Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-07 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 7, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Ed McBrayer. Members present: Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Becker, Gilchrist Also present: Assistant Director of Community Development D. A. Romans Assistant City Manager Pete Vargas Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hinson Urban Renewal Members Voth, Minnick, McClung, Dickinson, Novicky II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of the meeting of June 15, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of June 15, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist The motion carried. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of June 29, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Tanguma moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of June 29, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist The motion carried. III. ALLEY VACATION CASE 1113-82 Block 23, Englewood Subdivision Mr. McBrayer stated that Mr. Mcilvaine of the Englewood Executive Center and the Englewood Elks Lodge have requested vacation of the alley in Block 23, Englewood Subdivision, which is located between West Jefferson Avenue and West Kenyon Avenue. Mr. McBrayer stated that a staff report has been previously submitted to the Commission, and asked if members of the Com- mission had any questions or comments of the staff? No questions were asked by the Commission. Mr. McBrayer then asked if the staff had further -2- comments to make regarding the case that were not contained in the staff report? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing further to add. Mr. McBrayer then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak on behalf of the applicants? Mr. Malcolm Taylor 4830 South Washington Street -stated that he was in attendance on behalf ' of the Elks Lodge; Mr. Taylor stated that their neighbors across the alley to the east had suggested the alley vacation. This consideration was discussed by the Lodge, and by a majority vote of the members of the Lodge, it was determiend that they would join in the request for vacation of the alley. Mr. Taylor stated that the Lodge was "led to believe that if the alley was vacated, they could build on that portion of the alley that would revert to the Lodge." However, some of the membership has indicated that they do not feel it would be possible to make such use of the vacated alley. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were any questions by the Connnission of Mr. Taylor? Mr. Allen asked what use the Lodge had wanted to make of the alley? Mr. Taylor stated that using the alley for additional parking area had been one possibility under consideration. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone present representing the Englewood Executive Center? Mrs. Romans stated that there apparently was no repre- sentative, but that Mr. Mcilvaine had been sent a copy of the staff report. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of the alley vacation? No one else indicated a desire to speak in favor of the request. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter of the alley vacation? Mr. Dominick asked what restrictions would be placed on the alley; what use would the neighbor to the east of the alley be making of the portion of the alley reverting to the Englewood Executive Center? Wo4ld the alley have to be kept open for access? Mrs. Romans pointed out that it would be necessary to retain an easement for utility right-of-way in the alley. Mrs. Romans stated that Mountain Bell was most emphatic that they would not relinquish their right-of-way in this alley; the City Utilities Department also registered opposition to the requested vacation of the right-of-way. It was pointed out that even if the alley were to be vacated, construction would not be allowed within the easement that would have to be retained. Mrs. Romans stated that it is the recomendation of the staff that the alley not be vacated until such time as the Elks Lodge and the Englewood Executive Center have definite plans for utilization of the adjoining property. Mr. Dominick stated that the Elks Lodge would prefer to use the alley for access. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that he recalled some discussion at a previous Commission meeting on the possible relocation of the Elks Lodge. Mrs. Romans stated that this was not the position of the Elks Lodge; it was a statement made by Mr. Mcilvaine concerning his intent to attempt to purchase the Elks' property. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The request for vacation of the alley in Block 23, Engle- wood Subdivision be denied, and that the matter not be referred to the City Council. • -3- Mr. McBrayer emphasized that ,Mountain Bell and the Englewood Utilities Department have strongly recommended against the vacation of the alley. He stated that before this matter is again brought before the Commission, he felt the Englewood Executive Center and the Elks Lodge should bring in a site plan designating the proposed use of this area. The vote on the motion was called. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Becker The Chairman ruled that the motion to deny the request carried. IV. URBAN RENEWAL -PLAN CASE /110-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that there is a sign-in pad being circulated for those who wish to address the Commission to sign. He asked that the Public Hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan be opened. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Public Hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan be opened. AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Becker The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that the City Counoil had referred the proposed Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning Commission for their evaluation on compliance of the Urban Renewal Plan with the Comprehensive Plan. City Council also directed the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing on the Urban Re- newal Plan to solicit comments from the public. Mr. McBrayer asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Dick Hinson stated that he is the Economic Development Planner for the City of Englewood. He stated that the Urban Renewal Plan was discussed by the Planning Commission in some detail on June 8th. The responsibility of the Commission this evening is to ensure compliance of the Urban Renewal Plan with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hinson stated that in November, 1981, the Planning Commission and City Council adopted 23 policies and objectives, which were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. These policies and objectives were used as the basis of the Downtown Development and the Urban Renewal Plan. A staff report was prepared prior to the June 8th meeting delineating these policies and objectives, and setting forth the manner in which each policy and objective is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hinson stated that the City Council will also hold a Public Hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan; the date for that Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for August 9, 1982. Property owners and residents of the Urban Renewal Area will be notified of the Public Hearing by mail. Mr. Hinson stated that the Urban Renewal Plan is a conceptual Plan which identifies ways to attach some of the problems that the downtown area is experiencing, such as the need to increase the activities in-the downtown area, and to increase the tax base. The downtown area should be an aesthetically pleasing location which would attract new businesses and residents to the area. The -4- goal is to maintain downtown Englewood as an activity center in the face of the increasing competition from the new shopping centers. Mr. Hinson reviewed some of the aspects of the Plan which are also addressed in the policies and objectives adopted in 1981, such as the need for parking, transportation needs 1 the need for a transit center, and increased means for pedestrian traffic. There is a need and desire to maintain the character of Englewood with a small-town flavor, but to have a highly developed re- tail center to provide increaseq revenues. Mr. Hinson stated that the Urban Renewal Plan discussed the financing for the public improvements that are needed in the redevelopment program; the financing is proposed to be by sale of tax increment bonds by the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Hinson discussed the p~ocess that would be followed in the issuance of tax in- crement bonds, and the process that would be required to pay off these bonds. Mr. Hinson pointed out that the financing plan "is not set in con- crete", and is only a concept. Mr. Hinson stated that the Urban Renewal Plan is not something intended to guide every step of the redevelopment, but is a concept, and stated that it is a good Plan for the revitalization of the downtown area. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Staff Report and copies of the Urban Renewal Plan have been in the hands of the Planning Commission for some weeks. Mr. McBrayer stated that the comments of those individuals addressing the Commission will be incorporated into the Minutes of this meeting and forwarded to the City Council along with the evaluation of the Planning Commission on whether the Urban Renewal Plan does comply with the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was in possession of the sign-in sheets, and would call on people to address the Commission, those having indicated they were in favor would be asked to speak first; followed by those who indicated they were in opposition. Mr. McBrayer then called on Mrs. Bernice Senti. Mrs. Senti stated that she is in favor of any improvement of Englewood. Mr. Larry Dickinson 3171 South Cherokee Street -stated that he realizes that something has . to be done to improve the City; no matter where you are located, the future for Englewood isn't very bright, and something must be done to maintain the tax base and quality of life that the citizens are accustomed to. He stated that it is imperative to attract good quality, new businesses to this area, and that he feels the Urban Renewal Plan has addressed this need. Mr. Dickinson stated that he felt the Urban Renewal Plan was a beginning and has a lot to offer. Mr. Dickinson discussed the flood plain which runs through the downtown area, and pointed out that restrictions for build~ng within a flood plain are so stringent that it precludes new development or redevelopment. Mr. Dickinson stated that the improvement of Little Dry Creek is needed before any redevelopment in the downtown area can occur. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in support of the Urban Renewal Plan. No one else indicated a desire to speak. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would then call on those persons who had indicated they wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Gary Christopher 3109 South Cherokee Street -stated that he owned the Prospector's Cache, which has been located on West Girard Avenue. -5- He stated that he was not sure that his comments would apply to this Com- mi ss i on, but he would like to point out how the proposed redevelopment of t he downtown area has affected his business. Mr. Christopher pointed out that it has been stated there are no plans for condemnation in the redevelop- ment project; however, the City does have the right to condemn property, a nd he cited articles in the Englewood Sentinel which also indicate the possibility that condemnation will be used. Mr. Christopher discussed the nature of his business, noting that it is necessary to have access for loading large pieces of equipment. Mr. Christopher stated that with the plans to develop Girard Avenue into a mall, it would not be possible for his business to stay on Girard Avenue and have the proper access for his customers. He stated that he approached EDDA to try to find out some answers, and "got lip s .ervice"; he then contacted Ms. Powers who explained the pro- gram to him, but again was unable to provide him with answers as to how he could remain at 25 West Girard Avenue and have proper access for his customers. Mr. Christopher stated that his lease on the building at 25 West Girard Avenue expires on July 31st; however, Mountain Bell indicated that they have to have new addresses and numbers for their listings by July 1st. Mr. Christopher stated that he spent three weeks and probably $100 worth of gas looking for a new location for his store, and finally determined that it is not viable to move any great distance from Englewood; he then determined to lease the location at 3461 South Broadway for his business. Mr. Christopher discussed the efforts he and his wife have ex- pended in trying to make the interior of the building at 3461 South Broadway compatible with the character of their needs. He stated that they have s pent $700 in new carpeting for the store; three weeks have been spent in moving the inventory, and 25 West Girard Avenue is now totally vacant but f or one large item; he has had to pay a full months rent on this site as well as pay the lease on the property at 3461 South Broadway. There are the expenses entailed in changing the telephone service, and in installing the security alarm equipment. Mr. Christopher stated that when he moved t wo years ago, the cost was $4,500, and he is now near the $3,500 mark on this move and all the bills aren't in. He stated that with the present state of the economy, his business hasn't been all that good. He stated that there is still the matter of a new sign, and he has been informed that he will have to comply with the new Sign Code, "which isn't law , yet". Mr. Christopher stated that his point is that he would not have had to r e- t'' locate his business if the Urban Renewal Plan hadn t been written and the b oundaries drawn as it is presently presented. Mr. Christopher s tate d t hat while he did not keep a total of the number of people that came into h i s store on July 6th, he did over $1,700 worth of business that date; today , J uly 7th, 57 people came into the store, and he did $1,200 worth of b u s i ness. Mr. Christopher stated that nbt one of the 57 customers who came into h is store today lived in Englewood. Mr. Christopher then discussed the improve- ments proposed along Little Dry Creek; he stated that he has a degree in Ge ology, and charged that the improvements made and proposed to be made to Li ttle Dry Creek pose more danger to downtown Englewood during a 100-year storm than would be posed if Little Dry Creek were channeled back to t h e orig i nal course. He stated that t h e sharp turns bui lt into the improvements will tend to impede the flow of the water during .high flood i ng, and if the water cannot break through the concrete walls, it will have a tendency t o b ack up-stream. Mr. Christopher suggested that Little Dry Creek needs t o b e mo ved further to the west, and to have the sharp curves and turns eliminat ed; he stated that ther e i s some vacant l ~d to the we s t, and t hat the r e are some houses that he under stood would be removed; thi s would ·pro- vide r oom to straighten the c r eek t h r ough part o f the down t own area. -6- Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Christopher had ever expressed his opinion on the Little Dry Creek improvements at any other public meetings? Mr. Christopher stated that he did at one meeting, but "talked to a brick wall". Mr. Christopher stated that he felt the Commission should know how this proposed redevelopment project and Urban Renewal Plan has affected him. Mr. Christopher stated that he could stand the cost of the move, but he doesn't like it and doesn't think it's right; Little Dry Creek does not have that much effect on his property, and he might lose customers that he depends on. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission appreciated Mr. Christopher's comments. He then asked Mr. Barry Coleman if he wished to speak on this matter? Mr. Coleman stated that he would defer to Mrs. Barbara Holthaus, chairperson of the EDDA. Mrs. Barbara Holthaus stated that she is chairperson of the EDDA, with offices at 3535 South Sherman Street. Mrs. Holthaus read the following resolution which she stated was adopted at a meeting of the Board earlier this evening. "The Englewood Downtown Development Authority has given its approval to a downtown development plan. After this approval was given, the Englewood Downtown Development Authority entered into agreement with City Council that the Urban Renewal Authority would be used strictly as a financing vehicle and would not be used in any other fashion. "It is the opinion of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority that the expanded urban renewal role will not receive the support of the general community. "THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as of this moment, the Englewood Downtown De- velopment Authority finds that it cannot support the plan presented by the Urban Renewal Authority. "Further, the Englewood Downtown Development Authority shall not be a legal signa.tore to this Urban Renewal Plan. Jeanette Bush sf Jeanette T. Bush Barry F. Coleman sf Barry F. Coleman Cletus A. Gasson sf Cletus A. Gasson Barbara Holthaus sf Barbara Holthaus Fred Kaufman sf Fred Kaufman Ken Mausolf sf Ken Mausolf John C. Maxwell sf John C. Maxwell John D. Neal (absent) Rachael Owens sf Rachael Owens William Pendleton sf William Pendleton Leonard A. Robohm (absent) July 7, 1982" Mr. Stoel asked if the EDDA Board is in disfavor of the entire situation? Mrs. Holthaus stated that the EDDA is in favor of the Downtown Development Plan. Mr. Stoel asked if the EDDA is opposed to a majority of the Urban Renewal Plan or to only a part of it? Mrs. Holthaus stated that the EDDA Board is opposed to the majority of the Urban Renewal Plan. It is the position of the EDDA Board that the Urban Renewal Authority was reactivated -7- to create financing for implementation of the Downtown Development Plan, and that is the only facet of t~e program that the EDDA Board is in' favor of. Mr. Richard D. Greene, stated he maintains offices in the First National Bank, and is representing the Nielsen Investment Company. He stated that as far as the Urban Renewal Plan and its acceptance by the Commission in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission must keep in mind the overall objectives of Urban Renewal. The State Statutes provide that Urban Renewal may be used to renew blighted and slum areas. Mr. Greene stated that he defied anyone in the City of Englewood to go to the 3400 block of South Acoma and determine that block is a blighted and slum area. He stated that the approval and acceptance of the Urban Renewal Plan would do away with the newest construction and the most , prosperous area in down- town Englewood. Mr. Greene stated that the Nielsen family helped to develop Englewood, but this would be tearing down "those who built the City of Englewood." Mr. Greene urged the Commission to put the Urban Renewal Plan in its proper perspective: does it meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan? He urged that the Urban Renewal Plan be reviewed in further detail, and that more meetings should be held regarding the Urban Renewal Plan. He also urged that members of the Commission drive down the 3400 block of South Acoma Street to determine for themselves whether this area is a slum and blighted area. ' Mr. McBrayer asked the staff to address the issue raised by Mr. Greene regarding slum and blighted areas? Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Re- newal Authority was created in 1973; at that time, it was determined there was slum and blight which warranted the creation of the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers stated that the definition contained within the State Statutes on slum and blight are very general, and includes such matters as a flood plain making an area blighted. The existence of the flood plain does preclude development or redevelopment, and there is a need for urban renewal to facilitate development/redevelopment. Ms. Powers cited statistics that have been collected regarding the number of vacant buildings, or buildings that are not up to either the minimum Fire Code standards or the minimum Building Code standards. Ms. Powers stated that City Council will make another finding relative to the existence of slum and blighted conditions. Ms. Powers also pointed o~t that the Urban Re- newal Area is larger than just the downtown area, and does not concern it- self with any specific buildings. She pointed out' that the channel of Little Dry Creek from Clarkson on through Englewood is a part of the Urban Renewal Area, and improvements would be made all along the channel. Ms. Powers stated that it is the feeling of the staff and of the Urban Renewal Authority that formation of the Urban Renewal A~ea has been justified. Ms. Powers pointed out also, that the Urban Renewal Plan is based on the Downtown Development Plan, and there is nothing contained in the Urban Re- newal Plan that is inconsistent with the Downtown Development Plan; the portion of the Urban Renewal Plan dealing with relocation was included to meet the requirements of the State Law. Ms. Powers agreed that the Urban Renewal Authority was reactivated to act as the financing vehicle for the implementation of the Downtown Development Plan, but in order to form a tax increment district and issue tax increment bonds, there must be an '"urban renewal plan", and this is the reason the Plan has been written and is be- fore the Commission. Ms. Powers reiterated that the Urban Renewal Plan is consistent with the Downtown Development Plan. -8- Mr. Greene stated that unless he misread the Plan, the properties adjacent to Little Dry Creek in the 3400 block South Acoma on the east side o f the block are not in the flood plain; he asked if this was correct? Ms . Power s stated that the east side of the 3400 block South Acoma is not within t he flood plain; however, to resolve the problem for the entire area, thi s b lock has been ipcluded. Mr. Greene discussed the acquisition of property b y the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council must g ive its approval to any acquisition of property. The Urban Renewal Author ity cannot take action until it is approved by the City Council, and only i f it is addressed in the Plan. Mr. Dickinson again addressed the Commission; he stated that the Urban Re- newai Authority has been meeting regularly since late Fall, 1981, and that the meetings have been open to the public. He stated that there has been from very iittle to no input from the public in the drafting of the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Dickinson reiterated that he feels the Urban Renewal Plan in its present form is a "start", and reiterated that something must be done to improve the tax base in the downtown area. He pointed out that the Cinderella City management is spending several million dollars to ma ke improvements to the shopping center, and he strongly feels that something should be done in the remainder of the downtown area. Mr. Allen stated that some three years ago, the City Council created the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, and authorized a mill levy to support this boqy; he was appointed as one of the original members of t he EDDA Board. As a committee, they were going to explore ways to rebuild downtown Englewood, and people were "not going to be driven out." A con- tract with the City, EDDA and Brady Enterprises was entered into, and the Urban Renewal Authority was reactivated. Mr. Allen stated that the po ssi- bility of "bulldozing and dispossessing people" was never thought of in the beginning. He stated that it was decided that Little Dry Creek n e eded to be improved, and the improvem~nts have been expanded to the point where it is now proposed that a park be made out of the creek right-of-way. He stated that he felt "we have drifted far afield from the original p r e vious plan'!. Mr. Allen stated that he is in favor of widening the channel on Little Dry Creek, but is not in favor of the rest of the improvements pro- posed, and he does not want the business people on South Acoma Street to be up-rooted. Mr. Allen stated that EDDA was going to improve downtown Englewood, but now Urban Renewal is in it, and he felt that "we have l ost track of what we set out to do." Mr. Allen stated that perhaps he s hould . not be on th~ Planning Com.mission because he is not in favor of wha t we are doing. He reviewed his trips to San Antonio du=ing his tenure as Mayor to view the improvements in that City; he stated that Englewood was considering using urban renewal to make improvements in northwest Englewood a t that time. He stated that it was determined that Englewood did not have suf fic i ent deterioration to qualify for the creation of an urban renewal area. He stated tha t he did not feel there was a slum area downtown, and he did not believe that a re~ qualified for urban renewal. Mr. Tanguma asked if it would be possible to implement the plan wi thout the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers stated that the public projects and Little Dry Creek i mp rovements are a predominant part of the Downtown Development Plan. I f these projects are to be financed over a period of a few years, the tax increment bonds would have to be marketed. The decision was made by the City Coun cil that the Urban Renewal Authority would be reactivated to do the financ i n g for the sale of the bonds to implement the Downtown Development P l an . The -9- b ond s would be sold through the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers re i terated that the financing would only be for the public portion of the improvements; it is necessary to have a private developer(s) who is com- mi tted to do the private development in conjunction with the public improve- ments. Mr . Tanguma stated that basically, he likes the Plan, but he is hearing dissent on the objectives and with the Urban Renewal Author-ity,. He asked i f it was possible to use the Plan but not do it through the Urban Renewal Authority. Ms. Powers emphasized that there must be an ·approved Urban Renewal Plan before bonds can be issued. The Urban Renewal Authority has l i mi ted power, and any acquisition of property would have to be approved by the City Council. Ms. Powers stated that the EDDA is not empowered to i ssue bonds; the City could issue bonds on behalf of the EDDA, but the de- cis i on was made in 1981 to reactivate the Urban Renewal Authority for this purpose. Mr. Carson asked if the decision required of the Planning Commission is whether the Urban Renewal Plan compli:es with the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Powers stated that the goals and objectives outlined in the Urban Renewal Plan were approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1981. Ms. Powers stated that the staff re- port which was submitted to the Commission prior to their meeting of June 8 outlined these goals and objectives, and addressed the way in which the Urban Renewal Plan was in compliance with those goals and objectives. Ms. Powers reiterated that the Urban Renewal Plan is really the Downtown Develop- me n t Plan, even though it is now called the Urban Renewal Plan. Ms. Powers then outlined some of the ways the Urban Renewal Plan does meet the Comp r e- hensive Plan, such as calling for mixed-use development, housing in the downtown area, a tran.sit center and improved transportation, and to link t he Cinderella City Shopping Center with the South Broadway commercial area. Mr. Mc Brayer inquired of the EDDA membership present if their displeasure with t he Urban Renewal Plan centers on the fact that the "ball game has chan ge d", and some businesses along South Acoma are now being eliminated? Mrs. Holthaus stated that the opposition is to the entire Urban Renewal Plan . She stated that when the EDDA met with the City Council to discus s financ ing, it was decided that the Urban Renewal Authority would be act ivated only f or the f inancing. Ms. Holthaus stated that the EDDA . is op p osed to the possibility of condemnation by urban renewal. Mr. McBrayer stated that if he understood the concern, it is in regard to other powers and authorities other than financing that the Urban Renewal Authority may have been granted. Mrs. Rachael Owens, member of EDDA, stated that in the Urban Renewal Plan, the Urban Renewal Authority is a legitimate agency on its own, and the Urban Renew a l Plan i s wr i tten very broadly. She stated that it does encompass a lot of t he Downtown Plan, but once the Urban Renewal Plan is approved, the Urban Renewal Author i ty is given the light to develop guidelines for zonin g , determin i ng facades of structures and the design of Li ttle Dr y Creek. This is giving the Urban Renewal Authority powers over and abov e what was intende d, and thi s could snowball. Mr. McBrayer asked what Board Ms. Owens v i sualiz ed as having those powers? Ms. Owens stated that she felt it should be a combination effort between the City, EDDA and a private developer. Mr. Dickinson stated that he would challenge anyone to demonstrate t h e Urban Re newa l Authority cou ld do anything without t he City Counc il ap proval , -10- he would challenge the statement that the Urban Re n ewa l Authority would create zoning districts, and asked for specifics that the EDDA Board is opposed to in the Plan. Ms. Owens stated that they are opposed to the "generalities" contained in the Plan. Ms. Powers p o i n t ed out that the powers of the Urban Renewal Authority would not supercede the powers of the local government. The Zoning Regulations or any changes thereto must come before the Planning Commission, and would have to be approved by the Commission and City Council. Ms. Powers stated that t he Plan does attempt to promote the "team effort" to implement the Downtown Development Plan. The Plan does state that a Downtown Zone District need s to be created, and this has been agreed to by the City, EDDA, and the private developer. This does not mean that the Urban Renewal Authority will be the body to do that. Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Plan is a guide for development; the specific roles and · responsibilities of e a ch p a rty would be set out in an agreement. Assistant City Attorney Holland addressed the Commiss i on , and stated that the Urban Renewal Plan is a document that must be accepted by the City Council before further steps can be taken; the acceptance of t h e Plan by the Council does not give the Urban Renewal Authority powe r t h a t is not given b.y the State Statute. Mr. ·Holland then discussed the three-party agreement; he stated that each party to that agreement will have to sit down and determine what responsibility and power each o f the bodies have. Mr. John Pearce 3427 South Acoma -asked if the staff report was made available to members of the EDDA prior to the commencemen t of this meeting? Ms. Powers stated that the June 8th report to the Planning Commission was not handed out to members of the EDDA, but copies we re available. Mr. Pearce then proceeded to cite some sections of t he Urban Renewa l Plan. He stated that he would "submit that when the citizens of Englewood are familiar with this Plan, that you will hear more than you have." Mr. Gerald Quait, attorney, stated that he represent ed the owners of 50 West Girard Avenue, and also that his family owns property on the north- east corner of Girard and Broadway. He stated that once this Plan would be adopted, control would be lost. Mr. Quait s tated that his clients would like the right to redevelop their property thems e lves. Mr. Quai t also cited various sectons of the Urban Renewal Plan and posed questions re- garding these sections. Mr. Quait discussed the s u gg estion contained within the Plan that low-interest loans for renovation of existing structures be made available to property owners. He stated that his clients would be happy to participate in such a program, but they d o not want their property torn down and sold to an over-all developer. Mr. Tanguma asked if it could be specified that there be no condemnation of property? He stated that he is personally o pp osed to the concept of condemnation, and asked if a prohibition of c ondemnat i on could be written into the Plan? Ms. Powers stated that the resp onsibility of the Planning Commission is to relate the Urban Renewal Plan t o the Comprehensive Plan; if the City Council/Urban Renewal Authority want to make changes in the Plan they can, but this is not a responsibility of the Planning Commission. Mr. Melvin Minnick stated that he i s a membe r of the Urban Renewal Authority. He pointed out that it is stressed i n the Plan that the private develope r • -11- will negotiate with the current property owners as he deems necessary • Mr. Minnick stated that it is contemplated that the only condemnation that would occur would be in the flood plain along Little Dry Creek right- of-way. And even then, the City would try to negotiate a price with the p roperty owner. Mr. Minnick emphasized that condemnation proceedings would be a last resort for the Urban Renewal Authority and ' City Council. Mr. Minnick stated for the downtown redeve£opment project to work, the flood control measures for Little Dry Creek must be implemented. Mr. Minnick stated that public meetings have been held on the Little Dry Creek improve- ments, and all of the meetings of the Urban Renewal Authority have been open to the public, but the public does not get involved until the last minute. He urged that this project be a team effort as is set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan, and that everyone should try to work together. Mr. Allen asked what would happen if negotiations between the private de- veloper and the property owner broke down? Mr. Minnick stated that if the City and/or Urban Renewal Authority were asked to step in, it could result in condemnation. Mr. Fiedelman discussed the proceedings used by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority in the condemnation of property, and expressed opposition to the Urban Renewal Plan. Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Plan, as it is written, does re- quire that before getting into condemnation proceedings, the City Council must, by Resolution, approve such proceedings on a 1 site-by-site basis. Th ere is nothing written into the Plan would would prevent development by p rivate property owners. There is nothing written into the Plan which re- stricts the project to one developer. Mr. Tanguma discussed his concerns with use of condemnation, and stated that property owners are hurt by this process. He stated that if there is no way condemnation could be prohbiited, and that if such prohibition cannot be written into the Plan, then he could not vote for the approval of the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr . Fred Kaufman stated that he is a member of the EDDA Board, and maintains h i s place of business at 3J95 South Broadway. He stated that he has been invo l ved in Englewood for 25 years. Mr. Kaufman stated that the idea of the improvement of the Downtown· area was drawn up by the EDDA, and they n ow feel that they have lost control over the Plan. He stated that ther e a r e businessmen who are concerned about the development and redevelopment o f downtown Englewood, and that they would like to bring new businesses into the connnunity. He felt the Plan should be under the auspices of the EDDA. Mr. Kaufman stated that he is not saying condemnation isn't needed, even t hough he is against it. He stated that there may be some property own ers who would try to "cheat" the City, and that perhaps condemnation should be used in those instances. Mr. Kaufman stated that if this is not under t he auspices of the EDDA, and if that Board does not have somethi ng to say i n the matter, they will not be a rubber stamp body. Mr. Kaufman sta ted that the EDDA was told that the Urban Renewal Authority would be re ac tivated only as a means to obtain financing to implement the Plan de- vised b y the Downtown Development Authority. Mr. Kaufman stated t h at the City has the right of condemnation with or without the Urban Renewal Au thority. Mr. Dick inson stated that he, as a member of the Urban Renewal Auth ori ty is a v ol unteer, and he has not served on that Board for the pay or an ego -12- trip. He pointed out that there have been man y hours d evoted to the writing of the Plan. Mr. Dickinson pointed out that the Ci t y Counc i l felt t here was a need for the Authority to be reactivated, and s i nce this wa s a ccomplished in the Fall of 1981, hundreds of hours have been spent by these memb ers on this project. He stated that he has nothing to gain pers on all y by the Urb a n Renewal Plan. Mr. Dickinson stated he is not i n favo r o f eminent domain or condemnation, and that the City Council has sai d that if there was a need for condemnation, this would be the responsibility of the Ci t y Co un cil and not of the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. Dickinson stated tha t the me mbers of the Urban Renewal Authority with residents and businessmen of the Ci t y , and they will have to live with the results of the Plan j ust l ike a nyone else. Mr. Dickinson acknowledged that the Plan is not perfe c t, but t hat it is a point of beginning. Mr. Dickinson discussed the lack of input from the public and from EDDA in the drafting of the Plan. Mr. Allen asked what the Urban Renewal Authority would contribute to t h e development process? Mr. Dickinson stated that the financ i ng is t he responsi- bility of the Authority. Ms. Powers pointed out that the City would not be operating under the tradi- tional urban renewal standards adopted by HUD several year s ago , and t hat certain federal standards would not have to be met. Ms. Po wers s tat ed t hat this Plan was drafted over a period of five months, and t h at the EDDA Executive Director attended those meetings; there was an opportunity f or input if it was desired. Mr. Stoel stated that it appeared there is a connnunication problem and that the groups do not know what the other groups are doin g . He asked for an accounting of this. Ms. Powers stated that the City of Englewood, EDDA, a nd Br ady En terprises contracted for the development of the Downtown Developmen t Plan . The Ur ban Renewal Authority was reactivated in the Fall o f 1981 t o a ct a s the financin g vehicle for the implementation of this plan; however, there is a process that must be followed before a tax increment distric t c an be formed and before tax increment bonds can be marketed by the Urban Re n ewal Authority. One part of this process is that an Urban Renewal Plan mu st be prepared. Ms. Powers stated that there has been participation at the staff level by each of the three parties. The Plan was made available to the EDDA, the EBA, to the School Board, and other interested bod ies . Ms. Powers reiterated that there was particiaption by the EDDA, the Ci t y , and Brady e nterprises at the staff level. Ms. Powers further reiterated that there is n o thing in the Urban Renewal Plan that is different from the Down t own Plan; but in order for the City Council to be able to use condemnation if it becomes necessary, it must be mentioned in the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Stoel asked if the EDDA has been involved i n this process; did they have the opportunity to be involved? Ms. Pow ers sta ted that opportunity for involvement was there. Ms. Powers stated that Executive Director Haviland, Mr. Hinson, City Manager Mccown and s he are members of a n egotiating team, along with representatives from the Brady Enterprises. • Mr. Quait questioned whether an indivi dual pro perty owner cou ld deve l op ~ their property with an over-al l develop er and devalopment such as is pro-,_, posed. He stated that he felt the ma j o r developer will take over t he en- tire project, and that land will be condemned. • -13- Mr. Barry Coleman, stated that he is a member of t~e EDDA Board, and has his business at 3305 South Broadway. Mr. Coleman stated that he, also, is one of the original board members of the EDDA. Mr. Coleman stated that he wants to see Englewood become a viable place to do business, but he doesn't want to see a beautiful, modern downtown Englewood with strange names on the front doors. He stated that some of the existing businessmen may not be able to stay in the new stores; he suggested that before people are told they have to move, they should know where they can move to. Mr. Coleman stated that the entire project has been taken out of the control of the people who live here and work here. He stated that it is also bringing in bureaucracy, and putting responsibility into the hands of people who don't live in the "real world". Mr. Coleman stated that he felt this must be brought back into the perspective it was started with --the redevelop- ment should be accomplished, but it should "be Englewood the way we know it, inhabited by people who live, work and own property in Englewood." Mr. Coleman reiterated that it must be gotten back into the control of people "who don't want anything bad to happen." He wants support for those people and businessmen who are being threatened with destruction. He stated that there are many ramifications of the Urban Renewal Plan, and asked that the Connnission consider it. Mr. R. P. McClung stated that he is a member of the Urban Renewal.Authority, and maintains his business at 2842 South Broadway. He stated that he is relatively new to Englewood business-wise, but has lived in Englewood since 1944. He stated that he had offered his services to the City, and that he was appointed to the Urban Renewal Authority. Mr. McClung stated that for many years, he was a businessman in Denver, and that his property was situated in the flood plain. In 1965 when the South Platte River flooded, he suffered great damage to his building, property, and a complete loss of the majority of his inventory. Mr. Mcclung stated that he spent what money he had to try to clean up his property and make it a paying business and the flood wiped him out. He stated that people in downtown Englewood are in much the same position that he was in Denver; if a bad storm comes and Little Dry Creek floods seriously, the only thing left will be the land; the businessmen will lose everything as he did. Mr. McClung stated that in- surance is available, but you cannot afford to buy enough insurance to sufficiently cover inventory, etc. Mr. Mcclung stated that the thrust of the program under consideration is to get rid of the flood plain problem that exists along Little Dry Creek, and to protect the downtown area. He stated that the City should have installed dams up-stream 50 years ago, but this was not done. Mr. McClung cited other problems in the downtown area, such as traffic, poor circulation, lack of parking, etc., all of which are addressed in the Downtown Development Plan and Urban Renewal Plan. Mr.Mcclung stated that the question arose as to who would pay and how these improvements would be financed; it was determined that the Urban Renewal Authority should be revived to provide the financing vehicle to take care of the public improvement projects such as the Little Dry Creek flood plain. Mr. McClung stated that more than half of the funds to be expended on public projects will be used for improvement of Little Dry Creek, and the improvement to the Creek would assure the safety ·of the downtown business area. Mr. McClung stated that there may be some people who will be hurt, and discussed his experiences with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority when his property was condemned. Mr. McClung stated that the attitude of the Englewood City Council and the Urban Renewal Authority has been to avoid as much damage to as many people as is possible. Mr. McClung pointed out that the major project for public improvement is the improvement of Little Dry Creek; he stated that this must be done before any progress can be made on the remainder of the Plan. -14- Mr. McBrayer stated that he didn't see how downtown Englewood can be successfully redeveloped if the comm unity is not 99% to 100% behind the program. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt there is a problem in communica- tion, and there are a lot of problems that need to be worked out . He stated that he would like to see this matter tabled until such time as the Urban Renewal Authority, EDDA, and other interested parties get together to work out the differences and report back to the Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that it appeared to him that if we proceed in the present direction, we would be hurting the people we are trying to help. Mr. McBrayer stated that it appeared that many of the people in the downtown business community are in opposition to this Plan. He stated that Plans can be drafted, but without support, the Plans won't do any good. He stated that he would like to see everybody working together in support of this Plan before it goes to City Council and before we proceed to the next step. Mr. McBrayer declared a break at 9:05 P.M. The meeting was then called to order at 9:20 P.M. Members present: Members absent: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson Becker, Gilchrist Mrs. Holthaus addressed the Commission again. She stated t hat she would like to express her thanks to Mr. McBrayer for his comments preceeding the break, and that many other people have indicated they feel the same way, Mrs. Holthaus stated that EDD~ wants the redevelopment program, and wants to cooperate. She stated that she felt if the EDDA Board could meet with the Urban Renewal Authority membership, perhaps some of the problems could be worked out, and the solutions can help a lot of the business people in the downtown area. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood there is a deadline that the Urban Renewal Authority has been working against in forming the tax increment district. He asked if it would be possible to arrange a meeting with the EDDA and Urban Renewal Authority, and table or continue this matter for a short period of time? Mr. Mcclung stated that he felt the Urban Renewal Authority would be happy to try to work out any problems they could. Mr. McBrayer asked Mrs.Holthaus if the City Council had asked the EDDA to re- view the Plan? Mrs . Holthaus stated that the EDDA has been asked to re- view the Plan, and submit their comments by August 9th. Mr. McBrayer asked what a continuation of this consideration would do to the deadline on formation of the tax district? Ms. Powers stated that the City Council does have a deadline on the approval of the Plan and the forma- tion of the tax district. It must be done before the tax assessments are approved in September. She stated that this will be done approximately September 15th, if we are to take advantage of the increased assessments for the tax increment district this year . Mr. McBrayer suggested that this be placed on the agenda two weeks from tonight, and that in the meantime, the members of the EDDA and Urban Renewal Authority get together and try to work out some of the misunderstandings. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #10-82 be continued to July 20, 1982. • ' ' • • -15- AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Gilchrist The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked if the EDDA and Urban Renewal Authority members could discuss the possibility of putting condemnation up to an arbitration process; he stated that he did not want to see any property owner hurt because of condemnation. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to suggest that everybody come to the meeting with a productive attitude, and have a listing of matters that they want to see changed. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one addressed the Commission under public forum. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council did approve the Sign Code at their meeting of July 6th, and the Code will be effective in 30 days. Ms. Powers stated that a calendar of events regarding the redevelopment process will be made available to the Planning Commission; this is an out- line of what has been done, and a projected timetable for the next four or five months. Ms. Powers stated that she had nothing further to add on Prowswood or on the Cinderella City remodeling. The Commission goals and objectives for 1982/1983 were then considered. Mr. McBrayer stated that it has been suggested that the timetable set forth on these goals and objectives should be stretched out, that the work load on the staff and Commission has increased to the point whereby the Commission may have to forego the August vacation they have taken for the past few years. Mr. McBrayer stated that several matters have been undertaken, and he feels a good start has been made on these objectives; he stated that if he heard no objection from other members, he would suggest that the goals and objectives be set aside for the time being, and matters added to the regular agendas as time allows. Ms. Powers stated that the initial draft of the condominium conversion guidelines should be to the Commission in a very short period of time. The staff is also working on a draft of the Downtown Zone District, which should also be to the Commission in a short period of time. Mrs. Romans gave members a copy of a memorandum from City Attorney DeWitt; Mrs. Romans also gave members of the Commission a draft of a Fence Ordinance; she asked that this be reviewed and discussed at the next meeting. Mrs. Romans reminded members of a tour of the Ragsdale Brothers Company scheduled for 7:30 A.M. on July 13th; all members present indicated they would be in attendance. -16- Mrs. Romans stated that the special committee working on the data collection and promotion of Englewood project will meet Monday, July 12th, at 7:30 A.M. • Dr. Davidson of the Englewood Public Schools, Mayor Otis, Mr. Harrison of the Englewood Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Haviland of the EDDA, and Mr. Tanguma of the Planning Commission compose the membership of this committee. Mrs. Romans stated that at the special meeting of July 13th, members of the northwest Englewood Citizens Committee will be present to discuss the proposed R-2-C revisions that they have drafted. The staff has been working with this committee since last August, and the proposal is now ready for presentation to the Commission. There will be two public hearings on amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance scheduled on July 20th, as well as the continuation of the Public Hearing this evening. Mrs. Romans then reviewed matters that are coming up for consideration by the Commission during July and August. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the Commission meet as scheduled through August, and that it should be understood there will be absences for some members for vacations, etc. during the summer months. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer stated that he has done further estimation on the construction of a display case for the City Anniversary Quilt. He stated that his estimate is $870 to construct such a case. He suggested that if each member of the Commission would contribute l/9th of this expense, it could be constructed in a short period of time. Discussion ensued. Members of the staff indicated they would be willing to contribute to this project also. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would meet with Mrs. Romans to determine the exact criteria for the construction of the display case. Mr. Tanguma asked if it would be possible to have a copy of the part of the Minutes of the previous meeting when the Resource Data Collection was discussed for the meeting on July 12th? Mr. Barbre asked how ~uch time would be involved in the tour of the Ragsdale Company? Mrs. Romans stated that this would begin at 7:30 A.M. and that they are aware people have to get to work. She stated that coffee and juice would be served. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. rtrude G. Welty ecording Secretar •