Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-08 PZC MINUTES' • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1983 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Milton Senti. Members present: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer Romans, Ex-officio Thomas V. Holland, Assistant City Attorney Susan T. King, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 23, 1983 Chairman Senti stated that the Minutes of February 23, 1983, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of February 23, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Becker ABSENT: None The motion carried. III. BOTT/HOPP REZONING R-1-C to R-2 Carson moved: CASE #1-83 Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-83 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. Senti stated that the Public Hearing is open; those members of the audience who wished to speak would be given an opportunity to do so. Proponents would speak first, and opponents would then be asked to speak. Mr. Senti stated that members of the Commission have received a copy of the staff report, and asked if there were any questions from the Commission of the staff at this time? Mrs. Becker noted that on Page 4 of the staff report, it states that "proof has not been presented that the property cannot be developed under the present zoning." She asked for clarification on this statement. Mrs. Romans stated that as a rule the zoning does not prevent development of the property; however, some pecularity related to the property itself -- • -2- topography, being bisected by the City Ditch, a drainage problem, etc., may preclude development under the zoning regulations. Mr. Senti asked that the applicants present their case. Mr. Myron Bott 3101 South Downing Street -was sworn in, and testified that he resides at 3101 South Downing Street. When he put the land which is the subject of the rezoning application up for sale, it seemed that most of the contractors who contacted him indicated that they could not develop the property for single-family purposes and come out ahead --the price of the land, materials, and other costs precluded a profit on single- family developments. Mr. Bott stated that he considered the pros and cons of asking for rezoning for some time before he made application. He is asking that the zone classification be changed from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence. Mr. Bott stated that he wants it understood that whatever development goes in on this land will be some- thing that will not depreciate property values, will be attractive and up- grade the neighborhood. Mr. Bott stated that he and Mr. Hopp have canvassed the neighborhood, and some of the residents indicated they were in favor of the proposal, and some indicated they were opposed to the proposed re- zoning. Mr. Allen noted that Mr. Bott had stated that the land was priced so high a developer could not come out on a single-family development. He asked Mr. Bott to discuss this further. Mr. Bott stated that he had worked for the government for 30 years in maintenance and construction , and knew about the rising cost of materials, wages, etc. Mr. Bott stated that the homes in this immediate area are selling from $60,000 to $80,000 with the majority going for $60,000 to $69,000. He stated that if someone were to try to build a new single-family home they would not be able to come out on it because of the high price of the land and materials. He noted that if the developer were a "large tract" developer, it would be possible to come out on single-family developments. Mr. McBrayer noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance sets forth three basic reasons to justify rezoning: (1) there was an error in the original zoning of the area; (2) there have been significant changes in the neigh- borhood which would render another zone classification more applicable; or (3) the property owner has been denied the use of his land under the present zoning. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Bott which of these justifications he feels apply to his request? Mr. B.ott stated that he decided to apply for the rezoning because with the price of land and the price of materials, the property cannot be developed for single-family residences at a profit to the developer. Mr. Bott asked that "denial of the use of the land" be further explained to him. Mrs. Romans cited several instances wherein rezoning or variances have been granted because a peculiarity of the land prevent use under a given zcne classification. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Bott would agree there was no error in the original zoning of the site? Mr. Bott stated that he did not feel the original zoning was in error. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Bott felt the area was in transition from one usage to another; he stated that he felt it is basically a residential area. Mr. Bott stated that he would agree it is a residential area. • -3- Mr. McBrayer stated that if he understood Mr. Bott's presentation, the justification for the rezoning has got to be that he is being denied the use of his property because contractors cannot afford to develop the site for single-family purposes at the present price of land and materials. Mr. Victor Hopp -was sworn in and testified that he is affiliated with Victorie Construction, and has been in land development for the last several years. Mr. Hopp stated that plans of the proposed development have been shown to neighbors, and he felt they have a 90 to 95% favorable response to the proposal. Mr. Hopp stated that he felt there have been significant changes in the surrounding area which does have a bearing on the ability to develop single-family residences on this site. He noted that there are some duplexes to the south of the site, and apartments are in the surrounding area. He noted that there are several rentals throughout the area. Mr. Hopp stated that the pro- posal is for the construction of three duplexes, for a total of six units. He stated that the structures have been designed so that they do not look like a duplex. Mr. Hopp stated that it is his intent the development will provide rentals to semi-retired people; he stated that he would not want to be "held to this", but it is the goal of the development. He stated that there will be covenants that tenants would have to abide by, and that he will personally maintain control of the land and would be responsi- ble for the maintenance of the property. Mr. Hopp stated that if the re- zoning request is approved, his investment in the development will amount to approximately $500,000. Mr. Hopp stated that there would be no on-street parking; garages would be constructed on the rear of the sites, with ad- ditional parking area to the side of the garage. Mr. Hopp stated that he felt the development will be meeting the needs of a segment of the popula- tion, and that this is what the Commission and Council should consider. Mr. Hopp reviewed the staff report, and made reference to the recommenda- tion of the Department of Community Development; he commented that the Planning Division has been against the application since the beginning. Mr. Hopp stated that he has completed every project he has tried, and feels that the Planning Division should represent both the private element and the developers. He felt consideration should be given to the tax re- turns on the development of the property. Mr. Hopp stated that he could not understand why the School Board would have submitted a letter in op- position to the rezoning. He pointed out the possibility of children living in these units in the future. Mr. Hopp stated that there is a fire hydrant one block to the east of the site, and another one block to the south. He felt there should be no additional expense to himself, Mr. Bott, or the City to install another fire hydrant, because he feels there is adequate fire protection in the area now. He asked why the Fire Marshal would recommend installation of an additional fire hydrant for a development of five units? Mr. Hopp stated that he did not feel development of the site would contribute to drainage problems. He noted that there is curb and gutter installed along the site that are in "adequate" shape. Mr. Hopp then addressed Director of Public Works Waggoner's concern on spot zoning, and made reference to the recent approval by the Commission of the change in density on the Marion Street Villas . Mr. Tanguma asked how many single-family homes could be developed on the subject site? Mr. Hopp stated that the part of the site he is acquiring would accommodate three residential structures; the area Mr. Bott is re- taining would accommodate two residential structures. Mr. Hopp reiterated that with the high cost of land, materials and wages, it is difficult to • -4- develop a single-family unit on an individual site for under $100,000. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would have to disagree with Mr. Hopp on this point; he stated that it appears that Mr. Hopp feels it is necessary to have tract-type land to make money in development. Mr. McBrayer agreed that a contractor has to purchase raw land at a reasonable rate, and if the argument is that the price of the land is too high he feels that Mr. Bott has priced himself out of reach for developers. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had priced Mr. Bott's property at one time, and he felt that it was over-priced then. Mr. Allen made reference to the staff report, and noted that the rezoning of the site, if approved, would not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if Mr. Hopp had any quarrel with this statement? Mr. Hopp stated that he did not. Mr. Allen then asked Mr. Hopp if he felt there was an error in the original zoning of the site? Mr. Hopp stated that he did not. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Hopp felt this area was a "transition area" at the present time? Mr. Hopp stated that within a four block radius there is a variety of uses, and estimated that there may be as high as 30% rentals in the area. Mr. Hopp further emphasised the high rate of renters in the area, and commented that "when you have renters, you have deterioration." Mr. Allen noted that there is single-family development in the block to the south of the site; single-family development in the blocks to the west and north of the site, and an elementary school is directly across the street to the east. He asked where the "transition" was taking place? Mr. Hopp stated that he was considering further than a one-block radius of the subject site. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Hopp felt the property owner was being denied the use of the land because of the present zoning? Mr. Hopp stated that he could not speak for the property owner. Mr. Stoel asked if it would be permissible for the Commission to view the plans Mr. Hopp has with him. Mr. Senti stated that he would like to view the plans, also. Mr. Tanguma stated that he had a question of Mrs. Romans; if the rezoning request is approved by the Commission and City Council, could the contractor build something other than what is on the "plan" before the Commission? Mrs. Romans stated that there is no way to guarantee that the proposed plans before the Commission this evening will, in fact, be built, that the case before the Commission is only on a change of zone classification. Once the rezoning is approved, anyone can build anything that is permitted in the R-2 Medium Density District. If a developer wanted to construct a four-plex, there would have to be a Development Plan filed, and a Public