Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-18 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 1980 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 Judith B. Pierson. Members present: Williams, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: James Keller, Executive Director of the EDDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of November 5, 1980, were t o be considered fo r approval. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of November 5, 1980, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Williams, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Draper, Becker The motion carried. III. BICYCLE TRAIL REPORT CASE 1132-80 Mrs. Romans indicated a display of maps, one of which identified the Regional Bicycle Transportation System showing the primary and secondary routes which would affect the City of Englewood. Another map identified the bicycle routes in the City which were considered by the Planning Commission in 1972 and again in 1974. The Regional primary routes include South Zuni Street from West Evans Avenue south to Dartmouth Avenue, Oxford Avenue from the east to west City boundaries, and South Sherman Street from East Yale Avenue south to Dartmouth Avenue. Secondary routes on the Regional Plan include Dartmouth Avenue, Layton Avenue, Fox/Elati Streets, Bannock Street north of Dartmouth, and along the South Platte River in Englewood. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Regional Plan does not show a trail system along Big Dry Creek or other waterways through the City. Mrs. Romans pointed out, also, the relation of the proposed primary and secondary routes to Englewood parks • Mrs. Romans then referred to the Englewood bicycle system which the staff and the Commission have considered since 1972/74. Attempts have been made to avoid using Dartmouth, which is a heavily traveled street; how- ever, it was pointed out by Mr. McBrayer at the last meeting that bicyclists are going to need some means of protection in crossing Broadway, and that perhaps the signalized intersection at Dartmouth and Broadway should be r -2-~ used. The local plan proposes to make use of right-of-way along drainage- ways such as Big Dry Creek, City Ditch, and others. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Carson had pointed out prior to beginning the meeting that a ~ majority of the right-of-way along the City Ditch has been vacated and there would be no way that a bicycle route could be developed along this area. She stated that while a great deal of the right-of-way has been encroached upon, if it were to be designated as a bicycle route, further encroachment might be prevented, and there would be a distance along the Ditch that could be developed for a bicycle route. Mrs. Romans pointed out that attempts have been made in the local plan to tie in with the neighborhood parks, also. Mrs. Romans stated that it was suggested at the last 'meeting that an article be published in the Englewood Citizen, along with a form for citizens who were interested in participating on an ad hoc committee for the bicycle trail system to submit. She stated that she spoke to Ms. Peggy Gonder, editor of the Englewood Citizen, and was told that the December issue was pretty well "set", but that this could be done in the January, 1981, issue. Mr. McBrayer stated that he hopes to have a story regarding the bicycle trail system in both the Englewood Citizen and the Englewood Herald Sentinel. The story in the Citizen would be in the January, 1981, issue, and he said that he plans to contact the Sentinel in mid to late December, 1980. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt a meeting of the four Commission members who indicated they wanted to work on the Bicycle Trail System along about mid-December would be wise, and would give them an opportunity to organize the approach to the work ahead. He stated that he felt participa- tion by other committee members could then begin in January. Mrs. Pierson suggested that possibly the Commission members on the bicycle trails committee would want to consider meeting on December i6th; there is nothing on the agenda for the regular meeting at this point in time, and this would be a regular meeting night . Mr. McBrayer, Mr. Senti, Mr. Carson and Mr. Tanguma all indicated that the evening of December 16th was satisfactory as a meeting date for the ad hoc group. Mr. McBrayer stated that he thought that posters announcing the formation of the bicycle trails committee and asking for participation, could be placed in bicycle shops and stores in Englewood and that this might get some participants. The date for the first meeting of the ful£ ad hoc com- mittee in January was discussed, and it was determined to set January 13th as a tentative meeting date. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff had a copy of the Denver Bicycle Trail Plan? Mr. Tanguma stated that he had a friend wh o was going to get him a copy. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would attempt to get a co py of the Denver Bicycle Trail Plan, and also of the Littleton Bicycle Trail Plan. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would also be in touch with Ms. Barbara Young, Associate Planner, to get t he names of persons who have indicated an interest in a bicycle trail system in the past. Mr. McBrayer stated that he has discussed the proposed bicycle trail system with some people, and their reaction was that there would not be funds appropriated for the implementation of such a system. He asked if he could get a copy of the previous presentation to the City Council. Mrs. Roman s stated that as she recalled, it did not go to City Co uncil ; the Planning Co mmission held a public hearing on the proposed plan, and there • • -3- was such opposition that the matter was dropped at the Commission level. The matter of funding was further considered; Mr. McBrayer stated tha t he felt the committee should be able to come up wi th a ballpark figure on the cost of implementation. Mr. Carson suggest ed that p o ssibly s ome f unds from the lottery which are to b e used for parks and recreation purpose s might be made available. Mr. McBrayer asked if copies of the minutes of the public hearing before the Planning Commission could be available for perusal ? Mrs. Romans re- plied in the affirmative. Mr. McBrayer asked if the local plan was designed with the intent to "get from one place to another", or only to "checkerboard" the City. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the committee should look at the system to be developed with an eye to continuity as far as the Denver and Littleton systems go, and whether or not you can get to someplace from someplace, for instance Cinderella City, or the downtown area. Mr. Draper stated that people do not use bicycles on shopping trips. Mr. Senti stated that he had recently seen slides that were taken in China where bicycles are a primary means of transportation; he stated that they have "rigs" they put on these bicycles to haul parcels, and do in fact use the b i cycles for shopping trips. He stated that he felt this is possible in _ this country now, and will become more so as the price of gasoline increases. Mr. Senti stated that he remembered the initial discussion and presentation of the bicycle trail system several years ago, and the extremely poor reception that the proposal received. He pointed out that the attitude of the citizenry has changed, as has the overall attitude of the country. Mr. McBrayer commented that the Denver Bicycle Trail System must be a model because people from other states have inquired about the system and asked for copies of the report and maps. Mr. Barbre inquired of Mr. Senti the reason for the strong opposition at the previous bicycle trail syst em presentat i on? Mr. Senti stated that a lot of people seemed to feel that bicycles should not be allowed on the streets. Mr. McBrayer stated that the character of Englewood is changing; there are more young families and a lot more people are riding bicycles. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker suggested that Mr. McBrayer might contact the High School Leadership class to see if there might be some of the students who would be interested in serving on the committee. Mr. Keller also suggested that Mr. McBrayer might talk to Councilwoman Bradshaw about student participation on the commi ttee. Mr. Senti stated that he recently had an opportunity to view residential development that Mr. McBrayer has done; he stated that it is very well done, and that the landscaping and sprinkling system are installed. He stated that while Mr. McBrayer may seem to be hard on applicants regarding the matter of landscaping and sprinkling systems, he does install them on his own developments, and the result is very nice. He commended Mr. McBrayer on his work. -4-) Mr. McBrayer asked the outcome of the contact to Swedish Medical Center regarding the matter of grading and cleaning up of the parking lots? • Mrs. Romans stated that she had been contacted by Mr. Johnson of the Medical Center the morning after the last meeting, and had conveyed to him the concern expressed by the Commission over the uncompleted grading and the poor clean-up of the lots. Mr. Johnson indicated that he would see to it immediately; Mrs. Romans then contacted Mrs. Pierson, and it was determined that the letter would not be sent in light of Mr. Johnson's willingness to comply. IV. DESIGN REVIEW CASE /133-80 Mrs. Romans stated that members of the Commission asked at the last Com- mission meeting that the staff contact other communities to determine whether they had a Design Review or Architectural Review Committee. The staff has done this, anp the report from the communities was sent to the Commission in the last packet. Most of the communities that have any type of review have staff members who work with the developers, and do not have a design review ordinance such as has been submitted to the Planning Com- mission. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the proposed ordinance which is before the Commission is the same ordinance that was proposed by the Multi- family Standards Review Committee, of which Mr. Keller was chairman. Mrs. Pierson asked when the staff could expect to get the Boulder Ordinance? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff person from Boulder indicated it would be sent; it has not been received to this time. Mrs. Romans asked Mr. Keller if he recalled any of the discussion and con- sideration at the time the Multi-family Standards Review Committee was meeting? Mr. Keller stated that there had been too much time elapsed for him to recall the specifics of any consideration given the design review ordinance by the Multi-family Standards Review Committee. He stated that upon review of the proposed ordinance now, howeve-r, he did feel there were a couple of changes that should be made. Mr. Keller stated that he felt it would be very important to have something on the books that would serve as guidelines for the developments that will be going on in the downtown area within the next five years. Mr. Keller stated that he anticipated some major development in this time period, and that the Authority does, in fact, know of three proposals in the works at the present time in the area from Eastman to U. S. 285 on the west side of Broadway. Mr. Kell er stated that he had talked to Mr. Bob Joyce, counsel for Mr. Bud Brady, earlier in the day and Mr. Brady wants to start his proposal within the next six months or so. He stated that there will be a meeting on December 1st to iron out the differences in the contract and the agreement between the City, the Downtown Development Authority and the Developer. Mr. Keller stated that the purpose of this contract is to assign the responsibility of the design process. Mr. Keller stated that he understood that some property owners on the west side of the 3400 block of South Broadway are discussing the possibility of "pooling their properties", forming an in- vestment entity, tearing down the existing buildings and beginning con- struction under an entire new program. Mrs. Pierson cautioned that the proposal probably would not be in effect in time to have any effect on the developments that occur within the next year or so. Discussion ensued. .. • -5- Mr. Keller stated that he would suggest the proposed ordinance be amended so that the Chamber of Commerce is not involved in the appointment of members. Discussion ensued. Mr. Draper asked about the possibility of urban renewal and use of Federal funds? Mr. Keller stated that Englewood does not qualify for any assistance on this. He stated that the only reason to use Urban Renewal was the power of eminent domain. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it would be of benefit to Englewood to have a Design Review Committee. She stated that she felt it would have been of benefit several years ago when it was initially considered. Mrs. Pierson stated that at the last meeting she had suggested that drafting the ordinance be kept within the scope of the Planning Commission, and that an ad hoc committee not be appointed. However, she recalled that Mr. Bill Howard was very interested in the matter of design review at the time he was participating on the Comprehensive Plan ad hoc committees, and she is now of the opinion that he should be asked to be of assistance to the Com- mission. Mrs. Romans stated that perhaps someone from the Downtown Develop- ment Authority should also be asked to participate, inasmuch as the Authority has indicated they feel there is a need for such a design review ordinance. Mr. Draper stated that he felt the developers have too many problems as it is, and that this would compound problems for them. Mr. Tanguma stated that if there is a design review committee, he felt very strongly that it should be within the Planning and Zoning Commission; he stated that the Commission is presently structured to work on matters that would be considered by the design review committee, and he didn't feel that it should be a separate body or "another layer of government." Mrs. Romans stated that she felt this is a point that must be worked out with the City Attorney and the City Council. Mrs. Becker agreed that "time is money". Mr. McBrayer pointed out to Mr. Draper that there arenorequirements in the preliminary draft that would cost a developer more money; the only problem would be the matter of "time." Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans again pointed out that the members of the Design Review Committee would have to be an official body appointed by the City Council, and that the members would have to be qualified to rule on the matters of architecture and design. Mr. Tanguma reiterated that this is creating another layer of government and he wants to avoid this if at all possible. Mrs.'Romans stated that she felt the matter before the Com- mission now is to develop a strategy so that the Review Committee, if appointed, can function. Mr. Keller stated that if a project is not designed properly to begin with, it will not turn out right; he stated that he felt it is most critical that proper design of the projects be assured. He pointed out that it doesn't cost any more to do a project correctly to begin with. Mr. Keller stated that he felt it would be proper for a "lay person" to be on the Design Review Committee, but that it should be composed primarily of pro- fessional people qualified to pass judgement on the projects that are pro- posed. Mr. Draper asked if it was felt that a "professional" designer would work without pay on such a committee? Mr. Keller stated that he felt such a -6- professional person might want to be paid for the time spent in meetings, but he did not feel it would be necessary that he be a member of the staff or on a contract basis. Mrs. Romans suggested that possibly there be two ad hoc connnittees, one which would work on the bicycle trail system and one which would work on the design review ordinance. It was the concensus that this was advisable, and that both connnittees could meet the night of December 16th. Mrs. Pierson asked who was interested in working on the design review com- mittee? It was determined that Mr. Barbre, Mr. Draper, Mrs. Becker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Williams would serve on the design review ad hoc connnittee. V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. James Keller, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority, stated that he was present to discuss problems that have arisen in regard to the parking lot the Authority is developing in the 3400 block on South Lincoln Street. Mr. Keller stated that the Connnission approved the p a rking lot layout with restrictions on October 21, 1980, and that one of the restrictions was that there be decorative lighting standards installed and used in lieu of the Public Service Company poles. Mr. Keller stated that it has been discovered there is an unstable soil condition in the parking lot, and they are running into an overrun on the costs from $10,000 to $15,000. Mr. Keller stated that there is a high water table in this area which was not discovered until the old blacktop was removed from the parking lot. Mr. Keller stated that the soils consultant and the City Public Works Director, Kells Waggoner, were to meet at the site on November 19th to determine whether or not they have to remove another one foot of soil on the parking lot before they can begin the surfacing and compaction. Mr. Keller stated that the Public Service wooden poles that had been re- moved from the lot have been used for firewood. There are three wooden poles on the west side of the parking lot along the alley, and one wooden pole on the east side of the parking lot that is used as a street light. He suggested that perhaps these poles, which are owned by Public Service Company, could be used for lighting purposes for the parking lot rather than requiring the decorative lighting standards within the parking lot itself. Mr. Keller stated that Public Service Company will allow the EDDA to use these poles for their lighting purposes at a charge of $14.09 per month per light. The lighting fixture would be that typically on PSC poles, and while not as attractive as that initially propO'Sed by the EDDA, the illumination would be increased from a total of 165,000 lumens to 200,000 lumens total. Mr. Keller stated that Public Service Company had reconnnended that the total lumens should be increased to give proper lighting in the parking lot at night. By using the Public Service Company poles, and eliminating the decorative light standards that were recommended by the Planning Connnission, the EDDA could light the parking lot at an in- creased lumination volume for $8,650 less than was origina lly proposed. Mr . Keller stated that regarding the electrical work and the s p rinkler system, they were given a $5,000 credit on the removal of the thr ee poles • in the lot, but would be charged $3,000 to run the line and insta ll the facilities to a cconnnoda t e the sprinkler system connection. Mr. Keller stated that he f elt this was r ather out of line, and would like to eli minate a l l the electrical work on this contract, and pick it up at another time. He stated that he would suggest . that the electrical work and the sprinkler .. ' -7- system be done at the same time. He stated that he did not have any figures on the cost estimates, but did not think it would be over $500 to do the electrical work for the sprinkler system. Mrs. Becker asked if there was not prior testing done to determine the water table on the site? Mr. Keller stated that there was no indication there was a water table problem until they started removing the old sur- f acing on the parking lot. Mr. Keller stated that the total parking lot contract is for $91,000; the EDDA will close on the Sachter property on Friday, November 21st, and the pro-rated cost of improvements to the Sachter property would be about $12,000. ..He pointed out that the north seven feet of the Sachter property is to be landscaped. Mr. McBrayer asked what point the EDDA was at with Chen Company; did they do core testing? Mr. Keller stated that Chen representatives have been on the lot; they initially noticed water near Hampden Avenue, but there had been a water line in this area and they felt that it might be a leakage from that line. However, when they did further work on the site, it was determined that there is a water problem on the entire site. He stated that there will be testing to determine what degree of compaction is needed for the preparation of the site for the resurfacing. Mrs. Becker .stated that she could not understand why someone would not have known about the water table problem prior to this. Mr. Keller stated that there had been a building or structure proposed on the site, soils testing would have been done prior to beginning the work. Mr. Keller stated that this parking lot is proposed as a permanent surface parking lot; he could not estimate whether there would be sufficient need in the future to construct a parking structure. Mrs. Pierson stated that in discussions regarding the parking lot, it has been brought out that one of the nice things about it is that it is evidence that t h e Downtown Development Authority was trying to do something to "im- prove" the downtown area. She stated that she i s greatly bothered that whenever a problem occurs, the first proposal is to curtail aesthetic con- siderations on a project. Mr. Ke ller pointed out that the volume of lighting would be increased. Mrs. Pierson asked -if she understood that the i ntent of the request is to ob tain permission to eliminate the decora- tive light standards? Mr. Keller s tated that they are proposing to use the Pub l ic Service Company poles a t a charge of $14.09 per month per light, and to eliminate the decorative po l es, fixtures and installation costs. Mrs. Becker stated that she has problems accepting this proposal. She stated that she felt this parking lot must be attractive. She further pointed out that the Planning Commi ssion has set very stringent require- ments for the parking lots deve l oped by Swedish Medical Center, and she questioned how the Planning Commiss i on could deviate from requirements for one development and impose stringent requirements on another. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt such a deviation could be considered as setting a precedent, and she didn't think that the Commission wanted to do this. Mr. Keller stated that he felt the parking lot needed to be well-lighted, and that the "aesthetic lighting didn't provide enough light for safety." Mrs. Becker asked if the wattage of the bulbs used in the decorative lighting could not be increased ? Mr. Keller stated that it could not. -8- Mr. McBrayer disagreed, and stated that the decorative lighting could be installed to allow for a higher intensity lumination. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that the decorative lighting volume is 80% of that that would be pro- vided if the Public Service Company poles are used. She stated that she hates to see the EDDA begin their work on the downtown area by "selling out." Mr. Keller stated that the lighting that would have been provided by the decorative units is adequate to walk, but would not really provide adequate lighting to assure the "safety of women at night." Mrs. Pierson asked why the "safety of women at night" was not of concern when the initial proposal was made; it did not appear to be a matter of concern un- til they ran into the water table problem and the need to save funds. Mrs. Pierson stated that in her opinion, Mr. Keller's arguments "just don't hang together." Mr. Tanguma stated that he understood Mr. Keller's problem with the water table, and also the fact that better lighting would be provided by using the Public Service Comp~ny poles. However, he stated, you can have higher intensity lighting and still have the decorative lighting standards. He acknowledged that it will cost more, but that decorative lighting and the higher intensity is available if persons are willing to pay for it. .. Mr. Keller stated that he felt the economical advantage would be a trade- off to solve the problems with the water in the parking lot and the elimina- tion of the decorative lighting standards. Mr. McBrayer asked if there wasn't a contingency fund to take care of some of the problems that arise. He stated that he hated to see something deleted every time a small problem arises; he felt this would be "getting off to a sorry start," and did not want to set this precedent •. Mr. Keller stated that he was asked to run this proposal by the Connnission to see if the Connnission would approve it; he stated that he.would report back to his Executive Board. Mr. McBrayer asked where the landscaping was supposed to be for this parking lot? Mr. Keller stated that the landscaping is on the perimeter of the site. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission not approve the modification of the EDDA Parking Lot as presented this evening. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt approval of this modification would set a precedent for future planning; the Commission would be dealing differently with two entities for the same type of project --namely Swedish Medical Center and the Downtown Development Authority --on parking lot development, and the Commission should be consistent in their requirements and the en- forcement of those requirements. Mr. Draper stated that he did not feel he was well enough informed to be able to vote on this, and questioned that such modification would down- grade the area that much. He pointed out that they would still have the wooden poles there, and suggested that perhaps there could be some beauti-~ fication on the wooden poles that could be accomplished for less expense ~ than the decorative lighting standards that have been required. Mr. Keller pointed out that the wooden poles are the property of Public Service Company, and the EDDA c ould do nothing to them. ~ . • • • The vote was called: AYES: Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Carson NAYS: Williams, Draper The motion carried. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that she had received the report on the Emergency Disaster Response Plan from the City Manager shortly after the last meeting, and had sent it on to the Commission for their information. -9- At the City Council meeting of November 17th, the City Council passed a preliminary Ordinance on Mortgage Revenue Bonds. Mr. Tanguma excused himself from the meeting. Mrs. Romans discussed the Mortgage Revenue Bond program further, and noted one or two minor changes that had been suggested in the preliminary ordinance. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE There was nothing brought up for discussion under Commission's Choice • The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Recording Secretary