Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-18 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 18, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Edwin McBrayer at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen. Romans, Ex-officio Members Absent: Becker and Tanguma. Also present: Susan T. King, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. October 4, 1983. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of October 4, 1983, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of October 4, 1983, were approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen. NAYS: None • ABSENT: Becker and Tanguma. The motion carried. III. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Romans indroduced Mr. Jack Sakdol, a member of the design team for Brock Associates, and Mr. John Durham of David Jensen Associates. She stated that they are associated with Brock Associates, the firm which will be developing the Arapahoe County Fairgrounds, and Mr. Sakdol and Mr. Durham attended the meeting to make the Corrunission familiar with the progress of the development. Mr. Tanguma arrived at the meeting and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Sakdol stated that he has practised law for the last 27 years, and has been involved in real estate development for at least 15 years. He has also been involved with the Arapahoe County Fair Association for the last five years. He resigned from the Board of Directors for the Fairground Association to work with Brock for the development of the Arapahoe County Fairgrounds. The Fair Association hoped that the property would be developed to the advantage of the whole corrununity, and M. J. Brock and Sons seemed the kind of developers who would do a good job; therefore, the Association chose them to develop the project. Brock had indicated that they wanted to annex to the City of Englewood, and it is understood that they must work closely with the City to have a successful project. He stated that he and Brock and Sons were hoping that the development could go smoothly, and he introduced John Durham to the Corrunission. -2- John Durham said he is with David Jensen Associates, a land planning firm in Denver which has gathered a diversified and well qualified staff from the surrounding area. Mr. Durham previously worked with the City and County of Denver for 6~ years as a City Neighborhood Planner. M. J. Brock and Company is a California firm, and has done some local work. A list of the local projects will be provided to the Planning Commission so that they can be familiar with the work. A marketing firm will be studying the property and the surrounding neighborhood and will make recommendations to Brock concerning the development of the land. It is assumed that there will be some residential development, probably medium and high density, with some possibility of some conunercial development, also. The market study should be completed in October or early November. Brock representatives have met with the City staff and City Council and will be working closely with the City. He assured the Commission that close attention would be paid to landscaping; half of the staff of David Jensen Associates are landscape architects. Mr. McBrayer asked how many acres would be developed. Mr. Durham said the Fair Association property is about 66 acres, 50 on the south side of Belleview, and 16.5 on the north side. Mr. Allen asked if they were planning high density residential development. Mr. Durham replied that they were anticipating some high density residential development, but no decision will be made until the market study is completed. He offered the Commission a book written by David Jensen, and some examples of work done by that Company. Chairman McBrayer thanked Mr. Durham and Mr. Sakdol for coming to the meeting. There was no further Public Forum. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the Staff had included the R-1 and R-2 districts in the packet with the changes which the Commission had discussed. She suggested that either November 15 or November 22 be scheduled for Public Hearings on the R-1 and R-2 sections of the Ordinance. The Commission suggested that November 15th would be best. Mrs. Romans reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting will be on November 8, which is the election night, but suggested that the meeting be held as scheduled, as there will be only a parking plan for the Elks property on the Agenda. The Commissioners agreed. Mrs. Romans said that she had talked to Kells Waggoner about the plans for the South Santa Fe Drive Design. He told her that the Highway Department is still discussing the plans. The Commission agreed that a presentation could wait until the plans were more definite, but before the work was begun, they would like to have input into the plans. Mr. Waggoner said he would consider the dips at Quincy and Broadway, Hampden and Downing, and at Downing at 285, and the lane markings on Oxford and Quincy at Broadway for his work program. The Highway Work program was presented to Council at the October 18 City Council meeting. Mrs. Romans referred to the questions raised at the previous meeting, concerning ~ why the Planning Commission had not been given an opportunity to approve the additional floors for the Swedish parking structure. She said that the matter I • -3- came before the Planning Commission on July 22, 1980, at which time Swedish planned to have the alley extending east, and later during design, they discovered it would have to extend to the west. They came back to the Commission on September 3, 1980, and at both meetings, the additional stories were discussed. The Commission approved the plans and did not ask that it be ref erred back to the Commission. Leon Threlkeld contacted Mrs. Romans on April 22, 1983, and asked if Swedish would have to go before the Commission again in order to build the additional stories on the parking structure. She referred the question to Mr. Senti, who was the Chairman. of the Commission, on April 25, 1983, and he replied that it had been understood from the meetings that had already taken place that there would be additional levels; and the Commission had looked at the access and the layout, and it should not have to go back to the Planning Commission. After reviewing the Minutes and discussing the matter with Mr. Senti, it was determined that Swedish could proceed with construction. Mr. Allen asked what was going to be built on the old Husky lot. said that it would be a waterbed store. The structure will be on of the lot, with theoff-streetparking and landscaping along 285. asked if the new signs will meet the Sign Code. ·She replied that VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans the south side Mr. Carson they would. Mr. Allen said that he had talked to a Staff member who is preparing a report to the City Council relative to the trash pickup program. Mrs. Romans asked if Mr. Allen had talked to anyone in Longmount about their having a landfill, which makes their program more feasible. Mr. Allen said that they do have one, but that should not bar Englewood from using the rest of the program. IV. Review of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Susan King began the explanation of the R-3, High Density Residence District. She said that, as before, any changes are shown by crossing out the tex t ,, for deletions or capitalizations for additions. She stated that in Section One, on page 1, in the R-3 district, there had been a change requiring a develop~ent plan for developments having more than four, rather than four, dwelling units. In the future, therefore, a fourplex would not need a development plan. This a mixed use district and professional offices and certain other uses in addition to the residential use are permitted. In principal uses, anything allowed in the R-1 or R-2 would be allowed in the R-3. Currently a developer is granted a bonus if he assembles several acres with a possibility of construction up to 70 units per acre. The new suggestion is that that density is too high, and that we should not permit a density of more than 40 units per acre. The Commission approved this change. Ms. King said that on page 3, Childcare Centers would be permitted as a principal use. She continued with Maximum Office Floor Area, saying that there had not been restrictions on office floor area, and that the Staff proposes that it be added in order to assure adequate area for off-street parking and landscaping. Mr. McBrayer asked if they couldn't simply require off-street parking and landscaping. Mrs. Romans said the floor area ratio is a common way of regulating density. Ms. King said people ask how much they can build, and this is a simple answer. Mr. McBrayer withdrew his objection. Ms. King asked that they strike "e" on page 5 -Minimum landscaping -which will be covered in the Landscaping Ordinance. She said that Utilities will be placed underground with subdivisions, not small developments. She said that under Minimum frontage of lot, attached dwellings would be permitted to have -4- 25 feet of frontage per dwelling unit. The minimum off-street parking should be changed in keeping with the other residential areas. The attached garages and storage sheds should be changed to conform with the other districts. Mrs. Romans referred to (4) Service units or facilities. She suggested that the facilities be located within the development, but not necessarily within the structure. This would permit a development such as the Waterford with several buildings, to locate a service center in a central location to serve all of the development. Ms. Kings said that the same changes in Home Occupations would be added as in the other residential areas. On page 11 she asked that the Planting section be taken out, as it will be included in the Landscaping Ordinance. The liquefied petroleum section was added at the request of the Fire Department. On the R-4 section of the Ordinance, the changes made in the other sections were incorporated, with the minimum side yard and minimum rear yard on storage sheds changed to 3 feet rather than 5, and on page 6, "within its entirety" should be changed to "entirely". Ms. King said that the R-4 allows more uses, such as nursing homes and medical, dental and optical laboratories, and anything permissible in the R-1 and R-2 residential zones. State law permits up to 12 children in childcare facilities in any residential district. The Staff recommends that this be limited to between 5-12 children as a permitted principal use in the R-4. Mr. McBrayer objected to the use of the word "smaller" regarding setbacks for storage sheds. He asked that it be changed to "no setback is required if the wall adjacent to the property line is constructed of one hour fire resistive material." Mrs. Romans stated that the Public Hearing would be scheduled on November 15 for the R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, R-2 and R-2-C. The R-3 and R-4 will be brought before a Public Hearing later. Mr. Stoel stated that in Northwest Englewood on South Tejon Street the builder has filled the front yard with gravel. Ms. King said that she would have a Code Enforcement Officer check it. V. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. There was no attorney present. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. The Landscaping Ordinance will be presented to the City Council, at a date to be announced. She suggested that the Commission might wish to attend. Mrs. Romans reminded the Commission of the Parade on November 5, and the Open House at the Malley Center from 2:00 to 4:00 on that day. She reminded the Commission of the breakfast with the City Council at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 2, at Swedish Hospital. The Commission asked that they be called and reminded of that date. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ~~ROt:sses, Secretary