Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-16 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 16, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commiss ion was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Cen- ter, Chairman Weber presiding. Members present: Lathram , Mueller, Rempel , Stockwell, Waggoner, Welker, Willis , Krieger, Weber Parks, Alternate Commission Member Members absent: None Staff present: Mike Flaherty, Assistant City Manager Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner Mark Graham, Senior Planner Lauri Dannemiller, Senior Manager John Voboril, Planner I Darren Hollingsworth, Business Development Specialist Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 18, 2001 Chairman Weber stated that the Minutes of September 18, 2001 are to be considered for approval. Willis moved : Lathram seconded : The Minutes of September 18, 2001 be approved as written . Mr. Weber asked if there were any comments or corrections to the Minutes. No com- ments or corrections were offered. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Mueller, Rempel, Stockwell, Waggoner, Welker, Willis, Krieger, Lathram, Weber None None None • The motion carried. H:IGROUPIBOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutcs 2001 \PCM 10.2001A.doc 1 Ill. MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN Assistant City Manager Flaherty introduced himself to members of the Commission. He discussed new procedures that have been enacted regarding prioritization of projects sub- mitted by City Departments, Boards and Commissions for funding. In years past, the Public Works Department did the prioritization of projects. During meetings regarding upgrading the City computer system, it became clear that a department that makes a number of re- quests for project funding should not be responsible for prioritizing all project funding re- quests. This responsibility has now been assigned to the Assistant City Manager. Mr. Flaherty also noted the name change from the FYCP (Five-year Capital Plan) to the MYCP (Multi-year Capital Plan). Most projects can be funded and completed over a five year time period; however, some projects -notably those through the Utilities Department -require ten years or possibly longer from initial planning/design stages through construction and completion. Thus, the name of the program has been changed to reflect the multi-year na- ture of the program. Mr. Flaherty stated that the projects he has recommended are those that will be funded in 2002. He noted that a project may be included in the multi-year plan , but funding may be recommended for one year only. Mr. Flaherty stated that revenues to the City are "slow- ing", and this impacts the MYCP as well as the general operating budget. He stated that it appears our growth is also slowing. The City cannot continue to provide all existing ser- vices and fund the MYCP at the same rate we have previously. Mr. Flaherty noted that the City must maintain a 12% reserve fund; the goal is to maintain 15% of the revenues in a reserve fund, but the absolute minimum is 12%. In 2002, it appears the City will maintain a 13% reserve balance. Mr. Flaherty stated that since enactment of the TABOR several years ago, cities must have emergency reserves available. Mr. Flaherty stated that no monies are recommended for transfer from the General Fund to the MYCP to pay for the recommended projects. All projects will be funded through the Public Improvement Fund (PIF) and Conservation Trust Fund. The PIF funds are revenues from use taxes collected by the City on building materials and vehicles purchased outside the City limits, but used in the City. Mr. Flaherty stated that the construction revenues should continue through 2002, and the City also has a pretty good balance going into 2002. Mr. Flaherty stated that the priority projects primarily address issues of safety and mainte- nance of infrastructure. In 2002, the City has over $2 .2 million dollars committed to on- going obligations; this can include projects such as road and bridge improvements, and lease projects. This accounts for over 50% of the $3.9 million available for the MYCP. Mr. Flaherty cited several new projects that are recommended for funding in 2002. • Radio Replacement 800 MHz -Safety Services -$100,000 (shared cost) • Bates Avenue Light Rail Station -$250,000 (shared cost) • Sound Wall at Kent Village -$75,000 (shared cost) • Left-turn Signals at Oxford and Broadway -$150,000 • Windrow Loader for snow removal -$110,000 • Big Dry Creek Trail Continuation -$50,000 H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\M inutes\Minutes 2001\PCM 11).2001A .doc 2 • • • • • • • Land Bank for Cultural Arts Center -$350,000 • Storage for Parks & Recreation -$90,000 Mr. Flaherty noted that committed funds for on-going obligations for 2003 amount to $2.5 million; these projects must be funded before new projects can be considered. Mr. Flaherty stated that the recommendations from the Planning & Zoning Commission were reviewed. He cautioned that a number of the Commission's recommendations are not recommended for funding in 2002; others were combined into one project. Mr. Flaherty stated that there were $5,000,000 worth of projects submitted for capital funding, all of them good projects, but they will not be funded in 2002. Overall, projects estimated at $9,000,000 were submitted; nearly $4,000,000 is recommended for funding in 2002. The bridge from CityCenter over U.S. 285 to the former Office Depot site was discussed. This bridge would provide a pedestrian link to/from the light rail station to development