Hearing would be held by the Planning Commission before construction could begin. Only with a Development Plan approved and filed with Arapahoe County can there be any assurance on what is actually built. Mr. Stoel stated that he wanted to understand Mr. Hopp's intent: he would develop the property with three duplexes, six units, and would manage them as rental units; is this correct? Mr. Hopp stated that he proposed to re- tain ownership, and use this as an income resource. Mr. Stoel asked if Mr. Hopp had considered the rental range of the units yet? Mr. Hopp stated that the rent would probably be over $600 per month, because his develop- ments are "first class". Mr. Hopp stated that he owns some very expensive • -5- properties, and they all have good layouts in the development plan. Mr. Senti inquired if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning? No member of the audience spoke in favor. Mr. Senti then noted that several persons had signed in indicating they wished to speak in opposition. Ms. Kathleen Reynolds 3142 South Corona Street -was sworn in, and testified that she has lived at that address for 17 years. Ms. Reynolds stated that she has talked to Mr. Bott and Mr. Hopp, and their plans are beautiful. However, as a homeowner and as a neighbor of the proposed development, she wants to see the site remain zoned for single-family units. Ms. Reynolds stated that this is a nice neighborhood, and it is a nice place to live. Ms. Reynolds stated that she had talked to her neighbors, and a majority of them have signed a petition in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Reynolds read the petition requesting denial of the rezoning request, and submitted the petition to the Secretary ·far the record. Ms. Mary Duran 3151 South Corona Street -was sworn in, and testified that she purchased her home in this neighborhood 16 or 17 years ago, and wants to retire in this area. Mrs. Duran stated that she wants to see the neighborhood remain a single-family neighborhood. Ms. Linda Densmer 1290 East Dartmouth Avenue -was sworn in and testified that when she saw the signs posting the property, she called the Department of Community Development to determine what the sign meant. Ms. Densmer stated that her children go to the school across the street from this subject site, and that there is a need for more families with children in the area. Ms. Densmer stated that she had circulated a petition in opposition to the rezoning, and that it was signed by 39 people. Ms. Densmer stated that they want the area to remain as a single-family neighborhood. Mr. Ronald Densmer 1290 East Dartmouth Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that he had an ad- ditional 20 signatures on the petition. Mr. Densmer stated that there has been single-family development within this area within the last 10 years, noting that a single-family home was com- pleted just south of this site, and the foundation for another home was started. Mr. Dudley Pitchford 1200 East Dartmouth Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that he lives directly across the street from the proposed rezoning site. Mr. Pitchford stated that he built his house in 1956, and they chose this area for their home because it was a single-family area. Mr. Pitchford felt that property values would be maintained if the zoning is maintained for single-family development. Mr. Pitchford stated that he had known Mr • Bott for many years; he does not know Mr. Hopp, but the plans for develop- ment are very nice that Mr. Hopp has displayed. He stated that he would love to see the plans built as single-family homes, but does not want to see duplexes developed in this area. Mr. Pitchford stated that he feels • -6- there could be as many as seven duplexes developed in the area that is to be rezoned, and he feels this would bring the neighborhood down. Mr. Pitchford asked that the property not be rezoned. Mr. L. E. Mcintosh 3195 South Ogden Street -was sworn in, and stated that he has lived in this area since December 27, 1950. Mr. Mcintosh stated that there is a double just to the south of his property, and that he doesn't know how it got there, but it has been nothing but a headache to the other property owners. He noted that "renters don't care about maintaining the property; they don't take care of their trash; they don't shovel the sidewalks." He asked how many blocks they were taking for the R-2 Zone. Mrs. Romans discussed a resolution adopted by the City, setting forth guide- lines and policies for rezonings, including the fact that less than one square block would not be considered for rezoning, and that the rezoning should also be contiguous to like or compatible zoning. Mr. Mcintosh asked if rezoning could be requested in his area? Mrs. Romans stated that if someone wanted to apply for rezoning in Mr. Mcintosh's area, it would be considered. Mr. R. E. Schreiner 3167 South Corona Street -was sworn in, and testified that he wants to keep this area for single-family residential; there are too many renters in this area, and it would be better for the community if the rezoning were not approved. Mr. Rod Guilford 3150 South Corona Street -was sworn in and testified that he talked to the Messrs. Hopp and Bott, and at the time of his discussion with them, he had no opposition to the proposed rezoning. Mr. Guilford stated that upon further consideration, however, he feels it is a good plan, but does not think this is the proper area for a "business-type operation." Mr. Guilford stated that he feels R-2 zoning is, basically, a business-type zoning. The neighborhood is a residential neighborhood, and it is not in transition. The people who live in the neighborhood have lived there for some period of time, and the project would over-crowd the neighborhood. More cars would be expected to use an already crowded alley, and the entire development would change the face of the neighborhood. He noted that Mr. Hopp may plan to rent to only a certain type of people, but he would "rent to anybody if you have the price." Mr. Guilford stated that he feels the Commission is concerned about the people of Englewood, and urged that "you follow your conscience" in consideration of the request. Mr. Guilford stated that he did not think the Commission would want to turn this area into an R-2 area. Ms. Beverly Davis 3297 South Downing Street -was sworn in, and testified that she had recently purchased property in this area, and is not familiar with the proposed development plan on this site . Ms. Davis stated that she would agree with the previously made state- ment that there is no guarantee this plan would be built on the site if the rezoning were approved. If the zoning is approved, this would "leave them open to whatever a developer wants to put there." Ms. Davis noted • -7- that Mr. Hopp had stated that there is rental property in the area. She noted that there are apartment buildings four or five blocks away, and feels that the area has plenty of rental property available at the present time. This proposal would bring the rental property from the periphery of the neighborhood into the heart of the neighborhood. Mr. Bob Boardman 4831 South Clarkson Street -was sworn in, and stated that he is present as a representative of the Englewood School Board. Mr. Boardman stated that the School Board is not opposed to resi- dential construction in the City of Englewood, but it was the unanimous consensus of the School Board that they would like to maintain the integrity of the single-family neighborhoods in the City. The School Board would like to attract families with more children to the school system. For these reasons, the School Board is opposed to the rezoning request. Ms. Ruth Slack 3124 South Downing Street -was sworn in and testified that she is opposed to the rezoning request. She stated that she lives directly across the street from the site, and has lived there since 1962. Ms. Slack submitted petitions that she has circulated in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Senti asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in opposition? No one else in the audience spoke in opposition. Mr. Senti then asked the applicants if they would like time for rebuttal? Mr. Bott stated that he had nothing further to add. Mr. Senti asked if there were questions from the Commission? Allen moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-83 be closed. AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission deny the rezoning request filed by Mr. Myron Bott and Mr. Victor Hopp for a change of zone classification from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, for the following reasons: 1 . The rezoning would not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Proof has not been presented that the property cannot be developed under the present zoning. 3. The rezoning, if approved, would be "spot zoning" which is contrary to City policy. 4. No evidence has been presented that: a) There was a mistake in the original zoning of the area; • • -8- b) Significant changes have occurred in the area which would render another zone classification more applicable; c) The owner has been denied the use of his land under the present zoning. Mr. Senti asked if there was discussion on the motion. Mr. McBrayer stated that while he is sure the applicants have good intentions in filing the rezoning request, the only reason put forth to substantiate the request was the amount of profit to be made from development; he stated he did not feel this was a valid reason for rezoning. Mrs. Becker stated that she is in favor of development in the City, but does want to see development in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Becker further pointed out that there is no guarantee the plan presented to the residents of the area and to the Commission is actually what would be built. Mr. Senti asked if there was further discussion. The vote on the motion: AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None The Chairman ruled that the motion carried. Mr. Senti stated the rezoning request would not be referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. IV. SWEDISH/CORONA COOPERATIVE Parking Lot Layout CASE #5-83 Mr. Senti stated that the matter before the Commission is consideration of a parking lot layout for the Swedish/Corona Cooperative development. Mr. Senti asked if representatives of Swedish/Corona Cooperative were ready to make a presentation. Ms. Helen Brush, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Swedish/Corona Cooperative, introduced Mr. Jeff Ambrose, architect, and stated that Mr. Ambrose would be making the presentation. Mr. Ambrose stated that the parking plans before the Commission have been reviewed by the staff, and he thinks that the parking plans are in full compliance with the requirements of the City, and exceed the requirements in many areas. Mr. Ambrose stated that the development will be an eight- story residential structure for elderly citizens at East Girard Avenue and South Corona Street. There will be a level of parking below the main building, which would have access from the north, and would be designated for tenants only. There will be a second area of underground parking to the south which will also be designated for tenants only, with surface parking atop this underground level. Ms. Jane Silverstein Ries has done the landscaping of the proposed parking lot, and Mr. Ambrose stated that they feel it is well landscaped. -9- Mrs. Becker asked clarification of the affiliation with Swedish Medical Center. Ms. Brush stated that Swedish Medical Center and a consumer group known as Corona Cooperative are supporters of this project. Ms. Brush stated that Swedish Medical Center will have representatives on the Board of Directors, but will not be in control of the project. Ms. Becker asked about the landscaping? Mr. Ambrose asked Ms. Ries to discuss the landscaping plan as displayed for the Commission. It was noted that Colorado Spruce are proposed to be planted along the south side of the parking lot, and that the height of these trees at time of planting will be six to eight feet; height at maturity would be 20 feet. Ms. Ries pointed out that an irrigation system is included with the land- scaping plan. Ms. Becker asked if there was any guarantee that the landscaping will be planted as it is shown, commenting that several times in the past Swedish Medical Center has brought in plans that have not been followed as far as planting and maintenance is concerned. Ms. Brush stated that the land- scaping of the parking lot is in the budget, and that the Board of Directors is in control of the development; the majority of the members on the Board will not be representatives of Swedish Medical Center. Ms. Brush stated that she expects to live in this complex, and she plans to see that the landscaping is planted as proposed. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is encouraged to see that Ms. Ries is the land- scape architect. He asked who would maintain the landscaping? Ms. Brush stated that the Board of Directors will be in control of the management and maintenance of the total project. Ms. Brush stated that it is possible that the Board may decide to hire some of the Medical Center personnel, but emphasized that this project is not under the control of Swedish Medical Center. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt Swedish Medical Center has had a chance to be the "flagship of Englewood" on greenery and landscaping, and he feels that Swedish has failed in this regard. He stated that in his opinion, the landscaping plans that are presented for the Swedish Medical Center parking lots are not what is actually installed. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Ambrose felt that 1.3 parking spaces per unit was sufficient parking for this development? Mr. Ambrose stated that they do feel the proposed parking ratio is sufficent for the elderly citizen develop- ment. Ms. Brush stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals did con- sider the parking ratio and approved it. Ms. Brush noted that for subsidized dwelling units for elderly citizens, the parking ratio is lower yet. Mr. Senti asked if there were further questions from the Commission? Mr. Senti then asked the pleasure of the Commission? Carson moved: Becker seconded: The parking lot layout and landscaping plan for the Swedish/Corona Cooperative development be approved as presented. Mr. Allen stated that he would agree that the project probably has suf- ficient parking. -10- Ms. Becker noted that she will be watching this project very closely as it develops, especially in relation to the landscaping. Assistant City Attorney Holland suggested that Ms. Brush and Ms. Ries be requested to leave the colored parking layout/landscaping plan which has been exhibited for the record. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen None The motion carried. * * * * * * * * Mr. Carson suggested that Agenda Item IX, Director's Choice, be moved forward on the agenda for consideration at this time. Chairman Senti so ordered. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has received two requests for changes of street names. Mrs. Romans noted that both of the requests deal with private access ways, and noted that one of the requests concerns private streets within the Waterford Development. Ms. Kathleen Gabriella, Marketing Director for the Waterford, is present at the meeting. Mrs. Romans reviewed the development of the Larwin/Waterford site, and noted that the development plan was approved through approval of a sub- division waiver. The roadways within this total site are private, and not ded i cated to the City, nor are they maintained by the City. The Waterford is proposing that East Girard Avenue through the development be designated as Waterford Parkway, and the point of entry at South Gilpin Street and East Girard Place be designated Waterford Drive. Mrs. Romans asked Ms. Gabriella to discuss the request. Ms. Gabriella stated that they have experienced a lot of confusion with delivery people and clients who do not associate East Girard Avenue/East Girard Place and South Gilpin Street with The Waterford development. People cannot find the proper address once they are within the Larwin- Waterford development, and the representatives of The Waterford are sug- gesting the street name changes, hoping that Waterford Drive and Waterford Parkway might help clear up some of the confusion for clients trying to find The Waterford. Ms. Gabriella noted that the street name change might affect the tenants in Kimberly Woods and Kimberly Village, but that representatives of The Waterford would be willing to work with these residents on the change of address. Ms. Gabriella stated that representa- tives of The Waterford would be willing to purchase the street name signs for the interior of the development. Ms. Gabriella read a letter signed by both she and Mr. Jack D. Bradbury outlining their request for street name change and substantiating the reasons for the request. Ms. Becker asked how this would affect people to the east. Ms. Gabriella stated that Kent Village would not be affected by the street name change, • -11- inasmuch as the streets do not extend into Kent Village. Ms. Romans stated that only Kimberly Village and Kimberly Woo d s developments would be affected. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the access to Kimberly Village and Kimberly Woods is across the Waterford property. Mr. Tanguma asked if Prowswood could stop the traffic going to Kimberly Woods and Kimberly Village, inas- much as the accessways are privately owned? Mr. Stoel stated that he would think not, ~hat a precedent has been set and they have used the right-of- way for some time; Ms. Gabriella stated that they have tried to acquire Kimberly Village with the intent of fixing the complex up; she noted that it is in need of repainting and considerable maintenance. So far, the offers to acquire have been unsuccessful. She noted that Kimberly Woods is better maintained. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following street name changes be approved within The Waterford development: 1) East Girard Avenue and East Girard Place to be changed to Waterford Parkway. 2) South Gilpin Street at the point of entry off of U. S. 285 be changed to Waterford Drive. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has reveiwed the Municipal Code and can- not find anything setting forth the proper procedure for naming private roadways. Mrs. Romans stated that in the past in considering public street name change requests, if the proposed name did not fit in with the Uniform Street Name Program, the Planning Commission considered the request and referred the matter to City Council. Mrs. Romans asked Attorney Holland if, since this was a private access, whether this procedure would have to be followed? Mr. Holland stated that he felt the procedure used for street name changes on public streets would be correct, and he would review this through the State Statutes. Mrs. Becker stated that the request for the street name change does seem logical. The vote was called: AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans discussed a tour of The Waterford, and noted that March 15th had been suggested; however, the City Council cannot attend on March 15th, and could do the tour on the 29th of March. Ms. Gabriella noted that she would not be available on the 29th of March, but that someone else could conduct the tour. Discussion ensued. The tour of The Waterford was set for April 12 at 5:00 P. M. * * * * * • • -12- Mrs. Romans stated that the second request for a street name on a private roadway is in Cottonwood Village, a subdivision that was recently approved by the City. This subdivision is north of West Quincy Avenue and west of South Huron Street. The private roadway in this subdivision serves two single-family building sites, and has a cul-de-sac at the north end. The developers of these two building sites want street identification other than West Quincy Avenue, and want to designate this private roadway as "Cottonwood Lane." Mrs. Romans stated that in reviewing the telephone directory, there appear to be quite a few "Cottonwood Lanes" designated, and the possible designation of "Cottonwood Way" has been discussed with the developers, Construction of the one dwelling unit has begun, and the developers would like to have the matter of street designation determined as soon as possible. Mrs. Romans stated that this is a private roadway, and she sees no· problem in deviating from the Uniform Street Name Program, with the understanding that the City would not be responsible for making up the street name signs. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff does recom- mend that this private roadway in Cottonwood Village Subdivision be designated as "Cottonwood Way." Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Conunission recommend to City Council the private roadway in Cottonwood Village Subdivision be designated as Cottonwood Way. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Bqrbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that he abstained on this matter because he is the developer of the two sites in Cottonwood Village. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter would be referred to the City Council when an opinion is received from Mr. Holland confirming that this is the proper procedure. * * * * * * * * * * Mrs. Romans stated that the APA National Conference is April 16 through April 21 in Seattle, Washington. She suggested that perhaps members of the Commission should give some thought as to a representative to this Conference. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would like to recommend to City Council that funds be approved to send two representatives to this Conference. He stated that there is so much information to be gained from these con- ferences, and one representative cannot possibly attend all of the meet- ings and glean all of the information there is to be had. V. FINDINGS OF FACT Spencer's Landing CASE //3-83 Mr. Senti stated that the Findings of Fact on the Spencer's Landing Planned Development are to be considered for approval. • • -13- Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on Spencer's Landing, Case #3-83, as written, AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Becker The motion carried. VI. LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE CASE 118-82 Assistant City Attorney Holland led discussion on the proposed Landscaping Requirements Ordinance, and noted changes that have been made from the initial drafts of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Holland noted that the Planning Commission prepared the initial drafts of the Ordinance, and that he has reviewed these drafts. Mr. Holland noted that a statement has been included to justify the exclusion of the R-1 Zone Districts from the requirements of the Landscaping Ordinance. A definition of landscaping has been added to clarify what is meant by the term "landscaping." Mr. Holland discussed other facets of the proposed ordinance, including area of the lot to be landscaped, implementation of landscaping requirements, etc. Mr. Holland stated that he did not notice that the proposed ordinance had a method of review written into the regulations, and questioned how the review of landscaping plans would be accomplished. Mrs. Romans stated the landscaping plans would be approved by the Planning staff and the Parks and Recreation staff, and would be done along with the consideration of the Building Permit. Mr. Holland continued his review of the proposed Landscaping Requirement regulations, and noted that landscaping must be consistent with the City tree ordinance, and that a recommended planting guide is to be prepared. Mrs. Romans stated that a preliminary copy of the Planting Guide is before the Commission this evening. Mr. Holland stated that the proposed ordinance has a provision whereby developers/land owners who cannot comply with the landscaping require- ments are required to donate 1% of the value of the construction to the Public Fine Arts and Landscaping Fund. Mr. Allen stated that he would object to this provision, and asked why this provision should be imposed on the developers. Mr. Holland pointed out that the Commission members drafted most of the ordinance, and one of the issues that has been dis- cussed previously is how to deal with develope·rs/property owners who can- not comply with the landscaping requirements; this provision was an at- tempt to meet that concern. Mr. Holland stated that he would suggest some statement be written into the ordinance pertaining to the fund and how it is to be used. Mr. Stoel stated that he and Mr. Gilchrist, former member of the Commission, had worked on the Landscaping Requirement ordinance, and that he is very pleased with the end result. He stated that he felt the proposed ordinance is a brief and concise guideline for developers and property owners. Mr. Allen stated that he is opposed to the entire proposed ordinance, but • -14- stated that if the landscaping is to be required of some developers and property owners it should apply to everybody --R-1 developers and property owners as well as business and industrial property owners. ·Mr. Stoel referred to Mr. Holland's question on determining compliance with the landscaping requirements; he asked what the present procedure is. Mrs. Romans stated that Senior Planner King is the design specialist on the staff, and that she has been reviewing plans at the present time, and it is proposed that she would continue to do so. Ms. King stated that she felt the procedure would continue to be functional; there is a City Forrester on the staff who is willing to work with the Planning Staff on landscaping matters, and Ms. King stated that she felt the present pro- cedure works and will work very well. Mr. McBrayer expressed concern with #5 o~ Page 6. He stated that he feels this excludes the Downtown District from having to comply with landscaping provisions. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that this section does not "exclude" the Downtown Development District. Mr. McBrayer stated that he does realize the proposed ordinance is very broad and general in scope; he just wants to be sure that the requirement of landscaping in the Down- Development District is "flagged." Mr. McBrayer addressed the Public Fine Arts and Landscaping Fund that is proposed. He stated that he felt the intent was that if extensive remodeling is done on existing property that is built to the property line, with no room for landscaping, 'in lieu of the landscaping they may contribute 1% of the value of the construction to this fund. This fund would provide landscaping and works of art in public areas. Mrs. B~cker stated that she understood this to be the in- tent ·'Jf the Public Fine Arts and Landscaping Fund, also. Mr. Tanguma stated that he also understood this to be the intent, but that he is op- posed to the provision. Mr. Stoel pointed out that if a person developing a vacant piece of land is required to install the landscaping, he is being penalized if the per- son redeveloping or remodeling a property does not have to provide land- scaping or contribute to the fund. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not feel it was fair to the property owners along South Broadway, specifically. Mr. Allen stated that one reason most people do landscape their property is for their own enjoyment and to improve the looks of the property. He stated that he feels property owners who cannot landscape are being penal- ized by the requirement that they contribute to the Public Fine Arts and Landscaping Fund. Mr. McBrayer stated that the statement; on the Public Fine Arts and Landscaping Fund be amended to state that these funds are to be used for landscaping of public areas, and the purchase of artifacts to be placed on public property as near to the subject property as possible. Mrs. Becker stated that she did not feel that the reqirement of a 1% do- nation was unfair. Mr. Tanguma asked if Page 3, c, "All Districts", is in conflict with the exclusion of the R-1 Zone Districts? Mr. Holland stated that he did not feel there was a conflict between the two provisions, but that the wording may not be as pre~ise as it could be. Mrs. Romans suggested that perhaps it could be designated as "all applicable districts" on page 3. Mrs. Becker asked if this was pretty much the form the Commission wanted, is it time to consider setting a public hearing date? It was determined that this is the nex~ step on the matter. • -15- McBrayer moved Stoel seconded: A Public Hearing on the proposed Landscaping Requirement Ordinance be scheduled for April 5, 1983. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked Mr. McBrayer to elaborate on his suggested rewording or amendment of the section on the Public Fine Arts and Landscaping Fund. Mr. McBrayer stated that his suggestion is a statement that: "This fund shall be used for the landscaping of public areas and the installation of art work on public property as near the subject property as possible. The fund shall be administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation." VII. PUBLIC FORUM. It was noted that Mrs. Bernice Senti was the only person in the audience. She did not wish to address the Commission. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Mr. Holland requested more direction from the Commission on the proposed landscaping ordinance; he stated that with the permission of the Planning Commission, he would try to make it a little clearer in some areas where there seems to be some confusion on the wording. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Senti stated that the Commission should designate a member to attend the APA Conference in Seattle Washington. He asked for members who were interested to so indicate. Mrs. Becker stated that she is very interested in attending. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is interested, but that he at- tended the APA Conference last year in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Tanguma reiterated his recommendation that City Council be requested to provide funding for the attendance of two persons. It was noted that funding for two Commission representatives had been requested at the time the budget Wqs drafted; this was not approved. It was further noted that Director of Community Development Susan Powers will be attending the con- ference. Mr. Carson suggested that Mrs. Becker be designated to represent the Englewood Planning Commission at the APA Conference in Seattle, Washington. Members of the Planning Commission concurred. Mrs. Becker stated that she would submit a report on her trip. * * * * * Mr. Stoel asked how the applicants for the rezoning had gotten to the • • -16- Planning Commission for a public hearing when it was so apparent that they did not meet any of the criteria for a rezoning. He asked if the staff advised applicants at all. Mrs. Romans stated that she has tried to be very clear in discussions with rezoning applicants as to whether the criteria for rezoning is complied with in their proposed application; she noted that if applicants want to proceed after the staff discussion and pay the rezoning fee, that is their prerogative. * * * * * Mr. Tanguma inquired as to the progress on the Promotional Brochure? Mrs. Romans stated that she does know that Ms. Powers has discussed this with Public Relations Specialist Dalquist, and that some progress is ex- pected very shortly. * * * * * Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed Planting Guideline was developed with the assistance of the City Forrester and Planning Intern Jeff Stiles. The secretary to the Planning Division, Sheryl Rousses, is responsible for the typing and graphic work in the brochure. Mrs. Romans suggested that the Commission review the landscaping and planting materials listed in the brochure; changes can be made if the Commission so desires. Mrs. Romans stated that she would like to see the brochure published in color. * * * * * Mrs. Becker stated that she really appreciated a representative of the School Board attending the public hearing this even~ng. She stated that she has done an internship in Bennett, and realizes just how important it is for the school board to know what is going on. * * * * * Mrs. Becker discussed a statement by a gentleman who lives in Denver that he can tell the boundary between Denver and Englewood by the trash, junk cars, etc. that is allowed on Englewood properties. Trailers are allowed to be parked in front of homes, etc., all of which this gentleman feels detract from a pleasing atmosphere. Mrs. Becker asked if there is anything that can be done to change this image. She stated that she won- dered if part of the problem might be that there is not a City-funded trash removal program, and that residents who have to pay for their own trash removal don't want to pay too much in fees and have pick-ups less often than may be needed. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that perhaps a company such as CDI could be hired cheaper to do the entire city by the City than on an individual basis. Mrs. Becker noted that there are a lot of old cars around, that maybe this general trash removal-clean up is something pursued or recommended to City Council . She suggested that can be Mr. Allen stated that if the Commission would seriously consider a trash removal ordinance, he would be glad to research and draft a proposed ordi- nance. Mrs. Becker stated that she isn't sure it is the responsibility of the Commission to write such an ordinance, but it is the responsibility of the Commission to promulgate such an ordinance. • • -17- It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Allen should proceed to draft a trash removal ordinance for their consideration. Mr. Senti thanked members for their cooperation during the meeting, and declared the meeting adjourn~d at 9:35 P. M. ~trude G. Welty tRecording Secreta . • • -18- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Street Name Change RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following street name changes be approved within The Waterford development: 1) East Gi rard Avenue and East Girard Place to be changed to Waterford Parkway. 2) South Gilp~n Street at the point of entry off of U. S. 285 be changed to Waterford Drive. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission ~-~~d£--- rtrude G. Welty / ecording Secretary • • -19- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Becker seconded: March 8, 1983 Street Name Change The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the private roadway in Cottonwood Village Subdivision be designated as Cottonwood Way. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ~~---+'--c;~_-~~ trude G. Welty 9 cording Secretary