Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-17 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 17, 1985 I. CALL TO ORDER . The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Stoel at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Mesa, }1cBrayer. Gourdin and Magnuson. Also present: Dorothy A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development - Planning Susan T. King, Senior Planner Harold J. Stitt, Planner II Chairman Stoel declared a quorum of the Commission in attendance. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Stoel stated that the Minutes of September 4, 1985, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Beier seconded: The Minutes of September 4, 1985, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen and Stoel. None. ABSENT: Magnuson and Gourdin . The motion carried. III. GENERAL IRON WORKS SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT. For property east of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, south of the Englewood/Denver corporate boundary, west of South Elati Street and north of West Bates Avenue. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing for Case 1124-85 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Magnuson and Gourdin. CASE 1124-85. The Chairman declared the Public Hearing opened, stating the neighbors had been notified of the Public Hearing by Certified letter, and asking that the applicant come forward. Keith Stephens, 600 West Bates Avenue, was sworn in for testimony. He stated that General Iron Works is asking for the subdivision in order to provide Stearns-Roger Manufacturers, Inc. with a piece of property which will give Stearns Roger access on the north side of their property when the rest of General Iron Works is later sold. General Iron Works is still in operation, and will be in operation until the end of the year. At that time the property will be sold except for this one piece of the property on the north end . • • • -2- Mr. McBrayer asked if the applicant had seen the Staff Report. Mr. Stephens said he had not. In looking over the conditions suggested by the Staff, he asked that fencing not be required on the east side of the site between Yale and Amherst since the residential property which adjoins the property is the back yards of those homes, and some parking strips. The Staff stated that screening should be required, and suggested that the present fencing might be modified to meet the requirement for screening. It was suggested that General Iron Works work with the City Staff to provide adequate fencing. Mr. Stephens agreed to the other conditions except Number 3, which would include other property to the south of West Bates Avenue on the Final Plat. Mrs. Romans agreed that this property is not to be a part of the division and sale, and it should not be necessary to show it on this Plat. There were no further questions of Mr. Stephens. Dennis R. Messner, 2300 West Eisenhower Blvd., Loveland, CO 80537, was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Messner is the Engineer assigned to prepare the Plat and he asked if metal slatting could be used to modify the existing fence. Mrs. Romans said it is the Staff's experience that slatting is not satisfactory, but said the screening could be worked out with the applicant. There were no further speakers. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing for Case #24-85 be closed . AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Magnuson, Gourdin. The Public Hearing was closed, Carson moved: Be ier seconded : The preliminary Subdivision Plat in Case #24-85 be approved with the following conditions: AYES: NAYS : ABSENT: 1. Screening must be provided on the east side of the property between Yale and Amherst before approval is given to the Final Plat and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Staff. 2. The utility easements shall be shown and described on the Final Plat. 3. The portion of Terry's Addition on the General Iron property shall be vacated. 4. No type of improvement shall be allowed in the utility easement; however, it may be used for off-street parking. 5. If, in the future, any proposed development occurs on Lot #2, fire access and an additional fire hydrant shall be required prior to issuing any building permit. Ba rbre, Beier , Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Ma gnuson, Gourdin. • • • -3- The Chairman stated the Preliminary Plat was approved and the final plat can be prepared incorporating the conditions imposed by the Conunission . IV. THE MARKS CASE #25-85 Planned Development on old KLZ site. The Chairman asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing for Case #25-85. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing for Case #25-85 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Magnuson, Gourdin. The Chairman Stated that the Public Hearing for Case #25-85 was open. The Chairman stated that the Conunission is to receive information and send a recommendation on to City Council. He said six signs were posted on the property, and the matter was published in the ENGLEWOOD SENTINEL on September 4, 1 985. He asked that the applicant come forward for testimony. Richard O. Campbell, 1120 Lincoln Street, Denver, CO, was sworn in for testimony. He said he was seeking approval of a site plan for a development of between 24 and 25 acres at Hampden and Gilpin. He said his company, The Chasewood Company, is part of Trammell Crow, and develops apartments across the United States. The apartments are rented to medium-to-high-income people. The Chasewood builds to own the apartments, and are long-term owners . Mr. Campbell stated that other developers have tried various projects on the property, but have not been able to fulfill expectations. He stated the site is zoned R-3, and his proposal fits within the restrictions o f that zone district. A density of 40 units per acre is permitted, but The Chasewood Company is proposing a density of 24.75 units per acre, with a total o f 6 3 2 units. There will be 28 buildings of two-to-three stories. There wil l b e on e -and two-bedroom apartments; 60% of the development will be one bedroom units. 