Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-16 PZC MINUTES/ • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 16, 1 980 CALL TO ORDER. 5 A The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Vice-Chairman Draper. M~mbers Present: Williams, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre Romans, Ex-officio Members Absent: Tanguma, Senti , Pierson Also present: Acting Associate Planner Barbara Young II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Vice-Chairman Draper stated that the Minutes of September 3, 1980, were to be considered for approval. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Minutes of the September 3, 1980, meeting be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Williams, McBrayer, Draper, Ca~son NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Becker ABSENT: Tanguma, Senti, Pierson The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE #24-80 §22.4A --Planned Development . District 122.5-5--Off-Street Parking Requirements Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7:03 P. M. and took his place with the members of the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that Mrs. Pierson had called earlier in the day to state that she wa s not feeling well and would not be in attendance. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed amendments to the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance are attempts to comply with the State Implementation Plan for Ai r Quality Control. The State must have this Air Quality Control plan in effect by December 31, 1982, in accordance with the 1977 Clean Air Act . Mrs. Romans pointe d out that the sections of the Ordinance which are suggested to be amended are crossed out and the suggested wording is inserted in capital letters. Mrs. Romans discussed the proposed amendment of §22.4A, Planned Development District, and pointed out· that were the City of -2- Englewood to have large Planned Developments, this amendment would be very essential. However, most of the Planned Develop- ments in the City of Englewood involve a small area, and she questioned that this amendment will have too much ·effect on them. The staff does not feel that the amendment will be of harm, and that it would be well to have it included in this section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in an effort to comply with the State requirements. Mrs. Romans asked if the Commission was in agreement with this proposed amendment, and should it be considered at a Public Hearing. Mr. Draper asked if this would cause problems for the small Planned Developments in any way? Mrs. Romans stated that she did not see that it would. Mr. Draper stated that it appeared to him that if a small Planned Development were in close proximity to a bicycle trail that has been designated by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, that they would have to comply with this pro- vision, and provide the bicycle trails. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the bicycle trails designated by DRCOG are primarily along the South Platte River, and along South Platte River Drive through Englewood. Mrs. Romans reviewed attempts to get a bicycle trail system approved in Englewood, and noted that when a proposed trail \ • system was put to Public Hearing by the Planning Commission ~ several years ago, there was considerable opposition to the ,_, proposal, and very little support. The Planning Commission at that time determined that the proposal should be shelved, and there is no approved bicycle trail system through the City of Englewood. Mrs. Romans asked Acting Associate Planner Young whether she had anything to add to this discussion, inasmuch as Mrs. Young has worked on the bicycle trail system report and has attended the meetings the Council of Governments has had on this matter. Mrs. Young stated that she felt the City of Englewood was rather bound to approve the amendments because it is part of the State Implementation Plan required for the Air Quality Control Pro- gram, and the City Council has adopted a resolution stating that the City of Englewood would comply with the Air Quality Control Plan. By adopting the proposed amendments, the City would have fulfilled the requirements for the State Implementa- tion Plan which the resolution supported. Becker moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission set a Public Hearing date of October 21, 1980, to consider amend- ments to §22.4A, Planned Development District, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. • • • -3- AYES: Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma, McBrayer, Draper, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Pierson The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that the second amendment to the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance is to §22.5-5 Off-Street Parking Standards. M~s. Romans discussed the wording on §22.5-5a(l5) (a), and questioned that bicycle parking could be required with a change of occupancy or use. Mrs. Romans made reference to an opinion from the City Attorney's Office regarding the requirement of additional parking or the prohibition of the use; this opinion stated that additional parking could not be required, and the use could not be prohibited because they did not provide the additional parking. Mrs. Romans suggested that this provision might apply only to new structures and new uses. She further suggested that the word "Chapter" be changed to "Ordinance." Mrs. Romans then discussed provision (f) which sets forth the parking standards for bicycles according to use. The first provision for multiple-family dwellings requires one bicycle parking space per each unit; Mrs. Romans questioned that this was practical, particularly on units that are solely for occu- pancy by the elderly, for instance. Discussion ensued. Mr. Carson suggested that perhaps this provision should be eliminated? Mr. Tanguma suggested that perhaps developments devoted to the elderly should be exempted from this provision, or that the requirements should be reduced. Mr. McBrayer suggested that possibly a very low ratio should be established, which the Com- mission would be able to increase depending on the use. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt standards should be set. Mr. Barbre stated that he felt it would be very difficult to determine the bicycle parking standards for multi-family units; he pointed out that some of the apartments near his off ice have two or · three bicycles on each balcony . Mrs. Young suggested the possibility of requiring developers to prove they did not need to meet specific bicycle parking standards, much as the Medical Center had to provide proof that 50% compact car parking was permissible. Mrs. Romans pointed out that in the cas e of the Medical Center, they came before the Commission on l y because the parking lots were in excess of 50 spaces. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Draper stated that he felt this would be an added burden on developers, and that he did not feel the Commission was here to make problems for the developers. Mrs. Romans stated that she ' had no qualms on the parking re- quir~ments for bicycles for non-residential uses. Further discussion ensued. Mr . McBrayer pointed out that in some areas, senior citizens are using three-wheeled cycles and that some area must be provided for the parking of these vehicles. -4- Becker moved: Carson seconded: That the word i ng o n §22.5-5a(l5) (f) be changed . to: Multiple-fami l y Residential Use ..... one bicycle park i ng space per each two dwelling units; facilities for senior citizens shall be exempt' from this requirement. AYES: Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, McBrayer, Draper NAYS: Williams ABSENT: Senti, Pierson The motion carried. Mr. Williams stated that he did not believe there should be any exemptions, and for that reason voted in opposition to the motion. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: Public Hearing on the amendment of §22 .5-5 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be set for October 21 , 1980. AYES: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, McBrayer NAYS: Williams ABSENT: Senti, Pierson The motion carried. IV. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS §12-3-4 --Definitions §12-3-22--Contents of Preliminary Design §12-3-23--Vicinity Sketch §12-3-25--Review of Design CASE #25-80 Mrs. Romans reviewed the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, which, again, are required in order to comply with the State Implementation Program for Air Quality Control. She reiterated that there is no approved bicycle trail system in the City of Englewood, and no "current city standards." Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The amendments to the Subdivision Regulations be set for Public Hearing on October 21, 1980. AYES: McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Pierson The motion carried. V. STATE HIGHWAY WORK PROGRAM 1981/1982 CASE #26-80 Mrs. Romans stated that the projecbs listed intlle proposed • • • -5- 1981/82 State Highway Work Program are not new projects, but are matters that have been repeatedly requested. These pro- jects are to be submitted to Arapahoe County by October 9, 1980. Mrs. Romans reviewed the process that is followed; the Planning Commission considers the requests which are compiled after consultations with the Public Works Department and Engineering Services Department; the Planning Commission makes recommendation to the City Council on matters they feel should be included in the State Highway Work P r ogram for the following fiscal year. F9llowing consideration by City Council, the projects are then sent to Arapahoe County for compilation with the requests from other jurisdictions within the County for presentation to Highway Commission or the Regional Planning Agency in the case of re- quests for the Federal Aid Urban System. Mrs. Romans stated that some of the items that are included in the request this year have been scheduled for funding, but are still included for emphasis, such as the improvements to South Santa Fe Drive. The staff feels that the U. S. 285/West Ithaca couplet should have Number 1 priority. The staff recom- mends that the requested projects should be referred to City Council with the recommendation from the Planning Commission that they be included in the State Highway Work Program for the 1981/82 Fiscal Year. Mrs. Romans briefly reviewed the requested projects with the members of the Commission. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following items for the 1981- 1982 Highway Work Program be referred to the Arapahoe County Commissioners: I. Requests to the State Highway Commission for inclusion in the F.Y. 1981/82 Work Program. A. Construction Projects on the State Highway System: 1. South Santa Fe Drive: a. Widen and improve to a major Arterial between I-25 and County Line Road, a distance of approxi- mately ten (10) miles. To be considered in the engineering of this principal arterial are: (1) The construction of an interchange at the intersection of West Dartmouth Avenue and South Santa Fe Drive. (2) The upgrading of the interchange at South Santa Fe Drive and U. S. 285 to accommodate the maximum anticipated volume of traffic and to include the design for the merger of the u. s. 285 couplet into the inter- change. -6- (3) The construction of an interchange at· the intersection of West Oxford Avenue and South Santa Fe Drive. (4) The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of South Santa Fe Drive and West Quincy Avenue. (5) The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of South Santa Fe Drive and West Tufts/West Union Avenue. (6) The construction of an interchange at the intersection of South Santa Fe Drive and West Belleview Avenue. 2. u. s. 285: a. The construction of a one-way couplet between South Broadway and South Santa Fe Drive utilizing the present alignment of u. S. 285 and West Ithaca Avenue, and the upgrading of the U. S. 285/South Broadway interchange as a part thereof. b. The correction of the drainage problem of Greenwood Gulch backing up from U. S. 285 at South Clarkson Street. c. The extension of the drainage system along u. s. 285 to take care of the sheet flow across u. s. 285 between South Downing Street and South Pearl Street. 3. Belleview Avenue: a. The construction of Belleview Avenue to four lanes from South Peoria Street to South Sheridan Boulevard. b. The installation of storm inlets on the north side of West Belleview Avenue from South Elati Street to Big Dry Creek. 4. Centennial Parkway. a. Construction. II. Requests Relative to the Federal Aid Urban System. A. Additions to the Federal Aid Urban System. 1. South Clarkson Street from East Yale Avenue to East Dartmouth Avenue. • • • • -7- B. Construction Projects on the Federal Aid Urban System . 1. South Broadway from Yale Avenue to Floyd Avenue to be widened to the same width as South Broadway from U. S. 285 to Quincy providing left-turn pockets and a landscaped median, and from Quincy to Belleview to be provided with a landscaped median. 2. South Clarkson Street: To be constructed to two lanes from U. S. 285 to East Orchard Avenue. AYES: McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Senti The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans asked members of the Planning Commission if they wanted the staff to up-date the Bicycle Trails Report for further consideration? It was the concensus of the Commission that this should be done. Mrs. Romans reminded members of the Special Meeting on September 23rd at 7:00 P. M., at which time there will be a public meeting to consider the Prowswood plans for development on the site commonly known as the KLZ Site. Mrs. Romans emphasized that this is not a public hearing, but a public meeting. Letters have been sent to the adjacent property owners advising them of this public meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Commission will be considering an amendment to a Subdivision Waiver, and that a Public Hearing is not required on this; nor does it have to be referred to City Council. The Planning Com- mission is charged with the final decision in the matter. Mrs. Romans stated that a Public Hearing has also been set on the evening of September 23rd, to consider the replatting of property on the west side of the 3500 block of South Marion Street. Mrs. Romans stated that some members of the Commission would recall that this is the area for which a group of doctors had requested rezoning; however, the adjacent property owners were opposed to their plans .for development. The rezoning re- quest was finally dropped by the doctors. The developers currently interested in the site want to develop it with attached single-family residential units to be constructed in four two- unit and one three-unit buildings. The individual units will be sold. At the time of the prior platting, some of the lots were platted running east and west, and some of them ran north and south. There was also a north/south alley, as well as two -8- east/west alleys in the subdivision, two of which were vacated a number of years ago. The Planning Commission also recently • vacated the excess right-of-way along South Marion Street on the west side. All of this has made the writing of legal descriptions for individual parc e ls extremely difficult, and it was advised by the Director of Public Works and by Mrs. Romans that the developers start over and replat. Mrs. Romans noted that the developers appeared before the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals regarding a variance for the "O" lot lines/set- backs, and discussed the tenor of that meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that a date for Public Hearing on the zoning of the South Osage Street Annexation area must be set. The petition for annexation has been submitted to the City Council, and the Planning Commission must begin consideration on the zoning designation of the site. Discussion ensued. It was the concensus of the Commission that this matter could also be considered at Public Hearing on October 21, 1980, and asked that the property be posted and Public Notice given . VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson stated that he had some questions about the sites suggested for the Community Center which was given to the Com- mission at the last meeting. He asked if this was to be re- ferred to ·city Council. Mrs. Romans stated that it was not to ~ be referred to City Council at this time. The Planning Division staff was asked by the Parks and Recreation Department staff to come up with alternative locations for the Community Center, and a copy of that report had been given to the Commission for their information. This required no action on the part of the Commission. The Commission did ask that the map indicating the sites be reduced and a copy given to them, which was done. Mrs. Romans stated that if the Planning Commission were to take action, it should be in the form of a recommendation to the committee that is working on the community center. Mr. Carson stated that he disagreed with some of the recommended sites. Mrs. Romans emphasized that these are not "recommended" sites, but only a list of possible sites to be considered. She reiterated that this was given to the Commission as a matter of information only. Mr. Draper stated that in the latest copy of the COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE magazine, there is a good article on.the quasi-judicial proceedings that the Commission had discussed on past occasions. He suggested that members might well spend a few minutes to read the article. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • • • -9- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . DATE: September 16, 1980 SUBJECT: 1981/1982 State Highway Department Work Program RECOMMENDATION: Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following items for the 1981/1982 Highway Work Program be referred to the Arapahoe County Commissioners: I. Requests to the State Highway Commission for inclusion in the F.Y. 1981/82 Work Program. A. Construction Projects on the State Highway System: 1. South Santa Fe Drive: a. Widen and improve to a major Arterial between I-25 and County Line Road, a distance of approxi- mately ten (10) miles. To be considered in the engineering of this principal arterial are: (1) The construction of an interchange at the intersection of West Dartmouth Avenue and South Santa Fe Drive. (2) The upgrading of the interchange at South Santa Fe Drive and U. S. 285 to accommodate the maximum anticipated volume of traffic and to include the design for the merger of the U. S. 285 couplet into the inter- change. (3) The construction of an interchange at the intersection of West Oxford Avenue and South Santa Fe Drive. (4) The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of South Santa Fe Drive and West Quincy Avenue. (5) The construction of a grade separation at the intersection of South Santa Fe Drive and West Tufts/West Union Avenue. (6) The construction of an interchange at the intersection of South Santa Fe Drive and West Belleview Avenue. -10- 2. u. s. 285: a. The construction of a one-way couplet between South Broadway and South Santa Fe Drive utilizing the present alignment of U. S. 285 _and West Ithaca Avenue, and the upgrading of the U. S. 285/South B~oadway interchange as a part thereof. b. The correction of the drainage problem of Greenwood Gulch backing up from U. S. 285 at South Clarkson Street. c. The extension of the drainage system along U. S. 285 to take care of the sheet flow across U. S. 285 between South Downing Street and South Pearl Street. 3. Belleview Avenue: a. The construction of Belleview Avenue to four lanes from South Peoria Street to South Sheridan Boulevard. b. The installation of storm inlets on the north side of West Belleview Avenue from South Elati Street to Big Dry Creek. 4. Centennial Parkway. a. Construction. II. Requests Relative to the Federal Aid Urban System. A. Additions to the Federal Aid Urban System. 1. South Clarkson Street from East Yale Avenue to East Dartmouth Avenue. B. Construction Projects on the Federal Aid Urban System. 1. South Broadway from Yale Avenue to Floyd Avenue to be widened to the same width as South Broadway from U. S. 285 to Quincy providing left-turn pockets and a landscaped median, and from Quincy to Belleview to be provided with a landscaped median. 2. South Clarkson Street: To be constructed _ to two lanes from U. S. 285 to East Orchard Avenue. AYES: McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Williams, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Senti The motion carried. By Order of the ~/ & Zoning Commission. • •