Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-11-19 PZC MINUTES-· • • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19 1 1985 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: Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Mesa, Stoel, Allen, Barbre Members absemt: Magnuson Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant ·Director of Community Development Susan T. King, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. November 5 1 1985 Chairman Stoel stated that the Minutes of November 5 1 1985 1 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Allen/Barbre seconded: The Minutes of November s, 1985 be ap- proved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carson, Gourdin, Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Beier None Mesa Magnuson The motion carried. III. 4755 SOUTH SANTA FE DRIVE Planned Development CASE #33-85 Chairman Stoel stated that the Commission and staff have received a request from Mr. Cameron, applicant, that the Publ ic Hearing on this matter be continued until December 3 1 1985 to give him additional time to address problems noted in relation to the Planned Development for his property. Carson moved: Gourdin seconded: Case #33-85 be continued to December 3 1 1985. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Gourdin, Mesa, Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson None Magnuson None The motion carried. IV. -2- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 300 West Belleview CASE #34-85 Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #34-85 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mesa, Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin None Magnuson None The motion carried. Chairman Stoel stated that he has received a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing published in the ENGLEWOOD SENTINEL on November 6, 1985 1 and has also received copies of the Certificate of Posting. Mr. Stoel asked that the staff make their presentation at this time. Ms. Susan King was sworn in, and testified that she is the Senior Planner in the Department of Community Development. Ms. King discussed the requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as they apply to the property at 300 West Belleview Avenue, which is zoned R-3, High Density Residence. This is a 10.83 acre site, which was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1964. The original multi-family residential zoning of the site would allow a maximum density of 70 dwelling units per acre with the bonus provision. The Zoning Ordinance has since been amended, and the maximum density allowed now is 40 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 312 units on the 10.83 acre site, or 28.8 units per acre. Open Space is required in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and the applicant is proposing 40% open space vs. the required 25%. This open space will be lighted for security purposes. Maximum height of structures in the R-3 Zone District is 60 feet; the maximum height proposed by the developer is 45 feet to the highest point on the roof on the three story buildings. Ms. King then discussed setback provisions, and pointed out that the applicant is providing a 25 foot landscaped strip along the west side of the property, plus carports, and driving lanes, so that the building line of the first structures will be approximately 100 feet east of the west property line. A 30 foot setback from West Belleview Avenue is being provided. The applicant is providing 532 off-street parking spaces for the 312 apartment units, and five or six off-street loading spaces will be provided for use by tenants moving into or out of the development. Ms. King stated that the proposed development plans were reviewed by all the City Departments, and that the developer has addressed all concerns that were raised by City staff. The staff has no conditions they suggest placing on the approval of the proposed Planned Development. • • • • • • -3- Mr. Beier inquired about access to the site from Belleview Avenue. Ms. King stated that State Highway Department wants access to the development aligned with South Delaware Street to the north side of Belleview Avenue, which the plans indicate. The City Traffic Engineer is concerned about left-turning movements into and out of the development; however, the State Highway Department does not want a traffic signal installed at the Delaware/Belleview intersection because of the proximity to the Belleview/Broadway intersection. The City of Englewood will monitor the traffic flow at the Belleview/Delaware intersection for a minimum of two years, and if specific warrants are met, a traffic signal will be installed. The develope r has committed to providing a traffic signal if the warrants are met. Mr. Beier asked what "assurance" the City has that the developer will, indeed, install such a light. Ms. King stated that there is a letter on file to this effect. Doug Wagner, 17633 East Temple Drive, was swor n in. Hr.Wagner testified that he is the architect and planner for the project, and presented several slides of the subject site and renderings of the proposed development. Hr. Wagner stated that the site is a compilation of five separate parcels of land that have been purchased by Hr. Sanford Metzel, developer; the site is on the south side of West Belleview Avenue, and west of the K-Mart Store. A small portion of the site is within the 100 year flood plain for Big Dry Creek, and this part of the site will be devoted to the open space/landscaped area. The acre age of the site is 10.83 acres total. An acceleration/deceleration lane along West Belleview Avenue is proposed for access to the site. An additional street light will be installed at the developer's expense at the intersection of Belleview and South Delaware Street . Mr. Wagner discussed the need for grading of the site because of the topography of the land, and that the development will be "terraced" down to Big Dry Creek. The development will provide 147 covered carport spaces, with the remainder of the off-street parking spaces to be open. Mr. Wagner stat ed that the developer has committed to installation of the traffic signal if warranted within a two-year period after they receive the final Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Beier stated that he understood approximately one acre of the site is within the boundaries of Littleton. He asked if this is the area along Big Dry Creek. Mr. Wagner acknowledged that a portion of the site is in Littleton, and does lie along Big Dry Creek. This area will be used for tennis courts and volley ball courts, and open space and landscaping purposes ; this is within the 100 year flood plain of the Creek . -4- Mr. Allen asked if this will be a condominium development. Hr. Wagner stated the proposed development will be built as apartments. He pointed out that condominium developments are built in "phases" as they are sold, but an apartment development will be built out with one construction loan. The units are designed to be at the "high end" of apartment development, but Hr. Wagner stated that he has not discussed the rate of rental for the units with the developer. He stated that it would be difficult to determine the rental rate until the construction loan is in place. In response to a question posed by Mr. Beier, Mr. Wagner stated that the development will be in the Littleton School District, District #6. After a brief consultation with Mr. Metzel, Mr. Wagner stated that the rental rates will begin at $420 to $550 per month for the larger two-bedroom units, and that it will be an adult community. Mr. James Finn, 5166 South Elati Drive, was sworn in, and testified that he has lived at that address for 21 years. He stated that when he purchased his property, the land in the Miramonte Subdivision was divided into 12 lots, and there were nine residential lots on South Elati Drive; he thought it was all an R-1-A, Single-family Residential area. Then he found out that the Miramonte Subdivision was zoned R-3; he was not aware that multi-family zoning was ever imposed immediately next to single-family residence. Mr. Finn stated that becaus e the zoning is in place, there is nothing that the opponents can do, but they do ask· that the Commission consider some of their concerns. Mr. Finn stated that the plan proposes a 45 foot high structure, which parallels three houses on South Elati Drive; the grade of their block slopes from the northeast to the southwest, and he is of the opinion that if this 45 foot high struc ture is built in this location, the residents on South Elati Drive will be in a "canyon". Mr. Metzel also owns land to the west of South Elati Drive, which is in Littleton; he is proposing construction of multi-family units on this land also. If apartment construction is allowed on both sides of South Elati Drive, the residents on that street will be definitely placed in a "canyon". Mr. Finn asked that the developer be required to install a seven foot fence on the property line between his property to the east and South Elati Drive; that the landscaped buffer be composed of trees and bushes, not rocks and gravel; if carports are to be imposed on the property line that they be enclosed on three sides so that the fumes will not blow directly onto the properties to the west; also, that the structures parallel to South Elati Drive be two-story in height. • • • • • • -5- Linda Lutz, 5165 South Elati Drive, was sworn in, and testified that she is aware that there is a high vacancy rate in many multi-family developments. Considering this high vacancy rate, she stated that she could not understand why the developer is considering a development of the density proposed for this site. Hs. Lutz quoted from an article in the ROCKY HOUNThIN NEWS, which news article quoted the Lakewood City Manager as stating that developers can make a profit at 10 units per acre, and discussed the quality of developments. Hs. Lutz stated that many developments are of such poor quality that they deteriorate and "self-destruct" within 25 to 30 years. Ruth Kelley, 5145 South Elati Drive, was sworn in. Hs. Kelley presented a display of pictures of their block , which was noted as Exhibit #1 . Hs. Kelley stated that she has lived at this address for 24 years. Hs. Kelley stated that she realizes the residents will have to accept some type of development on the subject site, but asked that the Commission give consideration to the imposition of the 45 foot high building directly to the east of their property line. If the structure could be lowered to two story it would certainly help the residents along South Elati Drive. Pat Smeaton, 5155 South Elati Drive, was sworn in, and testified that the residents have been fighting the development proposed by Hr. Hetzel in Littleton for two and one-half years. Ms. Smeaton stated that the Fire Marshal in Littleton had expressed concern about adequate access and facilities to service a large apartment development; she asked about the Englewood Fire Marshal's opinion on service of an apartment complex in this area. Ms. Smeaton also discussed the grade of the fire lanes; is it too steep for the fire vehicles to maneuver, and is it of sufficient width. Ms. Smeaton noted that the CDH development to the east of Broadway has a final density of 14 units per acre; the density of the proposed development is more than two times that of CDH. Also, all of the residential development is situated to the north end of the site, abutting the residential development along South Elati Drive, while the open space is situated to the south end abutting the South Slope Development, which is multi-family. Ms. Smeaton stated that it is the opinion of the residents on South Elati Drive that the proposed development provides a better buffer between the commercial development of K-Hart and the proposed apartment development than between the R-3 and the single-family development on South Elati Drive. Ms. Smeaton stated that if the traffic signal is installed at Belleview and South Delaware, this will direct more traffic down South Delaware Street by the two schools. Ms. Smeaton further discu ssed the action the homeowners have had to take concerning the development proposed by Mr. Metzel in Littleton; the determ inatio n of the City of Littleton approved the multi-family zoning, but with sufficient restrictions to protect the single-family homeowners. Hr. Hetzel is now suing the City of Littleton regardi ng this matter. Ms. Smeaton questioned the validity of the figures quoted on the trips-per-day originating from the proposed development. -6- Roy Hankle, 5050 South Delaware Street, was sworn in. Hr. Hankle discussed the traffic congestion which is presently on South Delaware and West Belleview Avenue, and expressed the opinion that an acceleration/deceleration lane would not be that much help. He suggested that another point of ingress/egress to the site should be investigated. He also advised that traffic accident records in the vicinity of South Delaware Street and West Belleview Avenue should be reviewed, noting that there have been several serious accidents. Hr. Carson asked if Hr. Hankle was suggesting that the traffic signal be installed at the present time. Hr. Hankle stated that he would suggest there is currently a need for signalization of the intersection. He pointed out that a motorist cannot make a left-turn from South Delaware Street to east-bound West Belleview Avenue at the present time. Roger Newman, 5090 South Elati Street, was sworn in. Hr. Newman stated that while it does sound as though the developer has worked closely with the City staff in planning the proposed development, Hr. Hetzel has not worked with the people who live in the area abutting or adjoining the site. Hr. Newman suggested that if the Planned Development is approved there be right-turn only restrictions into and out of the development. Such a restriction would alleviate left-turning movements across Belleview Avenue traffic. Dave Lone, 5045 South Delaware Street, was sworn in, and stated he would have to agree with the neighbors that the proposed development would impose a heavy traffic burden on South Delaware Street. Hr. Lone stated that it is difficult to make a right turn from Delaware onto Belleview, let alone a left-turn. Hr. Lone stated that he feels the density proposed in the development is very high and is opposed to the Planned Development. Hr. Stoel asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to address the Commission, but had not signed in. No one else indicated they wanted to address the Commission. Hr. Wagner asked if he could rebut some of the comments opponents had made. Hr. Wagner emphased that the structure on the west side of the site which is parallel to South Elati Drive will be set back 100 feet from the property line. The ends of the structures will be two-stories, stepping up to three story maximum. The structures are all designed with a "stepped" back aspect rather than the "block" design. Hr. Wagner stated that the southern portion of the site, along Big Dry Creek, is part of the 100-year flood plain for the Creek, and will be heavily landscaped and used for open space/recreational purposes. The landscaping shown on the plot plans is also their landscaping plan, and has been approved by the City staff. • • • • • • -7- Mr. Wagner stated that the developer is also concerned about the traffic congestion, and this is the reason for the provision of the acceleration/deceleration lane along the frontage of the site. The State Highway Department has stated that they will not approve the installation of a traffic signal at the South Delaware Street and West Belleview Avenue intersection; the developer has agreed to a study of the traffic pattern for up to two years after the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, and if warrants for the installation of a signal are met, will cooperate with the City in the instal l ation of the signal. Mr. Wagner stated that the City of Englewood does have the final determination on installation of a traffic signal, and can over-rule the State Highway Department. Mr. Wagner stated that regarding addition~l points of access, the more points of access there are to the site, the more problems of traffic congestion could result. Hr. Wagner disputed the "canyon" effect that residents raised, noting that the height of the structure is only approximtely 40 feet at the ridge, it is n o t a three story block building that will be facing the neighbors . The development is not low quality, and will not "self-destruct" in 25 to 30 years. Mr. Stoel inquired about the width of the landscaping strip abutting the property on the east side of South Elati Drive. Hr. Wagner stated that the landscaping will be 25 feet in width; they were also proposing a six foot high cedar fence which will be on the property line. The carports will have sloping roofs, with the west side of the carport only about four feet in height, and the height at the point of access approximately seven feet in height. The carports will be of the same constr u ction as the apartment units. The carports will not be henclosed". Discussion ensued on the location of the two sto r y buildings. Mr. Wagner noted that the slide which has been shown on the screen is of a 36 unit building; they have 44 unit buildings which are two story on the ends, stepping up to thr ee story toward the center. They did not do slides of t he various sizes of structures, but only of a "typical" structu re. Hr. Allen asked about the street light; Hr. Wagn er has stated during the course of the meeting that the deve loper will "help" with the installation of such a light, but the staf f report states that it will be "installed" by the deve loper. Mr. Wagner stated that the developer will participate in the installation of the li g ht. Mr. Wagoner also stated that the interi or roadways will be finished with gray asphalt, not concr ete. Hr. Mesa asked if consideration had been given to p roviding access from the south end of the development. Hr . Wagner pointed o u t that the only point of adjacency with Lehow Av enue and the su bj ec t site is where Big Dry Creek goes unde r Leh ow Avenue, and t hey cannot get access at that point, also the re i s a very steep grade o n the site on the southern part. -8- Mr. Beier asked if an up-dated traffic study had been considered. He stated that he would have to agree that the figures used on trips generated during a given time period were "preposterous". Mr. Wagner stated that the figures used were from the State Highway Department, but the developer will work with the City on resolving the traffic issue. Mr. Beier asked how old these traffic figures from the State Highway Department were. Mr. Wagner stated that they are 1984 figures. Hr. Beier asked what provision had been made for emergency vehicle access if there is no traffic signal and heavy traffic congestion on the street. Hr. Wagner stated that he had discussed access by emergency vehicles with the Fire Marshal, who saw no problem with the access as designed. Hr. Mesa stated that he is concerned about impacting Belleview Avenue with further traffic in light of the State Highway Department's intention of closing off a number of streets intersecting with Santa Fe Drive. He suggested that the closure of these intersections would throw more traffic onto streets such as Belleview Avenue. Mr. Wagner pointed out that the proposed development will contain 30% less traffic than it would handle if built to the maximum allowed under the R-3 Zone District. The developer has tried to design the project so it will be feasible financially, and still be workable for the City and neighborhood. Hs. King presented the elevations of the 44-unit buildings to the Commission for their consideration. Hr. Carson stated that he is also concerned about the traffic, an.d that the installation of a traffic light should be the financial responsibility of the developer; the City taxpayers should not have to pay for it. Hr. Carson then inquired about trash pickup and storage. Mr. Wagner stated that there will be screened trash dumpster sites throughout the development. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mesa, Stoel, Allen, Barbre,Beier, Carson Gourdin None Magnuson None The motion carried. Mr. Carson stated that he felt there is a need for more feed back from the Fire Department on the matter of access for emergency vehicles. He is also of the opinion the developer should pay for the traffic signal at South Delaware Street and West Belleview Avenue, if installation of such a signal is warranted. Discussion ensued. • • • • • • -9- Ms. King stated that in the past, a developer has provided the cost of materials for a traffic signal, and the City has provided the actual installation; Traffic Engineer Plizga has mentioned, however, that he did not know how long this policy could be in effect because of a shortage of staff time available for installation work. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Gourdin pointed out that one of the citizens addressing the Commission suggested that left-turn movements be prohibited at this intersection; this could help alleviate traffic problems in the interim until a determination is made on signalization. Mr. Stoel suggested that this should be part of the total traffic study. Mr. Mesa stated that if a traffic signal is to be installed, he would be in favor of the installation at the present time. He pointed out that there will be increased congestion during construction of the development. Mr. Mesa urged that an up-dated traffic study be submitted. Mr. Stoel disagreed that traffic on Belleview Avenue would increase because of intersection closures at Santa Fe Drive; he stated that he felt there will have to be provision of over-passes or under-passes to handle the traffic from some of the streets presently intersecting with Santa Fe Drive. He questioned that the intersection closures would have that much impact on West Belleview Avenue. Mr. Stoel stated that he is concerned about traffic, but does feel that the developer has made an effort to meet every requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he is of the opinion that consideration has been given to the residential neighbors to the west, as well as to the commercial development to the east. He stated that he feels the layout of the project indicates a quality life-style for the residents of the project, and that as the landscaping which is proposed matures on the site, it will be a benefit to the residents on the west side of the project. Mr. Stoel reiterated that he feels it is a quality project, and he will be voting in favor of it; he does feel, however, that the developer should pay for the installation of the traffic signal. Mr. Allen stated that his main concern is traff i c ; there should be another point of access from the south; these are volatile buildings and he could see there might be a problem with fire access. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there is provision for emergency access through the South Slope Condominium development via the east fire lane and a crash gate to the subject site; this crash gate would be on the southeast corner of this site. Mr. Wagner stated that this means of access had been discussed earlier, and the Fire Department had stated that they no longer needed that point of access. However, if the Commission so desires, the developer is willing to make provision for such access from the south. -10- Mr. Allen asked about the location of fire plugs on the site. Mr. Wagner stated that they are working with the Fire Department on the location of the plugs on the site. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Planning Commission approve and ref er to City Council the Planned Development for 300 West Belleview Avenue with the following stipulations: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1. The traffic on West Belleview Avenue shall be monitored for two years following the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy; if a traffic signal is warranted at the South Delaware Street-West Belleview Avenue intersection, it shall be installed at the expense of the developer. 2. A fire crash gate access shall be installed on the southeast corner of the property to provide emergency access from the south through the South Slope development via the east fire lane. Stoel, Allen, Barbre, None Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Mesa Magnuson None The motion carried. v. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Public Service Co. CASE #35-85 Hrs. Romans stated that Public Service Company is the applicant for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations. One parcel is to be sold; but because no rights-of-way or easements are required, the staff did not feel it was necessary to go through the process of a formal subdivision plat. Hr. Bill Davies, Senior Real Estate Agent for Public Service Company, was present and stated that he would answer questions; the staff report covered the situation quite well, and he had nothing further to add. In response to a question from Hr. Carson, Hr. Davies stated that he agreed with the staff report as written. • • • • • • -11- Carson moved: Gourd~n seconded: The Planning Commission approve the waiver to the Subdivision Regulations for property in the 4600 block of South Santa Fe Drive on the west side of the st reet as set forth in Case #35-85. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Mesa, Stoel None Magnuson None The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that after the packet had been sent to the Commission, a letter was received from the Del Webb Co. requesting approval of a private prison at 2750 South Shoshone Street. Mrs. Romans read the letter into the record. This property is in northwest Englewood. It appears that with the problems the State of Colorado and other jurisdictions are is having in building public prisons, that there are groups, companies, or corporations who are interested in building "private" prisons and leasing the facilities to governmental agencies. Discussion ensued. Mr. Barbre asked about the criteria on security that must be installed in such a use. Mrs. Romans stated that she did not know what the security criteria is, but she will try to get more information if the Commission wants to pursue this matter. Mr. Carson stated that he would like to know more about the private prison issue. Further discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that the use would not be permitted in the I-1, Light Industrial District. Mrs. Romans stated that at the City Council meeting of November 18 1 the Council approved the Subdivision Plat filed by General Iron Works; Council also approved the Subdivision Plat and Tidwell Planned Development for property on South Decatur Street. Mr. Allen asked what has happened to the development on the old KL2 site. Hrs. Romans stated that a second public hearing has been scheduled before City Council on November 25, 1985 . -12- Mr. Stoel asked if there was any further information about Councilman Higday's letter which was written to the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that she had written to City Manager Mccown asking for clarification of Councilman Higday's comments regarding Planning Commission decisions; in reply, City Manager Mccown indicated that Councilman Higday had made his point in the letter and he felt it would not be necessary to expand on it further. Discussion ensued. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Hr. Allen stated that he and Hr. Gourdin attended the Planning Commissioner's Seminar at Keystone. Hr. Gourdin stated that he felt the session was very informative, and gave xeroxed copies of some of the articles to the other members of the Commission. Hr. Allen stated that he also discussed the issue of trash disposal with other Commissioners attending the meeting. Hr. Carson asked what progress has been made on the annexation of some sites on southwest Englewood. Hrs. Romans stated that meetings have not yet been scheduled. Hr. Carson stated that he would like to invite the property owners of these areas to an informal meerting to discuss the pros and cons of annexation. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the people in at least one of the areas have strenuously opposed annexation to the City of Englewood in the past; but a meeting will be scheduled. Hr. Mesa asked that staff look into the possibility of obtaining a small desk lamp for the podium; he noted that it was difficult for Hr. Wagner to see his notes during the slide show when the lights were out. There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:00 P. H. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • • •