HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-04 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
October 4, 1983
I. CALL TO ORDER.
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Marjorie Becker at 7:00 P. M.
Members present: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma,
Venard, Allen
Romans, Ex-officio
Members absent: None
Also present: Electrical Inspector Malcolm Atkins
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
September 20, 1983
Chairman Becker stated that the Minutes of September 20, 1983, were to be
considered for approval.
Tanguma moved:
Carson seconded: The Minutes of September 20, 1983, be approved as written.
AYES: Becker, Carson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McBrayer
The motion carried.
III. SOLAR ACCESS/SOLAR ENERGY.
Mrs. Romans introduced Mr. Mal Atkins, Electrical Inspector for the City
of Englewood, who presented new concepts on solar energy and solar access.
Mr. Atkins stated that he is president of the Western Section of the IAEI
International Association of Electrical Inspectors, which organization
covers 22 states from Ohio west to Colorado, and is also President of the
Rocky Mountain Chapter of IAEI. Mr. Atkins stated that he is also involved
in the consideration and processing of changes to the electrical code. Mr .
. Atkins stated that the 1984 National Electrical Code has some new sections
regarding Photovoltaic energy, and how it may applied nation-wide.
Mr. Atkins stated that within the next several years --three to five
he felt there would be a major change in electrical power serving single-
family residences. He felt that there should be more awareness of the
photovoltaic industry, how this process would be installed, maintained,
and what is needed to make it safe for domestic use. Mr. Atkins stated
that retrofit for photovoltaic energy is in place and actively used in
Southern California and Arizona, but is expensive. Mr. Atkins stated
that he anticipated that the manufacturing process for solar cells will
be refined within the next couple of years to make this process more
-2-
affordable. Mr. Atkins stated that the United States has three major
manufacturers of solar cells; a solar cell is conversion of sunlight to
electrical energy. Mr. Atkins discussed available voltage for installa-
tion, and the need for storage batteries in connection with solar energy.
Mr. Atkins noted that Arco Corporation is now manufacturing solar cells and
have installed a solar facility in Southern California; this firm is
generating, on a sunny day, 1,000,000 watts per day. With the tax breaks
given by the state and federal government, this firm has paid for the
solar installation within the first year of operation. Mr. Atkins pointed
out that the number of solar cells manufactured has doubled each year since
1977. In 1983, the manufacturing capability is 20 megawatts in the world.
Mr. Atkins stated that this will increase annually until 1990 when the pro-
jected manufacture of solar cells will be 5,000 one million watts of solar
cells annually.
Mr. Atkins discussed the cost of the typical electrical service per kilowatt
vs. a kilowatt of photovoltaic energy. Mr. Atkins noted that electrical energy
in this area is least expensive of anywhere in the United States, and dis-
cussed the decrease in cost of solar energy since the mid-sixties. He
stated that if the decrease in cost is a continuing trend, solar energy will
become an economic reality and be very attractive to homeowners.
Storage facilities and capacities for solar energy were discussed by Mr.
Atkins. Mr. Atkins also discussed materials used in the manufacturing
process of solar cells and storage facilities. Mr. Atkins noted that code
requirements are very strict regarding substances used in the manufacture
of electronic systems, and the National Electric Code now has standards
that manufacturers must meet.
Mr. Atkins discussed a Japanese method of manufacturing solar cells on a
mylar film, which cells are used in small calculators, watches, etc. The
Japanese are also working on a solar storage system, which could be at-
tached to the top of a shed, and the power used to recharge lawn mowers,
etc. It is estimated that this system would be available before Christmas,
1983.
Mr. Atkins stated that he felt one of the things that the Commission will
have to consider is the matter of solar access. If someone wanted to in-
stall solar panels on their house, there should be some means to assure that
access to the sunlight is maintained. He suggested that perhaps regulations
could be imposed that structures could not be erected that would shade the
solar panels on a .neighboring property, or that trees could not be planted
that would interfere with the solar access. Mr. Atkins noted that the City
of B-0ulder has been very involved with solar access, and had problems with
the trees which. were existing in the City. They didn't want to cut down
the trees to provide the solar access, and had lots of problems trying to
work out the Ordinance. Mr. Atkins suggested that if someone wants to put
in solar panels, they should apply to the City for a solar window; this
would give notice to the City and to the neighbors that they would not be
allowed to interfere with the solar window.
Mr. Atkins stated that there is to be a seminar on solar energy/access in
Boulder on October 27, which is to be sponsored by DRCOG. He will be at-
tending this seminar, and urged that any members of the Commission who are
interested would find the seminar informative. He stated that the authors
of the Boulder Ordinance will be attending the seminar, and will be asked
to identify the problems they experienced in trying to prepare their ordinance.
-3-
Mrs. Becker asked how the solar energy would work in a single-family house
where there is "alternating current." Mr. Atkins stated that a converter
would be used, there are many volt sizes available. Mrs. Becker then in-
quired as to the size of storage facility that would be needed to provide
solar energy from one day to the next. Mr. Atkins stated that research on
the solar storage facilities is very intensive at this time. Mr. Atkins
discussed the use of solar systems with a back-up system available by
Public Service. Mr. Atkins stated that the actual space to be used for
storage facilities would oe very small; however, it should be remote from
the interior of the residence.
Mr. Tanguma asked how many days per year solar energy could be used in
Colorado. Mr. Atkins stated an average of 300 days per year.
Mr. McBrayer asked how the utility company could be prevented from penalizing
those people who use solar energy. He stated that he discussed with a PSC
representative, and this individual indicated that persons using solar energy
would be "tagged" or "starred" on the computer, and that the charge for the
back-up energy would be very expensive. Mr. Atkins stated that the major
utility companies provide the majority of their energy to industrial use,
and that single-family residence use makes up less than 10% of their cus-
tomer use. Mr. Atkins stated that he understood the major power companies
would pref er to get out of residential power service because it is not cost
effective for the utility company.
Mr. Allen asked if any of the solar energy systems were suitable to use in
Colorado without a back-up system. Mr. Atkins stated that most users of
solar energy systems in remote areas have a small generator as a back-up
system. Mr. Atkins suggested that in the future, the utility company may
purchase some of the power generated by the solar systems from individuals.
Mr. Atkins then discussed a court case regarding the sale of privately
generated power, and the need for the major utility company to protect their
lines.
Mrs. Becker stated that she has been concerned about solar access for many
years, and at some point in the very near future, she believes the Commission
should consider solar access regulations.
Mr. Carson asked if this information was available to the City Council, and
noted that this body recently considered all the codes --plumbing, mechanical,
building, and fire. Mr. Atkins stated that the code he has shown the Com-
mission is brand new, and the information is not yet available to the City
Council. The State Electrical Board has said they would present the informa-
tion to the State Legislature in November for their consideration. The
State Legislature will not be able to enact this into law until July. Mr.
Atkins stated that he will be recommending that the City prepare ordinances
to incorporate the provisions dealing with the solar energy.
Mrs. Becker noted that there seems to be a reluctance on the part of some
contractors to obtain the proper permits to install solar systems. She
noted that the contract between the homeowner and the contractor may indicate
that the price for the system includes all applicable permits, and then the
homeowner finds out that the permits have not been obtained. Mr. Tanguma
discussed a similar experience, and asked if it is the cost of getting the
permit that brings about the reluctance on the part of the contractors.
Mr. Atkins stated that the permits are not that costly, and that he felt
-4-
the problem is primarily one of education; he stated that he does not
believe the general home owner is aware of the necessity and requirement
of obtaining permits and the follow-up inspections from the Building Depart-
ment.
Mr. McBrayer stated that as a contractor, he feels a great deal of the
reluctance to obtain permits stems from the delays the contractor may ex-
perience in the various building departments before a permit is issued.
He stated that he felt Englewood is an exception and tries to cut down on
the time between application and issuance, but in some departments, it can
be a several day delay. This is a cost factor to the contractor. Mr.
Atkins agreed that some departments do have a considerable delay in issuance
of permits. He stated that the Englewood Building Department does try to
approve permits on a daily basis, and believes that the department has a
pretty good record regarding plan checks and permits.
Mr. Venard stated that he recently took out a permit for two panel solar
system, and paid $40 for the permit; he also paid $43 use tax estimate, which
may be refunded.
Mr. Tanguma asked what it costs to process a permit. Mr. Atkins stated that
he did not know the cost. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that a permit for a fence
is $15, and that it may cost more than this to process that particular permit;
however, a permit for a house may cost well in excess of $1,000 and take about
the same amount of time to process. He stated that he is of the opinion that
it evens out. Discussion ensued. Mr. Atkins stated that he did not know
whether the Building Department shows a profit, but estimated that it is
"about break even."
Mr. Atkins stated that he would be happy to report back to the
after the October seminar in Boulder if they would so desire.
asked that Mr. Atkins be placed on the agenda to report to the
Commission
Mrs. Becker
Commission.
Mr. Venard stated that in light of the Commission reviewing the revisions
to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, he did not feel it inappropriate
to consider the matter of solar access and roof orientation in conjunction
with this process.
Mrs. Becker suggested that if the Commission wants to set another work
session to devise goals, this might be a matter to consider.
The Commission thanked Mr. Atkins for his presentation, and stated that
they would like to schedule him for a further discussion about solar energy
at a later date.
IV. HIGHWAY WORK PROGRAM
1984/1985
CASE ff17-93
Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission members had read the staff report re-
garding the proposed work items to be included in the State Highway P' ogram
for 1984-85.
Mrs. Romans stated that the Department has not yet received a communication
from Arapahoe County asking for input into this process, but the staff is
aware that the Highway Commission will be considering the work program on
, -5-
November 15th. Mrs. Romans stated that the number of requests has been
decreased from previous years, but several have been previously requested.
Mrs. Romans stated that she discussed the requests with Public Works Di-
rector Waggoner, and also contacted the Cherry Hills Village and Sheridan
governments in an effort to coordinate requests.
The intersection of Dartmouth and Santa Fe Drive was discussed. Mrs. Becker
asked if the railroad tracks were to be moved closer together. Mrs. Romans
stated that she had not seen the design of the intersection and improvements
along the Santa Fe Corridor. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was any way the
Commission could get a copy of the proposed Santa Fe Corridor improvements.
Mrs. Romans stated that she would invite Public Works Director Waggoner to
discuss the design with the Commission.
Mrs. Romans reviewed improvements requested on U.S. 285, which include the
one-way couplet with U.S. 285 and West Ithaca Avenue, the improvement of the
drainage system between Downing and Pearl Streets, and improvement of the
U. S. 285/South University Boulevard intersection.
Mr. Allen asked what our chances were of getting these projects approved
and done. Mrs. Romans discussed the process to be followed in getting the
requests to the State Highway Commission.
Mrs. Becker asked about the request on Belleview Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated
that this is a new request. She noted that properties to the west of Broadway
on the south side of Belleview will be developing in the very near future.
One of the sites which is in Littleton is being proposed for residential de-
velopment with 100+ units; the fair-grounds will develop, as will the property
just to the west of K-Mart. The Highway Department is recommending that
turning movements on Belleview Avenue be restricted to right in and right
out. Mrs. Romans questioned that the turning restrictions --right in and
right out only --along Belleview Avenue will be practical and workable.
The request is that a study be instituted in 1984/85 and implemented in
1985/86 to incorporate left-turn pockets at key intersections and points of
ingress/egress to large developments.
The request under the Federal Aid Urban Systems is for the widening of South
Broadway from Yale Avenue to Floyd Avenue, provision of left-turn pockets
and a landscaped median, and provision of a landscaped median from Quincy
to Belleview on South Broadway. This is a repeat request.
Mrs. Romans stated that if this request for highway projects is recommended
b.y the Planning Commission, it would be referred to the City Council at
their next meeting.
Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission members had further suggestions to in-
clude on th.e highway work program.
Mr. McB.rayer discussed the Broadway/Quincy intersection, and pointed out that
there are deep dips on Quincy Avenue on both sides of South Broadway, which
seriously impedes the flow of traffic through the intersection. He asked if
something could be done to alleviate this impediment to smooth traffic flow.
Mrs. Romans stated that she would check with Kells Waggoner, Director of
Public Works, to see whether this would be done by the State Highway Depart-
ment, or whether this would be a City project.
-6-
Mr. Allen stated that another intersection with severe dips is at Downing
and Hampden Avenue. Mrs. Becker stated that there is also a bad dip on
South Downing at Jefferson.
Mr. McBrayer complimented Traffic Engineer Plizga on his efforts to improve
the traffic flow on U. S. 285.
Mr. Venard suggested that striping be painted on Oxford Avenue between
Broadway and Santa Fe, and pointed out that there is a severe problem at
Broadway and Oxford where there are no marked lanes, and motorists try to
drive straight across Broadway from both lanes rather than the driver in
the inside lane making a left-turn.
Mrs. Becker asked if there were other connnents.
Carson moved:
Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend the following work pro-
jects to City Council to be included in the 1984-1985 State
Highway Work Program; the improvement of the Quincy/Broadway
intersection by alleviation of the dips on East and West
Quincy is to be included if it is determined that the work
can be done under this project.
I. Requests to the State Highway Commission for inclusion in the F.Y.
1984/85 Work Program.
A. Construction Projects on the State Highway System:
1. South Santa Fe Drive:
a. The construction of an interchange at the intersection
of West Dartmouth. Avenue and South Santa Fe Drive.
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 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.
c. Upgrade the South University Boulevard/U.S. 285 inter-
section to permit double left-turns. Right-turn lanes
should feed into through lanes.
3. Belleview Avenue.
a. Upgrade to provide adequate left-turn pockets to accommodate
the turning movements at intersections and at access points
into existing and proposed developments.
-7-
II. Requests Relative to the Federal Aid Urban System.
A. Construction Projects on the Federal Aid Urban System.
AYES:
NAYS:
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.
Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker
None
The motion carried.
V. PUBLIC FORUM.
There was no audience present.
VI. CITY ATTORNEY'S CHOICE.
There was no representative from the City Attorney's Office present.
VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission had asked the staff to determine what
restrictions are placed on the operation of barber and beauty shops in a
residence by other agencies. The Uniform Plumbing Code has no regulations
and Tri-County Health and the Consumer Protection Division have no regulations
either. However, the State Board of Barbers and Cosmetology requires that
if a barber or beauty shop requests licensing in a private home, the home
must be in a proper zone district, and the shop must be separate from the
living quarters with its own bathroom and a separate outside entrance. This
is contrary to the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for a
Home Occupation, and the staff recommends that barbers and beauty shops not
be included as a home occupation in the revised zoning ordinance.
Mrs. Becker asked if this would mean the beauty shop/barber shop in a home
could come in as a nonconforming use. Mrs. Romans stated that :l!t could go
to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, but would still have to meet the
State standards.
Mrs. Romans stated that regarding the matter of "sheds", the staff had talked
to the Fire Department. If a shed has a one-hour fire wall, it may be placed
on the property line, otherwise it must have a three foot setback. Most of
the sheds from Sears and Montgomery Wards do not have the one-hour fire wall,
and would have to have a three foot setback from the property line.
Mrs. Romans stated that all sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
which have been reviewed by the Commission are being retyped; the staff
would hope to set a date for Public Hearing after the Commission has viewed
the retyped sections to determine if they meet their approval.
Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that there be no
change in the restriction against barber shops and beauty shops as home occupations.
-8-
Mrs. Romans stated that the R-3, High-Density Residence District, and R-4,
Residential-Professional District are to be reviewed. There are no cases
slated for consideration of the Commission on October 18th, and if the Com-
mission wants, these two districts may be reviewed that evening. This met
with the approval of the Commission.
Mrs. Romans noted that there are several cases which will be coming before
the Commission, but actual applications and paper work has not been submitted
to the staff at this point.
Mrs. Romans stated that the Condominium Conversion Ordinance will become
effective on November 5th.
Swedish Medical Center has extended an invitation to the Commission members
to attend a breakfast meeting on November 2 at 7:30 A. M.
The meeting with the Littleton Planning Commission has been postponed until
sometime in November.
The Landscaping Ordinance is at the City Attorney's office in final form.
Mrs. Romans stated that there were two changes made following the work session
of the staff with the City Council: The City Council asked that all zone
districts be required to provide landscaping, and the amount to be contributed
to the Fine Arts/Landscaping fund in lieu of actual landscaping was reduced
tol/2 %value of the construction cost.
Mr. McBrayer stated that he is very opposed to the R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C
Districts being included in the landscaping requirements. He noted that
the Commission considered this matter at length, and made the decision many
times that the single-family districts not be included, and somebody exercised
their prerogative to change the work of the Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated
that he takes offence to the fact that the proposed ordinance has been
changed and altered, and the Commission won't see the final copy. Mrs.
Becker pointed out that the ordinance was changed at the direction of the
City Council, and that this is their prerogative. Discussion ensued. Mrs.
Romans stated that several of the City Councilmen had stated right from the
beginning that they felt the ordinance should apply to all zone districts.
Mrs. Becker stated that she understood one of the Councilmen had stated he
didn't even want to look at the ordinance unless the single-family districts
were included.
Mrs. Becker stated that one of her major concerns has always been that of
the landscaping of parking lots; the Commission reviews parking lots with
more than 50 spaces, but there are lots that may have only 20 to 30 spaces
that will not have to provide landscaping.
VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
Mr. McBrayer asked for an explanation on the three or four story addition
to the Swedish Medical Center parking structure; how could this occur with-
out coming before the Commission. He stated that he recalls that the Com-
mission placed restrictions on the parking structure so that it would have
to come back before the Commission. Discussion ensued.
Mrs. Becker asked that the record of the action taken by the Commission
in this case be available at the next meeting.
-9-
Mrs. Romans pointed out that the expansion of the parking structure has
always been the intent of the Medical Center; it was part of the original
plan, but they were not prepared to do it at that time. She pointed out
that the "footprint" and ingress/egress points have already been approved
and set by the Commission and by the construction of the structure.
The purpose of the Commission's review of parking lots was discussed.
Mr. Carson asked about the Anderson property south of U. S. 285, and
whether the development will take place. Mrs. Romans stated that they
are still working on their plans.
Mrs. Becker stated that she would like to discuss the possibility of a
planning session to work on goals and objectives for the Commission for
the next year or so. She asked if the Commission wanted to do this again.
She suggested that perhaps this could be done some evening when the agenda
is limited, or on a Saturday morning devoted to just this topic.
Mr. Stoel suggested that members of the Commission be asked to bring ideas
to the next meeting. Mr. McBrayer suggested that it be noted on the agenda.
Mrs. Becker suggested that this might be done at the first meeting in
November.
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 P. M.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary