HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-25 PZC MINUTES•
•
I.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
February 25, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:00 p .m . in the Englewood City Council Chambers, Chair Waggoner presiding.
Present: Adams, Krieger, Lathram (e nte red at 7:10 p.m.), Mueller, Roth, Schum, Welker,
Waggoner
Absent:
Staff:
Diekmeier
Lauri Dannemiller, Senior Manager
Anthony Fruchtl, Planner
City Attorney Dan Brotzman
Chair Waggoner stated there was a sign-in sheet available for those who wished to address
the Commission .
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 4, 2003
Chair Waggoner stated the Minutes of February 4, 2003 were to be considered for
approval.
Mr. Roth stated there was a correction on page 2. It should read "Ms. Lathram was elected
Vice-Chair."
Schum moved:
Mueller seconded: The Minutes of February 4, 2003 be approved as amended.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT :
Adams, Krieger, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Waggoner, Welker
None
None
Diekmeier, Lathram
The motion carried.
Ill. SOUTH PLATIE RIVER OPEN SPACE PLAN
Case #CP 2003-01
Chair Waggoner stated the issue before the Commission is a Public Hearing on the South
Platte River Open Space Plan. He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing.
1
•
•
Schum moved:
Krieger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP 2003-01 be opened.
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Adams, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Waggoner, Welker
None
None
Diekmeier
The motion carried.
Chair Waggoner asked staff to present the case.
Lauri Dannemiller, Senior Manager, was sworn in . She introduced two consultants, Bill
Wenk and Grayson Baur from Wenk & Associates. Ms. Dannemiller provided the following
overview:
• Present the majority of the Plan , similar to what was heard at the previous study
session, with some enhancements and changes that were recommended.
• Discuss the process the Plan went through and the alternatives which were studied .
• Look at three core components to the Plan.
• Discuss implementation items.
• Describe public input that was received to date, prior to the public hearing.
• Hear public comments on the Plan.
Ms. Dannemiller presented proof of publication to the Recording Secretary showing the
public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on February 7, 2003. Ms.
Dannemiller noted the publication also informed the public that the Plan was available on
the City's website as well as in the Englewood Library and Community Development
Department. There was opportunity for the public to take a look at the Plan.
Initially the process started with a request from the Englewood City Council to study the
Plan Area, which lead to the development of a steering committee . As opposed to just City
Council or Planning Commission working on the development of the Plan, Council's
recommendation was to gather interested parties to develop the Plan. There was a lot of
information each individual city wouldn 't know, but a majority of the information could be
garnered through a steering committee. A list of the steering committee is shown on page
8 of the Plan . There were a number of outside organizations, including South Suburban
Parks District, Arapahoe County, South Metro Chamber of Commerce, Englewood
Chamber of Commerce, City and County of Denver, and others .
2
•
•
Goals and Objectives were then developed, as well as Plan Alternatives . Two public
meetings were held; one in January 2002 and another in August 2002. Those meetings
were followed up with a Draft Plan which was presented to the Planning Commission in
December 2002. The Plan is now at the public hearing stage. The initial recommendation
was to take the Plan through the adoption phases at Englewood Planning Commission and
Englewood City Council. If the Commission agrees, Ms. Dannemiller stated it might be a
better process to take the Plan to the Sheridan Planning Commission before presenting it to
Englewood and Sheridan City Councils.
Bill Wenk of Wenk & Associates was sworn in. Mr. Wenk reiterated the Plan is the product
of a steering committee, including landowners, Mr. Welker, and a number of agencies
involved with the management of the South Platte River, such as the Urban Drainage
District and Core of Engineers. It w as a broad constituency. The City of Sheridan also had
a representative on the committee . A great deal of time was spent craftin g the goals and
objectives, because it became v er y clear that a number of the lando w ners in th e stud y area
were very concerned about w here the study might be headed.
Two primary focuses were developed. First was to look at the river corridor as a regional
resource, as well as a resource for Englewood and Sheridan which sets those communities
apart from other communities in the area. It is a major landmark or natural feature . The
first goal is to provide improved access and encourage a variety of recreational activities
along the ri v er. The trail currentl y runs along the river; there is one park. There are a
number of recreational users along the river; however, it is very difficult to park and access
the ri v er .
Equall y important is the need to promote the economic v itality in the Corridor. It is
important to understand that redevelopment is part of the Plan , but it is on a voluntary
basis. It became v er y clear through the steering committee that the notion of
condemnation or other public taking was not appropriate. A goal is to have redevelopment
driven by incentives from the City, such as improvements to utilities and streets. As the
area improves and increases in v alue, the landowners in the area w ould be encouraged to
redevelop because it is in their economic best interest to do so .
The third goal is to preserve and enhance the environmental quality and flood protection
function of the river. The Core of Engineers currently has a strategy to remove vegetation
along the river and replace it with riprap . This Plan recommends an alternati v e and much
softer approach to managing the flood control functions of the river by encouraging the
Core to look at vegetation management rather than total clearing and encouraging riparian
in-stream habitat. It is a resource for the community and wildlife is an important part of the
Plan .
Goal four is to make the river a centerpiece for Englewood, Sheridan, and the region. This
goal ties together the other elements in the goals in that it needs to be an economic engine
for the cities . The Plan identifies parcels that are good for redevelopment which could be
an ambitious effort on the part of the City to attract jobs and housing into the study area.
Related to that is creating a series of open spaces which have regional significance as part
3
•
•
of the overall river corridor; not unlike what Denver has done in Commons Park and other
areas along the Platte to the north.
Grayson Baur of Wenk & Associates was sworn in. Mr. Baur stated he would describe the
study area, as well as some of the preliminary analyses taken in the study area . Mr. Wenk
will then discuss some of the Plan details . Mr. Baur referred the Commission to page 10 of
the Plan. The study area encompasses the South Platte River Valley within Englewood,
Sheridan, and certain portions of Arapahoe County that are unincorporated. The steering
committee came to a consensus to look at properties and park land on the east side of
Santa Fe, only for the possibility of connecting those places to the study area. An analysis
was done on certain aspects of the study area .
Referring to the jurisdiction map, Mr. Baur pointed out the jurisdictions shown in orange,
yellow, purple, and fuchsia . Sheridan, Englewood, and Arapahoe County have jurisdiction
over these areas . Several constraints were studied; Mr. Baur stated he would limit his
discussion to three major constraints : the presence of certain flood plain areas in the Platte
River Corridor; the presence of landfill sites, both sanctioned and unregulated; and the
presence of steep slopes. After those ph ysical constraints were studied, w ater and sewer
service in the area was also studied. Since it is not onl y an Open Space Plan but also a Plan
seeking to encourage redevelopment, it was necessar y to determine to what extent the
sewer and water services, as well as other utilities, would impact redevelopment of open
space and other amenities in the Corridor. It was found the area is generally well served by
water service, but any developer wishing to build new redevelopment will incur costs to
bring new mains to their property.
Somewhat more of a constraint is the sewer service in the area. The capacity on one of the
lines serving the area is currentl y at 80-90 percent. There is capacity on the Littleton
Interceptor east of the river, and there is capacity on the Big Dry Creek Interceptor. If
redevelopment occurs west of the river, the logical line to serve that area might be the
Littleton Interceptor. In which case , lines would need to be run over or under the Platte.
Similarl y, the Treatment Plant is currently required to stud y the possibility for expansion
because the y are at a certain threshold level of service .
Mr. Wenk stated he would go briefl y through the key elements of the Plan. Starting with
trails and connections, Mr. Wenk stated the single trail largely on the west side of the river
is getting to capacity. The recommendation is a dual trail on both sides of the river to
accommodate larger volumes of pedestrian, bike and other recreational traffic.
Additionally, it is important to make the river more accessible. People are currently limited
to Oxford and Dartmouth, which are very difficult connections.
Additionally as part of redevelopment, local trails are also recommended which link those
redevelopment areas to the river. The river is then something landowners or developers
can market as part of the attractiveness of the land .
• Mr. Schum stated he didn 't see the Dartmouth trail across Santa Fe . Ms. Dannemiller
stated the map doesn 't show a connection, but bullet one on the ke y states "improve
4
•
•
connection at Dartmouth and South Platte River Drive." Mr. Wenk stated a series of trail
heads are also being recommended .
With regard to the redevelopment plan , a number of options were considered from river
improvements with minor redevelopment to a very audacious plan with a river parkway.
Referring to the map, Mr. Wenk pointed out the river parkway which is largely existing
roadway s that would be linked together in a few areas which currently don't connect. By
linking together existing roadways and going to the edge of existing properties, areas are
opened up that have very little access. There are currentl y a number of dirt streets which
dead end into larger users . The idea is that over time those connections would be made
and utilities, if insufficient, would be upgraded so the parcels would be more attractive for
redevelopment. Those areas are shown on the map in solid purple. Tho se parcels have
minimum potential redevelopment costs in that they are not landfill sites; there is no known
source of pollution on those sites . It is a questions of access , utilities, and perception of the
community as to the attractiveness for development.
With regard to the ri v er parkw ay, Ms. Lathram asked whether the committee was looking
for private cooperation. Mr. Wenk responded private cooperation would be needed . The
roads were located so that the y went on the edge of the property line and it have to be a
partnership between the landowner and the City. The goal is to ha v e a win-win situation .
In certain areas, specificall y in the north, the rights of way are very tight. Some of the
property owners lost property as part of the widening of Santa Fe Dri v e. There needs to be
a bit more study especiall y in some of those areas were there has been impact from past
street projects . In most of the area, there is very little access. By creating better access, the
v alue of the land increases considerabl y.
Ms. Lathram asked whether there had been an y discussions with the landowners. Mr.
Wenk responded that a number of landow ners were at the public meetings and their input
was gathered . A number of landowners expressed their desire to continue their operations
as they exist, and he believes the Plan reflects their wish.
The striped areas on the redevelopment map are landfill areas which may have some
additional costs for redevelopment. Those sites are secondary in the terms of
redevelopment potential. There are a number of owners who wish to continue their
operations into the future, and it might be many years before the land is available for
redevelopment. At some point, the land may be valuable enough that it would be in the
owner's economic best interest to redevelop the land and move else where. Again, it is a
voluntary effort on the part of the landowners .
Continuing on to the open space map on page 38, Mr. Wenk stated the recommendati on
is to add more trail heads making the river more user-friendly and accessible for people
who live far enough away that they need to drive to it. Two park expansions are proposed;
one west of the Water Treatment Plant, and another around Big Dry Creek which are on
existing landfill sites. For open space, the Plan targets those sites which might be more
appropriate for park de v elopment due to potential problems related to redevelopment over
a landfill. Along the Corridor, there are a number of green "fingers " which extend out,
5
•
•
especially in the redevelopment areas that reflect the partnership envisioned between
adjacent development and the City to encourage people to focus on the river as a
resource. Then the river is not just one linear corridor, but it starts to extend out into the
community and make it more of a community resource. What is currently a very narrow
corridor starts to expand and become more of a regional facility which has a broader range
of recreational opportunities.
Referring to the composite map, Mr. Wenk pointed out how the redevelopment starts to
dovetail with the park and open space opportunities. He also pointed out how the river
parkway starts to link redevelopment together and provide connections to the arterial
streets which are essential for the river parkway to work and essential for redevelopment of
any scale to occur.
Ms. Dannemiller reviewed the implementation plan and how the plan is projected to come
into reality. The steering committee went through an arduous process to prioritize tools
which the agencies, cities, private landowners, and special districts could use to see the
Plan implemented over time. Fi v e basic tools are proposed for implementing the Plan. The
first tool is to be judicious with the tools. The steering committee ur g ed using tools that
landowners will be encouraged to take on rather than oppose. Condemnation is not a
popular tool, but incentives are ver y popular tools. The committee urged looking at those
types of tools to implement the Plan sooner.
Mr. Schum stated he has heard condemnation is not a tool the City wishes to use, but he
hasn't heard that it is a tool that won't be used . Ms. Dannemiller stated condemnation was
not high on the steering committee's list of priorities. How ev er, she cannot honestly state
Engle w ood and Sheridan wouldn 't look at condemnation if there was one landowner
holding out when all the other landowners are in fa vor. Th e cities may look at it as an
option, but she can 't sa y whether the y w ould use that option .
Continuing, Ms. Dannemiller stated another tool is acquiring easements as opposed to
acquiring full properties. Partnerships are also extremely important, knowing that it is not
going to happen with just the Cities of Englewood and Sheridan. There needs to be
funding source partners, such as Great Outdoor Colorado, Trust for Public Lands , and other
dedicated funding sources, of which the cities may avail themselves. These partnerships are
the key to developing the Corridor as a whole .
A prioritized action plan was also developed, which breaks the Plan into three phases -0-5
years , 5-10 years, and 10-25 years -knowing that some of the activities will take more study
and only happen if changes occur prior to these activities.
Ms. Dannemiller noted that at the December Commission meeting, there were a couple of
recommendations which were added to the Plan . "Quick Wins" was added to the Plan,
which the committee envisioned as ways to implement without a lot of money but
hopefully would still have an impact in the short-term rather than the long-term . Those are
located on page 51 of the Plan . A couple of the more innovative ideas are looking at the
City's conservation trust funds and partnering with the Parks Department, asking that some
6
•
•
of the funds be applied to the river area. The Harvard Gulch West Trail was also added and
working with Denver to coordinate a connection. Better signalization at the Dartmouth
intersection is recommended to create a safer connection and environment which wouldn 't
cost a lot of money. The committee also looked at shifting some of the concrete paving
program to make the access to the trail along Dartmouth safer. Those changes were made
from the last meeting.
Ms. Dannemiller stated she received comments, via the telephone, from the Littleton City
Manager, Jim Woods which she presented to the recording secretary to be made part of
the record. To summarize, Mr. Woods ' concerns are with the second park area shown as
being potential park along Big Dry Creek. He noted Littleton had approximately an 8-acre
parcel which they are looking at redeveloping or selling. Ms. Dannerniller's response was
that the criteria used for new park land was met by the 8-acre parcel, which was why it was
identified as new park land . It is in a landfill; it is publicly owned; it is potentiall y ripe for
redevelopment; and it is along a flood plain . She indicated to Mr. Woods that it is a prime
example of how the Plan could actually work.
Ms. Dannemiller stated she also had a conversation with Jim Sidebottom, City Manager of
Sheridan . She noted a number of Sheridan residents and council members are in the
audience . Mr. Sidebottom related to her that there are a number of re d evelopment
opportunities that Sheridan is currentl y assessing. If there are redevelopment opportunities
that Sheridan would like to see listed on the Plan Composite which are currently not listed
that would potentially net the same amount of open space and redevelopment, the
committee would consider it. The area Mr. Sidebottom will discuss is north of Oxford and
adjacent to the golf course . She noted that the specifics of this discussion would be left to
Mr. Sidebottom during the public comment section of the meeting.
Lastl y, when the committee first met there was a lot more park land in the Plan than what is
currently in the Plan . Conversations were held with Sheridan and other landowners which
indicated the balance should change . Therefore, some of the park land was scaled back
specifically in the Oxford Recycling area . The Plan originall y showed it as open space ; but
after conversations with landowners, it was scaled back to adding connections on
unbuildable areas . The other area which was scaled back was in the Hampden Business
Park area, located at Hampden and Santa Fe . It was originally shown as park land because
it is a former land fill site , but conversations with Sheridan indicated they were potentially
looking at redevelopment on that site. Rather than putting it in the Plan as all open space,
the committee compromised and added a parking area, trail head, and then scaled back
the green space to only a buffer in that area. If there are opportunities to put into the Plan
which allow redevelopment balanced with open space, the committee is open to that
compromise.
Mr. Schum confirmed that staff spoke with the mayor of Littleton. Ms. Dannemiller clarified
that it was the City Manager. Mr. Schum stated asked if Mr. Woods had any comment on
the upgrade to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Ms. Dannemiller stated it was not
discussed with Mr. Woods . She , however, has had conversations with the architectural firm
that is working on the upgrade of the Treatment Plant to incorporate some of the changes,
7
•
•
primarily an addition of a trail on the eastern section of the river. The cost will most likely
be borne by the City and the redevelopment itself. Mr. Schum stated he was talking about
the actual upgrade of the Plant to handle the capacity, that cost would reflect on the
citizens of Littleton . It appears from the Plan that the City of Littleton elected not to be part
of the committee. Ms. Dannemiller responded; it is an oversight that Littleton was not
listed as part of the steering committee. Littleton did choose to participate and had a
representative at a number of the meetings. Littleton will be added to the steering
committee list within the Plan . Mr. Schum asked if Littleton is aware of the upgrades
needed at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Ms. Dannemiller stated she could not speak
for Littleton, but they have a copy of the Plan. If they have comments they would like to
add regarding the upgrades, the committee would be willing to consider those comments.
Chair Waggoner stated that in looking at the Plan he didn't see a lot regarding the use of
the river itself for canoes, boating, take in points, access points, etc. Mr. Wenk stated it is
the intent that water-based recreation be a part of the Plan and will look at the wording to
ensure it is explicitly stated in the Plan. Mr. Wenk stated the y looked at the Urban
Drainage Plan and it has specific recommendations . This Plan is compatible with those
recommendations, and perhaps they should be referenced more specifically.
Mr. Baur stated the South Platte Ri v er Recreation Plan , d o ne in 1995, was reviewed. Some
of the points in that Plan , which may or may not have been implemented over the years ,
are referenced in the South Platte River Open Space Plan. The 1995 Plan called for a trail
in the same location as the new Plan is recommending w hich is on the east side of the river
where there is currently an access road . Also the earlier Plan called for multiple boat shoots
to go through the drop structures, which have come to pass . The earlier Plan called for a
small linear park at Little Dry Creek, which is an improv ed drainage way, although there is
no access along the creek. Chair Waggoner stated it needed to be improved upon and add
some additional points; there is not enough in the current Plan to take full advantage of
what is available. Mr. Wenk stated he agreed.
Mr. Welker asked for more information on the wildlife habitat between the two halves of
the golf course. Mr. Wenk stated the Plan advocates a soft channel management
approach rather than riprap . Diverse stream bank vegetation provides better habitat and
will build on the habitat across the river from Bear Creek. Mr. Welker stated it is unique
because it is also wetland.
Mr. Schum stated the Plan does not call for low-income housing. He stated he sees the
Plan striping out a number of low-income housing. He has a fear that the redevelopment is
only about money and not redeveloping the area for everyone who is in the area currentl y.
He previously brought this issue forward, and it has never been addressed.
Ms. Dannemiller responded; one of the philosophies followed in redevelopment areas in
the Plan was to not be specific as to the redevelopment use . The market will decide what
happens in those areas, with the exception of the proposed open space. When potential
land becomes redevelopable and if affordable housing exists on that land, both Councils
would be very cognizant of the fact that they would be displacing low-income residents
8
•
•
•
and attempt to find additional properties which would accommodate their needs. It is no
different than any type of redevelopment effort which would potentially incur this situation .
It felt out of place in this Plan to get into a very specific objective and strategy for
placement of displaced affordable housing when that specific level of detail wasn 't given for
any type of use. Mr. Schum stated there are certain incentives in place for people to
redevelop and asked why incentives weren't in place to also encourage low-income
housing. Ms. Dannemiller stated the incentives can be used for any type of use, whether it
is redevelopment to a commercial use or to an affordable housing use. The City has
recognized it as a need and if there is an opportunity to redevelop a parcel to an affordable
housing use, the City would entertain the idea.
Mr. Welker asked if additional wording could be added so it could be discussed as one of
the modifications of the goals . Mr. Wenk stated it should be identified as a concern, and
there needs to be some careful evaluation of the social impacts of redevelopment. It seems
a mixed-use approach to development of the area is sensible. Mr. Wenk stated perhaps the
goals should be modified, which are important as a guide to how the Plan proceeds. Ms.
Dannemiller stated if it is the wish of the Commission to modify the goals, the Commi ssi on
can certainly make that recommendation when it makes a decision.
Mr. Adams asked how the areas marked for rede v elopment on the Open Space Map
would be acquired and converted. Ms. Dannemiller responded; depending on the market
conditions at the time, the vision was for the Plan to be market driven . The landowner
would initiate a conversation with the respective cities indicating an interest in redeveloping
the property to a higher and better use. From that point, it goes to a developer who is
interested in potentially purchasing the property and redeveloping it. If it is in an area
identified as open space and if funding is available, the local government may approach the
landowner to purchase the property, remediate some of the hazardous materials issues ,
and then turn it into park land . It depends on where the property lies. Again, the vision
was an owner initiated process and market driven . Mr. Adams confirmed the Plan is over a
25-year period . Ms. Dannemiller stated that was correct.
Chair Waggoner asked Mr. Brotzman what type of enforcement the Plan carries . Mr.
Brotzman stated it is a guiding tool. Chair Waggoner asked what happens if someone
wants to redevelop a parcel that is marked for open space. Mr. Brotzman stated there
would be a discussion of what the parcel could be and what the City would like it to be .
Chair Waggoner stated there is no control of the Plan similar to a Master Street Plan. Mr.
Brotzman stated that was correct.
Mr. Adams asked if the Plan could be amended throughout the process . Mr. Brotzman
stated that was correct. Mr. Wenk stated the Plan generally identifies opportunities, both in
terms of redevelopment and park. The committee tried to be as logical as possible. For
example, open space is on landfill which would have additional development costs . There
is incentive to develop a landfill as open space rather than a business use .
Mr. Welker stated the committee also looked at making obvious statements about land
adjoining the river. With regard to redevelopment, they looked at a little corridor which
9
•
•
•
abuts both the river and the property that could meet the overall goals of the Plan but not
inhibit the development and ownership rights of the property.
John F. Kent, 2400 West Oxford Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Kent stated he is the president
of Oxford Recycling. His family owns the 88-acre site ; and he is a tenant on the property.
There are several large tenants on the site that are present, and a number of smaller tenants
which are not present this evening . Prior to purchasing the property in 1979, the site was a
sanitary landfill operated by the City and County of Denver. At the time, a Waste
Management subsidiary was being paid to fill it. He has taken the site and developed it to
its highest use. To build on the site, would be very costly because caissons are needed
since settlement occurs when trash decomposes. There would need to be some type of
fac ility to mitigate methane gas w hich is a b y product of trash decomposition. As a result,
there are no permanent buildings on the site . The facilities are elevated with fans
underneath to mitigate the methane gas. Some of the facilities also have caissons goin g
down 65 feet through the trash into bedrock on which the heavy concrete crushing, asphalt
crushing, and tire recycling operations are located .
Mr. Kent continued; his company takes in asphalt, concrete, tires, and wood products. The
wood products consist of tree branches, forklift pallets, wooden fences , etc. His company
is an alternative to the landfill and at cost less than the landfill. Those products are then
recycled into road-building materials, new asphalt, landscaping materials, and landfill liner.
The tires are also shredded and burned at a cement kiln for increased BTU to supplement
lower grades of coal.
His operation and other tenants on the property, employ approximately 150 people on site .
During the busy summer months, there are close to 1,000 trucks a day crossing their gate .
It is an extremely busy site and cannot just move to another location. Special permits and
zoning are required for this ty pe of operation. His objection to the Plan are the bicycle
paths that cross into his facility . In order to operate his business, that type of interruption
cannot occur. If Quincy Avenue were to go all the way through, Denver Water Board has
an easement and there are 2 v er y large pipes which go through the property where there is
no trash . One pipe w as constructed in the 1960's, which is 5 foot in diameter; the other
pipe is 6 foot in diameter placed in the 1970's. These facilities supply half the water to the
Denver Metropolitan Area . One of the proposed bike paths crosses that section of the
property. His company is constantly crossing that easement. The easement grants him the
right to cross the property with heavy equipment, but vehicles cannot be parked on the
easement.
The other bike path comes in closer to the north of the property where a large asphalt plant
is located and is in the core of his loading facility . It is no place to put a park bench, nor is
it a place to have a barbeque or picnic. There is a lot of dust generated on the property
and is regulated by the Health Department with a dust permits . Water trucks are also on
site to mitigate some of the dust. A lot of the main thoroughfares around the property are
paved in either recycled asphalt or concrete to keep the dust to a minimum . The bottom
line is there is still dust on the property. There is also a lot of noise on the property because
of the crushing operations .
10
•
•
Mr. Kent stated to try to place these types of bike paths into his facility would actually
disrupt his business . At that point, his property would have to be acquired in its whole in
order to make the bike paths work. The facility would be extremely expensive to purchase
because his facility would need to be relocated to another property which has the correct
zoning. The only place that has the correct zoning is on the outskirts of the Denver
Metropolitan Area . His compan y provides a service that people want out of sight and out
of mind, but the problem is relocating them to the outskirts of town would greatly raise the
transportation cost to the facility . This would also create more problems for the brown
cloud and additional wear and tear on the streets. Because some of their permits were
obtained so long ago, there is no expiration date. Currentl y, a Certificate of Designation
from the State Health Department is granted in five year increments. His company's
permits have been grandfathered, and do not expire . In addition to finding a costl y piece
of property with proper zoning which would allow them permits to operate, there are a lot
of tenants on the site with extended lease agreements . Those leases would have to be
bought out as well. Mr. Kent stated the bottom line is it would be an extremel y costl y deal
to enter the property in an y form.
Mr. Kent further stated he attended both of the meetings last year where landscaping was
proposed along the borders of his property . He is not opposed to t hat idea; in fact, he is in
favor of the idea. He owns the property down to the ri v er's edge. Several years ago, he
leased the property back to the Core of Engineers for a dollar a y ear and allo w ed them to
use it since it is unusable property because it is on a slope. South Suburban came in w ith a
10,000 tree project and lined the backs of the river on the property. He would be more in
favor of participating in that ty pe of program, but coming onto the property with bike p aths
is not an option.
Because of the heavy truck tr affic, he assisted the City of Sheridan in obtainin g an 80
percent grant from the federal government to widen the bridge at Oxford. His father and
his company talked to several business owners along Oxford to obtain the other 20
percent to actually make the project happen . He has also helped Sheridan pave Cla y
Street to the maintenance facility last year, which was a $50,000 proj ect. His compan y's
contribution to the bridge project was approximately $100,000 . In December, his
company completed a $2.5 million expansion at the concrete crushin g facility because he
sees recycling being around for a while. All the products taken into his facility do not
decompose in a landfill.
Chair Waggoner asked if he would be in favor of the Plan if those two bike trails were
removed. Mr. Kent stated he would be in favor of the Plan if his property was not
impacted. In additional to the bike trails, the Plan calls for landscaping along the Platte
River which appears to be inside his property. The proposed landscaping is in an area that
is actuall y a concrete roadway where trucks line up to pull into the hot asphalt plant.
Therefore, the proposed landscaping would need to be scaled back.
• Ms. Lathram stated those areas were identified as proposed trails or proposed landscaping
only if the property was redeveloped . The City doesn 't want to take your property or run
11
•
•
•
trails through the middle of the property while trucks are going in and out. Perhaps some
wording could be changed if it would make people feel better. Mr. Kent stated he would
not be opposed to the idea if he decides to sell the property. He doesn't think that will
happen anytime soon. His long-term lease on the property is for 15 years because of the
$2.5 million expansion that was just completed. There are also tenants on the property
who are not in favor of moving.
Ms. Dannemiller responded; Ms. Lathram's comments are on point. A possible remedy is
to identify those "green fingers" as potential "green fingers" that could develop with the
redevelopment of the property. She pointed out that was the committee's intention; it was
never the intention to disrupt operations at Oxford Recycling for exactly the reasons
mentioned. Not many people are going to ride a bike through the middle of a crushing
facility . The committee was in oversight by not making it clearer in the Plan. Fifteen years is
a very workable timeframe; it is a 25 year Plan. If properties can redevelop in portions then
the areas are identified. Again, a possible solution is to identify those "green fingers " as
potential "green fingers when property redevelops. "
Chair Waggoner stated that comment would apply to any areas in the Plan. Mr. Wenk
stated all the "fingers" would only occur when the property redevelops. It is absurd to
think a bike trail could be placed through a junk yard or through any of the parcels in
current use. The Plan will be changed to show all the "green finger" connections
happening only when redevelopment occurs. Additionally, it was the intent of the Plan to
only show landscape buffering on the steep slope . It is not the intent to disrupt the
operations. Mr. Kent stated the property line was correct, and there is a sloped area inside
the corridor. Mr. Wenk stated the Plan takes advantage of an area that is currentl y not
being used. Mr. Kent stated he thought that was great and was all for that idea.
Mr. Welker stated the committee was trying to provide some east/west connections across
Sheridan for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Perhaps the Plan could strengthen that type of
use along Oxford rather than putting it through the property as well as south of the
property. Some of the parcels on the east side are smaller parcels where there is likel y
some demarcation a trail could be place along a property line. Mr. Kent's property is a
large parcel with multiple tenants. The committee did not have some of that input when
the Plan was developed . Mr. Welker asked if rail access existed to his property. Mr. Kent
responded; currently there is not a bridge because it was wiped out in the Flood of '65. He
actually has a right-of-way and could rebuild the bridge if he decided which would allow rail
access along the west side of Oxford. Most of his product comes in and back within a 30-
minute radius of the facility; it doesn't get railed anyway. Transportation costs would be
too great. Mr. Welker asked if there was already a right-of-way denoted. Mr. Kent
responded the right-of-way exists, but his company would need to pay for the
reconstruction of the bridge.
Mr. Schum stated it didn't appear there was much activity on the south end of the property.
Mr. Kent stated a recreational vehicle storage facility exists on the south end of the
property. There are steep banks on the south end of the property which he wouldn't be
opposed to landscaping. The south fence currently sits at the bottom of the bank on the
12
•
•
•
property line. Mr. Schum asked if he would be opposed to a small trail along the south end
of the property. Mr. Kent stated he didn't know how it would be facilitated since it is a
steep bank. It is not impossible to make the bank level, but digging in the bank could
expose trash. When he took the property, there was only a foot of dirt over the trash .
Since he has owned the property, he has added 8 feet of fill because of settlement. Mr.
Schum asked if methane gas comes out of the areas along the river edge. If a path were
constructed, would a lot of mitigation need to occur to protect the public from the
methane gas seeping out of those areas. Mr. Kent responded ; the methane gas can rise
into the air. Methane is light, lighter than air, so it readily blows away. There have been a
number of studies done that after a landfill becomes 25 years old, the trash decomposition
severel y slows down . At that point, the methane slows done as well . There is probabl y not
a lot of trash decomposition taking place in landfills, b ecause there needs to be air, water,
and sun. Most people throw their trash away in plastic bags which shut off any air, water,
or sun . From an explosion standpoint, as long as the methane is not in an enclosed
environment there doesn 't appear to be an y problem. Mr. Schum asked if methane
rec y clin g occurs on site. Mr. Kent stated it does not because collection tubes w ould need
to have been constructed when the landfill was built otherwise it is too costl y to go back
later.
Chair Waggoner stated the Commission would appreciate hearing from other members of
the audience if they have something different to voice . If they just wish to voice their
agreement with Mr. Kent, the Commission would appreciate their keeping their testimon y
to that agreement.
Ben Guerrero, 2100 West Oxford, was sworn in . Mr. Guerrero stated he is the general
manager for Western Metals Recycling, which is next to Oxford Rec y cling and has been at
that location for over 30 years . His company has owned it for 10 years and employ over
50 people, with an annual payroll of approximatel y $3 million. His operation is also
grandfathered in under existing recycling laws and exemptions . After doing some research ,
it has been determined there aren't any places inside the Denver Metropolitan Area where
his business can relocate without it being extremel y costly. Transportation is the ke y to his
industry; the facility needs to be close to the customers; and customers have to be able to
deliver their materials . His company services a large multi-state area ; however, over 50
percent of the business is from the Denver Metropolitan Area. Mr. Guerrero continued;
the facility is a viable, profitable operation. Most employees live in the Sheridan and
Englewood area; they don 't travel long distances to get to work. He is in favor of an y
development along the west side of the property and along the property Mr. Kent
mentioned, but he doesn 't see the landowners willingly giving up their properties for the
Plan. In talking with other businesses , there are over 200 jobs in the area which are at
stake.
Mr. Guerrero stated that 75 percent of the project is within the limits of Sheridan . He is
trying to understand how Englewood is planning to implement the Plan when most of the
people he has talked to at the Sheridan city offices are not in favor of the Plan or the scope
of the Plan.
13
•
•
Mr. Welker confirmed that Mr. Guerrero's property is east of the river, south of Oxford .
Mr. Guerrero stated his business is directly across from the golf course along the river. He
further stated his facility is either bermed or has a concrete curb around the property so
there is no discharge into the river. Mr. Schum asked if there were monitoring wells on the
property. Mr. Guerrero responded no; the property is fully concreted. The concrete ranges
from 8 inches to 36 inches thick.
Floyd Hunt, 2600 West Oxford Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Hunt stated he is the manager
of Renewable Fiber and is one of the Mr. Kent's tenants. He has looked at other places to
open other yards. There is no property available for his type of business. People have
made comments about how ugly the Oxford facility is, but he is in the landscape supply
business which supplies landscaping materials to beautify the City of Denver.
Mr. Schum asked if Mr. Hunt felt there were a lot of ways to beautify the industrial setting
through enhancements along the perimeter so the properties didn't have the reputation he
mentioned. Mr. Hunt stated he spoke with Mr. Kent regarding that issue . The operations
are so large ; the pile for the raw product of colored mulch is 60 feet high. If someone
considered it ugly, he doesn 't know how it could be covered up.
Alice Corns, 2151 West Radcliff Avenue was sworn in. Ms . Corns stated she represents
various parcel owners in the area, especially close to the potential Park B where the City
wants to take 3 7 acres. This includes Hornet Enterprises, Radcliff Properties, Radcliff
Southeast Properties, and 2150 Radcliff Properties. All these landowners are within the
City of Sheridan . The only thing they have in common with the City of Englewood is they
have to use the Englewood's zip code. She stated the landowners are concerned about
how they found out about the Plan and why it is not being hearing at the City of Sheridan.
They feel threatened once again by Englewood . In 1984, the landowners gave up a sizable
amount of land to the Arm y Core of Engineers for flood control and recreation . The area
on the east and west side of the river was dedicated for those uses. Ever y one is for the
river, cleaning up the river and the trails, maintaining and possibly expanding what currently
exists. The area already promotes recreation and it does not need to be promoted by
redevelopment.
Ms. Corns continued; she went through the entire Plan, and with regard to Park B, it
specificall y states it is just a few landowners . The Plan states it is only 3 sites or landowners.
According to Arapahoe County's web site , it is physically 10 different parcels with 4 or
more property owners. Some of the property owners have owned their property for
multiple years . An acquisition price of $2 .04 million is shown on page 52. According to
Arapahoe County's assessor 's office, the total assessed value for 2002 for the parcels,
which by state law is effective June 30, 2002, is $2.7 million. She believes Englewood is
considering condemnation. Englewood has done it in the past and will do it in the future.
Englewood says it won 't use condemnation, but no one is going to trust that statement.
The golf course and the ball field are prime examples.
• When the public notice was sent only to the property owners and it was called the South
Platte River Plan, everyone thinks it's for the land already dedicated on the river . The Plan
14
•
•
•
has nothing to do with the property that is dedicated to the river now. It is to expand and
redevelop a huge amount of area outside the Cit y of Englewood . Ms . Corns stated she
finds it very interesting that on page 49 of the Plan , it talks about Sheridan and Englewood
partnering and should consider revenue sharing. She questioned that Englewood wants to
share revenue with Sheridan . She believes the entire Plan is about money; money for
Englewood. Some of the businesses have existed for over 40 years, and are not going to
go away. Some people loosely use the word "junkyard"; she begged the Commission to
educate themselves about auto recyclers . Everyone has cars; they all have to go
somewhere; they all have a process to go through ; and they all get recycled . There is a
definite difference between a junkyard and an auto recycler .
She, and the businesses she represents, more than object to the Plan. There is already
adequate river land on both the east and west side. Englewood and Sheridan can improve
the existing land, but Englewood cannot come in as a threat. Englewood has not hesitated
to condemn; and as loosely as it was indicated earlier that Englewood won't condemn, ten
years from now Englewood will condemn. Ms . Corns further stated that if Park B were
removed from the Plan , she still would not support it. If Englewood wants to improve the
river and access to the river , she suggested adding an additional bike path or double the
size of the existing bike path. Englewood should work with what it has , but don't tr y to
take away people's lands to accomplish revenue sharing .
Ms. Dannemiller responded; she noted there was cooperation between Sheridan and
Englewood. She stated she had a letter which was presented to the City of Englewood by
the City of Sheridan, dated September 12, 2002 and signed by Randy Young , the former
City Administrator, which reads :
"On behalf of th e City of Sheridan , please accept this letter in support of the City of
Engl e wood's grant application for development of the South Platt e River and Santa Fe
Corridor Plan .
The City of Sheridan and City of Englewood hav e been working cooperatively over the
past several years to understand the is sues involved in a county-wide open space
discussion. Your efforts to partner with other interested parties will ensure that a
compre hensive and publicly supported plan will develop. We look forward to being
part of this exciting planning process and know the outcome will benefit not only
Englewood, Sheridan , and Western Arapahoe County residents but also regional
interests who depend on the viability of this natural resource.
Since many of the project boundaries of the South Platte River wind through both
Sheridan and Englewood, cooperation on this project is imperative . The City of
Sheridan is plea sed to offer staff support towards this project, where needed, and will
be an active partner in the steering committee.
Again, please accept our wholehearted support in your efforts, and we look forward
to hearing of the successful outcome of your project. 11
15
•
•
•
Ms. Dannemiller continued; Englewood recognizes that there has been an administration
change within the City of Sheridan. Throughout the entire steering committee process,
Sheridan participated through their Administrator. Further, staff met with Sheridan's
administration to inform them of Englewood's willingness to accept any input. She
reiterated that the process is to go to the City of Englewood Planning Commission, meet
with the City of Sheridan attempting to gain some level of agreement, prior to returning to
the City Councils to gain a long-term agreement between the organizations.
Ms . Lathram asked if the cities around Englewood have similar Plans. Ms. Dannemiller
stated the Englewood/Sheridan area is an important link between the Littleton and Denver
Plans. It is obvious to look at some of the areas within Littleton and within Denver and
know they have made considerable efforts for upgrading those corridors, which was the
impetus for generating this Plan initially. There are areas within the corridor that could
potentially be upgraded and improve it as a regional amenity. Ms. Lathram asked if the
Commission agreed, could a statement be added that condemnation would not be a viable
option. Ms. Dannemiller responded that if that was the recommendation of the
Commission, it could be placed in the document.
Mr. Schum asked if the new Sheridan administration fully supports the letter Ms.
Dannemiller read into the record. Ms. Dannemiller stated her intent for reading the letter
was to show there was an effort to cooperate with the City of Sheridan. They made an
effort to let the committee know they would like to cooperate. The letter was written
under the previous administration . Even though the administration changed and there has
been some turnover in their Council, it has continued to be looked at as a joint Plan . It is
recognized that the City of Sheridan has goals which may be somewhat different, which
was referenced earlier with regard to the conversation she had with Jim Sidebottom, who is
the new Sheridan City Administrator. It was conveyed to Mr. Sidebottom that the
committee would be more than willing to look at some of the redevelopment plans they
are proposing which could potentially be changed within the area and would make the
Plan better. It does not make a lot of sense to ask for endorsement of a Plan which will
change within the next six months due to available redevelopment opportunities to either
Englewood or Sheridan . The Corridor cannot improve if it is not a cooperative effort.
Mr. Schum asked if the new administration endorses the Plan. Ms. Dannemiller stated
Sheridan 's administration should answer that question .
Chair Waggoner asked if Sheridan had a representative on the committee. Ms.
Dannemiller stated Patrick Goff, the Assistant City Administrator, was on the committee
until he was no longer in the City's employment. After his departure, Sheridan's
representatives were at the August 21 meeting. There was also an individual meeting with
their administration to attempt to gather their input, which is were some of the adjustments
in the Oxford property and the Hampden West came into being. If Sheridan still has more
concerns which they would like to incorporate, and if they haven't been heard fully, then
that is the purpose of the public hearing .
16
•
•
•
Mary Carter, 3195 South Clay Street was sworn in. Ms. Carter stated she is the Mayor of
Sheridan, and the City of Sheridan has some major concerns regarding the proposed South
Platte River Open Space Plan. Circumstances over the past year have focused the time and
energies of the City of Sheridan in other directions. Consequently, very little time and input
has been made in this Plan up to this point. Considering that the bulk of the Plan within the
City of Sheridan, she feels it is imperative that Sheridan's concerns be given voice.
Sheridan has been working with the Colorado Department of Local Affairs for over a year
and a half in their program entitled "CANDO." As part of this program, Sheridan started
looking at the preparation of a new Comprehensive Plan approximately a year ago. The
City is just now at the stage of hiring a company to prepare the Comprehensive Plan;
thanks in part to grants from DOLA and CDBG. The existing, outdated Sheridan
Comprehensive Plan was produced in 1986. The Comprehensive Plan could be finished in
six months.
Ms. Carter continued; the City recently undertook consideration of creating a Urban
Renewal Authority designed to identify and implement economic development within the
City. The vision at this time is retail development which will bring much needed revenue to
Sheridan to enhance the health, welfare, and safety of its citizens. Some of the area initially
to be considered by the Urban Renewal Authority lies within the Plan. Given that the area
involved in the Plan is predominately within the City of Sheridan and given the steps being
taken at this time to ascertain the highest and best uses of the property within its borders, it
would appear to be prudent that approval of the Plan by the City of Englewood be
postponed until the City of Sheridan has had a chance to complete its Comprehensive Plan,
review the same, and come back to the table fully informed as to the best uses of the
property under discussion. Sheridan wholeheartedly agrees with the concept of a publicly
supported vision for the parks, open space, and trails along the South Platte River/Santa Fe
Corridor. However, the best interest of the Sheridan citizens will be served by further study
of the potential uses of the property within Sheridan's borders and coordination of the
Comprehensive Plan with the Open Space Plan. She expressed regret that Sheridan's input
into the current Plan has been minimal, but additional information available through the
new Comprehensive Plan would be an invaluable resource to the process and needs to be
considered before final approval by all parties involved is made. On behalf of the Sheridan
citizens, she respectfully requests the Commission's favorable consideration of this request
for a postponement of any approval and pledges full support in the efforts to coordinate
reasonable land use planning within the South Platte River Corridor.
Ms. Lathram asked Ms. Carter whether she was opposed to the location of the
redevelopment, because the Plan does not indicate the type of redevelopment if the
parcels ever become available. Ms. Carter responded; Sheridan's Comprehensive Plan is
from 1986 and is outdated. Sheridan doesn't know what the highest and best uses for that
property are, and she would like to see the new Comprehensive Plan before they make any
type of agreement to the Plan which has been proposed through the process thus far.
Within the last week, she has talked to every City Council member and every Planning
Commission member currently with the City of Sheridan. None of those members have
participated in the process. She saw a memo from Ms. Dannemiller dated in September
which indicated the Plan would be presented to the Sheridan Planning Commission in
17
•
•
•
October. None of the Planning Commissioners have seen it. The City Manager received a
copy of the Plan , but no one else saw the Plan . She stated Sheridan is not being full y
informed and she doesn 't understand why.
Mr. Welker stated he was on the steering committee, and the committee did try to
communicate with Sheridan's administration. The committee solicited input not onl y from
the city government, but also from landowners. Sheridan's input is invaluable, and a delay
may need to be considered . Ultimately the Plan will not be successful until there is a
"meeting of the minds ", particularly from the residents Ms. Carter represents.
Ms. Carter stated she agreed wholeheartedly which is why Sheridan 's City Council
members are at the meeting in full forc e. They do not have a strong objection to the vision .
They do not have the background information to make a judgment. She stated she doesn 't
like making judgments when she isn 't full y informed. Since the City is in the process of
developing a Comprehensive Plan and starting an Urban Renewal Authority, there are a lot
of things which need to be taken into consideration . Sheridan 's su ggestion is to postpone
any approval until some of those pieces of the puzzle are put into place and on the table.
She stated she wasn 't certain why there wasn't more input, but the current City Council
intends to have as much input as Englewood can handle .
Ms. Krieger asked how long Sheridan would want the Plan postponed . Ms. Carter stated
they haven 't hired the consultant to develop the Comprehensive Plan ; the y have heard a
few presentations. She was told it could be completed in as little as six months. Mr.
Welker stated it will probably take longer; Englewood has been reviewing its
Comprehensive Plan for a long time.
Mr. Schum asked if it would aid the City of Sheridan if the Plan were scaled back to only
properties within Englewood and asked Sheridan how they wanted to fit in . Ms. Carter
stated she understood there were grant monies put together in order to stud y the entire
area . Ms. Dannemiller stated Great Outdoors Colorado supplied funding and Arapahoe
County CDBG supplied funds as well. Ms. Carter stated it doesn 't make sense to her to
throw the entire Plan out with the "bath water." If Englewood prefers to approve the
sections of the Plan which only relate to Englewood, that is up to Englewood. The City of
Sheridan would still like to be a part of the process ; however, there are priorities that
Sheridan needs address before they can make a decision to approve the Plan or making
modifications to it. Mr. Schum asked whether she felt Sheridan should be more in control
of the Plan than Englewood. Ms . Carter stated she does feel that way.
Tim Soule, 2045 West Union Avenue was sworn in. Mr. Soule stated he and his family own
approximately 5 acres near Union Avenue which is in the area designated as Park B. He
attended the first meeting and understood the timeline for the Plan was 20-25 years . The
Plan states the first priority is to acquire the park area and open space within a 5 year
period. Mr. Soule asked if that was a correct assumption . Ms. Dannemiller stated there are
phased elements of the Plan , and the range of all those elements could take place over 25
y ears. Mr. Soule stated he would talk to Park B which affects him the most. He asked if the
assumption was that he should be looking for a different location and whether Englewood
18
•
•
•
will be attempting to negotiate on his property within the next five years. Ms. Dannemiller
stated if the funding were available, acquisition of park land might be one of the first action
items. There is a detailed process for determining what lands will be looked at first based
on a number of criteria . In terms of acquiring park land, it has not been decided yet
whether it is Park A, Park B, Trail B, or Trail C.
Referring to page 52 of the Plan, Mr. Soule stated Park B, which is 3 7 acres, is estimated at
$2.04 million which is roughly $55,000 an acre. He has invested approximately $2 .5
million in his 5-acre parcel. There is not enough money in the estimate to cover his
property. For the Planning Commission to gain a proper perspective of the actual cost,
$2.04 million does not come close; $6 million to $8 million is more accurate. Mr. Soule
continued; the Plan shows his land as landfill. He has occupied the property since 1972,
and this is the first time he has heard the property is on a landfill. Eight buildings exist on
the property. When the Littleton Interceptor Sewer Line was constructed through the
property, the engineers hit solid rock at 6 feet.
Mr. Baur stated the information regarding the landfill boundaries is based on rather rough
diagrams acquired from Arapahoe County. In the Plan, it is stated those boundaries need
to be verified. The estimates are another instance where very rough numbers were applied
as seen through the Denver Metro Area in general for properties which have been acquired
by Park Districts. Admittedly, it is a very rough figure and everyone's input is very much
appreciated. Mr. Soule stated the committee needs to know those figures are very low.
Mr. Wenk stated it is the intent to target those areas which are very difficult to develop and
the line needs to be refined. Mr. Soule stated it is unsettling when he sees a 5-year timeline
and an estimate which is unrealistic. Mr. Wenk stated his point was well taken.
Mr. Soule stated in 2002 his company spent over $1 million refurbishing and cleaning up
the property. Four tenants exist on the property with approximately 200 employees
working on site. If he had been allowed, he would have demolished all the buildings and
started from "scratch ." There is an Englewood water line which runs down the middle of
Union Avenue; if he could have tied onto that line, he would have been allowed to develop
his area . However, his compan y is not allowed to tie into that line because he is not
located in the City of Englewood. The Public Works Department will not allow users on the
line that are not part of the City of Englewood . He asked if that problem was addressed
and whether the City was planning on annexing the area. The area is prime for
redevelopment, but can 't happen without the water. Denver water is too far away, and the
City of Englewood will not allow the water to come into the property to achieve the
redevelopment discussed in the Plan.
Ms. Dannemiller asked Mr. Brotzman if there currently was an Ordinance which prohibits
extension of waterlines outside the city limits and could it be amended. Her understanding
is it could be amended if the City endorsed a plan that recommended an extension. Mr.
Brotzman stated the Water and Sewer Board does not allow service outside the city limits.
It has been a long standing policy, which could be changed but it hasn't in a decade .
19
•
•
Ms. Dannemiller stated one of the goals of endorsement of the Plan was that the policy be
revisited, knowing the area would not redevelop without the water extension from the City
of Englewood which is counterintuitive to the process. One of the recommendation would
be to work with the Water and Sewer Board to gain an exception to their policy for the
Plan to go forward.
Mr. Schum asked if Cherry Hills was serviced by Englewood water. Mr. Brotzman
responded Cherry Hills has a water district which has served their community for a number
of years. Mr. Schum asked if that was before the Water and Sewer Board policy. Mr.
Brotzman stated that was correct.
Mr. Soule stated the owners of the 3 7-acre parcel are not in agreement that the area should
be turned into open space or parks unless they are adequately compensated . They are also
not in agreement with the 5-year plan, and the estimates need to be revisited.
Ms. Dannemiller confirmed that Mr. Soule was not in agreement with the 5-year plan; she
asked if there was an y timeframe within the 25-year period where he would enter
negotiations for redevelopment. Mr. Soule stated he did not have a timeframe .
Chanele Beacham , 3601 South King Street was sworn in. Ms. Beacham stated she is a
member of the Sheridan City Council. She agrees with Mayor Carter; the biggest problem
is the majority of the Plan is within the City of Sheridan , and yet it is being discussed at the
City of Englewood. Sheridan is standing behind its residents and business owners. She
feels it is Sheridan's place to decide what happens in their city, and not Englewood 's.
Ms. Krieger asked Mr. Brotzman whether or not Englewood had condemnation rights in the
City of Sheridan . Mr. Brotzman stated there is a 3-mile rule for parks, and in fact Centennial
Ball Field is actually within the City of Sheridan . The City of Englewood may condemn
outside its boundaries, especially for park properties, but the Plan is not proposing that
option. Mr. Schum asked if that was state law or Englewood law. Mr. Brotzman responded
it was state law. Ms . Lathram asked if every city had that capability . Mr. Brotzman clarified
that Home Rule municipalities have that power.
Steve Orzynski, 1426 Bellaire Street was sworn in. Mr. Orzynski stated he has done work
for Oxford Recycling and Kent Land Limited over the past few years . The landowners and
tenants provide many valuable services, and the Plan would have severe impacts on them.
There is a limited amount of industrial land within the Cities of Englewood and Sheridan .
This Plan would significantly carve into those industrial uses. Everyone has heard that
condemnation is an unacceptable alternative to acquiring the lands, but he would also like
to hear that redevelopment sometimes is code for condemnation. There are other activities
which could take place instead of condemnation which would have the same impact, such
as rezoning or some other takings activity. Some of the Plan, even though it is long term in
nature, could have very disruptive, even fatal, impacts on the landowners and tenants.
• Bill Brown, 6691 South Hill Way was sworn in. Mr. Brown stated he has been a resident of
Littleton since 1981 and has been associated with the Kent property since 1981. He uses
20
•
•
•
the Platte River Corridor and it is a wonderful regional resource . The heavy industrial uses
are also a regional resource . Mr. Brown stated his company is in Unincorporated Arapahoe
County surrounded by the Cities of Sheridan and Englewood. It is the only location within
a 10-15 mile radius where these activities can occur. He doesn't believe there is any land
in Englewood or in Sheridan where the activities could be replaced . The industrial areas
provide a service and a product which is needed. If that area is taken away through
rezoning, direct condemnation, or other means, the resources can be obtained through
other sources . However, it will have negative impacts on city budgets, property owners
that need the materials to maintain their properties, and city maintenance departments who
maintain the roads and infrastructure. It also would have a negative impact on the air
quality and traffic congestion. Currently the facility in the southwest quadrant of the city
serves thousands of people, approximately 100,000 of whom are Englewood, Littleton and
Sheridan residents. He asked the Commission to keep that in mind when it was
considering actions that would impact the ability to provide these services.
Mr. Schum asked Mr. Brown if he had been updated on the Plan as a citizen of Littleton.
Mr. Brown stated the first he heard about the Plan was the day before.
Mr. Don Smith , 3330 South Cla y Street was sworn in. Mr. Smith stated he is the May or Pro
Tern for the City of Sheridan. Tw o-thirds of the Plan is located in the City of Sheridan , and it
should be a Sheridan decision. Last year, the City of Sheridan became home rule, so
condemnation is completely out. Therefore, this Plan will need to be accomplished
cooperativel y. He agrees with May or Carter, there are a number of issues Sheridan is
currently working on. He suggested putting the Plan on the "back burner" until Sheridan
completes their plans .
Chair Waggoner asked Mr. Smith that ev en though he is a member of Sheridan City
Council, he had not heard of the Plan until now. Mr. Smith stated he just learned about the
Plan last week through Council w oman Beacham. Apparentl y some of the former
employ ees didn 't keep Council informed . He stated he would like to see a joint meeting
of the two Planning Commissions and two City Councils to discuss the Plan. He would like
to see a greenbelt through the area, but it has to be for the advantage of everyone .
Dallas Hall was sworn in . Mr. Hall stated he is a member of the Sheridan City Council. He
is also the Planning Commission chair and serves on the Board of Directors for the South
Suburban Parks Foundation, which has also been involved in the Plan. As a part of the
Foundation, he encourages any type of parks and trails; however, taking businesses is not a
good idea. Mr. Hall stated he would like it if Oxford Recycling were not at their current
location, but he recognizes the company is not going away. He appreciates the
cooperation Mr. Kent prov ides to the City of Sheridan. It would be nice to put a path
through Mr. Kent's property, but if it doesn 't work then it doesn't work. Mr. Hall
continued; the cart has gotten ahead of the horse. Notices were sent out to businesses
which informed them of the Plan and it has gotten a few people angry; whereas if the
meeting could have occurred between the two cities first it could have possibly prevented
the anger and opposition . He admitted that Sheridan has not been informed of the
process . He was aware of meetings on the Plan , but didn't understand the magnitude.
21
•
•
•
Chair Waggoner asked Mr. Hall if he had heard about the Plan through South Suburban.
Mr. Hall responded that he had heard about the Plan and knew there were meetings;
however, he didn't know the magnitude. Mr. Schum asked how long it will take to
complete the Sheridan Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hall responded it could possibly take two
years. Mr. Welker stated it takes a lot of time . Chair Waggoner stated Sheridan's
Comprehensive Plan is newer than Englewood's . Ms. Krieger stated Englewood hasn't
updated their Comprehensive Plan since 1979. Mr. Welker stated Englewood is further
along in bringing it together. Mr. Hall stated the entire project will take a long time. The
redevelopment along the South Platte River Corridor will not happen any time soon . It will
be great for his grandchildren. Currently, he believes the Plan is going too fast.
Chair Waggoner stated he doesn 't believe it's redevelopment, but rather a vision. Even the
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's plan in 1985 was a vision. Some of that Plan
has still not taken place . He thinks people are wrong when they talk about the Plan being
redevelopment. Mr. Hall stated it is more appropriate to term it as a vision. Mr. Schum
asked Mr. Hall if he has heard it spoken as redevelopment throughout the evening. Mr.
Hall stated it has been referred to as redevelopment, and perhaps if it were emphasized as
a vision, people wouldn't be so upset.
Mr. Welker stated the Plan did not originally start out with the intention of redevelopment
being as large. As the committee received input, they realized redevelopment would be
part of the Plan . As they looked at access along and through the river, as well as improving
street access and utilities to make the river viable, the committee had to add more
redevelopment area than they originally intended. The initial Plan focused more on the
river. In his mind, keepii1g the river open and viable needs to be addressed now. It is not
all about beautification; it is about access, use, and protecting the river before it goes down
further. When the committee was developing the Plan, they were looking at themselves
using the river and future inhabitants of both cities using the river. Personally, he is not in
favor of removing the industrial area ; it is important for the balance of the two
communities. Mr. Welker stated he doesn't believe the highest and best use is turning the
area into high-rise apartments and creating retail spaces. They carry other issues with them
and need to be planned. As Sheridan develops its Comprehensive Plan, it needs to see
what any type of use will do to traffic patterns and the way people live. It is not a simple
procedure. The committee attempted to gain input; they thought they were receiving
input; obviously they didn 't. Mr. Welker stated he would not support the idea of taking
people's property. Englewood needs to work with Sheridan's new government. The idea is
the overall Plan is a vision, but there are parts to it which should be considered. Mr.
Welker stated there has been a lot of transition at Sheridan, and appreciates the dialogue
and wished the committee could have received it a year ago. Mr. Welker stated the area
has been neglected.
Ben Guerrero readdressed the Commission. Mr. Guerrero stated everyone seems to be
willing to work on the land along the river. Englewood will be in for a fight to implement
beyond that scope. None of the landowners want to see the businesses go away.
22
•
•
•
Clifford Mueller was sworn in. Mr. Mueller stated he is councilman for Ward 1 of the City
of Sheridan . At the time the Plan started , he was the Chair of Planning Commission until
Mr. Hall was elected. The Planning Commission never heard of the Plan. Englewood's
Planning Commission Chair should have contacted him as Chair of Sheridan's Planning
Commission to discuss the Plan before a steering committee was formed and a Plan
developed, rather than saying "to hell with you." Mr. Mueller stated he doesn 't understand
why Sheridan is the only place for something to happen . Englewood took property for the
ball field and golf course. Sheridan seems to be giving to Englewood all the time. Mr. Hall
stated he received something back. He went to the auction and purchased the show
wagon for $510, which is the only positive for the City of Sheridan.
Mr. Schum moved;
Ms. Krieger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CP 2003-01 be closed.
AYES :
NAYS:
Adams, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Roth, Schum , Waggoner, Welker
None
ABSTAIN : None
ABSENT: Diekmeier
Mr. Schum moved; The Commission den y the South Platte River Open Space Plan .
Motion died for lack of a second .
Mr . Welker moved ;
Ms . Mueller seconded : To table any action on Case #CP 2003-01 .
Mr. Welker stated there needs to be more communication before the Plan is approved .
Mr. Adams asked for clarification on the motion. Mr. Welker stated any action would be
tabled, meaning it wouldn 't be discussed again, until the Plan is brought back with some of
the issues resolved. Chair Waggoner asked Mr. Brotzman how the matter would be
brought back to the Commission. Mr. Brotzman stated it would take three-quarters of the
Commission to bring the issue back. Chair Waggoner stated the case could be postponed
to a date certain. Mr. Brotzman stated that was correct, and the case would then simply
come back on that date. Ms. Lathram asked if it would be postponed to a public hearing or
a discussion . Chair Waggoner stated it could be postponed to a date certain and the case
would then come before the Commission on that date for their discussion. Mr . Brotzman
stated the public hearing was closed; but it could be reopened if the Commission chose to
do so. Mr . Welker stated his intention in tabling the case was the Plan needs additional
work at the administrative level. Mr. Welker stated he doesn 't want Sheridan to feel
Englewood is trying to "ramrod " the Plan , because that is not the intent.
Mr . Welker moved;
Ms. Mueller seconded: To amend the motion to postpone a decision in Case #CP
2003-01 to a date certain, May 20, 2003 .
23
• Mr. Schum asked whether people wou ld feel the Commission would bring the matter up
before that time when no one is watching. Mr. Brotzman stated it is postponed to a
specific date, and the case won't be heard before that time.
Ms . Lathram stated she is frustrated; she thought there was cooperation from the beginning,
but it appears something fell through the cracks. She doesn't feel Englewood would have
spent as much time looking at the Plan if they knew there wasn't cooperation from
Sheridan. She stated she would like to see the notification process changed in the future.
She doesn 't want to see the Plan die; there is some good that can be accomplished for the
Platte River and the Corridor.
Mr. Schum stated he feels doing anything with the South Platte is a great idea, but when he
reads through the Plan, listens to the Sheridan residents and business owners, and doesn't
see anyone from the City of Englewood, it upsets him. He feels the Plan is more
Englewood bullying another city into doing its bidding. He feels it is a bad Plan; it has great
issues, but it is ridiculous what Englewood has asked of another city to go along with.
Mr. Welker stated that is not what happened. The steering committee never tried to bull y
anyone. He was involved in the process and believed there was full cooperation. The
committee couldn 't force people from Sheridan to attend the meetings. Sheridan had
problems with their administration which are being resolved. He doesn 't want to see the
Plan thrown away.
• Mr. Schum thanked Mr. Welker for the time he spend on the committee, and there are
great ideas in the Plan. However, he is hurt by the general premise.
•
Mr. Adams asked if there would be any continued wo rk on the Plan before the meeting in
May. Mr. Brotzman stated with Sheridan just starting their planning process, the
Commiss ion will probably hear a report on how the two cities are coordinating and how
the planning process is progressing.
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT :
Adams , Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Roth , Waggoner, Welker
Schum
None
Diekmeier
The motion carried.
IV. FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME
Case #CU 2003-01
4620 South Lipan Street
Chair Waggoner stated the issue before the Commission is a Public Hearing for a
Conditional Use to allow a Family Child Care Home at 4620 South Lipan Street, which is
located in a R 1 A zone district. He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing.
24
•
•
• Traffic created by parents will not interfere with regular street traffic for prolonged
periods of time.
• Noise levels will not interfere with the tranquility of the neighborhood.
• The applicant provide written notification to surrounding households by petition.
• The applicant adheres to the requirements listed above.
These criteria are administered by the Code Enforcement Division. Through research, staff
has determined the above criteria has been met by the applicant; and therefore, staff
recommends the Commission approve the Conditional Use application to locate a Family
Child Care Home at 4620 South Lipan , within the R 1 A Single Family Residence District with
the following condition:
• The applicant provide the City of Englewood a copy of the State of Colorado license
approving the applicant to operate a Family Child Care Home within the State of
Colorado.
Chair Waggoner asked when the process was started for family daycare in the R 1 A district.
Mr. Fruchtl stated the provisions were put into place in 1998. Chair Wa ggoner asked if the
daycare facility was currentl y in operation.
Lori Burge, 4620 South Lipan Street, was sworn in . Ms. Burge stated her license is pending
appro v al of the Conditional Use. She has been issued a temporary license. Chair
Waggoner asked the applicant to present her case. Ms. Burge stated Mr. Fruchtl presented
her case very well. Ms. Burge stated she has been approved b y the State for her license,
but is waiting for approval from the Commission on the Conditional Use Application . Chair
Waggoner stated the use is not allowed in the R 1 A zone district. Mr. Fruchtl responded
that it is not a use by right, but is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Welker confirmed a da y care did not currentl y exist at 46 2 0 South Lipan . Ms. Burge
stated that was correct. Mr. Welker asked why the neighbor to the north didn 't want to
talk about the situation. Ms. Burge responded that neighbor indicated she didn 't want
an y thing to do with the petition .
Chair Waggoner stated it appeared the neighbor at 4601 South Kalamath Street was not
contacted; however, the neighbor at 4665 South Lipan Street was contacted. Chair
Waggoner stated 4601 South Kalamath Street appears to be within the radius of the
property. Mr. Fruchtl responded that in reviewing the application, staff determined the
circular radius was achieved. The applicant went above and beyond the criteria by
receiving a signature from 4665 South Kalamath Street. The circular radius encompasses
4611 , 4645, 4655 South Kalamath Street and 4610, 4611 , and 4630 South Lipan Street.
Chair Waggoner clarified that the applicant did not need a signature from 4665 South Lipan
Street. Mr. Fruchtl stated that was correct.
Ms. Lathram asked if the neighbor at 4610 South Lipan Street was given notice of the date
for the public hearing. Ms. Burge stated the neighbor was not notified; she was not aware
of the public hearing date when she approached that neighbor with the petition. She made
26
•
•
the neighbor aware that there would eventually be a public hearing, but didn't know the
actual date. Ms. Lathram confirmed with staff that proper notice was given. Mr. Fruchtl
stated proper notice was achieved by the Notice of Public Hearing published in the
Englewood Herald.
Welker moved:
Mueller seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #CU 2003-01 be closed.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Adams, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Roth, Schum, Waggoner, Welker
None
None
Diekmeier
The motion carried .
Chair Waggoner asked the pleasure of the Commission.
Schum moved:
Krieger seconded: To approve the Conditional Use Application in Case #CU 2003 -01 to
locate a Family Child Care Home (daycare ) at 4620 South Lipan
Street, within the R 1 A Single Family Residence Di strict with the
following condition:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
1. The applicant provides the City of Englewood a copy of the
permanent State of Colorado license approving the applicant
to operate a Family Child Care Home (day care) within the
State of Colorado.
Adams, Krieger, Lathram, Mueller, Roth , Schum , Welker
Waggoner
None
Diekmeier
The motion carried.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
No one was present to address the Commission.
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Ms. Dannemiller stated the next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Tuesday,
March 4 . It will be a study session to further discuss the Unified Development Code .
27
• VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Mr. Brotzman stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission.
VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Chair Waggoner asked if members of the Commission had anything they wished to bring
forward for discussion .
Mr. Schum stated tonight's public hearing made Englewood look like a "bad neighbor."
The City needs to try to bring in its neighbors rather than pushing them away. Chair
Waggoner stated he believed that was done.
Ms . Krieger stated the committee attempted to gather input from the City of Sheridan . She
firmly believes the majority of the problems were created b y Sheridan 's own internal
turmoil and not be any lack of effort b y the steering committee. It is unfortunate it
happened, but it is not the City of Englewood shoving things down Sheridan 's throat or not
caring about their input. Ms. Krieger further stated she agrees with Mr. Welker; just
because Sheridan cannot support the Plan right now, we shouldn 't throw away the entire
Plan and start over. Sheridan can work with the committee to develop workable ideas and
modify the existing Plan.
Mr. Welker stated this was the most cooperative effort he has ever seen. The attempts to
gather input and communicate were there . Mr. Welker stated he was at the meetings
when Sheridan representatives were in attendance, and they were sitting in their corner
talking about it. The committee did not receive as much negative feedback as was heard
during the public hearing. Sheridan City Council never attended the meetings . We are not
responsible to call their Planning Commission. Staff notified their government. People
from other government agencies attended -Denver, Littleton, Arapahoe County. There
was more than one representative from those agencies. He stated he doesn 't feel
Englewood did a bad job. He doesn't take responsibility for Sheridan not knowing about
the Plan , and staff shouldn 't feel responsible either. There is work to do, but he doesn 't
want to throw it away and then talk about it in another 20 y ears.
Ms . Dannemiller responded ; she appreciates that sentiment. There was an extreme change
in Sheridan 's administration . A number of residents who spoke in opposition to the Plan
were at the original open houses. Their City Council knew about the Plan. She did a
presentation to the Sheridan City Council specifically when the process began . She did a
presentation to Tri-Cities a year ago, which she will be doing again. She believes the
opposition has to do with the change in their administration and elected officials. A three-
month delay is actually what she had envisioned happening when she recommended going
to the Sheridan Planning Commission and then moving forward. Therefore, the delay is not
a bad recommendation. The Plan will not be good without Sheridan's buy-in.
• Mr. Schum stated his problem is the majority of the Plan is in Sheridan, not Englewood.
Ms. Dannemiller responded the planning was done in a joint effort because it is both in
28
•
•
Sheridan and Englewood . It is approximately 60 % Sheridan, 40% Englewood . The Plan
could not be taken on as an "Englewood Plan " simply because of the overlapping
boundaries, which was Sheridan 's position as well. One city is probably going to have
more area in a Plan, which we have no control over. The method of controlling it is by
obtaining their input on the recommended Plan.
Chair Waggoner stated even though the golf course is in Sheridan , the control of the river is
Englewood's. Englewood has more boundaries along the river edge than Sheridan. Ms.
Dannemiller stated it is opposite in terms of control of the jurisdictional boundaries . The
control boundaries are approximately 60 % Englewood, 40 % Sheridan because of the golf
course . There is also the Kent property which is in unincorporated Arapahoe County.
Mr. Welker reiterated that a lot of progress was made on the Plan , even though there are
some "holes." The redevelopment is a touchier issue than the committee felt, even though
it was addressed. He doesn 't believe the changes and input will change the good things
about the Plan.
Mr. Adams stated he would like to see what has been done on the Plan continued and
refined until an agreeable product is achieved.
Mr. Roth stated Sheridan's mayor expressed the idea of "not throwing the baby out with
the bathwater." There is a good basis to work from . Mr. Roth congratulated Chair
Waggoner on his nomination as Citizen of the Century.
Chair Waggoner asked if anyone was interested in attending the Southeast Business
Partnership Awards Luncheon on March 21 . None of the Commissioners expressed an
interest in attending.
Chair Waggoner asked staff the status of the Safeway con v enience store and gas station .
Mr. Fruchtl responded that the project is in the review process . The applicant just recently
brought in final revisions which staff required. Chair Waggoner asked if there was a time
limit on starting the project. Mr. Fruchtl stated Tricia Langon was the planner working on
that project and would follow up with her.
There was no further discussion . The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:25 p.m .
29