Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-04 PZC MINUTES• • • CllY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING ANO ZONING COMMISSION December 4, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chairman David Weber presiding. Members present: Members absent: Members late: Staff Present: Welker, Willis, Krieger, Mueller, Weber Waggoner, Lathram, Rempel Stockwell Senior Planner Langon Senior Planner Graham Planner I Voboril Assistant City Attorney Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20, 2001 Chairman Weber stated that the Minutes of November 20, 2001 were to be considered for approval. Willis moved: Mueller seconded: The Minutes of November 20, 2001 be approved as written. Mr. Weber asked if there were any corrections or amendments. None were proposed. The vote was called : AYES : NAYS: Welker, Willis, Krieger, Mueller, Weber None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: Lathram, Rempel, Stockwell, Waggoner The motion carried . Ill. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Bates Station Framework Plan CASE #CP 2001-01 Chairman Weber stated that the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Bates Station Framework Plan was continued from November 20, 2001 to this eve- ning. He asked for a motion to open the continued Hearing. Ms. Krieger moved : Welker seconded: The Continued Public Hearing on Case #CP 2001-01 be opened. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLA NCOMM\M inutcslMinutcs :OOl\PCM 12-2001 A.doc • • AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Willis, Krieger, Mueller, Welker, Weber None None Lathram, Rempel, Stockwell, Waggoner The motion carried. Chairman Weber set forth parameters for conduct of the Hearing. Staff will make a presen- tation, audience members in favor and in opposition will be given an opportunity to ad- dress the Commission. The Hearing will then be closed, and the Commission will then de- liberate merits of the issue before rendering a decision. Senior Planner Graham addressed the Commission . Mr. Graham distributed revised copies of the proposed Framework Plan containing edits suggested during the course of the City Council study session on December 3, 2001. Mr. Graham stated that staff is of the opinion these edits are consistent with direction given staff by the Commission and City Council during the course of the Nov ember 20 1 h Commission meeting and the December 3'd Coun- cil study session . Members of the Commission took a few minutes to peruse this latest revision of the pro- posed Framework Plan . Ms . Mueller noted use of "catal y tic" versus "positive" effect. Mr. Graham asked if the Commission had a word preference, and noted that the word "positive" should be included in the current proposal. Mr. Willis noted that at the meeting of November 20 1h, Director Simpson stated that the Winslow ownership was not included as part of the Framework Plan. This latest revision, however, does reference "Winslow Crane " and it appears that it is i ncluded. Mr. Graham stated that the Winslow Crane property owners have indicated an interest in redevelop- ment, but staff doesn 't know if the property will be included in the rezoning designation at the same time the GIW site is considered. Ms. Krieger asked why the term "transit village" was chosen by City Council. Mr. Graham clarified that this term was not chosen by Council, but by staff after City Council stated that the term "core area " could not be used. Mr. Graham stated that the issue of the Bates Station Framework Plan has been discussed with the Commission at two study sessions , this is the second phase of a continued Public Hearing begun on Nov ember 20 1h, and the Framework Plan has also been before City Council at stud y session , and endorsed by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority at their meeting on November 14, 2001. • Mr. Stockwell entered the meeting at 7:20 p .m. and took his chair. H:IG ROUP\BOARDSIP LA NC O MM\MinuteslMinutcs :OOllPC:--4 1:.200 1 A.doc • Mr. Graham clarified that the "transit village" designation will be the central point of devel- opment; the "transition area" will be the area between the transit village and the existing residential development. Mr. Graham stated that it will be the responsibility of the Planning Commission, if this Framework Plan is approved, to determine whether rezoning requests and development proposals are consistent with the Framework Plan. Mr. Graham empha- sized that the Framework Plan is a policy to guide the redevelopment efforts; for instance, does a proposal provide for owner-occupied housing; does it provide open space, and cul- tural arts areas . Mr. Graham stated that staff has tried to implement City Council goals and regional goals to provide for housing development in close proximity to transit stations, and staff is of the opinion that the proposed Bates Station Framework Plan supports those goals. • • Mr. Graham noted that the City of Englewood is being recognized on December 5, 2001 for efforts to redevelop and reduce urban sprawl. This recognition is from COPIRG , and the press conference will be at the light rail bridge at 11 a.m . Mr. Graham stated that if staff has not addressed specific concerns in the re v ised Frame- work Plan , to please be v er y clear on w hat the y are looking for so that the document may be further refined. He stated that staff would like to bring the zoning regulations to imple- ment the Plan forward for consideration . The zoning