; this development is in the Centennial Acres area.· The staff is also working on the development of an ordinance dealing with methane gas, which will give guidelines for construction on former landfills. Mrs. Romans noted that methane gas can travel and can be dangerous as much as 1,000 feet from the site of a landfill. ' -3- VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker stated that she would not be able to attend the meeting of February 23; she has class that evening. Mrs. Becker then reviewed the goals which were outlined by the Connnission early in 1982. It was determined that good progress has been made on seven of the ten items outlined in the goals. Mr. Tanguma inquired as to the status of the promotional brochure. Mrs. Romans stated that she understood Public Relations Officer Dorothy Dalquist was contacting other designers for estimates, and would report back to the staff. Mr. Allen stated that he would like to thank Mr. McBrayer for his leadership during the past year as Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Allen stated that he felt Mr. McBrayer had done a very good job. The other Commission members also expressed their appreciation to Mr. McBrayer. Mr. Holland informed the Planning Commission that the Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to review the water tower case. Mr. Holland stated that he feels this is a positive sign in terms of the potential outcome of the case. Mr. Holland noted that after a Court of Appeals has rendered a decision, a specific request must be filed asking the Colorado Supreme Court to review a matter; this request is granted in only five to ten per cent of the cases requested to be reviewed. Mr. Tanguma asked about the court case on the Adult Center? Mr. Holland stated that this matter is in two cases; the first case, based on the public hearing before the Planning Commission denying the extension of time to the applicant, is in State District Court, and will be coming up in May, 1983. The second case pertains to the licensing of adult entertainment uses, and will be heard in April in the Federal District Court. * * * * * * * * * * IV. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. The Connnission relocated to the Community Room to discuss the Downtown De- velopment Zone District. Urban Renewal Authority members Minnick, McClung, and Novicky were present, as were Mr. Fred Kaufman of the EDDA, and Mr. Mike Haviland, Executive Director of the EDDA. Mrs. Romans stated that members of the Downtown Development Authority, Urban Renewal Authority, and City Council were invited to hear this pre- sentation and to make comments or suggestions prior to the public hearing on this proposed zone district. Mrs. Romans noted that preliminary drafts of the proposed zone district have been discussed with members of these groups, and that a public meeting was held in October, 1982, at which time this was discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Division staff, the legal staff, and the Downtown Management Team have had input toward the development of the proposed zone district. Mrs. Romans reviewed some elements of the Downtown Redevelopment (Urban Renewal) Plan, citing the intents, objectives, and effects hoped to be obtained by the redevelopment of the downtown area. The necessity of drafting a special zone classifica- tion for the redevelopment area and the creation of a design review team was stated in the Plan, and the proposed Ordinance is designed to implement that section. -4-, A map of the downtown area was shown, with the proposed downtown district superimposed over the business area; it was noted that the downtown district would not apply to Broadway, but wou l d begin at the Broadway/Acoma alley extending west to South Elati Street, and West Floyd Avenue south to U.S. 285. Mrs. Romans stated that amendments are also proposed to the existing B-1 Zone District, which would affect the remainder of the Downtown area, including those businesses along South Broadway. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed District has been divided into three zones or areas: The Commons, The Center, and The Periphery. Certain re- quirements would differ within the Downtown Development District depending on whether the development would be within The Center, The Commons, or The Periphery. Mrs. Romans then reviewed uses that are proposed to be permitted in the Downtown Development District, and also reviewed uses that would be Conditional, Prohibited, and uses which would be "Especially Permitted." Mrs. Romans then reviewed restrictions such as floor area, height of structures, bulk of structures, etc. Mrs. Romans th~n reviewed the minimum required parking; if a developer brings in a parking study which is done by a qualified professional, and it is approved by the Design Review Committee, the parking requirements outlined in the Ordinance may be waived. If, however, a pro- fessional parking study is not presented, the parking requirements set forth in the proposed Ordinance would have to be met. Usable Open Space in The Center area was discussed; Mrs. Romans pointed out that balconies and landscaped roof tops would count toward the required usable open space. Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. McBrayer had raised the issue regarding the landscaping ordinance pertaining to the Downtown De- velopment District. Mr. McBrayer stated that he recalled that the Downtown Development District and mixed use districts were excluded from the pro- visions in the landscaping ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that she and Mr. Holland would review both ordinances to be sure the landscaping issue in the Downtown Development District and the mixed use districts is covered. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that the Landscaping Ordinance would be referred to the Connnission for discussion at the meeting on March 8, 1983. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the proposed Downtown Development District would require that all utilities in new developments be underground. Conceptual sketches of development under this proposed ordinance were shown members of the authorities and commission. Implementation of the Downtown Development District was then discussed. A design review team to be appointed by the City Council would review all plans for development to determine compliance with the Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan. If the design review team determines that proposed development plans do not comply with the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the applicant would be notified of revisions which would need to be made. The design review team would have to act on the application within fourteen days from the date of the meeting at which the plan is considered, and the decision of the Connnittee would be final unless appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, could not waive minimum or maximum zoning requirements or setbacks; this would have to be accomplished through the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mr. Allen asked what is being done on South Broadway? Mrs. Romans stated that the City did sumit a CDBG application to HUD for $850,000 to be used -5- for projects in and adjacent to the redevelopment area, and was awarded $630,000 in CDBG funds just recently. The City was competing with 83 other communities in the stat'e for these· funds, which were limited, and a total of 12 communities were funded. Funding for two projects was not approved, some of which would have been of assistance in the Broadway re- development project. The City was awarded funding in the amount of $76,000 to prepare the facade design for South Broadway and working drawings would be made available to the property owner or lessee; however, these funds will not be released to the City until April. Mrs. Romans stated that it is her understanding that the staff will be appearing before the State re- garding funding for the 1983 CDBG funds which will be administered through the State. It is remotely possible that the City may be able to get some funding for the commercial rehab from this source, since the staff has been informed that the State has expressed interest in commercial rehabilitation. Mrs. Romans stated that the $630,000 funds were granted to rehab 71 homes around the Core Area, to relocate two houses along South Bannock Street, to purchase two houses to the east of the Malley Center for a parking lot, and for the South Broadway design. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is very appreciative of the funding that was granted to the City. Mrs. Romans asked if any member of the Commission, Urban Renewal Authority or Downtown Development Authority had any comments or changes to propose in the Downtown Development District as proposed. Mr. Kaufman stated that he has met with members of the banks to discuss a rehab program for the downtown commercial area; he stated that he does have commitments on loans to the businessmen or property owners to assist in improvements. Mr. Kaufman stated that he would hope that the downtown area could get a tax-free designation, because they could get a lower in- terest rate if the tax-free designation is in effect. Mr. Kaufman stated that design guidelines for Broadway are being drawn right now. Mr. Kaufman pointed out that there is a developer that is interested in the downtown area, and he emphasized the need for cooperation between all parties to facilitate the redevelopment. Mr. Kaufman stated that he saw nothing wrong with the Plan; he stated that he has been working with the negotiating team and the developer. Mr. Kaufman stated that in talking to the people in the commercial area on Broadway, he feels that "people want to be part of the project." Mr. Kaufman discussed the upcoming Grand Opening of Physical Whimsical at 3315 South Broadway, noting that 70 people would be employed in this business, and the projected income is $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 per year. Mr. Kaufman stated that he feels this new business in the downtown area is a "start", and that interest is being shown in the project. Mrs. Romans stated that she and Mr. Holland have worked on the Downtown Development District, and asked Mr. Holland his opinion of the proposed District? Mr. Holland stated that he doesn't feel there will be any legal problems with the ordinance, that it appears to be well-drafted, and that he is very satisfied with it as it is proposed. Mrs. Romans stated that the Public Hearing on the proposed ordinance is tentatively scheduled for March 22nd. To properly post the area, 42 signs will have to be made and installed. Mrs. Romans discussed the possible location of these signs, noting that some may have to be posted in the land- scaped areas, or in business windows. Mrs. Romans asked if the Commission felt there was a need for another public meeting regarding the proposed District before the Public Hearing on March 22nd? Mrs. Romans outlined a -6- tentative timetable assuming the Public Hearing before the Commission is held on March 22nd, and the Commission makes a recommendation at that meeting. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Commission would be holding two public hearings on the 22nd of March; one hearing would consider the adoption of the proposed Downtown Development District regulations, amending the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance; the second hearing would apply the Downtown De- velopment District to areas as outlined on maps before members of the audience, and would be an amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Map. It is anticipated that these amendments could be finalized so that development could begin under the new regulations in May, 1983. Mr. Allen stated that he did not feel there was need for further public meetings if publicity is published on the proposal. Mrs. Becker asked what "resistance" had been voiced on the proposal? Mrs. Romans stated that she has not been contacted relative to the proposal. Mrs. Romans again pointed out that the Commission and Council have been given the charge in the Down- town Redevelopment Plan to adopt regulations for the downtown redevelopment area, and to apply those regulations to a given area. Mr. Tanguma suggested that another public meeting prior to the meeting on the 22nd of March might be a good idea. Mrs. Becker stated that she did not feel there was need for another public meeting prior to the Public Hearing. Chairman Senti stated that he saw no reason for an additional public meeting; Mr. Barbre agreed there was no need for another public meeting. Mr. Kaufman stated that in his op1n1on, the opposition would come from "those who aren't getting enough money". Mr. Kaufman stated that he did not feel there was a need for another meeting, and that he did not feel there will a large number of people against the proposed district. Mr. McClung expressed concern regarding the composition of the proposed Design Review Committee. He also expressed concern regarding the minimum scales that were set forth in the proposed ordinance, noting that l" -30' would be so minute it would be difficult to determine any details. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the l" -30' is a "minimum" scale; architects and engineers would usually use a larger scale and that if it is felt that the minimum scale should be larger, this modification can be made in the proposed ordinance. Mr. McClung stated that the ordinance as proposed stated that the representa- tion of the Urban Renewal Authority, the Downtown Development Authority, and the City on the Design Review Team would be by staff members; he stated that he feels this is wrong. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the ordinance states that the representation shall "preferably" be staff persons with skills in design and planning because the review will be of a technical nature. Mrs. Romans further stated that this is a policy decision that will be determined by City Council. Mr. Mcclung stated that he felt this provision in the ordinance would result in staff making decisions that "don't belong to staff." Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans reiterated that the designation and composition of the Design Review Team is a policy decision to be made by the City Council. Mrs. Romans asked if there were further comments or suggestions? Mr. Minnick pointed out that in several instances the term "one week" is used; is this a seven-day week, or a five-day work week? He suggested that this might need -7- to be clarified. Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that unless other- wise specified, the Statutory definition of "week" is seven days. Mr. Novicky noted that there is no mention made of fire-safety aspects, and asked if they should be included? He mentioned designation of fire lanes that should be discussed in the ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that fire safety aspects within the structures are covered by the Fire Code, but that the designation of fire lanes was a good point and should be addressed in the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Tanguma asked what a design review committee would do that the Planning Connnission and staff couldn't do; he objected that this would be "adding another layer of government" for developers to go through. Mrs. Romans pointed out that in the adopted Downtown Redevelopment Plan it states that there shall be a design review team; the proposed ordinance was drafted to comply with the provisions set forth in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan which was approved by the Urban Renewal Authroity, Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Minnick stated that the design review team would have the responsibility to determine that proposed development does meet the guidelines of the adopted Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Commission is designated in the proposed ordinance as the "appeal body" on design review decisions; the Commission cannot function as both the design review body and the appeal body. Ms. King, Senior Planner, stated that the design review team would be going into detail to assure quality design and development. EDDA Director Haviland suggested that inasmuch as be one prime redeveloper, that possibly a member be included on the design review team. it appears there is to of his organization should Mrs. Romans reiterated that the purpose of the design review team is to assure that the development will be compatible with the adopted Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The designation and composition of the design review team will be a policy determination to be made by the City Council. Mrs. Romans asked if there were other questions or connnents on the proposed Downtown Development District ordinance? She asked that if anyone in at- tendance had further questions after the meeting to please call the staff. She suggested that if there were "policy" changes these should be brought up at the time of the Public Hearing in order that the Planning Commission can make such changes in their recommendation to City Council as they deter- mine necessary. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P. M. Recording Secretary