south of U.S. 285 on the former Office Depot/Home Base site . The need for this bridge to comply with ADA standards was emphasized. Mr. Flaherty pointed out that this project was not recommended for ft.mding . Mr. Waggoner asked if projects to be funded through the Conservation Trust Fund had to be referred to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Flaherty responded affirmatively. Mr. Flaherty again pointed out that some projects have been combined, such as implemen- tation of the South Broadway Action Plan, and South Broadway street furniture, and the landscaping funding for South Santa Fe Drive and for South Broadway. Ms. Lathram asked what the $250,000 funding for the Bates Light Rail Station provides. Mr. Flaherty discussed the redevelopment of the General Iron Works property. Developers that expressed interest in redeveloping the GIW site both indicated that a light rail station is an integral part of the redevelopment package. The RTD Board has approved location of a light rail station at Bates, but the City has to contribute to the construction cost. The City hopes to encourage the developer to also contribute to the construction cost of the station. Mr. Willis questioned the proposed funding for the Cultural Arts Center land bank; what happens to these funds if this project is unsuccessful. Mr. Flaherty stated that the funds would have to be re-appropriated by City Council to other projects. Mr. Flaherty stated that there is an issue on this year's ballot regarding increasing the City bonding ability. The bonding ability can be a tool in financing projects such as the Cultural Arts Center. Mr. Waggoner questioned determination that projects such refinishing floors, replacement of gutters, etc. are capital projects, or maintenance projects. Mr. Flaherty said that he doesn't disagree that some projects could be considered "maintenance projects" and be funded in the operating budget; he did state that it is not uncommon for such projects to be considered as capital expenditures . The pedestrian bridge over U.S. 285 was again discussed. Mr. Weber stated it appeared that this project would benefit only two properties -the CityCenter and the owner of the H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutcs 200 llPCM I 0-200 I A.doc 3 Office Depot/Home Base property. Mr. Flaherty stated that RTD is receptive to such a bridge, and City staff would hope that RTD would assist in the cost of the bridge. With the • location of the Gart Brothers Sports corporate headquarters in the former Home Base build- ing, the pedestrian bridge link to light rail could be very important. Mr. Willis questioned whether this is the best location for such a pedestrian bridge, and agreed that it appears to serve a very limited segment of the City. Mr. Flaherty stated that if the intent is to provide connection to the LRT station, it is the best location. Mr. Willis stated that the disadvantage he sees is that the bridge will not serve a residential area, but only business developments. Ms. Lathram questioned whether it might be better to expend those funds at the Oxford station to assist transit riders in crossing Santa Fe Drive. Mr . Willis stated that he felt such an expenditure should benefit both business and residential areas of the City . Mr. Flaherty asked if there were further questions of him; he then excused himself from the meeting . IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Stitt introduced himself to members of the Commission. He stated that he wanted to discuss with the Commission what Community Development staff has been working on with the information developed by the Comprehensive Plan ad hoc committees. These committees include: • Housing • Open space and Parks • Business and Employment Mr. Stitt noted that the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is being ad- dressed through the Transportation Study currently underway, administered through the Public Works Department. Mr. Stitt stated the assignment of the ad hoc committees was to develop goals and objec- tives for a particular element of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals are a "policy" state- ment of where we want to be as a City in the future; the objectives set forth means to "get there", and strategies to implement the objectives and goals will be developed . These strategies will be very specific in contrast to the broad "policy" statements of the goals. Mr . Stitt stated that staff is not asking for additional input from the Commission members at this time, but just wanted to present to them what has been developed from the work of the ad hoc committees. He suggested that an additional study session will be scheduled, possibly in December, to go into the goals, objectives, and strategies in greater detail. Mr. Stitt stated that staff would like to take the three elements -housing, open space and parks, and business and employment -forward through the Public Hearing process as one package. Mr. Stitt stated that work on the Transportation element has slid a couple of months, and it will not be going forward until the first quarter of 2002. H:IGROUPIBOAllDS\PU.NCOMM\Minutcs\Minutcs 2001\PCM IG-2001A.doc 4 • • • • • Mr. Stitt stated that the objective of staff has been to create a set of goals and objectives for community consideration, and ask the community if this is where we want to be . Once the goals and objectives are approved by City Council, and strategies will be developed. Mr. Stitt stated that the strategies will not be included as part of the Comprehensive Plan, but will be a separate document. Only the goals will be included in the Plan. Mr. Stitt reviewed the goals for the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and used the CityCenter as a project to show how these goals would be used in weighing whether a proposal does or does not meet the objectives of the Plan. The Goals of the Business and Employment element of the Plan are : 1. Provide an economically viable environment that builds and maintains a diverse base of businesses . 2. Build, attract, and retain a quality workforce. 3. Promote economic growth by building on Englewood 's strong sense of community image, identity, and quality of life. 4. Recognize the unique characteristics and associated opportunities for enhancing the value of Englewood's commercial, industrial, and mixed-use districts . 5. Recognize the importance of infrastructure and municipal services to insure the economic viability of Englewood's business community. Goals of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space element are: 1. 2 . 3. 4 . 5. 6. Provide a balanced and connected system of open lands, natural areas , recreation facilities, parks, including trail and greenbelts. Develop a full range of programs for the preservation of open space and park de- velopment. Preserve, utilize or improve key natural resources of the City, like the south Platte River, as a natural urban greenway. Provide sufficient parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the citizens of Englewood. Provide recreational opportunities that are consistent with the city's role in regional park and open space preservation, as well as the regional goal of sustainable growth, as stated in MetroVision 2020. Provide for the development of a parks and open space system that fully integrates parks in the land use, housing, transportation, environmental, economic and cultural plans of the City. Goals of the Housing element are: 1. Promote a mix of housing opportunities. 2. Improve the housing stock. 3. Encourage a regional jobs/housing balance. 4. Improve community quality of life. Goals of the Transportation element are: 1. Enhance both the mobility and accessibility of the transportation system. H:IGROUP\BOAROS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\M inutes 200 I \PCM I 0-200 I A.doc 5 2. 3. 4. Recognize and enhance the relationships between land use and the transportation system. Promote a quality of life transportation philosophy that seeks to create an environ- mentally attractive, pedestrian-friendly community. Improve environmental qualities adversely impacted by the motorized segment of the transportation system for both local residents and visitors to the community, while also accommodating commuters. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the goals are the overall long-term policy statements; the objectives are more specific, and the strategies will be very specific, and short-term. He stated that staff hopes these goals will serve for a number of years, much as the goals contained in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan have served. Mr . Stitt asked members of the Commission to let staff know if they have concerns or com- ments about the goals and objectives, and if they see any glaring omissions to please inform staff. Mr . Stitt stated that even after the statements are developed, there can be changes; there will be public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Coun- cil to amend the Plan . Ms. Lathram stated that at first review, the goals and objectives are pretty comprehensive. Mr. Waggoner asked how many of these goals a proposed project must meet to be deter- • mined a worthwhile project. Mr . Stitt stated that the goals serve as a "guide" -a policy • statement -a management tool. The staff, Commission, and Council will have to look at the overall impact of any proposed project. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stockwell disagreed with staff's determination that the CityCenter development is "pedestrian friendly"; he finds it very difficult for pedestrians or bicyclists to maneuver through the area, and in his opinion, CityCenter development has failed on that point. Mr. Stitt stated that staff will take note of this concern, and transmit the concern to Public Works personnel. Mr. Willis inquired how much effect economic down-turns will have on the goals. Mr. Stitt stated that unless the economy really takes a down-turn, the goals should be applicable, and stay in place. Mr. Stitt added that Comprehensive Plans are general in nature, and should be "forward looking". It may take longer than 20 years to accomplish a goal that is established, but this doesn't mean the goal is any less worthwhile. Economic stability and the effect on the goals was further discussed. Mr. Willis noted that he was the Commission representative on the Housing ad hoc com- mittee, and that this group sort of "fell apart"; it was a good group of people, but they only met twice. He indicated that he had notes on items he had wanted to raise for discussion and possibly add to the goals, but they never met again. Mr. Stitt stated that goals may be added; he suggested that this document could be transmitted to members of that group and ask for their review. Mr. Stitt stated that the big test is how the community at large ac- H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMMIMinutalMinutcs 200 I \PCM I 0-200 l A.doc: 6 • • • • cepts the proposed goals; he cautioned the Commission members to keep in mind that the goals, as written, are "general in nature". Mr. Stitt reiterated that this document will be transmitted to members of the ad hoc group, and ask if they have additional i nput. Mr. Waggoner stated that people also have to keep in mind that the Housing element of the Plan is just one section of the Comprehensive Plan ; the total Plan has to be viewed to see how everything works together. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the intent is to create a policy document rather than an implementa- tion plan; the goals and objectives will be in the Comprehensive Plan , and the strategies for implementation will be in a separate document. Brief discuss ion ensued . Members were asked to call staff if the y had further comments or suggestions on the goals and objecti v es . V. BATES STATION FRAMEWORK Mr. Graham led discussion regarding the Bates Station Fr amework issue . Mr. Graham st ated that this w i ll be a "policy document", not a "mapped" document. He re vi ew ed th e goals and objectives of the proposed policy document, which are : 1. 2 . 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . Create and enhance quality infill development and redevelopment at Bates Station. Promote and develop the use of transit and alternative transportation modes . Integrate transit-oriented development with the surrounding residential neighbor- hood consistent with the vision. Establish an appropriate mix of land uses and ensure quality development. Encourage joint development and public/private partnerships. Establish development and design criteria that promote creative responsive and flexi- ble development consistent w ith Transit Oriented Development principles and the Plan Vision. Ensure that transportation facilities serve the neighborhood as well as the transit- oriented development. Mr. Graham stated that implementation of the goals, and the objectives, will require more specific regulations, such as are contained in zone district regulations. Mr. Graham empha- sized that the first step is establishment of the policy statement -the goals and objectives. Mr. Graham discussed each goal, establishing the purpose of the goal, such as improving the quality of life, promotion of transit-oriented develo p ment, etc. Mr. Graham stated that the existing structures on the General Iron Works site will be razed , and the redevelopment will begin with a "clean slate". Staff and the Urban Renewal Au- thority have worked together to create the possibility for new development on the site, and the light rail station is an integral part of the new development. Mr. Graham pointed out that we are talking about $100 million dollars worth of development on this site over the next 10 years. The development plan anticipates investment from the public sector, that will generate investment from the private sector to create an overall improvement of the H:IGROUP\BOARDS\P LANCOMM\M inutcs \Mi nutcs 2001\PCM 10·2001A .doc 7 area. Mr. Graham stated that the RFP issued for the General Iron site indicated that the City was interested in proposals with a diversity of residential uses. Both prospective de- velopers responded to this request in their initial proposals. The one developer chose to withdraw from the project, but The Fullerton Company has presented plans that indicate townhouses and condominiums in a varied price range -from $150,000 to over $400,000. The RFP also indicated a desire for limited retail development, and office development. The Fullerton Company proposal has met this request, also. The diversity of housing, and the mixed use development provide residence /work place environments within walking dis- tance, thus reducing the need for vehicles and reducing generation of air pollution. Mr. Graham stated that staff did review the study establishing blighted conditions in the area with the Planning Commission. The blighted conditions found on the site and in the neighborhood include contaminated soil, cracked or non-existent sidewalks, poor building and property maintenance. Infrastructure improvements by the City would include side- walk and street improvements, and bicycle path connections. This light rail station will be served by one bus route -#2 7. No large parking facilities are planned for persons to drive to the station, park their vehicle all day, and catch the light rail. The station is proposed as a "kiss and ride" station. Mr. Graham briefly discussed Urban Design Principles, that will be developed as a design guidelines document. Issues that will be addressed include pedestrian and bicycle routes, the grid street patterns, integration of existing development with new development, and the compatibility and "edges" of the new development. • Ms. Lathram asked if the framework and design principles, as presented, be applicable to • other light rail stations, or is it applicable only to the Bates Station. Mr. Graham stated that the Framework goals and objectives, and the Urban Design Guidelines, are focused only on the Bates Station. Goals, objectives, and urban design guidelines that may be written for the Oxford Station, for instance, would have a specific focus on that neighborhood. For instance, the framework and guidelines would be more focused on a business/industrial environment, and parking facilities. Mr. Willis inquired about constructing residential facilities in such close proximity to light rail lines, and the noise impact. Mr. Stockwell suggested that sound walls will be used. Mr. Graham stated that sound walls are not proposed, and stated that there is very limited sound generated by the light rail lines; more noise is generated by the heavy rail line. There may be some "squealing wheel" noise from the light rail cars that are off the main line wait- ing to be taken into the maintenance yard. Mr. Graham discussed the construction of the line into the maintenance yard, including turning radius and grade of the line. Mr. Willis stated that landscaping to shield view of the rail lines from the residential uses will be very important, and the visual impact of those lines must be "softened". He stated that he would not want to live in the residential units and look out at the rail lines. Mr. Graham noted that the proposed development drawings sent to the Commission previously are "conceptual", and that the end of the buildings are depicted facing toward the rail lines. Mr. Graham emphasized the "conceptual" character of these drawings . H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutcs 200 l\PCM 10-200 I A.do< 8 • • • • Members asked what parking provisions have been made for the residents of the proposed development. Mr. Graham stated that the proposal contains parking decks "wrapped" by the residential buildings. Each build i ng will have its own parking deck, and in Mr. Fuller- ton's developments in Denver he has included below-grade parking. Mr. Willis asked if this light rail station would be a 24-hour station. Mr. Graham stated that the maintenance facility is a 24-hour operation. Mr. Willis asked about the number of em- ployees that the maintenance facility will have. Mr. Graham stated that he understood the maintenance facility will have between 200 to 300 employees; there will also be some of- fice facilities with the maintenance development. Mr. Welker commented that the attempt to attract a mix of office buildings, retail , and the maintenance facility to one general area makes this a potential employment destination . He expressed concern about traffic increase in the area . Mr. Graham noted that some ex- isting traffic generators will be going away -Barton Brothers will be relocating, as will Bob 's Towing Service. Mr. Welker acknowledged that it will be a different ty pe of traffic in the area -possibly not as much heavy truck traffic. There could also be some access to the maintenance facility from Denver, and not all coming through the Englewood neighbor- hood from Dartmouth Avenue. Mr. Parks inquired about the economic impact on Mr. Fullerton's proposal. Mr. Graham stated that in this area, Mr. Fullerton has to develop a market where no market presently exists. There haven't been $400,000 lofts built in Englewood prior to this, and the only thing that might be comparable is the Waterford condominiums on East Girard Place. Mr. Fullerton has stated that he will not begin construction on any specific building unless that residential building has one-half of the units sold . Mr. Parks asked about the City's "fall- back" position if the developer withdraws from the project. Mr. Graham briefly outlined discussions that the City has had with RTD , and the proposal that RTD would carry the site until the end of the T-Rex project at no interest. The City would immediately advertise for developers for the site. Mr. Parks asked what the estimated cost of environmental remedia- tion is. Mr. Graham stated that an estimate of $1,000,000 has been received. Brown & Caldwell, consultants, based this figure on removal of the contaminated soils; there are ways to contain the contamination that is less costly than physical removal of the soils from the site. Ms. Lathram asked for clarification of Goal #4d -establish a fine grain for human scale de- velopment. Mr. Graham stated that this includes textures and patterns that a pedestrian might see when walking down a street; landscaping could be "layered" with low growing plants in front and other plantings increasing in height up to mature trees. Mr. Welker stated that it could also include multi-story buildings versus one or two-story structures . Height of structures in the proposed redevelopment were discussed. Mr. Welker stated that placement of the taller residential buildings at the edge of the proposed development, with lower buildings to the west and north back of the tall buildings is problematic in his opinion. Mr. Welker noted that the residential development within the CityCenter is much H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutes\M inutes 200 llPCM I 0-200 I A.doc 9 more massive than he unde stood it would be from the initial plans , and stated that scale of • architecture must be part of the approval process. Mr. Willis asked if the cost of the proposed housing units is realistic in Englewood. He pointed out that there are not $400,000 homes in Englewood . Mr. Graham stated that there may be people who want to live i n townhomes, lofts, or condominiums and want more space than is available in downtown Denver. He urged the Commission members to keep in mind that this is one developer's idea of what can be done with a 10 acre site . He further noted that the average cost of a house in Englewood runs about $1 70,000 at the present time . Mr. Willis asked if this project is to succeed , should it extend further into the neighborhood. Mr. Graham stated that Mr. Fullerton has expressed the opinion that the development will be successful on the 10 acre site. Mr. Willis asked how this development could be done on the 10 acre site, and not affect the remainder of the area. Mr. Parks asked if staff has any market studie s to show absorption o f re sidential units in th e area. Mr. Graham stated that staff does not. Mr. Welker stated that in his opinion, the Commission needs to expect that the plans , as presented thus far, is not what will be constructed on the site. He referenced the City Cen - ter development, and the theater that was included in preliminary plans but did not materi- alize . He stated that the GIW redevelopment will be market driven, as was the CityCenter development. The GIW site , if developed with the upscale housing, will be the first such development south of the Golden Triangle in Denver. Mr. Graham stated that any change in zoning designations will go before the Planning Commission and City Council at Public Hearing. Mr. Graham stated that the property that would be considered for rezoning would be that portion RTD turns to the EURA ; there ma y be some i nterest from private property owners for rezoning in the future . Mr. Parks asked about basic services, such as shopping and an improved grocery store . Mr. Graham stated that the goals and objectives do not delineate what the residential-office re- tail mix will be. The retail usage will be on the first level of the office building only. Staff envisioned that the retail uses would be those that provide service to residents -dry clean- ers, coffee shop, bakery, and similar small business outlets. Possible change of the sur- rounding neighborhood following redevelopment of the GIW site was discussed further . Mr. Stockwell referenced the conceptual drawing of the GIW redevelopment, and noted that there appears to be parking for some residential buildings, but not for others. Mr. Gra- ham reiterated that Mr. Fullerton has proposed a parking deck surrounded by building on three sides , and that in other developments he has done in Denver, sub-level parking has been used. Mr. Graham advised members they might want to view some of the develop- ments that Mr. Fullerton has done in conjunction with Post Properties in Denver. Mr. Gra- ham further reiterated that the plan the Commission has is "conceptual ", and configuration of the proposal may well change. H:IGROUP\BOARDS\PLA NCOMM\M inutcs\Mi nutes 2001\PCM 10-200 1A.doc: 10 • • • • • Mr. Willis asked if thought has been given to tying all three light rail stations together -the Bates station , CityCenter station, and the Oxford station . Mr. Grah am stated that the trans- portation study will address issues such as sidewalk needs, street im provement needs, and other traffic infrastructure i mprovements that will be applicable at all three sites. The inter- section at West Dartmouth Avenue and South Inca Street will be a four-way controlled i n- tersection. Ms. Lathram noted that Mr. Graham has stated the Bates station will be a "kiss and ride" station -how can it be assured that this will actually be a kiss and ride station , and that mo- torists will not take on-street parking spaces and use light rail leaving their vehicle on-street all day long. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that the Englewood His t orical Society has asked Ci ty Council to tak e back ownership of the Englewood Depot; the H istorical Society d id not th ink the y w ould be able to repay what the y owe on the Depot. The Council agreed to assum e o w n ership of the Depot in November; the Depot, if relocated, can be incorporated into the design for the Bates station. Mr. Weber commented on the difficulty in attempting to develop standards to meet the developer's needs, and still address neighborhood needs. Discuss ion ensued . The importance of the light rail station to redevelopment of the site was further discussed . Ms . Krieger stated that she understood the developer has stated the station must be there for him to proceed. Mr. Graham stated that the developer has said t hat if there is no sta- tion, all the City could expect would be three-story stick-built structures . Mr. Welker stated that without the station , the redevelopment may not meet the goals set forth in the Metro- Vision 2020 Plan of 40 units/acre. Mr. Parks asked the build-out projection by the developer. Mr. Graham stated that a five- year build out is planned. Mr. Welker pointed out that the residential units proposed in The Fullerton Company proposal is a for-sale product. Ms. Krieger pointed out that Garts Sporting Goods is relocating their corporate offic es to the former Home Base site; this business will bring a number of hi gh -incom e employees, and any number of these employees may be young professionals who are interested in liv- ing within walking distance of their place of employment. They may be interested in pur- chasing townhomes or condominiums at the GIW site, or renting higher-scale units in Al- exan at the CityCenter. The new businesses and new employees being brought to the area will encourage change throughout the C ity. Ms . Lathram directed the focus back to the Framework Plan, and asked if th is something members of the Commission felt can be lived with. Mr. Stockwell stated that he wanted to see more restaurants attracted to the City in gen- eral. Mr. Welker pointed out that the City has experienced enough problems trying to get lt\GROUP\BOARDS\PLA NCOMM\M inutcs\Minutcs 200 I \PCM I G-200 I A. doc 11 restaurants interested in locating in CityCenter. Mr. Parks stated that the area needs to be • shown off more -this might help attract restaurants and other businesses . Mr. Remple excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Graham stated that staff would like to bring this before the Commission at Public Hear- ing, possibly on November 201h or the first meeting in December. If the Commission ap- proves a Hearing on one of those dates, notification would be sent to the GIW neighbor- hood of the Hearing. Once the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Bates Station Framework is in place, staff would proceed on development of the zoning regulations . Mr. Welker stated he understood from the discussion