regulations will address issues such has height of structures, setbacks, landscaping requirements, and parking requirements. Mr. Graham stated that staff is aw are of rumors that have been circulated regarding side- walk improvements and street improvements. He stated that widening of streets is not planned at this time, nor are other peripheral infrastructure improvements. Mr. Graham emphasized the need to concentrate on the issue currently on the table, that being consid- eration of the Framework Plan to establish policies and guidelines for redevelopment that may occur. Mr. Graham reiterated that issues such as sidewalks, street widening, height, etc. should not be discussed at this time. Mr. Willis questioned whether Goal #6 includes bus service as part of the transportation facilities . Mr. Graham suggested that there would be limited additional bus service; he un- derstands that Route 2 7 buses may serve the Bates Station, but this information was from RTD over one year ago. Mr. Welker noted a redundancy on Page 2, Goal 1 b -the first "neighborhood" should be stricken . Mr. Graham noted this edit will be made . Commission members posed no further questions to Mr. Graham . Mr. Weber then called on members of the audience . Mr. Don Roth , 2830 South Sherman Street, was sworn in . Mr. Roth stated that his con- cerns remain the same : the vagueness of statements regarding higher density, and "close " walking distance -these statements could be applicable to the entire north Englewood neighborhood . Mr. Roth urged delineation of areas and clarity of intent -future Planning Commissions might be encouraged to recommend rezoning of the entire north Englewood neighborhood to "high density". Mr. Roth stated that he also has an issue with a light rail H:IGRO UPIBOARDSIPLANCO MM\Minutcs \Minu tcs :OOl lPCM 1:.:00 1 A.doc • station at the Bates Avenue location; there is the CityCenter station only four or five blocks to the south -this is within walking distance for north Englewood residents wishing to use light rail. • • Mr. Weber asked Mr. Roth what he suggests regarding the statement of "close walking dis- tance". Mr. Roth stated that a street should be named, or a measurable distance should be cited . Ms. Krieger noted that there has been some change in wording in the Framework Plan proposal distributed by Mr. Graham. Mr. Stockwell suggested that the area from Santa Fe Drive to South Broadway is a "walk- able distance". Mr. Roth stated that designation of such an area is not reasonable. Ms. Krieger stated that she did not want to see the entire neighborhood developed with high density housing. Mr. Roth pointed out that the area is now zoned for R-2 , Medium Density, and if the proposal is for higher density this means rezoning to R-3 . He reiterated his concern that future Planning Commissions may not follow guidelines and policies that may be set forth in the Plan . Mr. Weber noted that in writing and developing a document/plan that may be used for 20+ years , it would be difficult to pick a point to establish boundaries. Ms. Krieger noted that the Plan states "land adjacent to the station" is cited, as well as the "transition area". Mr. Roth stated that it appears the wording of the proposed Framework Plan has been im- proved . Mr. Welker stated that the Plan wording is improved. However, there are still no limits or boundaries established . Mr. Welker stated that the proposed Plan is a broad document. There is no guarantee that changes outside the focal point of the GIW redevelopment site will occur. Changes may be determined by property owners -they can choose to apply for rezoning to allow higher density, or sell the property and new owners want redevelop- ment. Mr. Stockwell commented that with high rise buildings in the GIW redevelopment site and increased traffic the neighborhood will change. Mr. Welker stated that density could also be increased under the current zoning classifica- tion if property owners wanted to build to the maximum allowed in the R-2 District. He pointed out that some of the "transition area" is presently zoned for industrial use. Mr. Willis asked Mr. Roth if he is a proponent of light rail. Mr. Roth stated that he is, but does not want to see transit stations every four to five blocks. Mr. Willis asked Mr. Roth what redevelopment he would prefer to see on the GIW site. Mr. Roth cited a medium density townhome development that was done recently in the vicinity of the Malley Center that he felt could be adapted for the GIW redevelopment. Mr. Roth expressed the opinion that some of the structures proposed for the GIW site are so high it could lead to over-building . H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPLA NC OMM\MinuteslMinutes :OOl lPCM 11·2001 A.doc • Mr. Welker asked if structural height is a problem to Mr . Roth . Mr. Roth stated that it is a problem, but it is not the only problem he has with the proposed redevelopment and Plan . Mr . Roth suggested that the new Alexan CityCenter development is a realistic height -this development is "small" compared to that proposed on the GIW site. • • Mr . Welker stated that the Commission would take note of concerns expressed by citizens but questioned that the Bates Station Framework Plan needs to be changed. The concerns that he has heard from Mr . Roth -height, loss of view, building mass, etc. -all seem to be more properly addressed through zoning regulations. Mr. Roth stated that he thinks most of the residents would say they want to see what is on the GIW site gone, but that they do not want to see something huge there -they do not want to see six, eight, or ten story buildings. Mr. Welker commented that what the Commission may approve, or not approve, this eve- ning has broad guidelines; an y proposed development will be measured against these guidelines . Mr. Roth reiterated his opinion that the language in the initial Framework Plan indicated to him that the entire neighborhood would be considered for redevelopment. Ms . Denise Wehrer, 27 11 South Acoma Street, was sworn in . She took issue with state- ments of staff and Commission that the infrastructure issues (street widening or improve- ment, sidewalk improvements, etc.) should not be addressed before the development pro- posals are considered. She stated that this is how we got into this mess in the first place. She asked why total development of CityCenter isn 't accomplished before redevelopment is undertaken on another area. Mr . Stockwell commented that there will be need for additional Police and Fire personnel to handle increased population and traffic; however, the redevelopment will bring in addi- tional tax revenues. Ms. Mueller stated that developers will build what the market will support; she emphasized that no one knows that the redevelopment of the GIW site will be done as initial proposals indicate. The redevelopment may change depending on the strength/weakness of the mar- ket. Ms. Wehrer stated that she understood that RTD did not want to build a transit station at Bates Avenue. Mr. Graham stated that design for light rail tracks, signalization and switching equipment has been done. He stated that RTD did a "demand study", that indicated that approxi- mately 800 people per day would use the Bates Station when it opens; ridership would only be expected to increase from that point. Mr. Graham pointed out that RTD also ex- pects that employees at the light rail car maintenance yard will use light rail to get to and from work. He also pointed out that the maintenance yard will be a 24-hour per day, 7 day H:IGRO UPI BOARDSIPLANCO MM\Mi nu tcs\Mi nutcs :00 1\PC M 12-2001 A.doc • per week operation. RTD determined that route drivers could be changed at the same time passengers board or disembark from the train at the Bates Station . • • Mrs. Shirley Kingsbury, 2701 South Acoma, was sworn in. Mrs. Kingsbury asked how this RTD survey was done. She never received a survey to fill out. Commissioner Krieger stated that she received a copy of the survey. Ms. Kingsbury stated that she does not want to see high-rise development on the GIW site. This would cause increased traffic, and increase the danger to small children attending the Bishop Elementary School. She likes the neighborhood like it is, and if apartments and high- rises are brought in it will change the character of the area. Mr. Weber asked if Mrs. Kingsbury had seen the proposed Framework Plan . Ms. Kingsbury stated that she had not seen or read the proposal. She asked if the neighborhood will be notified when the zoning issue is considered. Mr. Stockwell assured Mrs. Kingsbury that the property will be posted; handbills will be distributed door-to-door, and individual mail- ings. Mr. Welker advised Mrs. Kingsbury that notification will be via posting of the property and publishing Notice of Public Hearing in the Englewood Herald. He also advised Mrs. Kings- bury and other members of the audience to keep in touch with the staff to find out the status and timetable of the redevelopment project. He also suggested that if there is a neighborhood organization the president or chairperson of that organization might take the lead to keep the neighborhood informed. Mrs. Kingsbury reiterated that she does not want to see high traffic, buses, or a lot of peo- ple moving into the neighborhood . Build houses for sale, but do not build condominiums. She wants single-family homes built on the site. She stated that she does not use light rail because it doesn 't go where she works. She asked that the residential area be kept a resi- dential area. Mr. Willis asked Mrs. Kingsbury what she felt about industrial property and use. She re- sponded that industrial development and use doesn't bother her. She agreed that the GIW structures need to be removed, but whatever is developed on that site should be kept the same height; she likes to look out of her house and be able to see the mountains . Mr. Charles Kingsbury, 2701 South Acoma Street, was sworn in. Mr. Kingsbury stated that he has lived in Englewood since 1962 . He stated that there must be parking provisions for those people who will be using the Bates Transit Station. Mr. Kingsbury pointed out that Yale Avenue is the Englewood/Denver boundary; who will take care of street improve- ments on Yale, street striping on Dartmouth will have to be done more frequently because of an increase in traffic. Who will pay for these additional costs? Who will take are of Denver's side of Yale Avenue? How does the City plan to protect the kids at the elemen- tary school? H:IGRO UPI BOARDS\PLA NC OMM\MinutcslMinutcs !OOl \P0112·200 1 A.doc: • Mr. Stockwell discussed the DRCOG and municipalities working together. He agreed there will be more traffic, City budgets will have to be increased, there will be need for additional police and fire personnel. • • Mr. Weber stated that the issue of discussion is a "vision " for the area, and the policies and guidelines to set that vision -not, at this time, on the mechanics needed to make it happen. Mr. Kingsbury stated that "if you start this , things will come up and you have to change the rules to address what ever arises." Mr. Willis pointed out that the proposal before the Commission this evening is a "concept -a policy document". Mr. Kingsbury stated that the City will have to make accommodations for increased traffic. Why do we need the Bates Station? Who approved it? Mr. Welker assured Mr. Kingsbury that the City and Commission will be looking at a num- ber of issues during the course of the redevelopment process. This is not the only time when these issues can be raised and discussed . Mr. Welker emphasized that neither he nor other members of the Commission want to minimize the concerns of the neighborhood, but onl y to advise them that we will continue to work on the issues, and the first step is to develop a policy and guideline to follow during the rede v elopment. As far as who ap- proved the Bates Transit Station, Mr. Welker stated that this was done at the RTD /City Council level. Mr. Willis agreed with Mr. Welker, and reiterated that the Commission is try- ing to develop an appropriate plan that can be followed to guide the redevelopment of the GIW site. Ms. Krieger adv ised that there are constraints regarding the GIW site, also , that must be cons idered. She stated that there is soil contamination that must be addressed, and the re- development is not as simple as scraping and rebuilding. Ms. Krieger alluded to the Met- roVision 20 20 Plan , which encourages redevelopment and curb of urban sprawl, and de- velopment of residentia l/employment centers in close proximity to light rail transit stations. Mr. Stockwell discussed the concept that people won't be driving as much, but will use light rail. Ass istant City Attorney Reid raised a point of order. She stated that the purpose of the Pub- lic Hearing is to take testimony and input from members of the public. It is not a forum for members of the public and the Commission to debate issues . It is proper for the Commis- sion to ask only that "new" evidence be presented ; and if members of the audience who had planned to address the Commission are aware that their concerns have been voiced, they may just say they agree with the concerns alread y stated. Mr. Mark Nuszer, 111 7 Cherokee Street, was sworn in . Mr. Nuszer testified that he was asked to attend the meeting by Mr. Fullerton, of The Fullerton Company. He stated that Mr. Fullerton has reviewed the Bates Station Framework Plan , and the Plan is acceptable to him . H:\GRO UPIBOARDS\PLANCO MM\Mi nutcs \Mi nut cs :00 1\PC M 12-200 1 A.doc • Claudia Smith , 43 08 South Pearl Street, was sworn in. Ms. Smith asked if there is anything in the Bates Station Plan that addresses parking. Ms. Smith likened this neighborhood to that at the Oxford Station, and related the parking problems that the surrounding neighbor- hood experiences because of lack of parking for light rail riders. Ms. Smith stated that the situation at the Oxford Station was a big mistake, and she could not understand why the City and RTD would make the same mistake again . • • Mr. Weber asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission . Krieger moved: Willis seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP 2001-01 be closed . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSE NT: Stockwell, Welker, Willis, Krieger, Mueller, Weber None None Waggoner, Lathram, Rempel The motion carried. Ms. Muller stated that on this issue , the Commission has been asked to establish a frame- work plan , and in the next few months the Commission and staff will be developing the process to implement the redevelopment in accordance with the Framework Plan. She suggested that if members of the audience or other neighbors residing in this area have questions or concerns, to please write them down and submit them to staff and/or mem- bers of the Commission , and to feel free to come to Commission meetings to discuss their concerns . Mr. Willis c ommented that it is good to see people interested in an issue and coming to the Commission meetings. Mr. Welker stated that he did not want any member of the audience to leave this meeting and think that the Planning Commission members are not concerned about issues of traffic, no ise, height, density, or infrastructure improvements . This is the forum for the citizens to come talk about those issues . He urged that the members of the audience present this evening maintain contact with their neighbors, and maintain contact with the staff and Commission . Mr. Welker stated that whatever decision is made isn't going to be a decision that everyone likes, but the Commission is trying, and will continue to try, to deal with the issues that have been raised by the citizens. Mr. Welker stated that the Commission is be- ing asked to conside r placement of high -density residential use along high-traffic corridors. Mr. Welker stated that the proposed light rail station and maintenance facility proposed by RTD will affect this neighborhood, but in his opinion it will be beneficial for the City as a whole. Mr. Welker stated that everyone needs to acknowledge that change will happen over a period of time; he pointed out that all the change will not be in the residentially- zoned area , but some of the industrially-zoned properties may be changing to something else . This is what the Commission and City is working with . Mr. Welker stated that limits H:IGRO UPIBOARD SIPLANC OMM\M in u1cs\Mi nu1cs :001 \PCM 12-200 1 A.doc • • • on the redevelopment can be established, but it will be through the zone district develop- ment and imposition on the land. Mr. Weber stated he would entertain a motion to approve the Bates Station Framework Plan. Willis moved: Krieger seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Englewood Comprehensive Plan by adopting the Bates Station Framework Plan, Case #CP 2001-01, as dated on 12/4/01, and further revised by elimination of "neighborhood" in Goal 1 b on Page 2; and change the word "catalytic" to "positive" on Page 1. Mr. Welker commented on the improvement of the Bates Station Framework Plan since it was first considered . He stated that it is now acceptable to him, but noted there is still a long ways to go to get to the nuts/bolts implementation process. Ms. Krieger acknowledged that she and her neighbors do like their area the way it is, but they also want the GIW site redeveloped. She stated that there will be more people living in the area, and there will be an increase in traffic, and stated that the Commission and neighborhood may have to accept something that is less than ideal. The redevelopment may change the character of the neighborhood, but this could be a good thing. She stated that we will attempt to keep the small neighborhood feeling. Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Welker asked that a corrected, up-to-date copy of the Bates Station Framework Plan be available at the next meeting. The vote on the motion to approve was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Welker, Willis, Krieger, Mueller, Stockwell, Weber None None Waggoner, Lathram, Rempel The motion carried. ********** A short recess was declared. The meeting reconvened with six members present. IV. CONDITIONAL USE Motor Vehicle Repair 4700 South Broadway * * * * * * * * * * CASE #CU 2001-01 Chairman Weber stated that this Public Hearing is regarding a Conditional Use for motor vehicle repair in the 4700 block of South Broadway. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\M inutcs\Minutcs :OOllPCM 11-2001 A.doc • • • Willis moved : Krieger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CU 2001-01 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Welker, Willis, Krieger, Mueller, Stockwell, Weber None None Lathram, Rempel, Waggoner The motion carried. Senior Planner Langon was sworn in. Ms. Langon testified that the application is for a Big 0 Tire Store at 4700 South Broadway. Ms. Langon asked that the Staff Report, Proof of Posting, and the Notice of Public Hearing, published on November 23, 2001 , be made part of the record of the Hearing. Ms. Langon stated that the applicant is seeking approval of a retail tire sales and motor ve- hicle repair business at 4 700 South Broa dwa y. The motor vehicle repair will not include an y body or fender work, or dismantling or collision repair. Motor v ehicle repair is a Condi- tional U se in the B-2 Zone District, and not a use-b y-right. Ms. Langon cited criteria from the Englewood Mun icipal Code, § 16-5-2 1, that the Commission must consider in their de- liberations on a request for approval o f a Conditional U se . The subject site is zoned B-2, and has been used for automotive-related uses since 1968. In 1985, the Zoning Ordinance was revised , and motor vehicle repair was made a Conditional Use i n the B-2 District. In December, 1985, a portion of the building was given Conditional Use approval for motor vehicle repair; that business closed i n 1995 . The structure has since been used for installation and ser v ice of stereo equipment, but that business, too, has ceased operation, and the structure has been empty for several months . The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the structure, and retain 7,440 square feet of retail space. The building fac;ade will be updated, and two existing service bay doors will be removed. On-site parking will be reconfigured, and landscaping will be provided. There is no landscaping on the site at the present time -it is totally covered by structure and pav- ing. The proposed use will be the retail sale of tires, and minor automotive repair -brakes, shocks, alignment, and oil and lube work. No auto body, fender work, dismantling, or colli- sion repair will be allowed at this site. Ms. Langon stated that vehicles of emplo y ees and clients will be parked on-site or in the structure itself. There will be 14 outside spaces ; the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 12 spaces . Ms. Langon stated that staff is of the opinion that the application does meet all criteria for approval of a Conditional Use , and recommends that the Commission grant approval. H:IGRO UP\BOARDSIPLANCO MM\MinutcslMinu ics ~00 1 \PC M 1~·"001 A.doc 10 • • Mr. Stockwell suggested that infrastructure up-dates will be required ; that larger water and sewer lines will be needed . He asked what provision has been made for disposition of used oil. Ms. Langon stated that there is no need to increase the size of the water or sewer lines, and the applicant can address the issue of used oil disposal. John Christian was sworn in. He stated that he represents Big 0 Tires. This store will be retailing tires, and provide oil changes, and lube jobs. They provide for commercial dis- posal of used oil on a weekly basis. There will be no outside storage of tires, no demolition or body work of any kind done on the premises. They plan to close one of the existing bay doors and replace this door with store-front glass . Ms. Mueller asked about the location of an existing light pole. Mr. Willis asked about the area between the sidewalk and street -will it be landscaped or paved. Mr. Christian stated that the parking strip will be replaced with patterned concrete. The light pole will be tem- porarily removed, and reinstalled when renovations are completed. Mr. Welker asked about curb cuts -will any be closed, or relocated . Mr. Christian stated that the curb cut on East Union A v enue will be shortened to no more than 30 feet in width . Sidewalks will be installed, and the entire site will be landscaped. Mr. Weber asked if a sprinkling sy stem will be installed to water the landscaping. Mr. Chris- tian stated with the amount of landscaping that will be installed a sprinkler system will be needed. Mr. Stockwell asked if existing infrastructure can handle the additional runoff. Ms. Krieger pointed out that there should not be additional runoff; there will be some landscaped areas that will absorb drainage -there is no landscaping now, and nothing is absorbed. Mr. Weber commented that it seems like there are lot of tire stores in Englewood. Mr. Christian agreed that there are several tire stores along Hampden Avenue. However, Big 0 has determined there is a service "hole" in the southern portion of the City that they can fill. Mr. Weber asked if auto dealerships would be targeted as potential customers, or will Big 0 concentrate on residential customers. Mr. Christian agreed that there are a number of auto dealerships in the area, but residents will be the primary customers. Mr. Weber asked if the proposed tire store is located in the "motorway-area" of the South Broadway Action Plan. Ms . Langon stated that the "motorway-area" was south of Che- nango Avenue . No one else addressed the Commission regarding the proposed Conditional Use. Mueller moved: • Krieger seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #CU 2001-01 be closed . H:\GRO UPIBOARDSIPLA NCOMM\M inutcs\Mi nutcs :00 1\PC~ 11-200 1 A.doc 11 • • • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Willis, Krieger, Mueller, Stockwell, Welker, Weber None None Lathram, Rempel, Waggoner The motion carried. Mr. Weber asked the pleasure of the Commission. Willis moved: Krieger seconded: The Planning Commission grant approval to Big 0 Tires as a Condi- tional Use at 4700 South Broadway. The Conditional Use shall com- ply with the following criteria : a. Motor vehicles being serviced or stored while waiting to be serviced or called for are not parked on streets, alleys, public sidewalks or parking strips . b. All work is performed within an enclosed structure . c. No materials or parts are deposited or stored on the premises outside of an enclosed structure. d. An y area subject to wheeled traffic or storage shall be screened from adjacent or adjoining residential districts by a closed-face wood f ence, or block or brick wall. e. Landscaping : A landscape plan in conformance with the Land- scaping Standards, Section 16-5-26 of Title 16 of the EMC, shall be submitted with the application for the Conditional Use. Ms. Krieger stated that she appreciated hearing Mr. Christian testify that this company will target service to customers from the neighborhood. Mr. Willis stated that the proposed improvements should increase the curb appeal of the site. The vote was called. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Krieger, Mueller, Stockwell, Welker, Willis, Weber None None Lathram, Rempel, Waggoner The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM No one addressed the Commission . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\Minutes\Minutes 2001\PCM 12-2001 A.doc 12 • VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE • • Ms. Langon stated that two members of the Commission, Messrs. Rempel and Welker, are up for reappointment. If members are interested in applying for reappointment, please contact staff and /or the City Manager's Office to receive an application. Ms. Langon announced there will be no meeting of the Commission on December 18, 2001. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be January 8, 2002. Ms. Langon reminded members of the Holiday Dinner on December 13 at Bogey's Bar and Grill; cash bar open at 6 p.m.; dinner to be served at 7 p.m. Ms. Langon distributed invitations to a reception in honor of former Mayor Thomas Burns. This reception is, also, scheduled for December 13 at The Alexan at CityCenter Englewood, from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m . Ms. Langon stated that staff anticipates a Public hearing on January 8 1 h on the Stanford Cen- ter Subdivision. Ms. Krieger asked if staff had a timetable when the Commission could expect to see the revised zoning regulations. Ms. Langon stated that this project has not progressed as rap- idly as originally scheduled; she estimated sometime in the early part of 2002 staff would be able to bring an initial cut of the proposed revisions forward. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated that the situation that arose this evening when Commission members and members of the audience engaged in "debate" of an issue has been discussed on prior oc- casions . She acknowledged that the way a meeting is conducted is up to the Commission, and that the Commission has always been "pretty laid-back" in their approach to conduct of public hearings. She stated that as a "matter of law" the Chairman can announce that redundant testimony is not to be given, or that members of the audience can give "testi- mony" but may not engage in a question/answer session with the Commission. Ms. Reid emphasized that the Commission is to take "testimony". She asked if the Commission members wanted her to step in as she did ·~arlier if audience testimony evolves into the speaker/commission member debate. Mr. Willis commented that he felt Ms. Reid did step in at the appropriate time this evening. Mr. Stockwell stated that people should be allowed to "vent" regarding issues . Mr. Welker suggested that the Commission is in a better position if they stretch procedures a little rather than be to rigid; he acknowledged, however, the need to draw the line somewhere, and establish that the Commission is trying to do what is best for the City . Ms. Krieger asked where the Commission can refer those people who have questions re- garding an issue . Ms. Reid suggested that people can be referred to staff. H:IGRO UPIBOARDSIPLANCOMMIMinutcslMinutcs 200 I \PCM 12-200 I A.doc I J • • • Notification of the public regarding Hearings was discussed. Mr. Welker suggested that agendas be posted on Channel 8 or the City Web page. Mr. Willis asked if an effort was_ made to contact anyone in this specific area; should more of an effort have been made to contact the residents regarding the meetings on the RTD station. Mr. Graham related efforts the City made to notify the citizenry several years ago when the Small Area Plan was under consideration and we were working with Civitas . Door-hangers were done and Scout Troops were asked to go door-to-door with that notice; over 800 postcards were mailed giving notice of meetings -a few people responded, and with each new mailing some would drop out and/or new people attend -there was no continuity of participation . In addition, only 30 or 40 residents participated in the meetings . Mr. Welker asked if the NEON organization was still in existence. Ms. Krieger stated that so far as she is aware, this organization is inactive . Mr. Welker stated that he does feel ex- tra steps need to be taken to make residents aware of meetings with issues that pertain to specific neighborhoods . Ms. Mueller agreed that notification to the public is very impor- tant. Mr. Graham pointed out that there are other groups that have hosted periodic meetings regarding the RTD maintenance facility. In fact, RTD is hosting a meeting on December 12 in the Community Room . The EURA has required that The Fullerton Company hold neighborhood meetings to present his proposal and get input from residents. This has not been done yet; Mr. Fullerton has indicated that once the Framework Plan is approved, he has had an opportunity to review the proposed zoning regulations, and a price for the land is firmed up, he will proceed with the public outreach efforts. Ms. Reid asked if, on Public Hearings, the Commission wants a recitation of posting and publication dates. Would this be of assistance to the Commission . Ms. Mueller stated that she felt it would be helpful to have this background information. Mr. Welker stated that if publication and posting are the only two methods of notification that are required, maybe consideration should be given to additional means of notification. Ms. Langon stated that the notification process is an issue that is being considered in the course of the Uniform Development Code review. She noted that various boards and commissions have different notification requirements, and the goal is to standardize the re- quirements. Brief discussion ensued. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Willis commented on the holiday lighting in CityCenter, and that it is most attractive. Mr. Weber stated that he has purchased a home in Denver, and will be relocating to his new residence within the next couple of weeks. He stated that this is his last meeting as a member of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that it has been a pleasure to work with the Commission and staff members, and feels that they are doing a great job. He expressed his appreciation for the privilege of serving on the Commission. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLA NCO MM\Minutcs\M inutcs :oo I \PCM 12 -200 I A.doc 14 • • • Mr. Welker stated that he has worked with Mr. Weber not only on the Planning Commis- sion, but also on several other committees over the past few years. He stated that Mr. We- ber has always represented the City very well, and stated that Mr. Weber will be missed. Other members echoed Mr. Welker's sentiments. Mr. Weber's participation on the Com- mission will be missed. The meeting was declared adjourned. ertrude G. Welty, Recording Secret ltlGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minutcs\Minutes 2001\PCM 12-2001 A.doc IS ' • • • Bates Station Framework Plan Overview Each of Englewood's three transit stations, Englewood, Oxford and Bates should fulfill a distinct role for the community. Bates Station focuses on residential and employment land uses. The Bates Station Framework Plan provides "Goals and Objectives" to guide development. The Bates Station Framework Plan becomes an element of Englewood's Comprehensive Plan. The Bates Station Framework Plan makes a distinction between the land adjacent to the station and light rail lines and land more distant from the station and light rail lines. The land adjacent to the station, the transit village, concentrates a mix of land uses and increased development intensity. This transit village area will be the most active, compact and pedestrian in character. The land between the transit village area and the existing residential neighborhood is the transition area. This transition area will be residential in character at lower intensity than in the transit village as well as compact and walk able. Encouraging redevelopment of two significant land holdings in the transit village area, General Iron Works and Winslow Crane, is expected to have the positive effect prompting area property owners to invest in their properties consistent with the Bates Station Framework Plan . Vision The Bates Station is envisioned as an integral part of the neighborhood. This walk able transit-supportive, mixed-use neighborhood is characterized by a rich variety of owner- occupied housing and employment uses. The neighborhood enjoys excellent connections to local and regional recreation and open space amenities along the South Platte and local plazas and civic spaces featuring historic, interpretive and cultural references. The neighborhood has improved access to employment and education opportunities and enjoys the convenience of station-serving retail and services. The new transit village and transition area will weave seamlessly into the existing neighborhood fabric and Broadway's Gateway District. Bates Station will create a distinctive presence and an historically connected image as Englewood's northern gateway from the Southwest Light Rail Corridor. Goals and Objectives Goal: 1. Create and enhance quality infill development and redevelopment at Bates Station. a. Support higher density development adjacent to the Bates Station consistent with the vision and that encourages economic investment. b. Identify opportunities for neighborhood facilities, open spaces, parks and amenities for incorporation into redevelopment area. c. Recognize the Bates Station's role, and General Iron Work's history and uniqueness in re-development patterns . d. Develop a hierarchy of public streets around auto and pedestrian character. , • Goal: e. Encourage smaller, finer-grained development blocks reflecting the existing neighborhood patterns. f. Maintain and embrace views from West Cornell and West Bates Avenues to the mountains. g. Create a public place at Bates Station that provides for civic engagement, historical context and mountain viewing. 2 h. Support community facilities and green spaces at the Bates Station and public plazas that relate to area history, rail context, GIW history and potential historic Train Depot location. i. Support private development opportunities to create visual landmarks at or near the Bates Station. 2. Integrate sensitively the new transit village with the surrounding residential neighborhood consistent with the vision. a. Develop the transit village adjacent to the Bates Station as the primary focus of a mixed-use, transit-supportive neighborhood. b. Create sensitive transitions between the transit village adjacent to Bates Station, to the transition area, and to the existing residential neighborhood and Broadway Gateway District. c. Carefully integrate the rail corridor and Light Rail Maintenance Facility with • adjacent development and neighborhood. • Goal: 3. Promote and develop the use of transit and alternative transportation modes. Goal: a. Provide excellent pedestrian and bicycle trail connections between the Bates Station, CityCenter Englewood, the Broadway corridor, the surrounding residential neighborhood, and the regional trail system. b. Develop Bates Station to be highly accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists as neighborhood serving station. c. Promote continuity of public space by creating high quality streets, pedestrian environments and public places. 4. Establish an appropriate mix of land uses and ensure quality development. Goal: a. Provide a broad range of housing unit types and prices. b. Provide regional employment opportunities as well as live/work opportunities for local residents through the inclusion of office space. c. Provide opportunities for station-serving commercial establishments. d. Establish a fine grain of uses and materials for human scale development. 5. Establish development and design criteria that promote creative, responsive development consistent with Transit Oriented Development principles and the Plan Vision. H:\GROUP\BOARDS\URA\GIW\Project Managment\Bates Station Framework Plan w PZ revisions 120601.doc , 3 • a. Address blight conditions identified in North Englewood Industrial • • Goal: Redevelopment Area Conditions Survey and in the Englewood Industrial Redevelopment Plan. b. Create a quality image and urban form specific to the redevelopment area and sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods. c. Encourage appropriate scale in architecture, building types and forms. d. Promote diversity in architecture by encouraging variation in style, color and materials, yet still ensuring urban compatibility. 6. Ensure that transportation facilities serve the neighborhood as well as the transit- oriented development. a. Primary automobile access to the transit-oriented development site should occur from Yale and Dartmouth via a Galapago/Elati connector street. b. Bates Avenue should serve as a strong pedestrian connection to Broadway from the Bates Station. c. Establish development patterns that discourage automobile connections between the station and existing residential neighborhoods . H:\GROUP\BOARDS\URA\GIW\Project Managment\Bates Station Frameworic Plan w PZ revisions 120601.doc