HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-23 PZC MINUTES•
•
•
I.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 23, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood Civic Center, Chair Waggoner
presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Adams, Bleile, Krieger, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Waggoner, Welker
Diekmeier
Director Robert Simpson
Senior Planner Mark Graham
Assistant City Attorney Nancy Reid
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 16, 2003
Chair Waggoner stated the Minutes of September 16, 2003 were to be considered for
approval.
Mr. Roth moved:
Ms . Mueller seconded: The Minutes of September 16, 2003 be approved as written.
Chair Waggoner asked if there were any corrections or modifications to the Minutes. None
were proposed, and Chair Waggoner asked fo r the vote .
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Adams, Krieger, Mueller, Roth, Schum , Waggoner
None
Bleile, Welker
Diekmeier
The motion carried .
Ill . APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT
Case #ORD-2003-01
Chair Waggoner stated the Findings of Fact for Case #ORD-2003 -01 were to be considered
for approval.
Ms. Krieger moved:
Mr. Roth seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #ORD-2003-01 be approved as written .
1
•
•
•
Chair Waggoner asked if there were any corrections or modifications to the Findings of
Fact. None were proposed, and Chair Waggoner asked for the vote.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Adams, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Waggoner
None
Bleile, Welker
Diekmeier
The motion carried.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
Case #CP-2003-02
Broadway Plan 2003
Chair Waggoner stated the issue before the Commission is Case #CP-2003-02, Broadway
Plan 2003.
Mr. Welker moved;
Mr. Schum seconded: The public hearing for Case #CP-2003-02, Broadway Plan
2003 , be opened.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Adams, Bleile, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Schum, Waggoner, Welker
None
None
Diekmeier
The motion carried. Chair Waggoner asked staff to present the case .
Mark Graham, Senior Planner was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Graham presented proof of
publication to the Recording Secretary showing the public hearing was published in the
Englewood Herald on September 12, 2003.
Mr. Graham testified that the Broadway Plan 2003 is the City's attempt to inventory,
categorize, and assess the condition of all the properties on Broadway. This effort helps the
City understand some of the opportunities and weaknesses of Broadway. This Plan
attempts to look at a 5-year and 10-year horizon and imagines what could be accomplished
within those timeframes to make Broadway a better place for retailing, living, shopping, and
working. The goals followed appear on page 2 of the Plan, which consist of:
• Revitalizing the corridor
• Redeveloping key nodes
• Supporting multiple modes of transportation
• Increasing retail spending
• Improving opportunities for workforce housing
• Repositioning underused properties for redevelopment
2
• • Preparing a long-term investment strategy
These goals guided the project as the City met with stakeholders, business owners and
landowners on Broadway. The Plan is representative of a number of the ideas that were
brought forward in that process.
The boards and maps previously presented to the Commission showing the trade area,
market analysis, ideas for urban design have been incorporated into the Plan. The Plan
does contain a series of aesthetic and functional ideas for improving Broadway as a strong,
retail corridor. The previously discussed ideas have been incorporated into the Plan.
Mr. Graham continued; the Plan does not get as specific as talking about a particular land
use and what actions will be taken to implement the Plan. The specifics will come in a later
phase. If the Plan vision is successful , there will be a variety of strategies used to implement
the Plan , including public investment, regulatory measures, and public/private partnerships.
No particular strategy has been decided for any particular business at this time. He would
like the Commission to look at the goals for the overall Plan and determine whether it
correctly identifies the opportunities previously discussed. The idea of nodes is key to the
Plan where retailing is concentrated in each of the Districts. The idea of presenting a strong
edge to the development and improving the aesthetics is important in the Plan . The idea of
looking at transportation alternatives, such as making the nodes more pedestrian friendly
and looking at alternative bus transportation, are unresolved at this time and need follow-
• up.
•
The Plan is specific in some ways; the market analysis shows a half-million square feet of
potential users of retail, office, and other commercial space over the next five years which
represent a true opportunity for Englewood if the regulatory barriers, land assemblage, and
depth of the commercial zone can be addressed. Mr. Graham introduced Anne Ricker of
Leland Consulting.
Anne Ricker of Leland Consulting was sworn in. Ms . Ricker thanked the Commission for
allowing her to present the findings. Ms. Ricker stated the purpose of the project was to
initiate a process that would ensure future improvements within the South Broadway
Corridor occur with aesthetic and functional continuity. It is intended to be a road map for
the future of the corridor. It is intended to serve as an approved corridor Plan providing
recommendations for improvement and policy reform which can be implemented over the
near and longterm. As a strategic document, it is designed to promote investment and
reinvestment.
Nodes are the foundation for the strategies and the Plan concepts which are laid out. A
node and the concept of node development is encouraging strategic investment in a
compact environment, or node, which contains an appropriate mix of land uses, gives
greater emphasis to multiple forms of transit access, and creates a unique sense of place.
The idea is that by concentrating that investment in strategic locations, it has a ripple effect.
Ms. Ricker restated the Plan objectives. In working over the last seven months in
preparation of the Plan , it became obvious throughout the research that there are many
3
• efforts which proceeded this Plan, as well as concurrent efforts, which are consistent with
the recommendations and findings and are supportive. Those efforts include the 1997
South Broadway Action Plan , which the City has largely accomplished most of the included
recommendations; the 2000 South Broadway Market Analysis; City Council goals; 2003
Comprehensive Plan; 2003 Economic Development Strategy; Historic Properties Inventory;
and the Broadway Corridor Parking Inventory.
The Plan process, in summary, began in the Winter of 2002 /2003. Leland Consulting
Group, together with Civitas, were retained to provide the technical background for the
decision making that would be made by stakeholders and community input. The market
and economic analyses were completed during the spring. The physical inventory and
inspections of 100 percent of the properties that were either contiguous to the corridor or
affected by access to the corridor were completed. A series of open houses were held at
both ends of the corridor, as well as in the middle, during the process. During the first
round of open houses, a survey was distributed to business and /or property owners. Some
filled them out; others did not. The survey was to determine their current thinking on some
of the challenges and opportunities on the corridor. Each mailing was sent to 612
businesses and property owners. In addition, the open houses were advertised in the
Englewood Chamber Fax and the City newsletter. The process culminates with the
recommendations and preparation of the Plan.
To summarize the stakeholder input throughout the process, Ms. Ricker stated the
• following items resonated for her:
•
• A high level of commitment to improving the corridor and implementing the
recommendations as they were coming forward throughout the process.
• There was concern regarding the appearance and viability of the corridor as a
business location today.
• There was a desire for a greater understanding of impacts from future actions.
People had a strong desire to be educated; they wanted to make informed decisions
and understand the strategies .
• There was an understanding that diversity among businesses and uses was
absolutely necessary and needed to be encouraged.
• There was a desire for sensitive improvements between the commercial and
residential areas . There was a high level of understanding that the commercial
corridor abuts stable, residential areas with real opportunities if done well.
The vision expressed through the input was for the corridor to be a stronger economic
business climate, the physical realm be improved, and that there be protection for property
owner investments .
The corridor context was looked at in three levels -the corridor, the districts, and the
nodes -to determine the prevailing land uses, conditions, and opportunities. The strategies
and recommendations presented in the Plan , and the range of opportunities the City have
is quite different. At a corridor level, the environment is being "readied " for investment.
4
•
•
•
The district level is responding to themes and opportunities which present themselves
because of the unique character of those districts. Based on market opportunity and
physical environment within the corridor and districts, the nodes determine very specific
strategies to move a concept forward.
The corridor is from Yale Avenue to Belleview Avenue, which represents the 3.5 miles and
includes 388 properties or 241 acres. Uses within the corridor generally fall within the
categories of retail, auto uses and rental, service office, surface parking lots, auto repair and
body shop. Sixty-five percent of the land area within the corridor does not generate sales
tax. Ninety-three percent of the property owners on the corridor live in the state. The
average lot size is .64 acres, less than an acre, with the largest user being on the south end
with 20.65 acres. The total assessed improvement value is $83 .6 million . The total land
value was slightly higher, which speaks to the inverse relationship. Fifty-six percent of the
properties on the corridor have an inverse relationship, meaning the land is worth more
than the improvements.
The identified districts are the :
• Gate way District -Yale A v enue to Eastman Avenue
• Downtown District -Eastman Avenue to Kenyon Avenue
• Cherrelyn District -Kenyon Avenue to Chenango Avenue
• Brookridge District -Chenango Avenue to Belleview Avenue
The difference between the current Plan and the 199 7 South Broadway Action Plan is in
the Gateway/Dow ntown Districts. Due to the rejuvenation of the Gothic Theatre, the
City Center Englewood development, and downtown being strong, yet fragile, it became
obvious the Downtown District needed to extend further north to include the Gothic
The a tre .
The major elements of a node are :
• A highly urbanized place
• A concentration of jobs, housing units, commercial uses, and/or public spaces
• Public transportation, pedestrian activity and a sense of place are present.
• Frequently located at significant intersections.
• The predominant land uses can be residential , commercial and public; however, no
one node looks the same . The y are all quite different if they are done well because
they should be responding to market opportunities and physical forces.
• Minimal building setbacks, reduced parking requirements and taller structures are
often characteristic of a node.
• A catalyst for public/private investment and economic activity.
The potential nodes identified through the process are :
• Dartmouth Avenue & Broadwa y
5
•
•
•
• Englewood Parkway & Broadway
• Quincy Avenue & Broadway
• Belleview Avenue & Broadway
A set of criteria was developed through the process which was used to identify the
potential nodes . Ms. Ricker stated she believes the criteria are more important than the
identified list. There may be other opportunities that come forward on the corridor which
are not identified as a node, but the criteria will assist the City in determining the potential
of an area and whether or not it is a node.
There are market opportunities that generate specifically from the City of Englewood, but
more importantly there are regional opportunities. A ser i es of area analyses was conducted
which shows there is a significant amount of development forecasted over the next 5-10
years. The key to the corridor's ability to attract a significant amount of that
development/investment activity is the City's ability to create a place on the corridor and
address man y of the challenges addressed in the implementation section.
The final section of the Plan speaks to implementation. Every community and corridor
have a unique set of challenges . Part of the process was to identify the largest issues,
understand the issues, and address them to "ready" the environment for investment. In
preparation for those issues , Ms. Ricker stated it is important to discuss what is "given " on
the Broadway Corridor, which are:
• No one project will revitalize the South Broadway Corridor; it is hundreds of actions
that "ready" the environment for investment by capitalizing on opportunities and
attempting to overcome barriers .
• The ph y sical conditions present w ithin the South Broadway Corridor are the City's
largest challenges .
• Englewood is an "inner ring" suburb with a limited land base for expansion. Ms.
Ricker stated this issue is huge for the City and has to be dealt with. The strategies
which come forward for Englewood will be different than those for Littleton.
Littleton has a land base where the y can choose to have new commercial growth;
however, Englewood is landlocked and needs to make the most of its assets . Hard
decisions need to be made, but the City also have the potential for terrific reward
and sustainability.
• The effective transitions between commercial and residential areas are imperative.
The opportunities to link those residential areas to quality, commercial development
on the corridor are a fantastic opportunity.
• Broadway has the potential to compete in the regional housing, commercial, and
office markets. The City has the opportunity to capitalize on the fact that the
corridor is 3 .5 miles long, contiguous to Denver and Littleton, and positioned in a
high-growth area of the metro area.
• Progress must be monitored and the course of action amended based on the
outcomes .
• Diversification is key to success .
6
•
•
•
• An appropriate role for government is to "ready" the environment for investment.
Since the 1990's, the best projects have been accomplished through public/private
partnerships. The public sector must take the lead in doing what they can to
"ready" that environment.
Those who participated in the process identified the barriers and solutions they believe are
the most significant issues that need to be addressed on the Broadway Corridor. Ms.
Ricker stated she would briefly list and describe the eight issues.
• Fragmented ownership: the average lot size on the corridor is .64 acres. Other
metro cities that have significant assemblages, such as the Greenfield Development,
are in a better position to compete for commercial development.
• Retail mix: the mix on the corridor and in the City is fairly homogenous and could
be stronger. A retail void anal y sis was conducted to identify where the City can fill
in. The mix needs to be strengthened, especially at the nodes.
• Underutilized and vacant properties: this is the issue, not who occupies the
properties. The presence of v acant lots mold the way people respond, which is the
ph y sical impact. The underutilized portion has a fiscal impact in the City, which
goes back to the fact that the City is an inner ring suburb with few commercial
opportunities . The City must be highl y strategic about its assets.
• Role of the street: the commercial corridor b y its nature caters to the vehicle, but
there are strategies to ensure it becomes more balanced in the future .
• Lot depth: the depth should be in c re as ed to boost the inventory of competitive
properties which exist in other locations outside the corridor.
• Dispersion of retail uses : the mix could be stronger.
• Building relationship to the street : it is staggered which is not a comfortable
environment for pedestrians, and it is not visually attractive which translates into a
monetary decrease in value.
• Absence of multi-family housing on the corridor : the City does have residential
abutting the corridor. The housing inventory is also homogenous; there are a range
of housing opportunities that are being offered in other areas. Given the City's inner
ring location, it is an obvious location for some of these uses which are not present
in the City. A commercial corridor en v ironment is an ideal location for these type of
uses. The other benefit to increasing housing is that it creates more demand for the
existing commercial as well as the commercial the City is attempting to attract.
Ms . Ricker concluded by stating those were the large issues and the range of solutions. She
welcomed questions from the Commission.
Mr. Schum stated it was previousl y discussed that a survey had never been done to
determine what people actually want on the Broadway Corridor. He asked if conducting
such a survey had been considered. Mr. Graham responded; the information used was the
market demand based on the information available in terms of the household ability to
consume products and services in a variety of categories, rather than try ing to survey
individuals on the street. Mr. Schum confirmed that approximately 40 of the 612 property
7
•
•
•
and business owners were involved in the process, which is 13%. Mr. Graham stated that
was correct. Mr. Schum stated that was low. Ms. Ricker responded that it was a high
number that was solicited for involvement. Mr. Schum reiterated that only 13% were
involved in the actual process. Chair Waggoner stated those are the ones who chose to
attend. Ms. Ricker restated that 100% of the property owners were invited to attend.
Chair Waggoner asked how many meetings were held. Mr. Graham responded; there were
three community meetings, two on Broadway and one in the Community Room at the
Civic Center. Chair Waggoner confirmed that all stakeholders were notified of the
meetings. Mr. Graham stated that was correct; they were notified of each of the meetings.
Mr. Schum reiterated that he thought it was odd that staff would say the Plan is what the
stakeholders wanted when only 13% participated.
Mr. Schum asked whether condemnation was part of the policy reform. Mr. Graham stated
a study was included, which would qualify by State criteria as a condition survey of the
area, and would be available if the decision was to exercise an Urban Renewal District;
among the Urban Renewal powers is condemnation. It was not precluded, but neither was
it selected as a strategy. Ms. Ricker interjected; the larger benefit of Urban Renewal is due
to the financing mechanisms that come with it and the ability to more effectively leverage
public/private investment. The recommendation for a Urban Renewal District is due to the
financing strategies.
Chair Waggoner stated any property owner or developer could assemble a package and
develop the property if the means were available. Ms. Ricker stated that was correct; it is
not a reluctance to invest in a property but rather a lack of understanding of the market
opportunity.
Mr. Schum stated it was discussed how King Soopers was one of the largest offenders of
underutilized properties. Ms. Ricker stated it is an inverse relationship between the land
value and the improvement value. Mr. Schum stated King Soopers provides the City with a
lot of other things . He stated not enough attention has been given to the car dealerships
for the same reason. It is underscored what they give back to the community and what
they spend in the community. He wondered why that was not assimilated with them
because they do a lot. Ms. Ricker responded; the issue is underutilized and vacant lots
which presents the challenge for the City in attracting investment on the corridor. It doesn't
matter the use ; it's the reality. There is a predominance of underutilized and vacant
properties on the corridor. Mr. Graham interjected; King Soopers is an example of a
difficult space for a pedestrian to cross because there isn't a building. Some of the
weaknesses in the downtown were the large spaces a pedestrian had to cross where there
wasn't anything of visual interest. King Soopers, like Qwest, still represents issues that need
to be addressed in the Plan which is no different than auto dealerships.
Mr. Welker asked staff to discuss the method of assembling properties and what the City
can do to assist and encourage people to assemble larger properties. Mr. Graham
responded that the Plan talks about deepening the commercial node which provides a
policy basis for future Commission decisions but does not affect the market place by
proactively zoning it. Ms. Ricker stated the City could establish an entity to purchase key
8
•
•
•
properties in the nodes as they become available and then market them to a developer .
The City can also facilitate the discussion between the private sector property owner and
the interested developer. The City can provide favorable financing as areas become more
attractive and people begin to speculate. If the City doesn 't want to go the route of
condemnation, another method is to offer favorable financing to lessen some of the
financial impact as the private sector is acquiring property. The Plan provides a range of
possibilities; however, Ms. Ricker stated she believes it should be "a little of all of it." If the
City wants to effect a change and respond to the stakeholders who participated, the City
should not sit back but be engaged and act as an agent for public/private partnerships .
Mr. Welker stated the present zoning on the corridor is commercial. When talking about
nodes and expanding a commercial district, we keep coming back to mixed-use. The
problems are what the City does to protect the interests of the people abutting the nodes.
Mr. Welker stated he anticipates there will be issues with residential property owners as the
commercial uses move toward single-family homes . He asked how the Plan could address
those issues to make a transitional statement in zoning. Downtown is a different situation
because commercial zoning ex pands be y ond Broadway. When a node is placed along
Dartmouth or Oxford, citizens living on Acoma will be impacted.
Mr. Graham stated design standards should address those issues to both m1t1gate the
impacts on the adjacent land uses and to accomplish some of the aesthetic goals for the
corridor to unify the districts and to enhance the overall corridor to create the "sense of
place " that has been discussed. It is the intention over the next year to begin developing
those design standards and bring them back to the Commission for adoption. Uses by right
could be moved into the conditional use category which would give the Commission
specific review of those uses that present more challenges than other uses. That begins to
give the City a set of criteria and design standards to use as evaluation criteria and the
ability to approve or den y a specific proposal.
Mr. Bleile asked whether or not the businesses currently located within the identified nodes
are conducive to a node development. Mr. Graham clarified that the City would not buy
the nodes directly. If properties in a node became available and if there was an agent, such
as the Community Development Corporation, available one mechanism would be to
acquire the properties and hold them until the time came when there were enough
properties assembled to create a node. Another method would be the expressed
willingness through the adoption of a Plan to participate in a private development where
the developer asks for rezoning for additional depth of property. The criteria is then looked
at to determine whether or not they have treated the relationship between their
commercial and mixed-use and the existing use appropriately using design standards. Areas
were located that were appropriate for nodes because they had full movement
intersections; they had significant connections to other major arterials or collectors; and
they would be attractive locations for anchor-type users.
Mr. Bleile clarified that the Plan would be implementing the node-type philosophy, but not
creating the node by forcing business owners to participate . Mr. Graham stated the Plan
expresses the City's willingness to participate to the extent that the Commission would be
9
•
•
•
supportive of someone attempting to assemble a node, rezone it, and locate an intensity of
mixed-uses in that location. As a land use matter, the Commission, by approving the Plan,
would be expressing it is an appropriate land use for the Broadway Corridor and it
becomes a matter of City policy when Council adopts the Plan. Mr. Bleile clarified that the
Plan would provide the Commission with the tools by which to implement those nodes.
Mr. Graham responded; the Plan itself does not do that. It will take more steps to look at
the districts and determine what mechanisms may work in the district. It was necessary to
put the information out and begin the education of the Boards, Commissions, potential
developers, and land owners to demonstrate the market opportunities and the willingness
of the City to remove obstacles to accomplish the vision.
Mr. Schum asked if a node could be accomplished through a Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Graham stated the corridor is currently zoned B-2 which allows multi-family residential,
60 feet of height, etc.; it is very good zoning. It does not provide very much flexibility when
a lot is 125 feet. A Planned Unit Development (PUD ) rezones property and requires
writing a set of rules that address mitigating the impact. While it is attractive in one sense , it
is not as attractive as having use by right zoning. The assurances B-2 zoning provides is
probably more attractive than the effort a PUD would take to be approved. It is currently
possible to do a PUD, which would be another method of accomplishing many of the same
goals .
Mr. Welker stated from a planning point of view, the Plan conveys that the City is open for
change and is encouraging change. The idea of planning is to obtain a direction that is
appropriate. Ms . Ricker stated ver y few of the uses are of the intensity the City wants to
achieve. The use is an issue , but the intensity of the uses that exist is the larger issue . The
strategy elements provided as the range of options are designed to take the City beyond
the regulations by offering incentives and eliminating barriers.
Referring back to the corridor context, Ms. Mueller stated 65 % of the land area does not
generate sales, which is an alarming number considering the Broadway Corridor is the
City's primary commercial district. She asked staff to define what use makes up the
majority of that 65 %. Ms . Ricker responded; the issue is a mix of uses exist on the corridor
and there are uses that dominate how much land area they represent. The breakdown is :
• Auto related uses and parking represent 39% of the area;
• Retail and service represent 23 %;
• Housing represent 15 %;
• Office represents 11 %; and
• Restaurants represent 10 %
Mr. Bleile stated some of those uses generate taxes. Ms. Ricker stated that was correct;
however, 65 % of the land area does not. Among the auto related uses, 8 are new car sales
and 45 are used car sales, which includes auto pawn and leasing.
Chair Waggoner stated Quincy is listed as a potential node; he asked if there was a reason
why Oxford was not chosen. Mr. Graham stated Oxford may be an appropriate node; staff
10
•
•
•
was working with a property owner at Quincy on a potential node-type development. It
appears that it will not reach the intensity level appropriate for a node. It will be
redeveloped, but it will not be redeveloped in a significantly more diverse or intense
manner. Chair Waggoner stated that even though the nodes are listed in the Plan , there is
nothing that precludes other areas from being a node. Mr. Graham responded that would
be a Commission decision in terms of the appropriateness. The notion of the node was
that it would be limited and focused on a few key locations, and the City's ability to
respond with infrastructure assistance on every block is not available. The identified nodes
were a method of rationing resources to obtain a node in each district. Ms. Mueller stated
that by encouraging the nodes, hopefully the private sector will fill in the spaces in
between. Mr. Graham stated that is the "ripple effect" that is anticipated.
Mr. Welker agreed with Chair Waggoner that Oxford was an ideal location for a node. It
is the connection through the City to Santa Fe and also has a light rail stop. Ms. Ricker
stated that 32"d Avenue and Lowell Boulevard is an example of a good node that works
because it grew off the intersection. Old South Gaylord is off the major arterials and does
well, but not as well as 32"d and Lowell.
Mr. Schum stated Lakewood had a plan where the auto industry was not involved, and
there is a lot of property vacant. It seems there have been a lot of questions about the auto
industry. It was put out forthright in the Plan that the auto industry owns a lot of land on
Broadway, and the City is not receiving anything from them. He sees the Plan as pushing
out the auto dealers and then hoping the development comes. Mr. Graham stated the Plan
does not get specific about pushing out any particular land use. To the extent there is
underutilized properties and opportunities for increased retailing or housing, the Plan states
the City would prefer having those more intense uses that contribute to the diversity of
goods, quality of life, and the tax base over uses that do not meet that c riteria . From the
research , auto uses often fall within the category of low property investment, little or no
sales tax generation . The y interfere with some synergies the City is looking for in retailing .
Auto uses are one of the land uses that the City is attempting to understand and address.
Mr. Graham noted that City Council asked staff to form a committee of independent auto
dealers to work through some of those issues and to draft the regulatory sc heme that
would appropriately address those issues. The first meeting was held this afternoon, and he
believes the committee can work through those issues to the satisfaction of the
Commission and City Council.
Mr. Schum stated if the Plan is pushed through, auto dealers will not be able to do
improvements to their properties or obtain building permits which would hold them back
from using their properties. In effect, that would push them out of business. Ms. Krieger
asked Mr. Schum where he saw in the Plan that property owners could not improve their
property; she does not see it. Mr. Schum stated when the Plan is passed, they will not be
allowed to improve their property because it will not fit in with the node. Ms. Krieger
stated the City wants improvement to all the properties. The Plan does not say the City
doesn 't want improvement; the entire Plan states the City wants improved properties from
beginning to end . Mr. Schum stated it also states the City does not want car lots and
11
•
•
•
parking lots on Broadway. Ms. Krieger stated she strongly disagreed; the Plan is not that
specific.
Doug Cohn, 3051 South Marion Street, was sworn in . Mr. Cohn stated he was the owner
of Bonnie Brae Hobby Shop at 3421 South Broadway. Mr. Cohn stated he had some
questions for the Commission. He asked if the Plan was a legal document or if it would
become a legal document after City Council approval. Ms. Reid stated the purpose of a
public hearing is to take comment from the public. It is not the Commission 's position that
they normally answer questions. Mr. Cohn stated he is attempting to determine what the
document is. Chair Waggoner stated it is the South Broadway Plan 2003 and could end up
just a plan. Mr. Cohn asked if it was a legal document; he stated he didn 't think he was
getting an answer to his question. Ms. Reid reiterated that it is not the Commission 's policy
to answer questions during the public hearing. If there are questions, they should be
directed to staff at another time. The Commission is available to listen to the public's
comments . Comments should be addressed to the Commission, not as questions, but as
statements. Mr. Cohn stated it appears in the Plan that one of the proposals is to change
the use by right into a nonconforming use ; it appears to him that nonconforming use is a
wa y to terminate the businesses located in those areas. Mr. Cohn asked if it was a
requirement that all the land generate sales tax .
Connie Sanchez, owner of Glass Warehouse, 3483-348 7 South Broadway, was sworn in.
Ms. Sanchez testified she served on the Englewood Downtown Development Authority
(EDDA) for a number o f y ears . A lot of the Plan is what the EDDA talked about and
suggested, which is a dream for Englewood to bring in more retail , sales tax, more vitality,
and more energy to the area. She stated it is a great dream; to make that dream come true,
it appears the Plan is try ing to make it possible for the City to be ready to grab on to any
star that comes available to make the dream come true. It appears what the City is
attempting to accomplish is if a car lot goes up for sale , using that property for something
else , not chasing people out. She belie v es there is a fear factor, but she would like to see
the improvements. She strongly agrees with the Plan as long as those stakeholders are
in volved in every step of the planning.
Jim Bahne, owner of Valley Motors, 4550 South Broadway, was sworn in. Mr. Bahne stated
he operates and owns the car dealership. Over the last few weeks as a representative of
the auto industry, they were concerned over the emergency moratorium that City Council
implemented. Mark Graham extended an invitation to several of the car dealers, as he
mentioned earlier in the meeting, to attempt to develop a plan that will be amenable to the
car dealers. They are concerned about grandfathered property uses , but they are also
concerned about an over saturation of car dealers on the corridor. Mr. Bahne stated
today 's meeting was very productive. He is confident that over the next few meetings a
final plan will be developed which can be taken to other car dealers and property owners
to discuss. Mr. Bahne applauded staff for reaching out to the car dealers, and their fears are
being allied. He is more comfortable with the Plan and looks forward to working with staff
in the future. Mr. Welker asked if the Plan is counter to the committee's goal of
maintaining viable auto businesses along Broadway. Mr. Bahne responded that he didn 't
think it was ; the document is not very specific. It is a vision which in general the committee
12
•
•
•
supports, but they don't want to be the ones to pay for it. The car dealers want their fair
shot at being represented, and again applaud the City for what it is attempting. There have
been various attempts over the last 15 or 20 years to limit car dealership growth. In the
late 1980's, City Council passed an Ordinance which required landscaping the first 10 feet
of the property if there was a change in use or ownership. It was an ill-conceived plan
which ended up costing the car dealerships a lot of money to fight.
Mr. Bleile stated it appears that Mr. Bahne is the appointed spokesperson for the auto
dealers . He asked if the dealerships would be conducive to the idea of improving
pedestrian traffic or improving a node. Mr. Bahne stated the dealerships would talk about
it. The dealerships need to be attractive; if that means a little bit of sacrifice on their part to
upgrade the image, then they would be open to discussing it.
Harry Lester of Harry Specialty Cars, 3247 South Broadway, was sworn in. Mr. Lester
stated the Plan states 65 % of the landowners and businesses do not generate any sales tax
which automatically puts everyone on the defensive . Auto dealerships are targeted in the
Plan . There are a lot more ey esores on Broadway than some of the car lots. Usuall y within
a matter of a few weeks, a vacant car lot is reopened and operating which generates
income for the City. A number of other spaces on Broadwa y have been vacant for months;
at least the car lots are alway s full. Mr. Lester stated his property is for sale if the City
wishes to buy it.
Bill Barrow, representing the Colorado Auto Dealer Association, 290 East Speer Boulevard,
was sworn in . Mr. Barrow stated he has watched with great interest the proceedings of the
City Council and the Commission. He is concerned with what the City is doing, and some
of it relates to the 65 % tax issue. The auto industry produces more sales tax than any other
industry in the state . It is a $1 3 billion industry, with approximately 79 % collected from the
citizens. The money does not go directly into the City's coffers, but it does indirectly.
Englewood citizens purchase cars, and their taxes go directly into the City's coffers. It is
slightly inaccurate to state the auto lots do not produce sales tax because they produce an
enormous amount. Statewide the auto industry produces approximatel y 22 % of all sales
taxes collected . The issue which concerns him the most is the concept that if car dealers
are not permitted in Englewood and if that "disease " spreads then everyone is in trouble . If
every city decides, as Denver has , to take all the sales tax but cars will be sold in another
municipality, then the auto industry is obviously in trouble . He is very concerned. The auto
industry is formulating a policy to determine if part of the sales tax generated by the City be
returned to the city or county where the dealership resides , which represents a large
amount of money. He cautioned the Commission to move carefully; it is a dangerous area
if it spreads ; and he envisions serious problems stemming from this concept.
Mr. Bleile confirmed if an Englewood citizen purchases a vehicle in Englewood, the sales
tax goes to Englewood . If a Highlands Ranch citizen purchases a vehicle in Englewood, the
sales tax goes to Douglas County. Mr. Barrow stated that was correct; there are two
different taxes . The state tax, which is currently 2.9 %, goes to the state regardless of where
the car is purchased, and the city or county imposed tax goes to the city or county where
the person resides. Colorado is the only state that uses this method; it is extremely
13
•
•
•
complex. Most states share the revenue; the state collects the entire tax and then pays it
back to the appropriate city or county. This method is better, but unfortunately it is a
constitutional issue in Colorado.
Scott Smolarczyk, 3195 South Acoma Street, was sworn in . Mr. Smolarczyk stated he
believes the Downtown District is already a pedestrian-friendly zone and likes the small
shops as they currently exist. The CityCenter development has a number of small shops so
it must be a good thing. The Englewood King Soopers is a great asset to the community
and is well used. He believes the car dealerships are culturally significant because they
hold a lot interesting old vehicles . Harry's is like a car museum. The American bungalow
homes along the corridor are of architectural significance and should be protected . Mr.
Welker asked if he owned a business along the corridor. Mr. Smolarczyk stated he did not.
Chair Waggoner clarified that in the context on page, 65 % of land area does not generate
sales tax. He doesn 't have the impression that staff was talking strictly about car
dealerships; it is the entire area of Broadway -from the 2 700 block at Yale to the 5500 of
Belleview, 3 .5 miles, 388 properties, 241 acres -that 65 % of that land area does not
generate sales tax; not any specific user. Ms. Ricker stated that was correct and was glad
the Chair clarified the issue. It is 65 % of the area . One of the challenges unique to
Englewood is that it is landlocked . The Commission is the steward of the land base in
Englewood. The Plan does not point out one use that should not be in Englewood; it
doesn 't state there is a perfect ratio among uses . The Plan states the corridor needs to
achie v e a better balance of uses , and the City cannot ignore the fact that city budgets in the
State of Colorado operate off property tax and sales tax. The solution is in finding the
balance, but it is not an y one use. It is a strong, solid mix of uses that promotes fiscal
balance and fiscal economic growth, strength, and sustainability .
Mr. Bleile asked what the large st land use is of the 65 % land area that does not generate
sales tax . Ms. Ricker stated it is auto related uses , which is a broad category. Mr. Welker
stated that does not mean that all auto related businesses have the same characteristic of
sales tax . Those that sell products generate sales tax.
Pete Horrigan of Just Right Motors, 3655 South Broadway, was sworn in . Mr. Horrigan
stated his concern is that he will not be able to rent or sell his business in a year for the
same amount of money that he can today. He stated he is also concerned that the City
might condemn his property. He wants the City to look as nice as everyone else, but he
works 70 hours a week and plans to retire with the business. He feels that it is being
snatched away. He has improved the property, but it is underutilized by the City's
description. He doesn't want to be cheated just so the City can make it nicer.
Connie Sanchez readdressed the Commission . In discussing the occupational privilege tax ,
one of the Chamber's suggestions for the City was to assist them attract more retail to pay
more sales tax so there wouldn't need to be a head tax. She applauded the Commission
for their efforts with the Plan .
There were no other persons present to testify.
14
•
•
•
Mr. Schum moved:
Ms. Mueller seconded: To close The Public Hearing in Case #CP-2003-02.
AYES:
NAYS:
Adams, Bleile, Krieger, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Waggoner, Welker
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Diekmeier
The motion carried.
Chair Waggoner stated staff has recommended that consistent with Roadmap Englewood,
the 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan, the Commission approve the Plan and forward
that recommendation to the Englewood City Council to adopt Broadway Plan 2003 as a
strategic plan that implements the 2003 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Welker moved:
Ms. Krieger seconded: To approve the Broadway Plan 2003 as written and forward it
to City Council with the Commission 's recommendation.
Mr. Schum stated he is not against revitalizing South Broadway. Under the PUD
regulations, someone could do the same type of development discussed in the Plan. He
believes the car issue is a large issue because the Plan states they would be considered a
nonconforming use , which prevents dealerships from doing anything with their property.
There are a lot of nice looking car lots on Broadway. The Plan does put car dealers "off to
the side", and he feels they are a lot more valuable than what has been communicated to
them . While he likes the idea of the node, there are a number of other issues attached to
the Plan that makes it difficult for him. It would have been a better Plan if some of the
percentages were left out. He would have felt better if the Plan had been delayed until the
auto dealerships would have had more of a chance to talk to Mr. Graham and develop
some resolutions.
Mr. Welker asked Mr. Schum if he was proposing a change in the Plan that takes out that
kind of penalty, and if so what does he specifically propose . Mr. Schum stated a lot of the
specifics on how the Plan will be implemented are left out until Phase 11, which is were a lot
of the problems will arise. He is definitely in favor of making some changes to the Plan, and
it would be better for the Plan to be postponed. Discussion ensued.
Ms. Mueller stated the Plan does not condemn any car dealerships or any particular use . It
makes some very broad goals and suggestions of the direction the City wants to go. There
is an issue with the moratorium and other issues within the City that are happening at the
same time the Plan is coming forth for public hearing. The Plan does not say condemn
anyone's land; it states the current facts. She believes that it is the other issues happening
in the City that are making it seem a bigger issue than it is . Discussion ensued .
15
•
•
•
Mr. Bleile asked when Phase II would be coming forward. Mr. Graham stated the Plan
contemplates a number of different strategies which will come to the Commission in
various forms. Some will be in the form of proposed regulatory changes to the Unified
Development Code; some may be in the form of rezonings; some may go to City Council
in the form of programs providing incentives for implementation. There is no single plan
that consolidates all the recommendations of the Plan. There are a variety of those types of
activities that occur.
Ms. Krieger stated that very often people are opposed to a v1s1on for fear of what the
second phase holds. She believes the vision cannot be condemned because it is not
specific; it is not meant to be specific. Contrary to Mr. Schum, she does not see any real
condemnation of the people that do not provide sales tax. Everyone is aware that the
properties that do not provide sales tax do provide the City with other services and
benefits. The Plan does not state the car lots will become a nonconforming use . Motels
are the only use mentioned as a "potential" nonconforming use. The Plan is a vision ;
discussion of what "might" happen should occur during implementation . It's a slippery
slope argument to say that because these things might happen we can 't even look at the
vision . We hear these types of comments every time the Commission looks at a vision ,
whether it is the Comprehensive Plan , the Open Space Plan , or the Broadway Plan.
Someone is always concerned about might happen based on the vision.
Mr. Welker stated that page 32 is the only place that specifically talks about changing
something to nonconforming. The para graph states "Where th ese prope rti es ar e not in
conformance with curr e nt zonin g, their statu s should be change d from 'u se by right ' to 'non-
conforming.' That is the onl y section that talks about nonconforming use and it doesn 't
point out car lots, which are currentl y permitted. Mr. Welker agreed with Ms. Krieger that
the Plan is a vision. An y subsequent implementation strategies will also be presented to the
Commission and City Council for approval. The public will have the same opportunity to
review those plans and make comments . Discussion ensued.
Mr. Bleile asked when the next meeting would be held with the auto dealers. Mr. Graham
stated the next meeting is scheduled for October 7 during the day. Other meetings will be
held over the next six to eight weeks in order to draft the changes that need to be brought
to the Commission for regulatory changes and to Council before the moratorium ends. If
that is not accomplished in that window, staff cannot complete its job before the
moratorium ends. Chair Waggoner stated the meetings were specificall y about the
moratorium issue , not the Plan. Mr. Graham stated that was correct.
Mr. Roth stated he had a few comments:
• Page 30, first bullet point, the word "sties " needs to be changed to "sites."
• Page 33 , next to the lower picture, second bullet point, "BRT" needs to be defined.
• Page 34, second paragraph states " ... demonstrates support for re sidential, office,
retail, and lodging land uses." Yet on page 8, the Plan notes there is a surplus of
motel properties which is a lodging land use. Ms . Ricker stated it is a timing issue
and will clarify it so it doesn 't appear to be conflicting.
16
•
•
• Page 3 7 shows the land distribution map. The colors make it very difficult to read .
He suggested using more primary colors.
• Page 39, second to last bullet point: Mr. Roth proposed deleting that bullet point
which states "For stores that require surface parking in front , require heightened
landscaping (park-in-a-park ) or pad site development with interior parking." It is too
specific at this point. For those who attended the design charette a few weeks ago,
creating more visibility of parking was an issue that was discussed. This bullet is
counter to what the City is looking for.
Mr. Roth moved:
Ms. Krieger seconded : That the aforementioned changes be incorporated into the
Broadway Plan 2003 before it proceeds to City Council.
There was no further discussion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members.
AYES:
NAYS :
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Adams, Bleile, Krieger, Mueller, Roth, Waggoner, Welker
None
Schum
Diekmeier
The motion carried .
Chair W ag goner stated there was an amended motion on the floor and asked if there was
any further discussion .
Mr. Bleile stated his primary area of concern is the minimal amount of participation from
the business and property owners . There were 612 notices mailed and only 13 %
participated . He stated he is not sure the public is aware that the Plan may be important to
them or perhaps the y don 't care. He stated he didn 't understand wh y staff is specifically
meeting with independent auto dealerships if the Plan is not specifically targeting them. He
would like to hear more input from the auto dealer committee . He asked whether it was a
possibility to postpone sending the Plan to City Council. Ms. Mueller stated that the issues
are getting confused. The moratorium on auto related uses and the Plan are two separate
issues . Ms. Krieger clarified that staff is meeting with the auto dealers due to the
moratorium passed by City Council. Ms . Mueller stated that cities in general have a low
turn out when it comes to public matters. Discussion ensued .
There was no further discussion . The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members.
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT :
Adams, Krieger, Mueller, Roth , Waggoner, Welker
Bleile, Schum
None
Diekmeier
• The motion carried by a 6-2 vote .
17
•
•
•
IV . PUBLIC FORUM
Connie Sanchez stated the reason people don't show up for meetings is because everyone
assumes a lot of time will be spent away from their businesses and nothing will happen.
People are not apathetic, but a lot of people in the Downtown District feel like they are
"beating their heads against a wall" and nobody listens to them; they have given up.
Doug Cohn stated it would be helpful if the Plan were available online. He was aware of
the South Broadway planning sessions , but was unable to attend. Chair Waggoner
confirmed that Mr. Cohn was notified of the meetings. Mr. Cohn stated he did receive
notices for the three meetings, but was unable to attend due to work. Mr. Graham stated
the document is available on the City's website under the Business section. It was placed
on the website approximately two weeks ago.
Marti Kucharski , 511 West Dartmouth Avenue stated the public is interested. When she
comes to the meetings, she cannot hear what the Commission is saying. It is up to the
Commission to make it clear that there is a large plan in process . It is not fair to the
residents or business owners that they have to come out, fight, and shoot the Commission
down. There are still issues she would like to see taken care of in her neighborhood. The
Commission must listen to what the residents are saying . If not, then the residents will vote
them out. Mr. Welker stated the Commission is an all volunteer board. If she wishes to
"vote" out the Commission, she needs to speak with City Council.
There should be more public awareness on this issue ; there are a lot of ways to make
people aware of the issues. She was not aware of the Plan until a person running for City
Council brought it up to the neighbors. She has talked to other neighbors, and the y are
ver y interested in this issue . There is not a lack of interest because every one's homes and
lifestyles are at stake with these changes . The business people have worked a long, hard
time to get their businesses we re they are; they don't want to see their businesses
threatened which is the way it is coming across. Ms. Kucharski stated she doesn't like
threats, and the neighborhood will fight if that is what it takes . There are a lot of good ideas
in the Plan, but there are other issues that really need to be revisited .
Mr. Schum left the meeting.
Harry Lester stated he was glad that two people voted no on the Plan and feels that
someone is listening. People do not attend meetings because they think the Commission
already has their minds made up. He asked the Commission to think about the car dealers
when they get in their cars and drive home. A vision is a great thing to have, but you have
to look at what it is going to cost and who is paying for it.
V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Simpson and Mr. Graham stated they had nothing further .
18
•
•
•
VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms. Reid stated she had nothing further.
VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr. Roth stated the Plan in ge~I is good. There has been a lot of talk about
condemnation, but the City dc?e; not have the power to condemn. The Urban Renewal
Authority has that power, and they don't have the financial means to do much
condemnation in the immediate future.
Mr. Schum reentered the meeting and took his seat at the dais.
Mr. Adams stated he felt there was a very open channel of communication with the City
and feels there will be good faith efforts between the City and businesses to implement the
Plan .
Mr. Bleile stated he feels the Plan is great. Englewood needs to look to the future to
compete with the other cities . Englewood is a very attractive place to live and work. The
Plan is a very positive step in creating a more productive city. His hesitance with the Plan is
not knowing the tools that will be used to implement the Plan . If that were more clear, he
would not have had a problem. In addressing some of the citizens ' concerns, the
Commission does listen and strongly encouraged citizens to become involved .
Ms. Mueller stated the Commission has discussed in the past how to notify the public of
issues . The City has made great improvements within the last year in communicating issues
to the public. It is ultimately very hard with a limited amount of dollars to get out
notifications .
Mr. Welker stated there is a lack of representation from the public at meetings due to a
variety of reasons. He has been involved with various Boards and Commissions for 20
years . The citizens have a responsibility to look at what the City is doing. The City is
attempting to communicate better through open houses, mailings, public notices, etc.
There has been a big misunderstanding regarding condemning car lots from the beginning,
partially because of other issues going on in the City. The Commission considers land use
in the City.
Mr. Schum stated there has been a lot of discussion on whether or not the Plan states it will
kick businesses out of Englewood . When you read into the goals, there are businesses that
fit into the categories that the City doesn't want on Broadway. He likes the diversity on
Broadway and in Englewood. He stated there has not been enough research conducted to
determine what the citizens want. When the participation is less than 13 %, it does not
convey the interests of the majority. The Community Development Department does not
take enough time before the meetings to get their "ear to the ground" to determine how
people feel. There have been a number of Commission meetings with large groups of
19
•
•
•
people in attendance complaining they have not been notified nor had a chance for any
input before it is sent to City Council.
Chair Waggoner stated he has worked for and with the City since 1964. He was Public
Works Director, served on City Council, and served on various boards and commissions.
He has found that people do not care what is happening in city government until it starts
"hitting their pocket."
There was no further discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
N~4:fito~ Secretary
20