at the last meeting this will be a mapped district, and not an overlay. Mr. Graham stated it will be a mapped district designation . This is a much simpler route to go than the overlay district initially considered. He stated that there will be study sessions on the zoning regulations . He stated that the Commission members had requested the draft ordinance for review, but it is not ready for distribution. He stated that he hoped members had reviewed the "white paper" on TOD which was mailed to members a couple of weeks ago. Mr. Stockwell asked if the Commission will have input on the Comprehensive Plan amendments before the Public Hearing date . Mr. Graham stated that he anticipates that the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendments would not be scheduled until possibly February, 2002. Mr. Stockwell again asked if the Commission will have input be- fore the Hearing. Mr. Graham stated that there will be a series of public meetings, and the • Planning Commission will be notified; there may be an informational pamphlet mailed to homeowners. Mr. Stitt suggested there will be a study session, probably in December. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that staff will proceed to plan for a Public Hearing on November 20th for the Bates Station Framework plan . VI. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt stated that the next regularly scheduled meeting is November 61h, which is also election day. There are no cases ready for the Commission at that time, and he asked if the Commission wanted to cancel this meeting. Stockwell moved: Willis seconded: The Meeting of November 6, 2001 be cancelled. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: Stockwell, Waggoner, Welker, Willis, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Weber None None H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minu1cs1Minu1cs !OOllPCM 10-2001Adoc 12 • • • • ABSENT : Rempel The motion carried. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid said she had nothing to bring forth for discussion . IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Willis stated that he had requested a copy of the RFP for the 3400 South Elati Street site, and wondered if this is available. Ms. Mueller stated that it was on the City 's web page for a while. Mr. Willis stated that he wanted to see the responses to the RFP. Mr . Stitt stated that the City received three responses to the Elati Street RFP , and the devel- opment review committee selected Situs Development to do the project. However, one of the provisions of this selection was that the development plans include space for Border 's Books. This requirement was transmitted to the Situs Development group , who presented a counter offer -they wanted $1 ,000,000 plus donation of the land. The City then pre- sented their counter offer which was that the City would lease 50,000 square feet to the developer for $1 per year, and he could purchase the remainder of the property. The deal still included development space for Border's Books . The Situs Developer declined to pur- sue the redevelopment opportunity. The development review committee met approxi- mately two weeks ago following the withdrawal of the selected developer, accepted his re- jection of the development rights, and recommended that the property be placed on the open market; City Council has agreed that placement of the property on the open market is the most prudent path to take. Mr. Stitt stated that he was unsure of the date the property will be placed on the market. Mr. Willis asked if any thing further has been done regarding a theater in the City. Mr . Stitt stated that the theater market has changed dramatically in the last few years, and that most of the large theater chains have gone into bankruptcy. The theater that was proposed in Englewood was a 14-screen theater, and there is not sufficient space in Englewood for a theater of that size . He did point out that Phar-Mor is closing soon, and this site could be available along with the old City Hall site . Mr. Willis asked about smaller, local theaters - has any attempt been made to contact them. He felt that a theater would be important to this area. Ms. Mueller stated that Englewood needs a source of entertainment -maybe not necessarily a theater. Mr . Stockwell asked about the drive-in theater west of Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Stitt discussed access problems to the site, and the fact that the property is in the City of Sheridan. Ms. Reid stated there is also a problem with sewer service. Ms. Mueller inquired whether there has been any follow-up on reviewing the historical des- ignation ordinances. She stated that while campaigning for the Council seat, she has walked through a lot of Englewood, and has seen a number of residences that are good H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutcs\M inutcs 2001\PCM Jl).2 001A.doc 13 candidates for historical designation . With no financial incentive at the local level to seek • the historical designation, the structural integrity of some of the homes may be lost. She asked if this topic can be scheduled for discussion in the near future . Ms . Dannemiller stated that she will talk to Mr. Flaherty and Director of Libraries Long; she would like to get their perspective on incentives at the local level. Ms . Dannemiller suggested that it would be January at the earliest before the issue would be back to the Commission;. There was nothing further raised for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre H:IGROUP\BOAROS\Pl.ANCOMM\Minutcs\Minuta 200 !\PCM I G-200 I A doc 14 • •