Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-20 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 20, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m . in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Krieger presiding. Present: Absent: Adams (ente red at 7:05), Bleile, Krieger, Mosteller (e ntered a t 7 :0 5), Mueller, Roth , Schum , Welker Hunt (alternate) Diekmeier Staff: John Voboril, Planner Wendy Weiman, Engineer Ken Ross , Director of Public Works Mark Graham, Senior Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 61 2004 Mr. Roth moved: Ms. Mueller seconded: To approve the April 6, 2004 Minutes. AYES : NAYS: Bleile, Krieger, Mueller, Roth, Schum None ABSTAIN : Welker ABSENT: Adams, Diekmeier, Mosteller Motion carried . Ill. STUDY SESSION A. Master Bicycle Plan John Voboril, Planner, stated the chief lead on the Master Bicycle Plan is the Department of Pub lic Works, and Wendy Weiman is the lead staff person on the Plan. Mr. Voboril provided an historical overview of the Master Bicycle Plan. The City's current bicycle system dates back to 1981 and is depicted on Map 1 included in the Commission's packet. In 1981 , it was envisioned that there would be a second and third phase of 1 • • • bicycling planning in future years. During the 1980's the City went through a very bleak time period with the slow decline of the Cinderella City regional mall; therefore, the second and third phases never happened. The City's new Comprehensive Plan, "Roadmap Englewood", included a joint transportation study conducted in conjunction with Public Works. The most interesting conclusion from the transportation study was the need for the City to raise the importance of transportation alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. The City faces a number of constraints in attempting to increase capacity on its arterials, including limited right-of- way issues and the associated costs. Staff is requesting the Commission to determine whether the Master Bicycle Plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific recommendation for actions are to: 1. Find the Master Bicycle Plan consistent with "Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan." 2. Recognize the Master Bicycle Plan as a strategic plan that serves as a supporting document for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Forward the Master Bicycle Plan to City Council with a recommendation for adoption . Mr. Voboril asked the Commission to keep the following questions rn mind when considering the Master Bicycle Plan. 1. Does the Master Bicycle Plan adequately conform to the policy directions expressed in the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan? • Does the Plan help the community to revitalize its existing, established, older neighborhoods? • Does it recognize opportunities which may be associated with future redevelopment projects? • Does it help the community reinvent itself and its image to become known in the metro area as a premiere, bicycle-friendly community? 2. Does the Master Bicycle Plan contain elements that may potentially conflict with other policy areas of the Comprehensive Plan? 3. Is the Master Bicycle Plan reasonably complete and c;omprehensive? Are there any glaring omissions or serious flaws? Wendy Weiman, Engineer, stated staff started by looking at the City's existing conditions within the bicycle system. Because Englewood is almost completely developed, there is 2 • • • little or no opportunity to build new streets to accommodate bike lanes or construct new trails. Staff then identified key missing links within the City 's trail system . One benefit is the City 's grid-street network system , which is ideal for the use of bicycle routes. They then looked to one of the most successful routes in the region, the City and County of Denver. Under their Master Bicycle Plan, they developed a numbered bike route system . The Denver routes have very good signage with destination markers, as well as the individual routes . The signs are used in conjunction with bicycle maps to assist the cyclists in maneuvering the routes . Staff found the Denver system to be very successful. With Denver bordering the City on the north, Englewood will be able to tie into and model Denver's route system as well as connect Englewood facilities and neighborhoods. Staff also examined what bicycle amenities could be offered in the City, such as bicycle parking, drinking fountains, restrooms, air stations, and bicycle video detection at signals. A survey was conducted to determine what Englewood currently has and made recommendations on how those bicycle amenities can be improved upon . Staff road the bicycle routes and chose the streets that provide the best connections and safety . Mr. Schum stated he liked the idea of regional signage for the bicycle routes . He is concerned with school children finding their way around the City on their bikes . He suggested also adding simple, directional signage for the children , similar to the signage at the zoo, in addition to the numbered signage . Signage to the library, Pirate 's Cove, pool, etc. would be beneficial for the kids . Mr . Bleile asked if any studies had been conducted to determine the most utilized routes. Ms. Weiman stated that information could probably be obtained from Denver. Mr. Welker stated it would also be helpful for the map to show the major connections outside the city limits , such as downtown . Ms. Weiman stated Denver has a map along some routes that shows "You are here " and shows the connections to specific destinations . Mr . Welker asked if there would be a larger map showing more than just the Englewood system. Ms . Weiman responded "yes." Mr. Welker suggested providing information to Pirate 's Cove since it is close to an existing trail. Bicycle racks should also be placed at Pirate 's Cove, in addition to the park . Mr. Welker stated there needed to be an identified route from the Little Dry Creek trail, which stops at the plaza, to the light rail station at Civic Center. Ms. Weiman stated the proposed route from Little Dry Creek is Cherokee to Floyd Street. Mr. Welker pointed out that the new map shows a break between those two points. Ms. Weiman responded that it is not an intended break and will clarify the connection on the map. Further, there should also be a crossing designation on Hampden between CityCenter and the development to the south. Mr. Voboril stated the Plan proposes a bike/pedestrian bridge over Highway 285, adjacent to the Santa Fe bridge, to connect CityCenter to the southern development. Mr. Welker stated the bridge has been discussed numerous times, but he would like to see the map indicate a method of crossing US 285 until the bridge is built. 3 • • • Ken Ross , Director of Public Works, stated there is the potential for widening US 285 an additional eight feet; however, it is not the most ideal situation to have bicycles that close to autos driving 35-40 mph . Discussion ensued regarding a US 285 connection . Mr. Bleile asked what would differentiate a bike route from a street. Ms . Weiman stated there would not be any striping along the street, but the signage would indicate it was a bike route. Mr. Welker stated the signage indicates continuity. Mr. Schum stated the routes could also be used for walking tours of the city . Mr. Welker commented on page 6 of the Plan. He recommended schools be added to the list of places where the maps are available. He also suggested getting school groups involved in the project. Discussion ensued. Referring to page 7, Mr. Welker stated the third paragraph heading should read "Streets that have elements ... " Also , with regard to the paragraph entitled "Connection to ", Mr. Welker suggested "other transit " should also be included with light rail. Buses have bike racks and people are connecting where light rail doesn 't go . Mr. Welker stated it is a very thorough Plan . Chair Krieger stated it is a "step up ." With regard to budget, Mr . Welker suggested approaching service clubs to sponsor air stations, maps , etc. Publicity is currently non-existing. Mr. Schum suggested allowing Englewood merchants to advertise on the maps . Mr . Schum stated he also liked the Plan . Mr. Bleile asked if the Plan had a timeframe or goal for implementation. Mr. Ross responded that once the Commission's approves the Plan, it would be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission and finally City Council. When the budget process is started for 2005 , the Bicycle Plan will be included and can be implemented as monies are available . Mr . Welker stated the Commission has the opportunity each year to propose projects for the Multi-Year Capital Plan. The Commission needs to continue to provide its input into that budget process. Mr . Schum stated he likes the idea of the bike racks which are missing in Englewood. Mr. Bleile agreed. Mr. Welker restated that bike racks, maps, and route information need to be located at Pirate 's Cove . There are a number of children activities that occur in that area of town. The connection to the South Platte River should also be more heavily publicized . Discussion ensued. Chair Krieger stated she found the maps confusing; the existing routes on one map are purple and the new routes are purple on the other map . She asked that the maps be consistent. Ms. Mueller moved; Mr. Schum seconded: To recommend the Master Bicycle Plan to City Council with the amendments discussed. 4 • • • Ms. Reid stated the meeting was a study session; the Plan will come back to the Commission for a public hearing, at which time the Commission can make a recommendation to City Council. Chair Krieger stated the Commission could reach a consensus. The Commission 's consensus was that they liked the Plan with the amendments. Motion was not voted upon. Mr. Ross thanked the Commission for the suggestions and comments. B. Broadway Plan 2003 Mark Graham, Senior Planner, stated the Broadway Plan was condensed after a significantly expanded public outreach program. Community meetings were conducted in the fall to permit additional people to comment on South Broadway. The former Plan was much too detailed and provided information that did not need to be included in a policy document. While that information was useful in forming the foundation for the decision to make some of the recommendations and strategies, it caused a lot of problems and confusion . The revised Plan has just the bare essentials; it is the process that is important as the Plan moves forward. The recommendations are fairly generic; staff intends to take each implementation back to the Commission and the neighborhood to wrestle through the issues at that time . A number of items remained in the Plan in an effort to guide staff and capital improvement budgets. The former Plan imagined the City could achieve a nucleus of activity in each of the four commercial districts along Broadway. While the vitality of Broadway is still important, in a constrained resource environment it is helpful to pare down to a few locations so the City could potentially participate in some of the improvements. The most obvious locations were the B-1 zoning in the downtown and the B-2 zoning at Brookridge. Those locations are differentiated from other Broadway locations because there are already large parcels in deep commercial zoning. Dartmouth Avenue is still an opportunity, but is not the opportunity for a node which the other two locations represent. Quincy, Oxford, and Mansfield are also opportunities since there are signalized intersections and attractive, but they are not deep enough for an anchor-type store. In doing some analysis for City Council, it was determined the north side of Broadway is the lowest sales tax collecting section of Broadway. There is more potential for residential on that end of Broadway. There is a possibility staff will be before the Commission requesting an expansion of the B-1 zone to include the Gothic Theatre as was proposed in the original Plan. It was originally included in the B-1, but the area was rezoned to permit an expansion of the B&B Conoco, which use was not permitted in the downtown district. One of the strategies important in the initial Plan was to assist in assembling land for developers looking for easier opportunities. That strategy proved to be one of the most contentious issues in the Plan and is clearly not the communities' consensus on how they want the City to approach redevelopment so it was removed . 5 • • • The opportunities the public favored were considering the infill development on the existing 50' x 125 ' lots. There are not a lot of changes that need to be made in the regulatory structure or the public improvements to support that type of redevelopment. Infrastructure is key to the commercial development in the City. Five million dollars was invested in Broadway between US 285 and Yale Avenue a few years ago in implementing the last Broadway Plan. The area south of US 285 has not been addressed so thoroughly. There have been some incremental improvements, but the medians have been neglected; the sidewalks are in disrepair. The City is looking for opportunities to obtain funding for improving the infrastructure. In a previous study session, Civitas presented some designs for urban form. The central designs were to bring the buildings closer to the streets, anchor the corners of blocks, and allow for parking to occur in an area between buildings or behind buildings. Those concepts are still intact even though the graphics are not included in the Plan . The section on redevelopment of underused properties is still potentially contentious . Defining "underused " is problematic. Staff attempted to define it a number of different ways in terms of the investment in the property, sales tax generation, potential of the property, etc. It has been apparent in the legislature that economic development cannot rely solely on that type of criteria. Staff continues to explore a method for determining underused properties and to propose methods to adjust those properties to make them more active and contribute to the street edge . The development standards will address some of those issues. The multiple modes of transportation keys on the former discussion. There has been an emphasis on accommodating the auto on Broadway, but there is a lot of potential for alternative technologies . Staff has explored the bus rapid transit which does not have high potential. The shuttle is scheduled to start operations late this year or early next year which will connect the light rail station to Broadway and beyond. The shuttle will provide some mobility and accessibility to Broadway. Improved amenities such as bike racks and bus stops will also contribute to people's willingness to become mobile. Diversification of the tax base is one of the re-worded sections which attempts to achieve a community understanding of what a healthy corridor contains, recognizing it needs to be a variety of uses which complement each other. It is important to note the City depends on the sales tax base, and the City will not be able to survive from a sales tax base which is encroached upon by uses that do not contribute to the sales tax . As an economic development strategy, the Plan focuses on attraction and retention of businesses that complement each other and generate sales tax. The housing section was significantly re -worded . It was too narrow previously and was misunderstood. It only talked about workforce housing defined as being housing available to people making between $10-$20 an hour with 1.7 people in the house. The concept is there are a significant number of those jobs in the community. Almost every business has those types of employees, and a healthy business district cannot exist without having 6 • • • housing that serves that niche. The Comprehensive Plan provided some guidance to expand the housing types to include townhomes, condos, lofts, etc. Broadway is one of those opportunities which is an area of change and may be a good area to develop that type of housing. A long term strategy for investment needs to be developed. Building a good infrastructure and maintaining it, as well as businesses investing and expanding creates the case that Broadway is a good place to do business. If the Commission wants an additional study session , Mr. Graham stated it could be held on May 4 . The proposed public hearing on the Plan with the Commission is tentatively scheduled for May 18 and possibly May 25 , if the hearing was continued. The Plan would then be scheduled for City Council in June . At the previous public hearing in September, the Commission's action was a vote for a rehearing of the case. The original Plan is still part of the public record. In preparation of the May 18 hearing, Mr. Graham stated that any Commissioners appointed since September will need to become familiar with the original document. Mr. Graham state he had copies of the original Plan as well as the questions and answers which were developed from the October community meeting. Even though the Plan has changed significantl y, a record needs to be created based on the original Plan . Staff is only proposing the re v ised, 5-page document, but in order to vote on the matter all Commissioners need to be familiar with the entire process and documentation. Mr. Bleile asked what the auto committee's thoughts were on the revised Plan . It seems that a number of the issues with which they had concerns have been removed. Mr. Graham responded that May or Garrett and Bob Simpson have met with the committee, and there are still a number of issues with autos and with how to address the differences between auto uses and other retailers along the corridor. The specific language referring to auto uses has been replaced with "underutilized properties ." It is not an issue that is limited to South Broadway. There are 96 dealers within the City; approximately half are on Broadway. Discussion ensued . Mr. Schum stated he opposed the previous Plan, and the revised Plan is much easier to read . He asked if there was a plan to develop an unified edge for the residential properties. In some areas there is a chance to transition from business to residential. Between Broadway and Acoma the transition is made at the alley. He suggested including in the Plan a uniformed transition, possibly a wall or a fence; this would also provide privacy for the residents. Mr. Schum asked staff to expand on the regulatory tools mentioned in the Plan . Mr. Graham responded; it is the notion that the community has the ability to include or exclude certain types of businesses that contribute or don 't contribute to the corridor. Examples of regulatory tools are when City Council took limited action on tattoo, pawn, and day labor businesses . Those are the types of interpretations and decisions to be made -is a business within the list of permitted uses? Should it comply with nonconforming use requirements and not be allowed to expand ? Are they subject to development guidelines to bring the property up to standard for some period ? Those are the tools that affect those businesses . Mr. Schum clarified there could be regulatory tools requiring a business to upgrade their 7 • • • property. Mr. Graham stated that was correct. At the public meeting, there was a request for better code enforcement on Broadway. Referring to D.1.11 in the Plan , Mr. Schum asked for clarification on the creation of a Business Improvement District. Mr. Graham stated Business Improvement Districts (BID) and Special Improvement Districts are tools which are used in the metro area . BIDs are an operations-type of district which pays for ongoing maintenance and improvement in a district including landscaping, painting railings , etc. It provides services to the businesses in that district. Property owners vote to be included in the district; it is not under the City's control. BIDs can be used in conjunction with Special Improvement Districts to install public improvements on an assessment which is included in a tax statement for 10-20 years . Another assessment under the BID can be used to maintain those improvements. It is a tool some businesses choose because they create value in the district which stays even if a business or property is sold. BIDs operate similar to a Downtown Development District; there is a board of directors. It can also be used to market the district which could appeal to a number of businesses . Mr. Schum confirmed that the BID would be solel y operated by the businesses within the District. Mr. Graham stated that was correct; the City might provide some technical assistance. Chair Krieger suggested removing the word "build" from the BID section to make it less threatening and to not appear the City is in the building business. Mr. Welker concurred . Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated he supports an addition to the Plan of a transition between commercial and residential properties. The development standards can determine the details of how the transition occurs . Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated a point of transition can be added to the Plan and then determine the specifics when the development standards are brought forward . Mr. Bleile stated he liked the revised Plan; it is a remarkable transformation. Ms. Mueller concurred. Mr. Schum stated he believes people will be less fearful since a number of the contentious issues have been removed. Ms. Reid suggested the public hearing be published for May 18 and May 25. If the case is continued on May 18, it would already be published for May 25. She asked if the Commission objected to planning for two public hearings; if the second date is not needed, it can be canceled. The Commission had no objections . Mr. Bleile asked if a study session was still needed on May 4. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that an additional study session on the Broadway Plan was unnecessary. The Plan will move forward for public hearing on May 18, with a possible continuation to May 25 if necessary . Ms. Mosteller asked if the Plan contained any strategies for retaining existing businesses along the Broadway Corridor. Mr. Graham stated he believes that is addressed under B.1 in the Plan which reads: "Retain strong businesses and support their expansion ... " Ms. Mosteller stated that statement is attached to underutilized properties . She suggested moving it to the revitalization section . The other Commissioners concurred. Mr. Graham stated he would make that correction . 8 • Chair Krieger stated there would not be a meeting on May 4. Ms . Mosteller stated she would be unable to attend a meeting on May 25 . IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Graham stated a letter was sent to the City office for each of the Commissioners regarding the Denver Seminary. The recording secretary distributed the letter to each Commissioner. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid stated a public hearing will be held on the Seminary property. The Commission cannot consider the letter as testimony . If it raises any issues , Commissioners should reference the letter at the public hearing . If the Commission wants the letter introduced as part of the evidence for the public hearing, a Commissioner needs to introduce it at the public hearing. • VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE • Mr . Schum stated the General Iron Works ' site has now become the RTD light rail maintenance facility . The City temporarily made his street the truck route, and he would like a schedule from the City as to when that street will be removed from the truck route and the original truck route returned. He was told it was only a temporary route; the construction is complete; and he would like his street returned to its previous status. Chair Krieger asked if that issue should be addressed at a Council meeting rather than at a Commission meeting. Ms. Reid stated it is a legitimate issue staff can pass along to Public Works; if Mr . Schum does not like the response, he can then bring it up at a Council meeting. Mr. Graham stated he thought the street was designated as the hauling route for the project, but it has been the de facto truck route. Mr. Schum disagreed. Mr . Graham stated public ways are under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Director, and he will pass the question along to Ken Ross. Mr. Schum stated he brought it up to Community Development staff because he believes Bob Simpson helped facilitate the matter. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m . 9