75% will have fireplaces and almost all will have washer/drier connections. They plan to purchase the sales office of the Waterford and will use it as a leasing office andan exercise facility. They are planning no tennis courts~ but there will be a recreation center and laundry facilities. Mr. Campbell stated the project would e x ceed the required landscaping. Mr . Camp bell s a id tha t he h a d met with neighboring homeowners at Kent Village, Ch err y Hil ls , and the Wa terford. He also met with people from the Kimberly Wo o ds a nd Vill age. Concerns have been traffic, the fact that the development wil l be renta l , the ancillary services, parking on the streets, and the view of t he mountains. Mr. Campbell a greed to the twelve conditions sug g ested by the Staff. He said t ha t the Trammell Crow Commercial Division will develop the ancillary services, a nd they are the developers of Tamarac Square. They have indicated they have no obj e ct ion to getting prio r approval of any business f rom the Director of Community Development. The park ing complies with and surpasses the requirements . They wi ll h a ve approx imately ten acres of landscaping on the site, 250 shade or canopy trees , 12 7 ornamental t r ees, 75 evergreen trees and almost 3200 shrubs . Th ere is an e x tensive use of brick throughout the project, and the units will • • • -4- have a good quality of cabinets, carpeting and trim. Mr. McBrayer asked what the rental fees would be. Mr. Campbell said they would start at about $420 per month and the units with two bedrooms and two baths would rent for between $650 and $750. Mr. Carson asked about the parking. Mr. Campbell said there would be no parking on the street because there is plenty of parking for the residents and guests. The parking currently on the street is from Kimberly, and the property will be posted stating no parking on the street is permitted. He said the national pattern is 1.3 parking spaces per unit, and they will provide 1.79. There were no further questions. The Chairman asked if there were any other speakers. Bruce Johnson, Attorney at Law, of Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti, 2500 Seventeenth Street Plaza, 1225 Seventeenth Street, Denver, stated he is representing the residents of the Waterford. He asked that all those in the audience opposing this development raise their hands. ~iost of the people in the audience indicated opposition. Mr. Johnson stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires that the application be initiated by the owner. No owner signed the application, and the owner did not initiate the request. He said that, in his opinion, the application did not comply with Section 16.3 and Section 16.4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . There were no questions of Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson said several persons were prepared to address the Commission and introduced Ms Kortz. Pearle Rae Kortz, 1900 East Girard Place, was sworn in for testimony. She stated that she purchased a unit at the Waterford in good faith on May 1, 1985. She said that there are 49 resident owners at the Waterford, and she is one of 45 registered voters. She said she and the other resident owners were told that they would be situated on a 35-acre park. She said the City of Englewood had on record the approval of the Planning Commission and the adoption of, by Resolution 2, Series of 1980, a plan for one 14-story and five 18-story condominium towers. In April of 1981, the Planning Commission approved a request to eliminate one 18-story building, increase the footprint of the remaining buildings, add two social centers and a management sales office - Resolution 1, Series of 1981. Ms Kortz stated that the Waterford represented to the owners a wonderful location--security, a quality, carefree living environment in a secluded area . This environment would permit them to walk freely and without worry ab out the area, using the fitness center, taking walks and going to and from the garage. It would be a safe place to come home to. The Waterford residents come from many areas, having a variety of backgrounds--businessmen, teachers, retired couples, single working women, political figures, doctors, investors, widows and widowers. Some are well off financially, but many have expended their life savings to enjoy a special atmosphere. She said she signed her original purchase agreement with the Waterford in November of 1984. She was shown a plan for five towers and told th area was owned by a large insurance company (Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company) and its subsidiary Development Company, Lakes South Development Company. She was told all the land was owned by one wealthy company and it would be developed in a safe and secure, luxurious manner. She spent substantial amounts in remodeling her unit. A week before the final closing she was told there was a contract • • • -5- on some of the land with a high-quality developer, but it would be condo- miniums similar to Cherry Hills III, and Polo Club North, but more luxurious and with more open space. On May 28, 1985, the Waterford residents were notified that a decision had been made not to build additional high rises as planned. There was a meeting on July 11, 1985, with Richard Cambell, representing The Chasewood Company, and with Dorothy Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development for the City of Englewood. They were told that the City had contact with Chasewood for approximately 22 months relating to the project. Ms Kortz said that Lakes South Development, the City of Englewood and Chasewood intended to take away the open space that had been promised even as she was signing the closing papers on her unit. Ms Kortz stated there is a market for luxury condominiums. She said this is a perfect location for luxury condominiums. She said they want the land to be developed, but there are ways to change to proposal to something profitable that would be similar to what was promised to the resident owners. She said there should not be 28 three-story buildings with lots of asphalt, open parking spaces and exposed trash containers, nor a service retail center at the main entrance to all of the property. She stated that the proposed development would create safety and security problems. She said they rely on the Planning Commission for support and to see that the approved plans are not arbitrarily changed without reference to those property owners most affected by such change, and that the developers are made accountable for promises made to prospective buyers. She said if she had been aware of the contemplated changes she would not have purchased her unit. Mr. Allen asked if these problems had been discussed with the Waterford Companies or the Lake South Developers. Ms Kortz said they refused to talk with the resident owners. Mr. Allen stated that it seemed that she did not object to development, it was the rental aspect to which she objected. Ms Kortz stated that her objection is that the development is not what they were promised, and there will be limited open space; there will be traffic problems, inadequate fire access and inadequate roads. There were no further questions. Bob Tomlinson, 1900 East ~irard Avenue, #1202 was sworn in. He stated he is speaking for Waterford resident owners in stating that the Chasewood proposal is wrong for the area. He said the Waterford owners have been proud of the area in that it is green, open and beautiful. There is heavy landscaping in the vast open areas, and the existing approved plans extend this concept. When the Waterford was originally planned, 75% of the land was to be green or open area. This was to be shared by the residents, neighbors and guests. To maximize this area underground parking and hidden trash receptacles were incorporated into the plan. The proposed plan is offering 25% open area, and most of this is used for parking and streets; only 5 to 10% would actually be green. He said overflow parking will result in on-street parking; open trash areas will be visible; and the area will be congested and dense. The retail commercial area is planned for the main entrance, which will result in even more congestion and traffic. Mr. Tomlinson stated that the new proposal is an unfortunate height. It is low enough to result in many buildings, but tall enough to block views. Mr. Tomlinson said that there are alternatives. Townhouses and condominiums are successful in other areas (Cherry Hills III, Polo Club, Heather Gardens and Stoney Brook), and would minimize the congestion. Midrise buildings could be developed, and the Waterford would lose only a portion of its open space. He emphasized that once the land is badly developed, it cannot be recovered. • • • -6- Mr. Tomlinson said that the residents of the Waterford would work with the developer and the City, but he would have to live with whatever development takes place long after the developer is gone. There were no questions of Mr. Tomlinson. Alyce Meanwell, 1900 East Girard, #805, was sworn in for testimony. She said the proposed development is insensitive to the Waterford. She stated the residents wanted a new lifestyle with dignity and pride. The Waterford has unique landscaping. Instead of receiving fulfillment of those promises, the residents' nearest contact and view will be of uncovered parking lots and five buildings squeezed onto a narrow plot of land. There will be no real landscaping barrier or buffer; the plan shows a tiny strip of 2~ inch caliper trees, which she termed just a row of sticks. Ms Meanwell said the traffic problems will affect going to and from their recreation center. She said that over one third of the building owners are single women and they and the other owners have invested in a lifestyle that the Waterford offered to them. Englewood is a good place to live with good facilities. She said she hoped that Englewood will not permit big money to control vital decisions. Mr. Mesa asked when the Waterford was completed. Ms Meanwell said it was completed in February of 1983. Mr. Mesa asked what the percent of occupancy is. She said 48 units of approximately 112 are occupied. Irving J. Shwayder, 1400 East Girard, #702, was sworn in for testimony. He said he is a retired business man. A few years ago he exchanged a home in Englewood for a condominium at the Waterford. This was a big adjustment for him, and his expectations are being threatened by a proposed development which is contrary to the representations made to him by the sellers at the Waterford not much more than a year ago. He said he is concerned about the traffic. There were no comments received in the Staff Report concerning traffic. He said that the resident owners engaged a professional traffic engineer, Bob Felzberg, for a preliminary study of the impact of the proposed plan of the Marks on traffic. He said that the conditions have changed over the last few years, especially in regard to traffic. The traffic study stated that in 1981 the intersection of Highway 285 and University was rated "F", which he stated he assumed was for "failure". The contemplated additions would increase the traffic by 8.4%, and the peak time traffic by 12.8%. This does not include the impact of 60 additional units which will be sold at the Waterford; and the retail service which is being planned, will increase traffic by another 8.2%. This will mean an estimated 20% increase in traffic which is already unsatisfactory. East Girard Avenue is 30 feet wide, and will be inadequate for this many people. It is already impossible to keep people from parking on the road. There are 440 dwelling units which are presently using the road; the Planned Development would bring that to 1,125. He asked that the following conditions be required: 1. A traffic study be prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission before further development is made . • • • 2. -7- The City should require upgrading, widening and improving of Girard, and enforce "no parking" regulation, and perhaps make the street an official City street. 3. The entry/exit through the project should be improved. 4. Possibilities for alternative peak-hour traffic should be considered. Mr. Carson stated that the same number of people would be present if the towers as planned by the Waterford had been built. Mr. Shwayder agreed, but said that the traffic was going to be worse than originally expected. He said he was not opposing development, but wants better planning, especially for the increased traffic. Doris Rothman, 1900 East Girard Avenue, Unit 202, was sworn in for testimony. She said she is concerned about the safety of this project. There is limited access for fire and police. She is concerned that the increased traffic will threaten pedestrian safety and Girard Avenue will divide the Waterford from the recreation center. They were promised well-lit, secure, green space. This project will be a dense and open maze, with little walking space, but with ample protection for hiding intruders. She stated that carports and trash bins will be directly in front of the Waterford and adjacent to their recreation center with no buffer zone. Many of the residents are single, older women who bought at the Waterford because it was to be secure. Bruce Johnson, Attorney, returned for summary. He said the group had given many reasons for denial or at least modification of the proposed development. He said there are no significant changes and conditions to warrant the departure from the approved plan. The new plan is contrary to the health and safety and welfare of the people of Englewood, and he stated there has been no evidence which would permit the City to produce the required Findings as a basis of approval of the Planned Unit Development. He stated there is not a proper applicant because the owner of the property did not sign the application. The R-3 regulations state that new high rise development should be sensitized to the surrounding development concerning traffic, building bulk and screening. He said these have not been incorporated in this plan. The regulations also require that, if in the area of development, internal street circulation systems are necessary, such systems shall be designed for the type of traffic that will be generated. He stated that East Girard Avenue would be in direct violation of this requirement. He said that with regard to the street traffic that would have been generated if the original Water- ford plans had been followed; in his opinion, the traffic generated would not be as heavy because the kind of resident living at the Waterford would not have as many vehicles per dwelling unit as would be present at the Marks. Mr. Johnson said that the R-3 regulations require that parking shall be screened from public view by landscaping. The use of berms is encouraged. He said "a few 2~ inch sticks will not meet this requirement." He asked that the application be denied, and asked the applicant to alter his plan or to come up with a plan more in keeping with the Waterford. He asked that the proposal be referred back to staff for further study, and stated the Waterford's willingness to spend the time necessary to accommodate solutions to the problems mentioned. He strongly requested a traffic study, and asked the developer to do a safety and security plan. Mr. Allen asked how many people had studied the plan. Mr. Johnson said there had been several meetings with the developer. The plan was delivered to his office • • • -8- only the week before the meeting. He stated that the density in the area close to the Waterford is the greatest concern because it is all seeded, sprinkled and mowed. He stated that the entrance to the Waterford is only 30 feet from the carports and pavement. He said the density and mass in such a close area are too great. Mr. Mesa asked Mr. Campbell if it is correct that plans had been made to buy the property 22 months before. Mr. Campbell said that one of the partners looked at the property, but the contract was not made until April of 1985. They were first approached 22 months before. Mr. Mesa asked Mr. Johnson if Mutual Benefit or Lake South Development offered the Waterford any compensation. Mr. Johnson said none had been offered. Mr. McBrayer asked Dorothy Romans if she had known for twenty-two months that there was a potential change in ownership. Mrs. Romans said their office had been contacted in 1983, and it was indicated that the towers would not be completed. Mr. Johnson said that it was through Mrs. Romans contact card that the Waterford residents learned that the people selling the Waterford units had been aware for a long time that the project would not be completed as planned. There were no further questions of Mr. Johnson. Sidney T. Parr, III, 3229 South Franklin, was sworn in for testimony. He asked what was next to Romans Park. Mr. Campbell stated it was an accessway for the Fire Department. This is not a public access, but has a knock-down fence. He asked if the residents north of Romans Park had been contacted by Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell said he was not sure. Mr. Parr stated that the tennis courts at the park are constantly busy, and questioned the advisability of not providing tennis courts for the residents of the new development. He asked that townhouses and condominiums be considered as alternatives to apartments. Mr. Mesa asked why the Public Works Department had suggested the tennis courts. Mrs. Romans said that the three previous plans for the site had provided three tennis courts. She assumed that Mr. Waggoner carried over that idea. Mr. John Binder, 2099 East Floyd Place was sworn in for testimony. He asked what was meant by "Franklin Street extended". Mrs. Romans said it was to show location, ii did not indicate that the street itself would be extended through the development. Mr. Binder said that the tennis courts in the park are busy all the time, and that if 75% of the units have fire places, pollution will be a big problem. He also stated that the signs notifying the neighbors of this hearing were very small and difficult to see. Mrs. Romans said that the signs must be visible from the adjacent right-of- way, and that in the opinion of the staff, they met that criteria. The size and placement are provided to the developer. Mr. Binder said that the fire protection in the area has been limited, and asked that fire access be considered carefully . Me lvin Dills, 1801 East Girard Avenue, #217, Kimberly Village was sworn in. He said he is not a resident of the Waterford . He lives at Kimberly Village a nd concurs with other opinions that the access to and from Hampden Avenue • • • is inadequate. already parking he is aware of. cars, there is A traffic study on East Giarard Since there is bound to be more -9- is very necessary. He stated that there is Avenue, and no tickets have been given that not enough parking space for the existing of a problem with more people. Mr. Dills said the drainage is bad on the site, as the Waterford drains into the Kimberly Villate at the present time. He asked that there be adequate signage to show how to find Kimberly Village and Kimberly Woods; but he said the most important problem is fire safety and safety during development. He asked that restraining fences be demanded during construction and that adequate fire access and hydrants be provided. He said the site is just across from the fire which Kimberly Village had some time ago, and people died in the fire because of the inadequate provisions for fire protection. Mrs. Romans said that the Fire Department has required access and further hydrants, some of which may also service the Village. She said fences are required during construction. There were no further speakers. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Gourdin had asked her to state that he was concerned about the fireplaces and asked that catalytic inserts be placed in any fireplaces. Mr. Campbell returned to testify. He said that he had been considering catalytic inserts, and that "Preway" is supposed to reduce pollution. In response to Mr. Johnson's earlier remarks, Mr. Campbell stated that the application is not a rezoning, and the criteria are different from a site plan. It is not necessary for the owner to sign a Planned Development application. He said that the promises made by the Waterford are not the responsibility of the Planning Commission. If the owners were d a maged, they should seek redress through the courts from the developer. He did note that Paragraph 37 of the Waterford Condominium Declaration states that "Owner reserves right, but not obligation to follow the site plan." He said that if the original plan had been followed for the Waterford, the traffic would have had to support 1100 units, which would have been much worse that the present plan. He saw no reason to suppose that apartments owners have more vehicles than people who live in communties like the Waterford. There is nothing in apartments which should create additional problems, as renters are not criminals or more hazardous than other citizens. He stated that "2~ inch sticks" are very expensive. He is willing to work with the Waterford on landscaping, especially if the Waterford will underwrite upgraded landscaping. He said there is plenty of overflow parking. A high rise is, in his opinion, a much greater fire problem than three-story buildings. Mr. Campbell said that the original plan for the Waterford had not worked; over 50% of the units are going to have to be auctioned. He added that there were also people who opposed the Waterford Development. Mr. Campbell stated that there is no reason to suppose that renters are less friendly and safe than Waterford residents, and they are similarly concerned about traffic. He said that upgrading and widening Girard would be very difficult as there are multiple owners; but he is willing to work out a solution if the owners will share costs. He said the water and utilities are already in, and regretted that the existing roads were not up to City standards in the original plan. He stated that the application meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance , and asked that the application be approved. Mr . Ca rson asked if the applicant agreed with all twelve of the recommendations ma de by Staff. Mr. Campbell said he did. Mr. McBrayer and Mr. Beier agreed • • • -10- that the road is inadequate and a traffic study is necessary . Discussion followed about security, the lack of tennis courts and a four-to- six foot fence which will be at some areas of the edge of the site. Mr. Arla Braun, architect for the applicant said that fencing will be along the private streets and between some of the covered parking structures to create patio areas near the units. Mr. Mesa asked about screening. Mr. Braun said that the carports will be screened from the units and, to some extent, from the outside. Mr. Mesa asked about security, and if there would be a guard shack. There will be no guard shack, Mr. Campbell assured the Commission. He stated that if there were a demand for tennis courts, they would be provided as recreational areas for the residents only. Mr. Johnson stated that tennis courts couldn't be "squeezed" into the Plan. He reiterated his concern over traffic, no-parking zones and asked for time to work on a plan with the developer. M~. Campbell stated that these are private streets which he will cooperate to widen if necessary. He said the City must enforce the no-parking areas. Mr. Stoel asked who owns the streets. Mr. Campbell said The Kimberlys, Chasewood, the Waterford are owners, and in addition, there are easements . Mr. Johnson said the Waterford would cooperate. He stated that the utilities are all buried. Mr. Carson asked if ticketing is done on private streets. Mrs. Romans said it can be done if the streets are posted or if it is designated as a fire lane. Mr. Stitt entered into the Record additional conditions suggested by Public Service and the Traffic Engineer: 1. Public Service asks that the required easements, especially as noted in Book 363, Page 142, be shown on the Final Plat, and that existing easements for gas be investigated. 2. The Traffic Engineer recommends that a traffic study for the City and Department of Highways be prepared and submitted to the Department of Community Development for consideration and review by the Traffic Engineer, the Department of Engineering Services and the Fire Department. Mr. Campbell agreed to the conditions. Mr. Stitt stated that Engineering Services will review the initial drainage plan, and that it must be approved before building permits are issued. Mr. Stoel said that would be included in Condition 3. Mr. Stitt said when the preliminary review has been addressed by the developer and those issues are taken care of and the review is completed; Condition 3 will have been met . Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing in Case 25-85 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Magnuson, Gourdin. • • • -11- The Chairman declared that the Public Hearing was closed and declared that the Commission would recess for five minutes • The meeting reconvened at 9:34 p.m. with the same members present. Mr. McBrayer asked that the two conditions concerning easements and a traffic study be incorporated into any motion. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: That the Planned Development be approved with the fourteen conditions listed below: 1. A fireflow delivery rate of 4,000 gpm at 20 psi residual main pressure be made available at the site. 2. The dedication statement on the plat be reworded to eliminate reference to streets, alleys, and rights-of-way. 3. A drainage plan be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. 4. An OPTICOM emergency vehicle traffic control device be installed at South Gilpin Street and U.S. 285. S. Fire lanes be designated and meet the requirements of the Fire Department . 6. Parking is to be prohibited on Girard unless the street is widened as required by the Engineering and Fire Departments. 7. Fire hydrants be located as required by the Fire Department. 8. An amenities/recreation package must be specified and included in the Plan. 9. The tot lot is to be relocated to the west of South Franklin Street extended. io. Legal descriptions for all water and sewer easements must be approved. Water and sewer easements are to be labeled as such and not as utility easements. 11. The Mountain Bell easement language is to be included on the Plat. 12. All ancillary service uses and subsequent changes in uses are to be approved by the Director of Community Development. Uses such as, but not limited to, barber shops, beauty shops, gift shops, coffee shops and dining facilities may be permitted as ancillary services for the convenience of person living in the development. No building permits will be issued for construction of the ancillary services building until a list of the specific uses or businesses has been submitted, and those uses are approved by the Director of Community Development. Any subsequent changes in the approved businesses shall • • • -12- be submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. 13. The required easements, especially as noted in Book 3663, Page 142, be shown on the final plat, and that the existing easements for gas be investigated. 14. A traffic study be prepared and submitted for the City artd Department of Highways be prepared and submitted to the Department of Community Development for consideration and review by the Traffic Engineer, the Department of Engineering Services and the Fire Department. Discussion followed. Mr. Allen stated that the Planning Commission cannot force a developer to continue a plan such as the Waterford which is not financially viable; the applicant is requesting a plan well within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Beier said he is concerned with the traffic flow and street width. He stated that there is no provision for security within the Marks. He requested the City of Englewood to enforce the parking regulations; and noted that guest parking seems inadequate. Mr. Mesa asked what would be required in Condition #13. Mr. Stitt said the easements must be shown on the Final Plat. There should be no problem, as the developer plans to provide appropriate utility easements. Mr. McBrayer regretted that the Waterford had not succeeded, but said that the proposed plan will have less of an impact on the area, and does comply with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He said Girard may be relieved by the traffic study and and the developer's response to the study. Mr. Beier asked that the City enforce all of the landscaping provisions. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Magnuson and Gourdin. The Chairman ruled that the proposal was approved subject to the stated conditions. After approval of the Findings of Fact, the matter will be sent on to Council. Mr. Beier left the meeting at 9:45 p.m. v. SATELLITE DISH ORDINANCE. Public Hearing. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: the Public Hearing for Case #19-85 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Beier, Magnuson, Gourdin. The Chairman declared the Public Hearing open. CASE 1119-85. Mr. Carson noted that the Commission decided previously that the maximum • • -13- height of a free-standing ground-mounted satellite dish shall be limited to 10 feet at the top of the pole. The 25 feet in the Staff Report was in error, and was changed to 10 feet. · Ms King said that the Chief Building Inspector asked that on the bottom of page three, Section (c) (iii), the text be changed to read, "satellite dishes shall not be mounted on any temporary stucture or any vehicle EXCEPT FOR SITING PURPOSES." The Commission agreed and made the same change on page 4 after Section (d) (ii). The City Attorney, having entered the hearing, stated that he had looked at other model codes, and found ours to be equal or superior to them. He stated that the FCC may make all such ordinances obsolete by reserving the regulation of satellite dishes to the federal government. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Beier, Magnuson, Gourdin. The Chairman declared the Public Hearing in Case #19-85 closed. McBrayer moved: Barbre seconded: The Satellite Dish Ordinance be approved as amended . AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. Beier, Magnuson, Gourdin. The Chairman ruled the motion was passed. VII. FINDINGS OF FACT. Carson moved: CASE #20-85 CASE #22-85 Allen seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #20-85, 3986 South Broadway, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Barbre, Carson, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. McBrayer. Beier, Magnuson, Gourdin. The Chairman declared the Findings approved as written. Barbre moved: Carson seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #22-85, 1190 East Hampden Avenue, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Barbre, Carson, Mesa, Allen, Stoel. None. McBrayer. Beier, Magnuson, Gourdin. • • • -14- The Chairman ruled that the Findings were approved as written . VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no public present. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council has approved the amended B-2 Zone District regulations, removing the retroactive clause, but requiring compliance with the landscaping requirements upon a change in ownership or stockholders, or upon relocation or enlargement of an existing lot, and by all new lots. The City Council required a ten foot setback, and requires that 80% of the required landscaping be in the front setback. She said the Council may also address some issues regarding sales tax and licensing. On October 7, there will be a Public Hearing on the rest of the changes to the Ordinance. Mrs. Romans expressed concern that when there are so many conditions placed upon the approval of a development such as .the Marks, which .conditions must be met before a Planned Development may actually take place; it may be better for a preliminary approval to be given, with the matter returning to the Commission in order that the Commission can be sure the conditions are met. Then when the matter is received by the City Council, it is in the final form. Mr. McBrayer suggested sending a letter to Council concerning the Marks, and requesting Council to return the matter to the Commission if the conditions are not clearly defined or if the results of the traffic study would require changes. Mrs. Romans said the staff will try to work with the developer to minimize any delay. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Allen stated that he understood that a .date had been set for the presentation to the City Council on the collection and disposal of solid waste. Mrs. Romans said that the October 7th date had been set, but that it had to be changed; and the date had not been reset. She said the Commission members will be notified of the date. The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Sh~ Secretary • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER 25-85, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE ) APPLICATION TO APPROVE A PLANNED ) DEVELOPMENT TO A CERTAIN PARCEL OF ) LAND PURSUANT TO SECTION 16.4-15 ) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ) OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO ) FILED BY: Richard O. Campbell The Chasewood Company THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1515 Denver, CO 80203 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT: South Gilpin Street and East Hampden Avenue This matter came before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on September 17, 1985, upon the application of Richard O. Campbell, President of the Chasewood Company, which company is under contract to purchase the property located at South Gilpin Street and East Hampden Avenue. Those Members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission who were present ~--~~reI-e-!~'Mee~s~s:Xr~s~.~B~a~r~b~r , Carson, Stoel, McBrayer, Mesa and Allen. Messrs. • Magnuson and Gourdin were absent. The applicant, Mr. Richard 0. Campbell, was present and gave testimony and evidence to the Planning Commission. The Staff Report and testimony were received by the Commission and incorporated into the Record of the Public Hearing. After considering the statements of the witnesses and reviewing the documents entered as evidence into the record of the Hearing, the Members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Public Hearing was initiated by the filing of an application for a Planned Development for the property located at South Gilpin Street and East Hampden Avenue. 2. That the notice of Public Hearing was given in the Englewood Sentinel, the official City newspaper, on September 4, 1985; and the property was posted for no less than fifteen days prior to the date of the Public Hearing . • • • -2- 3. That the area which was being considered is a 25.54 acre portion of the original Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation Subdivision Waiver as amended. 4. That the applicant is under contract to purchase the subject site. 5. That the subject site was annexed to the City in 1962 and was zoned R-3, High-Density Residence in 1967. 6. That Mr. Richard 0. Campbell, President of The Chasewood Company, testified: a. That the development will contain 632 units in 28 buildings with a mix of 60% one-bedroom units and 40% two-bedroom units. b. That the R-3 Zone District would permit 40 units per acre, but this development will have a density of 24.75 units per acre. c. That the landscaping will be in excess of Ordinance requirements. d. That off-street parking is provided in excess of Ordinance requirements . e. That the conditions stated in the Staff Report are acceptable to The Chasewood Company. 7. That Pearle Rae Kortz, Bob Tomlinson, Alyce Meanwell, Irving J. Schwayder and Doris Rothman, resident owners of condominiums in the Waterford Tower, and their lawyer, Bruce Johnson, stated their concerns about the proposed development. These concerns were: 8 . a. The effect the proposed development will have on the Waterford Condominiums. b. The proposed development's building height, landscaping and open space. c. The traffic to be generated by the proposed development and its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. d. The amount of parking to be made available to the residents of the proposed development. e. The width of East Girard Place, which they testified is inadequate to accommodate the proposed development and the existing units in the Waterford Tower, Kimberly Woods and Kimberly Village. That several neighborhood residents testified as to their concerns of: .. • • • -3- a . Tennis courts' not being provided within the proposed development. b. Fire access within the proposed development. c. Site drainage within the proposed development. 9. That the Staff recommended that the following 12 conditions be required for approval of the Planned Development. a. A fireflow delivery rate of 4,000 gpm at 20 psi residual main pressure be made available at the site. b. The dedication statement on the plat be reworded to eliminate reference to streets, alleys, and rights-of-way. c. A drainage plan be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. d. An OPTICOM emergency vehicle traffic control device be installed at South Gilpin Street and U. S. 285. e. Fire lanes be designated and meet the requirements of the Fire Department. f. Parking is to be prohibited on Girard unless the street is widened as required by the Engineering and Fire Departments • g. Fire hydrants be located as required by the Fire Department. h. An amenities/recreation package must be specified and included in the Plan. i. The tot lot is to be relocated to the west of South Franklin Street extendeq. j. Legal descriptions for all water and sewer easements must be approved. Water and sewer easements are to be labeled as such and not as utility easements. k. The Mountain Bell easement language is to be included on the Plat. 1. All ancillary service uses and subsequent changes in use are to be approved by the Director of Community Development. Uses such as, but not limited to, barber shops, beauty shops, gift shops, coffee shops and dining facilities may be permitted as ancillary services for the convenience of persons living in the development. No building permits will be issued for construction of the ancillary services building until a list of the specific uses or businesses has been submitted, and those uses are approved by the Director of Community Development. Any subsequent changes in the approved businesses shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. 1 0 . That two additional conditions were entered into the record of the Public He a ring; those conditions were: .. • • • 11. -4- a. A traffic study shall be prepared and submitted .?y the applicant for review and approval by the City and State Department of Highways . b. Public Service will require easements, and the easement recorded in Book 3663, Page 142 must be shown on the Plan. That the Marks Planned Development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 12. That the proposed density is less than that previously approved by the City for plans submitted by J. J. Carey, The Larwin Corporation, Thomas Regan, and the Prowswood Company. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice was given of the Public Hearing held on September 17, 1985. 2. That Chasewood Avenue is Residence the application filed by Mr. Richard 0. Campbell, President, The Company, for property located at South Gilpin Street and East Hampden in compliance with the Planned Development and R-3, High-Density District regulations. 3. That the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City Comprehensive Plan . 4. That the fourteen conditions recommended by the staff were incorporated into the approval of the proposed Planned Development. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the Englewood City Council that the application of Mr. Richard 0. Campbell, on behalf of the Chasewood Company, for a Planned Development to construct a 632 unit apartment complex, be approved, with the following conditions: a. A fireflow delivery rate of 4,000 gpm at 20 psi residual main pressure be made available at the site. b. The dedication statement on the plat be reworded to eliminate reference to streets, alleys, and rights-of-way. c. A drainage plan be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. d. An OPTICOM emergency vehicle traffic control device be installed at South Gilpin Street and U. S. 285. e. Fire lanes be designated and meet the requirements of the Fire Department. f. Parking is to be prohibited on Girard unless the street is widened as required by the Engineering and Fire Departments . g. Fire hydrants be located as required by the Fire Department. h. An amenities/recreation package must be specified and included in the Plan. • • • -5- i. The tot lot is to be relocated to the west of South Franklin Street extended. j. Legal descriptions for all water and sewer easements must be approved. Water and sewer easements are to be labeled as such and not as utility easements. k. The Mounta~n Bell easement language is to be included on the Plat. 1. All ancillary service uses and subsequent changes in use are to be approved by the Director of Conununity Development. Uses such as, but not limited to, barber shops, beauty shops, gift shops, coffee shops and dining facilities may be permitted as ancillary services for the convenience of persons living in the development. No building permits will be issued for construction of the ancillary services building until a list of the specific uses or businesses has been submitted, and those uses are approved by the Director of Conununity Development. Any subsequent changes in the approved businesses shall be submitted to the Director of Conununity Development for approval. m. A traffic study shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the City and State Department of Highways. n. Public Service will require easements, and the easement recorded in Book 3663, Page 142 must be shown on the Plan • Upon a vote of the Commission on a motion made by Mr. McBrayer and seconded by Mr. Carson, the following members voted in favor of the Marks Planned Development: Messrs. Barbre, Beier, Carson, McBrayer, Mesa, Allen and Stoel. Messrs. Gourdin and Magnuson were absent. This Decision and these Findings of Fact and Conclusions are effective as of the Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Conunission held on October 1, 1985. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Walter Stoel, Chairman