Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-20 PZC MINUTES• • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 20, 1982 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Becker, Gilchrist, Stoel Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hinson City Attorney Rick DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Special Counsel George Zoellner and Brad Breslau Director of Utilities Stu Fonda Urban Renewal Authority Members: Cole, Minnick, Novicky, Mcclung, Powell '5 c ,• ~oard of Adjustment & Appeals Members: Dawson and Hallagin II. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment of §22.2-6c(2) CASE 119-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that this case before the Commission concerns a pro- posed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new section, §22.2-6c(2). He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-82 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma None Becker, Gilchrist, Stoel Mr. McBrayer stated that the motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that the legal notice of the public hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on June 30th, and asked that .the public notice be made a part of the record of this meeting. Mr. McBrayer also asked that the staff report be made a part ·Of the record. Mr. McBrayer stated that the proposed amendment sets forth criteria to be used by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in considering requests for variance to the Sign Code. Mrs. Becker entered the meeting and took her chair with members of the Commission. Mr. McBrayer asked that anyone wishing to address the Commission on this matter come forward to the podium and give their name and address and give their statement. Mr. McBrayer asked that comments be limited to the issue at hand. -2- Mr. McBrayer stated that the Planning Commission has received copies of • the staff report; he asked if there were any questions or comments from members of the Commission regarding this staff report? Hearing no questions from the Commission members, he then asked if the staff had any further information or comments they wished to make on this matter? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing further to add, but would be willing to answer questions. Mr. McBrayer asked that Mrs. Romans read the proposed amendment for the benefit of the members of the audience. Mrs. Romans complied with Mr. McBrayer's request. Mr. McBrayer asked if any member of the audience wished to speak regarding the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? No one spoke on this amendment. Mr. McBrayer again asked if there were questions from the Commission? Mrs. Becker stated that she felt that #2 should be changed grammatically for clarification. Mr. Allen stated that he was not in favor of the new Sign Code, but it was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council; he does feel that the appeal procedure to the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals is proper. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-82 be closed. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission on this case? Becker moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved: §22.2-6c(2) In considering a request for a variance to the Sign Code, §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall determine that: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions such as the existence of buldings, topography, vegetation, sign structure or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions must be peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 2. The variance, if authorized will weaken neither the ~ general purpose of this Ordinance nor the regulations prescribed for the District in which the sign is lo- cated. • -3- 3. The variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the District in which the sign is located. 4. The variance, if authorized, will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment by adding §22.1-8 Mr. McBrayer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: CASE 1111-82 Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #11-82 be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that legal notice of the public hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on June 30, 1982, and asked that this be made a part of the record of this hearing. Mr. McBrayer stated that the matter before the Commission is a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which would exempt public and city-owned utilities from having to comply with the restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McBrayer stated that this proposed amendment was discussed previously by the Planning Commission and legal staff, and the public hearing was scheduled to gain in- put from the community. Mr. McBrayer again asked that anyone wishing to address the Commission come forward to the podium and identify themselves and give their statement. Mr. McBrayer asked if members of the Commission had any questions regarding the staff report, or any questions of the Planning staff or legal staff? Mr. Allen asked if trash collection would be termed a "public utility" and be covered by this proposed amendment? Mr. McBrayer stated that it would not. Mr. McBrayer stated that as he reads the proposed amendment, if it is passed the City of Englewood will not have to comply with any restrictions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance if they wish to construct a public utility in any area;· he asked if this is correct? Assistant City Attorney Holland stated that this is the way he reads the proposed Ordinance . Mr. McBrayer asked the staff if they had anything further they wished to add at this point? Mrs. Romans asked that the staff report be made part of the record of the Hearing. Mrs. Becker asked if the proposed amendment meant that a utility such as the water tower could be built and not meet compliance of health, safety, -4- etc. restrictions? Mr. Holland stated that City Attorney DeWitt had a short presentation to make, and he felt response to Mrs. Becker's question would be made at that time. Mr. DeWitt stated that he was City Attorney for the City of Englewood. He stated that the recommendation from the staff has been made to approve the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. DeWitt stated that he had three people who would address the Commission on this matter: Mr. Holland would speak on the matter of exemption of public uses; Mr. Zoellner, special counsel for the City in relation to the water tower case, would discuss that case; and Mr. Stu Fonda, the Director of Utilities, would address the Commission. Mr. DeWitt asked that Mr. Holland make his presentation at this time. Mr. Holland stated that he has prepared a short over-view on the issue of whether municipal uses/public facilities are subject to the regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Holland stated that the answer is not concise on whether municipal uses are subject to the controls of zoning ordinances. He stated that the courts determine whether the municipal use is governmental or proprietary in nature, and proprietary uses have been ruled to be subject to the restrictions contained in the zoning ordinances. Mr. Holland stated that a governmental function is on the order of police protection, while a proprietary function is one from which the municipality can gain revenue. Mr. Holland then briefly reviewed some case law in Colorado, and cited Statutes pertaining to this issue. He stated that 30-28-1-10 §1 basically provides that no public structure may be built within a county where there are county zoning regulations unless the pro- posal has been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Commission; there are exceptions, however, which states that if a public structure does not fall within the province of the County Commissioners, and the County Planning Commission has disapproved the request, the local body which sub- mitted the request may overrule the decision of the County Planning Com- mission. He stated that this statute has been applied in two cases in Colorado, one with the Lakewood Sanitation District in 1961, and the second being the Blue River Development Committee vs. the Town of Silverthorne. Mr. Holland then discussed statutes which provide for the exemption of public buildings or structures from zoning regulations through a provision contained in the zoning ordinance, when such public buildings or structures are for the reasonable necessity, convenience and welfare of the public. Mr. Holland cited some municipal uses that might be exempt from compliance with provisions of the zoning ordinance, such as water tanks, a municipal garage, a parking lot for municipal vehicles, or police and fire facilities. Mr. George Zoellner then addressed the Commission. He stated that he is special counsel to the City of Englewood on various matters, and has had several years experience in working with the Denver Water Board as their general counsel. Mr. Zoellner stated that it is the Zoning Ordinance which would control the public uses, and that the City can provide for exceptions, partial exceptions, etc. Mr. Zoellner stated that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance such as is proposed would provide the needed flexibility in constructing public utilities. Mr. Zoellner stated that he realized there is some concern on the part of the Commission about granting a carte blanche authority on the installation of public utilities; he pointed out, however, that there are several layers of review that would ensure such public utilities are constructed in a judicious manner. Mr. Zoellner stated that the Court has ruled that the water tower constructed by the City is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. • -5- Mr. Allen asked why, if the staff felt the water tower was constructed in compliance with the zoning regulations, there has been so much problem with the courts? Mr. Zoellner stated that the Courts do not agree with the staff interpretation of the zoning regulations, and have ruled that the tower is not in compliance with the zoning regulations. Mr. Zoellner further dis- cussed the need for approval of the proposed amendment. Mr. Stu Fonda, Director of Utilities, addressed the Commission regarding the need for the proposed amendment. Mr. Fonda stated that the zoning regulations governing height restrictions are difficult to interpret, and that the various legal representatives in the case still have not agreed on what the setbacks actually would be to accommodate the height of the tower. Mr. Fonda stated that the tower is designed so that if it ever collapsed, it would drop straight down between the struts which support it. Mr. Fonda stated that with the supporting strut design of the tower, it is 90% open. Mr. Fonda then discussed means of increasing water pres- sure for the southern end of the City; the use of a water tower is the best system that the City could get. Mr. Fonda discussed the reasons that pumping systems are not the most satisfactory, and cited problems that could occur during power failures. The Fire Department is also very con- cerned about the pr9blem of water pressure. Mr. Fonda discussed the possi- bility, during extreme low pressure times, of contaminants being introduced into the potable water system, and that this possibility would not occur if the water tower use is approved. Mr. Fonda also pointed out if the height of the tank were lowered, there could still be pressure problems because of the terrain o.f the area to be served. Mr. DeWitt stated that a point to be considered by the Commission is that municipal services are different; these services are not to be compared with a typical drug-store that is not needed on an everyday basis. Water service is an essential day-to-day service, as are fire and police protection. Mr. DeWitt stated that one of the strong points the City of Englewood has is its independence. Mr. DeWitt stated that the purpose of the propsed amend- ments is to ensure that independence into the next century, and to give the City the ability to expand and develop logically. Mr. DeWitt stressed the difference between the constantly needed municipal services and the typical commercial service which is needed intermittently. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone who wished to address the Commission regarding the proposed amendment? No member of the audience spoke on this matter. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was further discussion on the proposal from the Commission? There were no further comments by the Commission. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #11-82 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson None Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. Becker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved: -6- §22.1-8 Applicability of Regulations. The regulations, requirements, limitations and provisions of the Ordinance shall not apply to public utilities presently owned or operated by the City of Englewood. However, this does not relieve from the duty to obtain building permits those contractors who build or assist in building any City-owned or operated utility. Mrs. Becker spoke in favor of the proposed amendment, stating that she felt there is a need to protect the public utilities, that she agreed the City of Englewood does have independence because of owning our utilities, and that this should be preserved. Mr. McBrayer stated that as the proposed amendment is presently written, he would be in opposition to it. He stated that he did not feel the City should be given the carte blanche right to put in any kind of facility in any area without first having the property posted and going through a ·public hearingprocedurebefore some body --either the Planning Conunission or City Council. He stated that he would hate to see this ordinance passed without some hearing procedure built into the process. He asked Mrs. Becker and Mr. Tanguma if they would be willing to amend the motion to suggest that the following statement be added: "The City must present satisfactory proof to a public hearing body that the proposed City building or structure is reasonably necessary for the health and welfare of the public." He asked if the Conunission would feel comfortable with such an addition to the amend- ment? Mrs. Becker stated that she did not envision a major utility being installed without being closely monitored by the City Council; she noted that it would be extremely expensive, and that major expenditures are required to have Council action. She questioned that any public utility could be installed or contructed without Council approval. Mr. DeWitt noted that the matter of the water tower was before the City Council on numerous occasions, as was the location and construction of a new fire station. He stated that in the matter of the fire station, there was no requirement for a public hearing to gain public input, but there were many public meetings, and that the City Council does have the means to gain public input. Mr. DeWitt stated that the Council people do not live in a "vacuum", but maintain conununity contact, and receive input on many matters in many ways. He reminded Commission members that it is a stated goal of both the Conunission and Council to protect the residential neighborhoods of the City, and questioned that Mr. McBrayer's fear of such a public utility being located in a residential neighborhood would be realized. Discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt stated that he felt trust in the elected officials is very important. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt if the City Council members are so attuned to public input, they should not object to his proposed amendment, because this would only require that the property be posted and public notice given for a public hearing. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker agreed that there must be faith in the City Council, and that she would not like to see a clause such as was suggested by Mr. McBrayer added to the amendment. Mr. Senti called for the question. Mr. McBrayer recognized Mr. Allen, who had indicated a desire to speak. Mr. Allen stated that he has seen develop- -7- ments such as this "string out for years because people had the right to attack it", and gave the Foothills Project as an example. He stated that he did not feel the City should be subjected to this type of problem. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: McBrayer ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. III. URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CASE #10-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Public Hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan was continued from July 7, 1982, and that the Commission had asked that members of the DDA and the Urban Renewal Authority get together to attempt to iron out some of the differences that became apparent at that time. He stated that the goal was to gain as much support from as many people as possible for the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission has received a list of proposed changes to the Plan, which have been agreed to by the EDDA and members of the Urban Renewal Authority, and asked that this be made a part of the record of this meeting. Mr. McBrayer stated that the primary purpose of the Commission consideration is to determine whether the Urban Renewal Plan is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McBrayer then asked if the staff had any up-date to present on the matter. Mrs. Becker stated that before we get further into testimony from members of the staff and audience, that she would like to apologize for missing the meeting of July 7th due to an illness in her family necessitating her travel out of the country. Mrs. Becker stated that she had reviewed a draft of the minutes of that meeting, and that it became apparent to her that many items of discussion at that meeting were not pertinent to the issue before the Commission, that being to determine compliance of the Urban Renewal Plan with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she hoped the testimony offered this evening would more closely address the issue at hand --does the Urban Renewal Plan comply with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Powers stated that she is the Director of Community Development. She stated that Commission members received a copy of the staff report addressing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the compliance of the Urban Renewal Plan to those goals and objectives. Ms. Powers stated that following the meeting of July 7th, the Urban Renewal Authority and members of the EDDA have met to discuss some of the issues that needed re- solving. Ms. Powers referred to a letter from Mr. Paul Benedetti, counsel for the Urban Renewal Authority, and a list of the proposed revisions to the Urban Renewal Plan; she then briefly reviewed some of the revisions, among them being a change in the title of the Plan from the Urban Renewal Plan to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the removal of the relocation plan from the Redevelopment Plan, and the attempt to strengthen the role -8- the EDDA will be expected to play in the implementation of this Plan. Ms. Powers stated that Pages 38 and 39 of the Plan have had considerable revision, these pages having to do with "land acquisition". Ms. Powers stated that this is not directly related to the issue before the Planning Commission, but is a result of work done by the Urban Renewal Authority and the EDDA since July 7th. Mr. Allen asked if a copy of the Plan is available with the changes in- corporated into it? He noted that it is very difficult to refer back and forth between the Plan as it was presented and the proposed changes. Ms. Powers stated that there has not been time to incorporate the changes into the Plan itself. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission would now hear from members of the audience who wished to speak on this matter. Eugene L. Otis stated that he is the Mayor of the City of Englewood and that he was appearing before the Commission to express the concern of the City Council in any further delay in the adoption of the Plan which could unfavorably impact the downtown development efforts. The City Council would request favorable action by the Planning Commission on the Plan at this meeting. Mayor Otis stated that it is his understanding that the EDDA will be presenting to the Commission during the course of this meeting, a resolution which will rescind the resolution opposing the Plan they pre- sented on July 7th. Mayor Otis stated that the City Council would like to point out that the issue before the Planning Commission is consideration of whether or not the Urban Renewal Plan/Downtown Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and that other issues are not under consideration at this time. Mr. Otis stated that he would like to clarify the urgency for approval of the Plan. He stated that on January 19, 1981, Brady Enterprises, EDDA and the City of Englewood entered into an agreement to prepare a redevelopment plan for the City; Design Workshop, Inc. was selected to prepare the plan. Mayor Otis stated that this was done with the recognition of all parties concerned that further deterioration in the downtown area was occurring. In November, 1981, the Planning Com- mission and City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the downtown goals and objectives, and the EDDA and City Council approved the Downtown Plan. It was at this point that the determination was made to reactivate the Urban Renewal Authority, which was done for the primary purpose of providing a financing vehicle for the public projects needed as outlined in the Downtown Plan. The secondary purpose, was that the Urban Renewal Authority was to actively assist in the implementation of the Plan. Mayor Otis stated that land acquisition may only be done with the approval of the City Council; the Urban Renewal Authority cannot do so on its own. The City engaged Wright-McLaughlin Engineers to begin design work on the improvement of Little Dry Creek. Mayor Otis stressed that the 100-year flood plain on Little Dry Creek must be eliminated throughout the City, and that nothing can occur in the downtown area unless and until these improvements are made. The design chosen for improvement on Little Dry Creek calls for an open channel through the downtown area, with other water features incorporated into the design for aesthetic purposes. The City is now proceeding on a development agreement with Brady Enterprises setting forth the requirements and roles for each member of this agreement. The Urban Renewal Plan/Redevelopment Plan must be adopted before the Tri- partite Agreement is approved and signed, and the developer's agreement is needed; before the Tax Increment Bonds can be sold, the Plan must be approved. The Tax Increment District must be certified to the County no -9- later than September 15th if we are to take advantage of the assessment increases this year. Mayor Otis stated that a good number of people have put in many hours working on the development of this program, and that he felt everyone had to work together, and that mutual trust must be in evidence if we expect to reach our goal. He acknowledged that "all of us may have to make some sacrifices", but the City would gain from the redevelopment program. Mayor Otis reiterated that the only question before the Planning Commission is whether the Urban Renewal Plan is consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan, and stated that the City Council requests favorable approval by the Commission. Mr. Tanguma noted that Mayor Otis had stated that the City Council is the only body with the right to exercise eminent domain; he noted a statement that states the City Council OR Urban Renewal Authority will be required to acquire title to privately owned land --he stated that he felt the inclusion of the word "OR" was giving away that right of the City Council. Mayor Otis pointed out that the way the Plan is written, there can be no condemnation or acquisition of land without the authorization of the City Council. Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Authority would step in only on authorization and request of the City Council, and that acquisition of any parcel of land must be on a case-by-case approval and resolution of the City Council. Mr. Allen asked for explanation of Tax Increment Bonds. Mayor Otis stated that once a Tax Increment District is formed, the tax revenues would be frozen at the present level; any increase in revenues would be used to re- tire the Tax Increment Bonds. Mr. Robert G. Powell 4880 South Kalamath Street -addressed the Commission. Mr. Powell stated that he is Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority, and read the following statement: "The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority is pleased to announce that it has arrived at a tentative agreement with the Englewood Downtown Development Authority on amending controversial aspects of the Englewood Urban Renewal Plan. These aspects were brought out at a public hearing on the Plan held by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 7, 1982. Through this past week, a series of meetings have been held among City Council, EDDA, and Urban Renewal Authority members to iron out the problems. A key result of these meetings is a greater emphasis on EDDA participation in the redevelopment effort. The Plan's name has been changed to the Englewood Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan. This name more accurately reflects the reliance of the Plan on private developers and businessmen for land acquisition and implementation of the majority of the proposed actions. The Urban Renewal Authority wel- comes the newly formulated partnership with EDDA and the City so that mis- conceptions about the Plan can be corrected and a spirit of community involve- ment can be generated for the redevelopment of Downtown Englewood. The Urban Renewal Authority agrees that these changes that are proposed make the Down- town Redevelopment Plan consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan." -10- Mr. Tom Fitzpatrick 3155 South Acoma -stated that he was addressing the Commission as a citizen who lives within one block of the area to be redeveloped. He stated that he has lived in this community for many years. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he believes a Plan has been developed that is compatible with the living ideals and conditions of this City. As a resident, he feels the vacant stores along South Broadway should be used, and feels that the pro- posed Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clete Gasson addressed the Commission, and stated that he is the re- cently-elected Chairman of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority. Mr. Gasson stated that former Chairman Holthaus had appeared before the Commission on July 7th, and submitted a resolution in opposition to the Urban Renewal Plan. It was suggested by the Commission at that time that the Urban Renewal Authority members and the members of the EDDA get to- gether to work out a compromise to the differences that had become apparent. Mr. Gasson stated that the EDDA has met with the Urban Renewal Authority and with the City Council, and that a number of changes in the proposed Plan have been agreed to. Based on these changes that have been proposed, and the dialog between the EDDA and the Urban Renewal Authority and City Council, the EDDA has passed a resolution rescinding the resolution which was approved by that board and presented to the Planning Commission on July 7th; the resolution which Mr. Gasson is presenting this evening does rescind the resolution presented on July 7th. Mr. Gasson stated that there are still some areas of concern, but the EDDA Board feels comfortable with the Plan, and would like to endorse it. Mr. Harry Fleenor 3383 South Corona -Mr. Fleenor stated that he has lived in the Englewood area for many years, and recalled his support of the Cinderella City proposal when it was initially slated for construction on the former KLZ towers site. One of the benefits and advantages cited by the proponents of the Cinderella City Shopping Center was that the tax base for the city would increase; the opponents felt that it would not, and that the "old downtown Englewood area would rot away"; he stated that while this area has suffered some deterioration, he does not feel that it has rotted away, and can be salvaged if action is taken now. He stated that he was in favor of the construction of Cinderella City Shopping Center, and he is in favor of the downtown development proposal at this time. Mr. Fleenor stated that there are vacant buildings in the downtown area, and he feels the pro- posed redevelopment plan would increase the tax base for the City again. Mr. J. D. Pearce asked to address the Commission, and to present copies of documents to the Commission. Mr. Allen stated that he felt the Commission should accept the documents Mr. Pearce wants to present. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission is interested in hearing what Mr. Pearce wants to say; however, he did remind Mr. Pearce that the job of the Planning Commission is to determine whether the Redevelopment Plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pearce stated that he feels the supportive documents he has presented are necessary information for the Commission. He stated that he would like to address the Commission on the effect the action of the City Council, if the Urban Renewal Plan is approved, would have on his business, and on their business neighbors. Mr. Pearce stated that he and his father are affiliated with Englewood Hardware, 3427 South Acoma Street. The businesses and • -11- homes in the 3400 block of South Acoma, west side, back up to the banks of Little Dry Creek. They are in the heart of the redevelopment area. He stated that the majority of downtown Englewood is in a federally- designated flood control area, and that no new buildings of a reasonable design can be built and occupied before improvements are made to Little Dry Creek. Mr. Pearce cited the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan), wherein it isstated that there may be occasions when the City or the Urban Renewal Authority will be required to acquire title to privately owned ''property, and that the most apparent example involves improvement of the Little Dry Creek channel. City Council reviewed four alternate pro- posals for improvements of Little Dry Creek; Alternates 1 and 2 were eliminated, and consideration was centered on Alternates 3 and 4. Alternative #3 was selected as the plan of improvement for Little Dry Creek, which alternate is an open channel with water features built into the improvements. Mr. Pearce stated that by approving Alternate #3, the City Council will wipe out 15 Englewood businesses encompassing 250 years of retail experience, and that the oldest retail business in the City would be eliminated. Mr. Pearce stated that if the Planning Commssion approves the Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan, this will be "rubber stamping" the City Council's decision · to pursue only the ·one avenue of £load control on Little Dry Creek. Mr. Pearce discussed the course of the channel improvements on Little Dry Creek as proposed in Alternate #3. Mr. Pearce pointed out that by choosing Alternative #3, the structures and businesses in the 3400 block of South Acoma may be condemned and/or destroyed without provision of a timely or suitable re- location plan. Mr. Pearce stated that Councilman Neal made a motion on June 7, 1982, which motion was passed, that the City proceed on the basis to design and build. Op .tion 113 on the Little Dry Creek Improvements; this was then amended to hold a Public Hearing on the matter on June 28th; how- ever, Mr. Pearce stated that it was reaffirmed to him prior to the meeting of June 28th by members of the City Council that they had already chosen Alternative 113. Mr. Pearce stated that while the City Council may have led members of the Commission to believe that only Alternative #3 is consistent with the Plan, he felt that Alternate #4 should be considered. Alternate #4 calls for a covered conduit, which would be a continuation of the existing covered con- duit, and would end at Hampden Place. Open channel improvements would be made further up-stream. Mr. Pearce referred to a copy of a memo from the Design Advisory Committee and Wright-McLaughlin Engineers which indicates that the water features could be incorporated in both alternatives #3 and #4, and that furthermore, Alternate #4 provides better access between the shops, and provides good access to the mall. Alternate #4 is also less expensive than Alternate #3. Alternative #4 would not deprive the business- men on South Acoma Street of their places of business, would solve the flood control problems, and still allow for some aesthetic features, and would be consistent with the ideals and desires of the downtown businessmen. Mr. Pearce pointed out that if the Downtown Redevelopment Plan is approved in its present form, the City Council will have no reason to pursue further solutions to the flood plain problem, and that the Englewood Hardware would have to close its doors after 72 years of doing business in that location . Mr. John Pearce, Englewood Hardware, also addressed the Commission. Mr . Pearce discussed the City Council's statements to "trust" them. He stated that if the Urban Renewal Plan is to be successful, the improvement of Little Dry Creek must be approved, and the Plan must be approved, or the entire -12- project will die. Mr. Pearce stated that he feels the business people in this area are being "short-changed". He stated that a few months ago, he was told by the City Manager under the direction of the City Council, that the building he occupies would be condemned and taken from them at a "fair market value." Mr. Pearce stated that it was indicated to him that this was planned to occur as early as January of 1983. Mr. Pearce stated that the City Council says to "trust" them, but he was told by the City that if the matter went to Court on condemnation, the City would have immediate possession. Mr. Pearce stated that they were led to believe that the City Council had not made any decisions regarding improvements on Little Dry Creek; however, after reading the Minutes of June 7th, it was apparent that the City Council had given approval to Alternative #3. This was well before the June 28th Public Hearing on the improvement of Little Dry Creek; Mr. Pearce corroborated the statement by J.D. Pearce that at a study session on June 28th at 5:30 P.M., members of the City Council indicated that their minds were made up and that Alternate #3 was their choice for the improve- ments on Little Dry Creek. Mr. Pearce stated that actions like this lead him to believe that important decisions affecting the citizenry of Englewood are being made before holding Public Hearings to gain input from members of the community. Mr. Pearce stated that he has also been told by the City Manager that the City Council was told by Brady Enterprises to "butt out" on negotiations and contracts with property owners on South Acoma Street, and that Brady would "take care of them". Mr. Pearce stated that his definition of double jeopardy would be to have businesses on the 16th Street Mall in Denver, and in the 3400 block on South Acoma Street. Mr. Jim Higday stated that he was the City Councilman from District #3, and stated that he would like to point out that Alternative #3 and #4 both require the same amount of land acquisition. Mr. Higday stated that he felt there were other statements made by representatives of Englewood Hard- ware that were misleading and inaccurate, but he would not go into that be- cause it was not relevant to the issue at hand. Mr. Higday stated that speaking for himself, he wanted to assure the representatives of Englewood Hardware and anyone else that this Plan has been pursued with impeccable integrity, total honesty, and that this will continue in this manner. He stated that there is huge support from the citizens on this project. Mr. Higday stated that while it took a great deal of time and compromise, he felt the concerns of the EDDA have been dealt with, and that after every meeting, the bodies involved have been able to compromise and will continue to do so. Mr. Higday assured that no one's land would be taken from them unless it is approved by City Council, and only then would a minimum amount of land be taken. Mr. Higday stated that it is the intent of every council member that the residential character of Englewood be preserved. Mr. Higday reiterated that the City will not be taking land if it is not necessary, and then only by City Council decision. Mr. Higday stated also, that the Council wants to make sure that the property owners get more than the fair market value for their land, and is willing to buy a house of the property owner's choice in the City of Englewood and give them the deed to it. The Council is also willing to participate to a reasonable extent in relocating the businesses that are directly affected by this. Mr. Higday stated that the intent is not to harm anyone. Mr. Higday discussed the process that was entailed in the development of Cinderella City; he noted that the down- town Englewood area has deteriorated, partly because of the imposition of the shopping center, and that all of the residents in Englewood want some- thing done. Mr. Higday stated that this redevelopment project is not going to "get out of hand". Mr. Higday stated that he wanted to promise that • -13- the members of the Englewood City Council and the City staff will be honest, open, and willing to help in everyway possible on this project. Mr. Fred Kaufman stated that he is a member of the EDDA Board, and has been involved in the redevelopment project since its inception. Mr. Kaufman stated that he has been in business in Englewood for many years, and feels that his business has added something to Englewood. Mr. Kaufman stated that plans for the improvement of Englewood have been worked on for many years, and that a solution to the problems facing downtown Englewood must be reached. Mr. Kaufman stated he does believe in the City Council's avowal that they will do what is needed as far as relocation is concerned and reaching an amiable solution with the displaced tenants and property owners. He does feel these people will be taken care of properly. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to speak? There was no one else present who wished .to address the Commission. Carson moved: Becker seconded:· The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer None Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission? Carson moved: Becker seconded:: The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended, does comply with the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1979; the Planning Commission asks that the City Council approve the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended. Mr. Tanguma stated he wished this decision did not have to be so difficult; he stated he liked the Plan, but feels the decision and recommendation should cover more than the narrow concept of whether or not the Plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He would like to see a recommendation made to City Council that they consider a change in the section pertaining to Land Acquisition, particularly that dealing with eminent domain, and that the recommendation state that only the City Council may exercise the right of eminent domain. He felt it should be more specifically set forth where the City may use eminent domain, that the property be held for public use, and that the right of eminent domain not extend beyond that needed in the Little Dry Creek area, so that a developer may not use eminent domain as a means to acquire property. Mrs. Becker stated she had understood Mayor Otis to state that the City Council is the only body that has the authority to exercise the right of eminent domain. Mr. Holland stated that Mayor Otis quoted from the Plan when he said that no property may be acquired without the approval of City Council by resolution. Mr. Tanguma asked what objection there could be to incorporating his sug- gestion into this section of the Plan. He expressed concern about the -14- governing body being able to acquire land for the overall purpose of re- development outside of the land to be used by the public improvements. Mr. Holland pointed out that Chairman McBrayer has indicated that the issue before the Planning Commission is whether or not the Downtown Redevelopment Plan is in conformance with the General Plan as a whole. He suggested that the Planning Connnission might act on that issue through resolution. If there is something further the Planning Commission wants to send to the Council, it may be appropriate in a separate action. Mr. Tanguma reiterated his belief that the Council had made the decision more difficult by setting out such a narrow scope of consideration in their request. Mr. Holland stated that the narrowness of the issue was not deter- mined by the City Council, but by the law. Mr. Allen discussed his concerns with eminent domain, and stated that it appeared to him that the property owner is not protected at all if what the City wants to condemn is consistent with the Plan. He asked how the Hardware Store would be protected, for instance? Ms. Powers stated that eminent domain would be used only as a last resort, and that property owners would be paid fair market value. If the condemnation was under- taken within the parameters of the Plan, the property owners and/or tenants would have relocation benefits payable to them. Mr. Allen stated he questioned qow this redevelopment project could work when the business community objects to it. Mr. Holland reminded the Planning Connnission of the testimony that has been received, and of the fact that the EDDA submitted a resolution which rescinded their resolution of opposition of July 7th. Mrs. Barbara Holthaus asked that the EDDA resolution presented this evening be read for the benefit of the audience. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that the Public Hearing is now closed, and that Mrs. Holthaus should have made her request before closing the Hearing. Mr. J. D. Pearce asked if the Planning Commission had read the resolution? Mr. McBrayer stated that the copy of the resolution was presented to the secretary; the Planning Commission does have the testimony of Mr. Gasson that opposition to the Plan by the EDDA was withdrawn and the Plan, as amended, was now supported by the EDDA. Mr. McBrayer stated that people have indicated that they felt the Planning Commission had gotten off the subject of the matter before them by allowing people to discuss problems with the Urban Renewal Plan. He stated he felt that the Planning Commission, by encouraging better communication between the Urban Renewal Authority, the EDDA, and others, may have given the Plan a better overall chance of success. Mr. McBrayer called for the vote on the motion. AYES: Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: Allen ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer called a recess of the meeting. -15- The meeting reconvened with the following members present: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti Absent: Stoel, Gilchrist V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Becker discussed her concerns about business people who may be displaced under the redevelopment program. She stated her belief that these businesses should remain in Englewood and not be forced to seek accommodations in another jurisdiction. She stated that she felt that some temporary location should be found for these businesses until their area has been redeveloped. She stated .that this would require two moves for these businesses, which they might not like, but she would hope that the Planning Commission, EDDA, City Council, and everyone concerned would consider all possibilities. Mr. McBrayer noted that there are several vacant buildings on South Broadway in the 3400 block; he asked if it might be satisfactory for some of the businesses to relocate to this area temporarily? Mr. John Pearce pointed out that the former P~blic Service building has recently been sold; the new owner has spent considerable funds to renovate the building, and it is doubtful he would want to lease to a hardware operation. He stated that the former Penney Building would not be satisfactory for the hardware operation because of lack of adjacent parking and the narrow alley which would hinder loading/unloading procedures. Mr. Pearce stated he did not feel the problem of relocation for the 15 businesses that will .be destroyed by Little Dry Creek Alternative #3 has been addressed. Mr. J, D. Pearce stated he felt the businesses in the 3400 block of South Acoma were unique. One of the main problems facing these businesses is the "double move" --first to temporary quarters if they can be found, and then back to the redeveloped area. He stated that a double move would be very impractical for the Hardware Company. Mr. Pearce further discussed his concerns with the displacement of the businesses and the relocation. He stated they would welcome creative suggestions from anyone on this problem. Mr. McBrayer suggested that it may be too early in the planning of this program to get down to relocation specifics. He noted that the tax district still has to be formed. He stated he felt there would be many more meetings and discussions before the actual point of relocation begins. Discussion followed. Ms. Powers reviewed the study and consideration that has been done on the improvements of Little Dry Creek and the entire redevelopment program. When Alternatives #3 and #4 were first considered, it was determined that properties on both sides of the creek in the 3400 block would have to be acquired. The staff was instructed to meet with the Acoma merchants to determine their needs, but it was the decision of these merchants and property owners that they wanted to deal with Brady Enterprises and not with the City. The City has backed off on contacts and discussions with the Acoma Street people; the City staff would be more than willing to help them, but does need some direction. Ms. Powers emphasized the willingness of the City to be of assistance, but also stressed the reluctance to interfere between the merchants and Brady Enterprises. ~s. Powers stated that no development agreement has -16- been made with Brady Enterprises at this time, but that Mr. Brady has said ~ he would take responsibility for negotiations and relocation for the Acoma ~ Street merchants. Mr. Brady has expressed the desire to keep these merchants in the downtown area. Ms. Powers reiterated that there is no development agreement with Mr. Brady, and cannot be until the Urban Renewal Plan/Down- town Redevelopment Plan is adopted. Ms. Powers noted that a survey questionnaire was developed to indicate the needs and desires of the Acoma merchants, and that Mr. Hinson talked to Messrs. Pearce and asked that they complete this survey and return it to the office. No response has been received to this request, and the staff was informed verbally that the Messrs. Pearce wanted to deal with Mr. Brady --not the City. J. D. Pearce discussed the many factors that must enter into consideration of needs for a business such as the hardware store. Mr. Pearce said that Ms. Powers was correct when she stated that they did not want to deal with the City, but incorrect in the statement they wanted to deal with "Brady". He stated they would prefer to negotiate with a private developer. He stated that they have talked to Mr. Brady, but that he is not prepared to negotiate with them at this point in time. Mr. McBrayer stated it was important to have the parameters of what a business operation must have to be able to locate another site for that business. Discussion followed. Ms. Becker stated she foresaw a lot of work ahead, and pointed out that there must be a degree of compromise on all sides for the program to be successful. Mr. J. D. Pearce stated that they wanted to see the redevelopment plan go thru, but they want to stay in business. Mr. John Pearce discussed the Little Dry Creek improvements, and stated that the Urban Drainage personnel indicated that if Alternative #4 were chosen, only a couple of feet off the rear of their property would be re- quired. Ms. Powers pointed out that Urban Drainage personnel are not the design engineers on the Little Dry Creek project, and that it has been estimated that at least 10 feet into the building would be required with either Alternative #3 or #4. Mr. Allen inquired what effect the increased cost of land and construction would have on the hardware company if they relocated? Mr. Pearce discussed the average costs set forth by the National Hardware Association, which costs are broken down by whether the location is rural or metropolitan, and whether there are high or low proceeds from the business. Mr. McBrayer asked if it would be in order for the Planning Commission to transmit to City Council along with the resolution approving the Plan, a letter explaining the concerns of the Planning Commission about the reloca- tion plan, asking for a tentative schedule, and urging that a relocation plan be approved. Ms. Powers stated that she did not believe such an action on the part of the Connnission would do any harm, but pointed out that the adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan/Redevelopment Plan and a relocation plan are separate issues. Mr. McBrayer stated he would draft such a letter for review at the next meeting. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers pointed out that the Urban Renewal Authority, by State Statute, has the responsibility to develop a relocation plan. She also pointed out that a proposed relocation had been included in the Urban Renewal Plan, but was removed from the Downtown Redevelopment -17- Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. She noted that a relocation plan would be a document separate and distinct from the Redevelopment Plan. She stated that the relocation plan does have specific standards set forth as it is written. Mr. J, D. Pearce agreed that the relocation plan was written with specific standards, and that it was "scary as hell". He questioned that it really addressed the problems of relocation, but rather spoke to the legal require- ments of the Urban Renewal Authority. Mrs. Becker stated she felt the concerns of the Planning Commission should be heard, and that perhaps the lett~r should be sent to the Urban Renewal Authority, indicating the interest of the Planning Commission in keeping the displaces businesses in downtown Englewood. Mr. McBrayer stated he would direct the letter to the Urban Renewal Authority with copies to City Council. VI. DIRECTOR'S ·CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated she had nothing further to discuss. Mrs. Romaqs stated the Promote Englewood Committee will have their next meeting on August 10th. The Landscaping Committee will meet on July 22nd at 7:30 A.M. The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be August 3rd. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Quilt Display Case is under construction, and will be installed this week. Mr. McBrayer stated that after all the bills are in, he would let the Commission members know what their share is. Mrs. Becker reminded Commission members and staff of the potluck dinner at her house on July 25th at 4:00 P.M. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M. ertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Becker moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved: §22.2-6c(2) In considering a request for a variance to the Sign Code, §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall determine that: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions such as the existence of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions must be peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 2. The variance, if authorized will weaken neither the general purpose of this Ordinance nor the regulations prescribed for the District in which the sign is lo- cated. 3. The variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the District in which the sign is located. 4. The variance, if authorized, will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent con- forming property. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Becker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be approved. §22.1-8 Applicability of Regulations. The regulations, requirements, limitations and provisions of the Ordinance shall not apply to public utilities pres- ently owned or operated by the City of Englewood and public utilities to be owned or operated by the City of Englewood. However, this does not relieve from the duty to obtain build- ing permits those contractors who build or assist in building any City-owned or operated utility. AYES: Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: McBrayer ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: July 20, 1982 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Becker seconded: Compliance of Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan with the Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended, does comply with the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1979; the Planning Commission asks that the City Council approve the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended. AYES: Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: Allen ABSENT: Stoel, Gilchrist The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. du~L~-dertrude G. Walty 7 Recording Secretary • • • Resolution No. 1 Series of 1982 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Planning and Zoning Commission A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OF JULY, 1982. WHEREAS, a Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been prepared by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan to the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the General Plan for the develop- ment of the municipality as a whole in accordance with Section 31-25-107(2) C.R.S. 1973, as .amended; and WHEREAS, a public hearing and review have been conducted by the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com- mission of the City of Englewood, Colorado: Section 1. That the Englewood Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been determined to be in conformity with the General Plan of development for the City of Englewood; and Section 2. That a recommendation for approval of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan shall be forwarded to the Englewood City Council. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 20th day of July, 1982. ATTEST: