Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-22 PZC MINUTES·~ • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1984 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson Susan Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Allen Also present: Assistant Director Dorothy A. Romans Harold J. Stitt, Planner I City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 7, 1984 Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of February 7, 1984 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of February 7, 1984 be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The Broadway CASE /113-84 Chairman McBrayer welcomed the members of the audience to the meeting. Mr. McBrayer stated that the issue before the Commission is a Public Hearing on a proposed Planned Development to be known as "The Broadway", to be located on property south and east of the Burt and Target develop- ments on South Broadway. Mr. McBrayer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #13-84 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on February 1, 1984; Certification of Posting has been presented by the applicant for the record, and Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff report be made a part of the record. -2- Mr. McBrayer stated that the proposed development of the subject site is a 290-unit townhouse/condominium residential community. Under the Planned Development guidelines, the Commission will be considering such things as the location of buildings, parking, open space, points of in- gress and egress, traffic flow, landscaping, etc. Mr. McBrayer stated that following review of the staff report, hearing the presentation by the applicant, and hearing comments from members of the audience both pro and con, the Commission will then consider action on the request. The Commission may recommend approval of the Planned Development as submitted; recommend approval of the Planned Development with conditions, o·r refer the Planned Development back to the applicant for further re- vision. Mr. McBrayer asked that anyone wishing to address the Commission come to the podium, give their name and address and be sworn in. He asked that testimony be limited to the issue before the Connnission, and noted that there is a sign-up sheet circulating through the audience for those who want to speak to the Commission. Mr. McBrayer asked if the members of the Commission had questions of the staff regarding the staff report. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff had anything they wished to add at this point. Mr. Stitt pointed out that on Page 2 of the staff report, the maximum density is listed as 40 units per acre; there is a bonus factor in the existing R-3 Ordinance, which could increase the maximum density to 70 units per acre, or a total theoretical maximum of 1400+ units for this site. Mr. Tanguma asked for clarification of the R-E Estate zoning in Littletbn. Mr. Stitt stated that it is a very low-density single-family residential zone district. Mr. McBrayer was presented with the sign-in sheets, and asked that the applicants make their presentation at this time. Mr. Bill Baer, 2910 East 6th Avenue, was sworn in. He testified that he, Messrs. Randy Brown, Dale Boyd, Dasel Hallmark and Scott Hayden have worked together for over eight years, and have developed many projects in the metro area. Mr. Baer stated that he would like it made clear that ·the issue before the Commission is not a "rezoning" hearing, but a hearing on a Planned Development to accommodate proposed development permitted in the present zone classification. Mr. Baer stated that the applicants have worked closely with the Planning staff in the preparation of the proposed Planned Development. Mr. Baer stated that the matter of access was an issue early on in the discussions, and at a meeting attended by City of Englewood staff and representatives of Greenwood Village, Littleton and Arapahoe County, this was discussed in detail.· They have developed a "loop" roadway system to serve the development, and there will be no ac- cess other than from South Broadway. Mr. Baer stated that it is the aim of the applicants to develop a low-scale project of a residential character, a total of 290 units, 14.7 units per gross acre in density. These units will be townhomes and condominiums; some of the townhomes will have tuck- in garages, or walk-out basements. He stated that all buildings are oriented down the southern slope of the property. A 25-foot setback from adjoining property lines is proposed all around the development, and a shade/shadow study assured that a 2 P.M. shadow would remain on their property. The applicants agree to widen the bridge on South Broad- way at Big Dry Creek, and agree to "stabilize" the banks of Big Dry Creek. I • • -3- Mr. Baer emphasized that the density they have proposed, 290 units, is approximately 1/5 of the density allowed, and the development responds to the site specific and will be an asset to Englewood. Mr. Carson asked if the applicants have read the recommendations from the Planning staff, and do the applicants agree with these recommenda- tions. Mr. Baer stated that the applicants have read the recommendations, and only have a question on Item 10; in discussions they have had with Urban Drainage only one maintenance access ramp was requested; however, if Urban Drainage has determined that two maintenance access ramps are re- quired, the applicants would comply. Mr. Carson asked the type of construction to be used in the Planned De- velopment. Mr. Baer stated that the buildings would be of frame con- struction. Mr. McBrayer stated that there seems to be some concern on the part of the residents on Sunset Lane regarding the proposed development. He asked if Mr. Baer would indicate where Sunset Lane is in relation to the pro- posed development. Mr. Baer suggested that perhaps one of the residents on Sunset Lane could better point out the relation of that street to the proposed development. Mrs. Romans suggested that the Commission members might review the map included with the staff report to determine the lo- cation of Sunset Lane in relation to the development. The height of the structures was discussed. Mr. Baer discussed the topog- rap~y of the site, and noted that the townhomes would be two stories on the up-hill side, with the tuck-in garage or basement on the lower side. Mr. McBrayer estimated that this would mean an average of 2-1/2 stories hefght on the average grade of the land. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were other members of the applicant team who were to speak to the Commission. Mr. Baer stated that this would conclude the basic presentation; other members would be available for specific questions. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of the proposed development. No one in the audience spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. McBrayer then called on Ms. Linda Fornof, and asked Ms. Fornof if she wished to address the Commission. Ms. Linda Fornof, 5675 S. Washington, was sworn in, and stated that she had several questions to pose to the Commission. Is this site in the 100- year flood plain; has this issue been addressed. Mr. Stoel cited Statement#ll of the staff report and staff conditions, which states: "The 100-year flood plain limit should be shown on the Develop- ment Plan. The flood plain exceeds the channel limits at the south end of the property and should be so documented." Mr. McBrayer stated that it is evident that the issue of flood plain has been addressed. Ms. Fornof stated that with a density of 290 units, this would mean a -4- population of approximately 500 people in this area and the staff has said that this is substantially lower than what could be permitted. She stated that as far as being a neighbor of the proposed development, and a resident of an area with large lots that permits the keeping of large animals, she did not feel that the addition of 500 people onto the subject site would be beneficial to the life-style of the adjoining resi- dents. She stated that the animals might be offensive to · the residents of the proposed development, and questioned whether these new residents might be able to bring pressure to bear to force the elimination of the animals from their neighborhood. Mr. Carson stated that the City of Englewood has a very strict animal control law. Ms. Fornof stated that the residents of their area do have animals, and her concern was that residents of the proposed development could cause problems for those residents of the adjacent area that do enjoy having the large animals. Ms. Fornoff stated that she wanted to be on record in opposition to the proposed Planned Development. She stated that she has lived in this area for approximately eight years, and has seen some encroachment of higher intensity development during this eight year period. She stated that she did not feel the proposed development would be of the quality or nature that they would want to live next to. Mr. McBrayer asked Ms. Fornof what she envisioned as the optimum use of this land. Ms. Fornof stated that she would like to see a park de- veloped in this area, and understood that at one point in time there was discussion about the adjoining governmental entities joining to- gether to develop the land for park purposes. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that this property is privately owned, and that the property owner does have the right to use the land. Ms. Fornof stated that she still felt the land should be used for some sort of open area, but if the land had to be "commercially" developed, it should have the lowest possible density. She pointed out that this site abuts sites of one to two acre size, and suggested that perhaps a zone classification similar to the Residential Estates classification might be appropriate. Mr. David Fornof, 5675 South Washington, was sworn in. Mr. Fornof asked if the residents of the area could be assured that this development would end at the southern boundary of the property; could it be extended across Littleton land to get access at East Powers Avenue. Mr. McBrayer stated that he ,did not think this would be possible. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has met with the representatives from Littleton, and Littleton's position is that in no event would there be access from this property into Littleton. Mrs. Romans pointed out that any development on property in Littleton would be under the purview of the Littleton Planning Commission and the Littleton City Council. Mr. Fornof asked if there is a fence or divider proposed along the southern boundary of the site. Mr. McBrayer stated that it appeared that a fence or landscaping would be the buffer; this would be clarified with the ap- plicant. Mr. McBrayer cal led on Mr. Merle Frey; Mr. Frey stated that he would defer speaking at this time. Mr. John Campbell, 5560 South Washington, was sworn in. He testified that he had heard nothing about an environmental impact statement being • • -5- done for the proposed development. Mr. Campbell also discussed concerns about traffic that would be generated by the imposition of 290 living units in the area. Mr. Campbell asked if the development would be rentals with absentee land-lords, or would it be owner-occupied. He stated that they want to know "what kind of neighbors they would be getting", and that if the development would be rental units, he would object. He does not object to townhomes that would be sold. Mr. Campbell asked if there was a breakdown on the number of condos vs. the number of townhomes pro- posed in the development. What is the amount of "greenbelt" that is pro- posed. He noted that the 25 ft. setback cited was a good figure, but to compare it to the 5 ft. setback in Littleton is only "juggling figures." Mr. Campbell inquired about police and fire protection, and about noise created by the development. He asked what the residents of this develop- ment would do on weekends and holidays, and where they would go if open space were not provided on the site. Mr. Campbell also discussed the fact that the residents of the R-E area keep large animals; it is a unique rural area and they want to protect it. Mr. Campbell inquired what the total population projection for the development is; will roomers and boarders be allowed. Mr. Campbell pointed out that some of the structures appear to have three levels; how high will these structures actually be. Mr. Campbell then discussed Big Dry Creek, and recalled that the bridge at Broadway was washed out a number of years ago because of flooding on Big Dry Creek. If the contour of the Creek is changed for the benefit of the proposed development, will the water back up into the adjoining residential areas. Mr. McBrayer stated that the plans for the proposed Planned Development have been referred to the Police and Fire Departments, their recommenda- tions and comments have been received and noted in the staff report. Mr. McBrayer deferred to Mrs. Romans on the issue of roomers and boarders. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the site is zoned for R-3, High Density Resi- dential use. Even in the R-1-C Single-family zone district, one roomer or boarder is permitted. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the size of the units as proposed would preclude the letting of rooms to a boarder. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Baer to step forward to answer some of the questions raised hy opponents. Mr. McBrayer stated that the issue of animal keeping has been raised, and the fear that residents of the proposed development would try to prevent residents of the adjoining area from keeping animals on their property has been raised. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Baer cared to address this. Mr. Baer stated that if the keeping of animals is going on now, and any prospective purchaser in the proposed development is aware . of it but opposed to animals·, he would not anticipate they would complete the purchase. Mr. McBrayer asked about screening on the south side of the property. Mr. Baer stated that the proposed treatment on the south side of the property is landscaping and trees as shown on the plan. This is what they are committing to do. Mr. Baer stated that there will not be fencing on the south side of the property; the only fencing that is shown is that which is between this site and the Burt Chevrolet site. The height limitation was addressed. Mr. Baer stated that the buildings that the opponents cited as three story, are the town homes, which are two stories on the up-hill side, with the tuck-in garage or basement; the height of these structures would be under 40 ft·. maximum. -6- In response to a question from Chairman McBrayer, Mrs. Romans stated that the maximum permitted height of structures in the R-3 High Density Zone District is 60 feet. Mr. Baer addressed the question of the flood plain. Mr. Hallmark had prepared a drainage study, which was submitted, and clearly shows the 100-year flood plain on the Plan. Mr. Baer indicated the line on the Development Plan denoting the boundary of the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Baer further described what a Planned Development is, and pointed out that if this plan is approved by the City, this commits the developer to exactly what is shown on the plan regarding the location and size of structures, landscaping, parking, etc. They must build to this Plan. Mr. Phil DuBois, #6 Sunset Lane, was sworn in. He stated that the con- cerns of the neighbors is that of life-style. The people who live in this neighborhood live there for a reason, and they have chosen the area for its privacy and isolation from the "City". When the "City" comes to them, it bothers them. Mr. DuBois stated that in the period of time he has resided in the Denver area, he has seen numerous condominium/townhouse developments throughout the area and noted that they are not "exciting" for those who live near them or drive through the areas. Mr. DuBois stated that if the residents of the adjacent and adjoining areas can have any effect on the overall development plan and development of the subject site, they will do so; it is no answer to state that the land will be de- veloped at a density far less than what it could be developed to under the present zoning law. Mr. DuBois stated that zoning law is used only to determine the theortetical maximum density; factors such as traffic, water, parking, etc. all have an effect on the practical maximum density. He asked what is the "real maximum density" that could be developed on this site; he suggested that the real maximum density would be something less than the 290 units that are proposed. Mr. DuBois stated that he felt it could happen that the residents of the proposed development could decide that the animals kept by residents of the adjoining residential area are offensive and a nuisance, and that complaints could be lodged against the people who keep the animals. He stated that it may have nothing to do with the zoning, but whether or not the animal is a "nuisance" because of noise, or whatever, and that if enough people get together the matter could end up in Court. Mr. DuBois asked whether the Planning Commission has a position on this issue, or at what point a concensus will be reached on the issue. He asked if this meeting is "where we get patted on the head and sent home." Do the adjacent/adjoining residents have a voice here. Mr. DuBois asked what the developer plans for the eastern end of the property. Mr. DuBois stated that his residence is at #6 Sunset Lane and right against this property; the development will eliminate their view of the mountains, and is a concern to the residents on Sunset Lane. He asked if there will be fence along the eastern portion of the development, or will they have to be concerned about residents and pets from the proposed development cutting through their property to reach a more convenient road. What restrictions and covenants will be required by the Planning Commission on the number of persons per dwelling unit, whether children will be allowed, the number of vehicles allowed, whether animals are per- mitted, etc. Mr. DuBois stated that as the Planned Development is presently proposed he is definitely opposed to it. Mr. DuBois pointed out that while the proposed residential development may replace the use of the land by dirt-bikers, it could evolve into something much worse. • • -7- Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to address the concern of density; he stated that members of the Commission and staff realize that it would be impossible to actually develop this site to the 1400 unit theoretical maximum because of the other requirements that have to be taken into con- sideration. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that the applicant is proposing a development less than would be permitted, and is still meeting the ordinance requirements. Mr. DuBois pointed out that Mr. McBrayer is still considering the zoning ordinance issue; there are other issues that have to be addressed, such as is there sufficient water to serve the proposed development. He again stated that he is of the opinion that the 290-unit density is the practical maximum density that can be put on this site. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Planned Development was referred to the Utilities Department, Traffic Engineer, State Highway Department, and their comments and suggestions have all been submitted for the record and incorporated into the staff report submitted to the Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that the questions raised by Mr. DuBois have been addressed by the people with expertise in a given field and they have made recommendations regarding the Planned Development. Mr. DuBois asked what flexibility remains regarding the change in location of buildings; he is concerned about Buildings #18 and 19, those at the extreme east end of the development. Would the developer consider re- moving those structures completely, or lowering the height to one story and impose a greater setback. Mr. McBrayer called on Lynn Pederson; Ms. Pederson declined to speak to the Commission on the issue. Mr. McBrayer then called Ms. Lina Arnold; Ms. Arnold stated that she was present only as an observer. Mr. McBrayer called on Mr. Max Arnold, who also stated he was present as an observer. Bob Howell, 5399 South Clarkson Street was sworn in. He asked if, when Mr. McBrayer cited percentages of open space, lot coverage, etc., was this taking into account the Big Dry Creek right-of-way. Mr. McBrayer again cited the comparison set forth in the staff report, and asked for clarification from Mr. Stitt. Mr. Stitt stated that 46 % of the total site would be landscaped, or approximately 9.2 acres; this does include the Big Dry Creek easement. Mr. Howell then asked if usable open space included area devoted to parking. Mr. Stitt stated that usable open space is defined as that area being free of structures; but it does not include areas used for surface parking. Mr. Howell pointed out that the City of Englewood is in court at the present time regarding the use of the water tower and water pressure, and questioned that there would be sufficient water pressure to develop and care for this proposed 290-unit residential development . Mr. DeWitt stated that the request for water taps and water service will be reviewed by the Utilities Department, and that it is possible that the total development of 290 units may not occur if there is insufficient pressure. Mr. DeWitt stated that this is in the purview of the Utilities Department. -8- Mr. Howell stated that he felt this is serious criteria that should be addressed before the applicant is given the right to proceed with the development. Ms. Josephine Ipsen, 5505 South Washington, was sworn in. She testified to the problems that she has experienced in being served with Englewood sewer service. Ms. Ipsen stated that she has a connnon boundary with the proposed development; if a large building is put right next to her property it would cut off her view, and would be right over her back yard. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that the applicant has testified that the height of the buildings will be under 40 feet. Ms. Ipsen stated that this height wil·l eliminate the view for all of the residents along the development. Dr. Roy Lininger, #5 Sunset Lane, was sworn in. He stated that he was also representing the property owner at #11 Sunset Lane, Mr. Richard Shearer, who was unable to be at the meeting. Dr. Lininger stated that the issue of the ideal use of the land was raised, and that it was planned in the past that this would be developed for park and public purposes. He stated that he would hope prior to approval of this plan that the political entities would consider getting hold of this land and put it to its logical use --that of park and open space. He stated that the proposed plan will have very high density abutting up against a rural area; he suggested that it would be better to not have such a great contrast in the character of the two areas, and suggested that the minimum the Planning Commission should do is to insist that the buildings on the east and north be limited to one story in height, and setbacks be increased to equal those in Greenwood Village or Littleton. Dr. Lininger stated that he would like to read into the record the following letter from Mr. Schearer. Planning Commission City of Englewood 3400 S. Elati Englewood CO 80110 "11 Sunset Lane Littleton, CO 80121 February 20, 1984 I am unable to attend the public hearing Feb. 22 on the 290 unit Planned Development behind Burt Chevrolet, as I will be out of town. Therefore, I wish to state my strong objections to the development as it is currently shown on the plans. We live at 11 Sunset Lane, Greenwood Village and the proposed development is west and south of us and adjoins our property. The plans show 25 ft. setbacks on all sides of the development in the vicinity of our neighbor- hood. This would put the nearest building on the development, a three story condominium, approximately 50 ft. from our house. This would severely block our view of the mountains to the southwest and eliminate our backyard privacy. Bear in mind that the development is at about the same elevation as our adjoining properties at this location. In addition, the proposed location of the condominiums with only 25 ft. setbacks will make them highly visable to everyone living on or travelling on Sunset Lane. With three stories, they will visually impact everyone in this neighborhood. • • -9- I would request that the plans be modified to increase setback require- ments and reduce the building height at this end of the proposed develop- ment to reduce the detremental effects it will most certainly have on all of us in this neighborhood. I would appreciate it if this letter can be read at the public hearing. Sincerely, s/ Richard G. Shearer Richard G. Shearer" Mr. McBrayer stated that the staff has received a letter from the State Highway Department in response to the referral, which letter was received too late to include in the packet of information. Mr. McBrayer read into the record the letter from the State Highway Department. Susan T. King City of Englewood Planning Department 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, Colo. 80110 RE: Case, Broadway Development Plan Dear Susan: "February 16, 1984 We have reviewed the plan sent to us and have the following comments. Noise impacts from adjacent arterials must be mitigated by developer. A signalized intersection at the proposed entrance will not be permitted unless the existing signal at Centennial is abandoned. The Big Dry Creek bridge will need to be widened to accommodate the acceleration-deceleration lane. Yours very truly, RICHARD J. BRASHER District Engineer s/ Neil McLeod RUSSELL W. PATE Maintenance Superintendent RWP/DB/cal cpy: Brasher/Bovee G. Prentiss S .H. 75 RF" Mr. McBrayer asked if there were any late-comers to the meeting who did not sign in but would like to address the Commission. -10- Mr. Ron Kaylor, 5559 South Washington Street, was sworn in. Mr. Kaylor stated that those property owners appearing before him have demonstrated some of the concerns they have, but he questioned that it was proper to consider the issue of "down zoning" of the site. Mr. Kaylor noted that most of the concerns have dealt with the southeast corner of the site. Mr. Kaylor stated that he has had experience in real estate, and under- stands the density needs the developer must meet to make a project eco- nomical, and asked if possibly the developer could still meet the density needs of this project by increasing the density in another portion of the project, and decreasing the density in the southeast corner. Mr. Kaylor stated that he would request the Commission to discuss this possibility with the developer. Another consideration he felt would be worthwhile is the issue of solid fencing around the perimeter of the subject site; he stated that he did not know what is planned for play areas for children who might be living in the development, and pointed out that "people spread out to less confined areas, which would be the yards of the ad- jacent residents." Mr. Kaylor stated that he would ask that considera- tion be given to placing fencing along the areas of greatest concern, and stated that fencing and landscaping proposed would go a long way toward "noise and people abatement." Mr. Kaylor stated that one of the early concerns that was raised regarded traffic generated by this development; he noted that one of the parking areas on the proposed development plan lines up with an access way through the school property. He asked if this is planned as a future means of ingress/egress, or just coincidental. Mr. Kaylor then asked what the price range of the units will be. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Baer to come back to the podium. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Baer about the fencing vs. landscaping on the perimeter of the site; would the applicants be willing to install a fence on the perimeter of the site adjacent to the residential area in the County, Greenwood Village, and Littleton. Mr. Baer stated that the plans show just landscaping, and he is of the opinion that the applicants would prefer to not have a fence along the area; Mr. Baer did acknowledge that they have put up fences around other projects they have developed. Mr. McBrayer asked about covenants governing the development. Mr. Baer stated that this would be the by-laws of the Homeowners Association, and would be better answered by someone from CDM. Mr. McBrayer then inquired about the problem with sewer service that was cited by an opponent. Mr. Baer stated that he would defer to Mr. Hallmark on this matter. Mr. McBrayer inquired about the pricing of the units. Mr. Baer deferred to Mr. Boyd on the pricing of the units. Mr. McBrayer noted that most of the opposition expressed appears to be on the southeast part of the proposed development, Buildings 18 and 19; he asked if there was any chance these buildings could be reduced in height to one and one-half stor i es. Mr. Baer stated that he did not think this could be done at this time, that it is not a "simple matter of taking a floor off". Mr. Baer discussed the density mix that they have proposed for the site, noting that the higher density condominium development has been proposed closer to the commercial area of Burt Chevrolet and Target, while the lower density townhomes have been pro- posed along the residentially zoned abutting area. Mr. Baer stated that the condominiums and townhomes would be "for sale." • • -11- Mr. McBrayer questioned the possibility of eliminating the buildings #18 and #19, and developing this area as a green area, or open space. Mr. Baer stated that it is the opinion of the applicants that the pro- posed two story townhomes with a "residential flavor" were in keeping with the abutting residential neighborhoods, and that the setbacks pro- posed by the applicants are very much in keeping with the setbacks in the adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Baer stated that there have been meetings with the Planning staff for approximately one year to come up with the Planned Development, and the decisions on the density mix for the pro- ject were developed quite some time ago; he stated that he is not sure how well reducing the height of those buildings to one and one-half stories would fit into the overall plan. Mr. Carson noted that the school property is fenced, and the water tower property is also fenced; he asked if these fences are set right on the property lines. Mr. Hallmark estimated that the fences are set in from the property lines two to three feet. Mr. Dale Boyd, 950 South Cherry, was sworn in. Mr. Boyd addressed the issue of covenants governing the development, and stated that these are documents which basically discipline the use of the land. He stated that this will be a "for sale" project; the by-laws would govern the behavior of the people living in the development. Mr. Boyd stated that the price ranges will vary from $50,000 to approximately $80,000; it will be a middle market project for this type of community. Mr. Boyd stated that the applicants have been led to believe that sewer service is adequate for the proposed development. Mr. Venard stated that he is concerned about the parking and storage of recreational vehicles and asked if there is an area proposed for this use. Mr. Boyd stated that residents of the development will be able to park a trailer for no more than 72 hours on the site; they must then find another location to park the vehicle. He stated that they have no reason to develop a long-range storage lot for boats, trailers, etc., and do not plan to do so. Mrs. Becker stated that she does have concerns about play areas for children residing in the development; is there any planned play area for the children, or will children not be permitted in the development. Mr. Boyd stated there is no planned play area, but they generally put some area in; they have found in other communities they have developed there is a very low percentage of children. It has been their experience that if a young couple with small children are residing in the community, by the time the child reaches school age they usually move into a single-family residence. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission. Mr. Marv Anderson, 5665 South Washington, was sworn in. Mr. Anderson suggested that unless there is an architectural barrier, people from the proposed development will seek access to Powers Avenue from the sub- ject site. He stated that he felt some thought must be given to "con- tainment" on the project. Mr. Anderson asked why more creative thought could not be given to a more gradual move from a low-density residential district to a higher density district such as is proposed. Mr. Anderson suggested that the applicants may call the $50,000 to $80,000 pricing of -12- the units in the middle range, but he does not and cited the cost of the adjoining homes in the $200,000+ range. Mr. Anderson stated that he would hope the height of the buildings adjacent to the residential area could be cut to one story, and that the developers would consider some- thing other than a townhouse/condominium development. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. No one in the audience wished to address the Commission. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #13-84 be closed. AYES: Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission. Mrs. Becker suggested that a motion might be made, with discussion to follow on the motion. Becker moved: Magnuson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of The Broadway Planned Development, Case #13-84, with the following conditions: 1. Some areas of the drive lanes may need to be designated as "fire lanes" as determined by the Fire Marshal. 2. The proposed design of the water system for fire protection purposes must be submitted on blue- prints and approved prior to permit issuance for building construction. 3. The water system for this property must be de- signed to supply enough water to meet the required fire flow calculations (ISO) for the largest, most severely exposed structure in the development and must provide an adequate number of on-site fire hy- drants, as determined by the Fire Chief. (Section 10-30l(c), 1982 Uniform Fire Code.) 4. All fire hydrants and access roads must be usable immediately prior to and during any construction in- volving combustible materials. (Section 10-30l(d), 1982 Uniform Fire Code.) 5. All streets are to be built to City standards. 6. The South Broadway/Big Dry Creek bridge should be widened with adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes and a center storage lane for southbound traffic exiting from site, 7. The street providing access to the site should be named as per metro area grid system. • -13- 8. Egress from the site may be limited to right- turn only if the number of accidents increase at this intersection. 9. The 100-foot drainage easement should be expanded, where necessary, to include the entire Big Dry Creek channel to the top of the bank. 10. A maintenance access right across the private drives and parking lots as well as two ramps from the top of the bank to the channel bottom should be provided to the Urban Drainage District. 11. The 100-year flood plain limit should be shown on the Development Plan. The flood plain exceeds the channel limits at the south end of the property and should be so documented. 12. Initial maintenance responsibility for the channel must be established. 13. Urban Drainage and Flood Control must approve de- sign plans for any flood control facilities to be con- structed if the facilities are to be eligible for Dis- trict maintenance assistance. Mr. Carson stated that he felt some serious consideration is needed on this proposal; namely, that some kind of fencing in the southeast corner of the project be required. Mrs. Becker stated that she would be willing to add the provision of a fence to the conditions to be met by the develop- er with the approval of the second. She stated that it did appear to her that the concern with a fence around the site was more with "containment" and not with aesthetics. 14. Fencing in addition to the proposed landscaping shall be installed in the southeast portion of the proposed development. Mrs. Becker stated that it appears to her that the people who have spoken before the Commission have had an opportunity to purchase the property if they wanted to preserve their view, and to provide the open space they want in the area. Ms. Becker stated she would suggest that if, up to the point where this property has been purchased by the applicants, the governmental agencies have not taken steps to develop the site for open space, that it wil l not b e done by the governmental agencies. Mrs. Becker questioned that it might be inappropriate for the Commission to recommend that the structures on the east end of the development be lowered in height or removed. Mrs. Becker stated that she does appreciate the fact that the applicant has reduced the density of the proposal from the maximum that could be permitt e d, but is also aware that an additional 500 people on this site seems like a lot to the adjoining property owners. Mrs. Becker suggested there would not need to be open space on the site for the total population of the development at the same time. Regarding the matter of renter vs. owner, she questioned that the Commission has any right making such a stipulation that a property owner cannot rent a unit if he so desires. Mrs. Becker stated that she does empathize with the opponents who fear the imposition of a large building right next to -14- their home, but pointed out that the applicant is providing a 25 foot set- back from his property line. She stated that she would vote in favor of the motion. Mr. McBrayer stated that the property is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, and he sees the intended use as a buff er between the low-density residential development to the east, and the commercial development along South Broadway. Mr. McBrayer stated that this land will not develop as R-1 property. Mr. McBrayer stated that the ordinances are written to provide a break between the low-density single-family areas and the high intensity commercial and industrial developments, by imposing higher density residential developments in between. Mr. McBrayer stated that in general, he is in favor of the plan; however, since most of the opposition is to the southeast corner of the site, it appears that this small area could be better left in land- scaping, and the units proposed for this area on the Plan could be in- corporated in enlarged buildings elsewhere on the site. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is of the opinion it would be an oversight on the part of the Commission to not try to address the concerns of the property owner.s who will be only 25 feet from the proposed structures. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to try to talk the applicants into "jockying" the units around to leave the southeast corner open for green area. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would agree with Mr. McBrayer's sentiments, and suggested that with a little realignment of some of the structures, he felt maybe the neighborhood adjoining the site could be helped. Mr. Tanguma stated that he likes the concept of the development, but if the Commission and applicant could help the neighbors by lowering the impact of the two buildings on the southeast part of the site, they should do so. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt most of the concern that was registered by the opponents was that the "buildings were being shoved against their property line"; he suggested that the developer should take into considera- tion what was said at this meeting, and readjust the plan accordingly. Mr. Tanguma asked why the change in the requirements of the Fire Depart- ment from two access routes to approval of one point of access. Mrs. Romans stated that this is a lower intensity use that was proposed in previous proposals. Both the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal are of the opinion that the one point of access is adequate. Mrs. Becker asked whether it is within the right of the Planning Commission to ask the applicant to change the Plan. Mr. DeWitt suggested that the Commission should refer to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and review it to clarify the duty of the Commission. Mrs. Becker stated that she would reword her question: Has the Commission the right to say to the applicant that the Plan cannot be approved unless he will move some of the buildings from where they are proposed, or to say that the applicant may or may not have approval of the Planned Development based on the plan as presented. Mr. DeWitt asked if the Commission was talking about removal of the two buildings. Mrs. Becker stated that it is a "rearrange- ment" of the units into other areas of the site. Mr. DeWitt stated that he .felt the Commission had this right; the applicant may appeal the deter- mination of the Planning Commission to the City Council, and that the City Council does make the final determination on any Planned Development. • • -15- Mr. McBrayer called for the vote on the motion, as amended with the ad- dition of #14 regarding the construction of a fence along the southeast portion of the subject site. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, Venard NAYS: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer thanked members of the audience for their attendance and comments, and declared a recess of the Commission at 9:00 P. M. * * * * * The meeting reconvened at 9:10 P. M., with the following members present: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard. Mr. Allen was absent. IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER The Broadway * * * * * CASE #14-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that this matter before the Commission is a request for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations by the developers of The Broadway Planned Development. He noted that the staff report was sub- mitted to the Commission for their perusal, and asked if there were any questions of the staff. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff had anything to add to the staff report. Mrs. Romans stated that if a property is to be developed under the Planned Development guidelines, a subdivision has not been required; the staff does support the granting of a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was any one in the audience who wanted to ad- dress this issue. No one spoke regarding the Subdivision Waiver. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the request of Mr. Kal and a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations be granted. AYES: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. City Attorney DeWitt e x cused himself from the meeting . V. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Proposed Amendments CASE /115-84 Ms. Powers stated that two years ago, the Commission considered the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan) to determine whether it was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. It was Zeff -16- determined that the Downtown Redevelopment Plan did comply with the Com- prehensive Plan, and it was recommended to the City Council and adopted in August, 1982 by Resolution No. 39, Series of 1982. The redevelopment plan proposed by Brady Corporation has changed considerably from that which was proposed in 1982, and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been proposed for amendment to more accurately reflect the current redevelop- ment proposed. Ms. Powers reviewed the changes in the proposed redevelop- ment, most notable of which is the change from the Girard "Mall" to the Girard/South Cherokee (Civic Center Boulevard) concept. The Urban Renewal Authority has referred the proposed amendments to the City Council, which body has, in turn, referred the proposed amendments to the Planning Com- mission to determine whether the amendments will still cause the Plan to comply with the general Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood. One of the amendments pointed out by Ms. Powers is the expanded list of prop- erties to be acquired by the Urban Renewal Authority to facilitate the public improvements needed along Little Dry Creek in the downtown area. Ms. Powers stated that if the Planning Commission determines that the amended Downtown Redevelopment Plan does comply with the general Compre- hensive Plan, a proposed resolution has been prepared for the Commission's action; this will be referred to the City Council for a Public Hearing on March 19th. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council has asked staff to make contact with the property owners on Acoma to determine whether or not they do in fact, want their properties listed for acquisition by the Urban Renewal Authority. Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Commission approve Resolution #1, Series of 1984, A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF THE AMENDED DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, and refer the matter to City Council for their approval. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. VI. FINDINGS OF FACT I-2, General Industrial Sign Code, §22.7 Design Guidelines, §22.4C Case #10-84 Case #11-84 Case #12-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that Findings of Fact on amendments to the I-2, General Industrial District, §22.7, Sign Code, §22.4 C Design Guidelines, were to be considered for approval. Barbre moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #10-84 amendments to the I-2 General Industrial District, be approved as written. • -17- AYES: Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #11-84, amendments to §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Sign Code, be approved as written. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. Venard moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #12-84, amendment of §22.4 C of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, De- sign Guidelines, be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. VII. I-1 ZONE DISTRICT §22.4-12 CASE #9-84B Mr. McBrayer stated that the revised I-1 Zone District amendments in- corporating the mobile home parks as a permitted use and design standards for the mobile home park have been prepared by the staff. He asked if the Commission had any revisions or comments to the proposed zone amend- ments. Mr. Stoel asked if anyone in the I-1 Zone District could apply for a mobile home park. Mrs. Romans stated that if the property in question met the standards set forth for the development of a mobile home park they could apply for a permit for a mobile home park. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the Commission needs to set a date for a public hearing on the proposed amendment, and suggested that March 20 be scheduled for this Hearing. Mr. Stoel asked if WHERE had reviewed the proposed guidelines. Mrs. Romans stated that representatives of WHERE have indicated to her they are in favor of the ordinance with the proposed guidelines incorporated. They have indicated that they would like the density increased to 10 - 12 units per acre. However, Mrs. Romans stated, she did considerable research several years ago when drafting the proposed standards, and the eight units per acre was the acceptable standard for a mobile home park density; she stated that she would not recommend an increase in the number of units per acre. -18- VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Com- mission. No one in the audience addressed the Commission at this time. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that during the recess of the Commission she had some discussion with Mr. Boyd of CDM, and he indicated that he would be willing to have his architect look at the plan to see if an adjustment can be made in the density/development of the southeast corner of The Broadway site. Mrs. Romans stated that the APA Conference will be May 5 -9 in Minneapolis- St. Paul, and suggested that members of the Commission should begin con- sidering who they will designate to attend. The Annual Banquet sponsored by Denver Regional Council of Governments will be on March 28 at the Regency Inn. Members of the Commission who want to attend should notify the staff so that reservations may be made. The City will pay for the attendance of the Commission member; guests of the Commissioner will be at the expense of the Commission member. Mr. Carson requested that two reservations be made for him to attend the DRCOG Banquet. X. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Stoel stated that he would like to move that Mrs. Becker be designated to attend the APA Conference in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Mr. Carson stated he would second the motion. Mr. Tanguma stated that he wanted more than one Commission member to go to this conference. He stated that there are so many different meetings going on at the same time, that the Commission member cannot possibly get all the information available. Mrs. Becker stated that he would agree that it would be beneficial for more than one Commission member to attend the conference. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would be interested in attending, and would be willing to pay his own way to the conference, if there are sufficient funds to provide registration for him in addition to Mrs. Becker's ex- penses. Ms. Powers stated that the staff would look at the budget. It was the concensus of the Commission that Mrs. Becker be designated to attend the APA Conference in May. Mr. McBrayer stated that at the time of his interview with the City Council prior to his reappointment, one of the matters discussed was the fact that City Council would like to look at matters being considered by the Com- mission prior to being put in final form for their consideration. If they are against the concept of something the Commission is considering, it would make no sense to proceed on this particular project, Mr. McBrayer stated that there is concern about the amount of staff time spent on typing and retyping materials. Mr. McBrayer presented Commission members with a proposed revised procedure to follow on items to be referred to the City Council. Under the proposed procedure, a summary of the changes • -19- under consideration by the Commission would be sent to the Council and their input would be available before further work was done on the matter. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker asked if there was anything on procedures to be followed that is set out in the Charter that might be in conflict with the proposal. Also, would the summary be referred to the legal de- partment so that input from the City Attorney would be available early on. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would not want to be "influenced" by City Council by having their input prior to Commission consideration. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt there was a need to receive input from the public before City Council consideration. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the Commission members study his proposal, and maybe some way can be devised that will be workable, and yet not deny public input or lead to "influence" by City Council. Mr. Carson stated that he knows that City Council wants to know what we are doing right from the first. If they have comments about a pro- ject the Commission is working on, they should let the Commission know. Mr. McBrayer stated that the meeting on March 6 has been scheduled as a work session on the goals and work program of the Commission for the ensuing year. He presented members with a suggested format that might be followed in devising the goals. It was suggested that this work session begin at 5:30 P.M., and that sandwiches be served. Mr. McBrayer stated that one of the goals of the previous year that was not completed was to review the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he has designated this as a project for this year, and discussed the possi- ble procedure to be followed in the review. Mrs. Becker stated that she would like to discuss the role she has assumed with the APA Colorado Chapter; she stated that she finds the meetings very interesting, and that Susan King of our staff is a member of the Board. Mr. McBrayer inquired about a second meeting or an adjustment on the meeting date with the City Council. Ms. Powers stated that the Community Development Department staffs four boards and commissions, and it may be possible to switch dates. She would look into this. Mr. Carson asked when a Planned Development will be coming in on the Fairgrounds. Ms. Powers stated that the property owners are still trying to work out the zoning; the property is within the City limits of Engle- wood, however. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P. M. trude G. Welty cording Secret .. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 1 Series of 1984 A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF THE AMENDED DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. WHEREAS, a Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been prepared by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan was amended by the Urban Renewal Authority on February 8, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommenda- tions as to its conformity with the General Plan for the development of the municipality as a whole in accordance with Section 31-25-107(2) C.R.S. 1973, as amended; and WHEREAS, a review has been conducted by the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com- mission of the City of Englewood, Colorado: ATTEST: Section 1: That the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended, has been determined to be in conformity with the General Plan of de- velopment for the City of Englewood. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 22nd day of February , 1984. ~~~~~ ~~~~---"'---~~~- Chairman