Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-04 PZC MINUTES' ' CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ MAY 4, 1982 • 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 Ed McBrayer. Members present:· Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Allen D. A. Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Also present: Barbre, Tanguma Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Chief Building Inspector Gary Pittman Senior Planner Susan T. King II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of April 20, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Allen moved: Gilchrist seconded: The Minutes of April 20, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Barbre The motion carried. III. ENGLEWOOD EXECUTIVE CENTER Off-street Parking Plan CASE #6-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission has received copies of the staff report pertaining to the proposed off-street parking layout for the Englewood Executive Center. He asked if there were questions from the Commission regarding the staff report? Mr. Gilchrist stated that he wanted to advise the Commission that he has represented both Everett Collier and Richard Collier, both personally and in their present corporate capacity. He stated that he wished to with- draw from consideration on these proceedings, and would abstain from voting. Mr. Gilchrist asked that he be recalled to the room at such time as consideration of this case has terminated. Mr. Gilchrist then left the meeting . Mr. McBrayer asked if there were comments regarding the staff report? Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7:05 P.M. Mr. Carson questioned the proposed condition to approval that the Inca- Jason alley between West Jefferson Avenue and West Kenyon Avenue be paved. ' I -2- Mrs. Romans stated that this was a recommendation of the Engineering Ser-• vices Department. She stated that it is her understanding that it is the practice of the Engineering Department to require paving of an alley by major developers to acaommodate the drainage flow and traffic that may be generated by the development. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this proposal is a major development, which will generate a great deal of traffic, and reiterated that this is a requirement of the Engineering Department. Mr. Allen noted that he had been required to pave an alley abutting one of his developments, even though his development did not have access onto the alley. He suggested that perhaps developers should be extended the courtesy of a Public Hearing and the opportunity to voice their opinion on the paving of alleys. Mr. Allen asked if the requirement was for paving with asphalt or reinforced concrete? Mrs. Romans stated that the alley would have to be improved to City specifications. Mr. Allen stated that there is a great cost difference between asphalt paving and reinforced con- crete. Mr. Holland stated that he could not give Mr. Allen a specific citation giving the Engineering Services Department authority to require the paving of alleys, but stated that he was sure this could be required independent of a Paving District. Mr. Allen stated that he would like to have this matter researched. Mr. McBrayer asked if the applicant wished to make their presentation at this time. Mr. Doug Rorex Gingery & Associates -stated that the developers are negotiating with the Elks Club to purchase their land; if this land can be purchased, they would expand the development, and might request vacation of this alley; he stated that they did not want to go to the ex- pense of improving the alley, only to turn around and request that it be vacated. Mr. Allen stated that he had studied the plan presented by the developers, and felt it was a very good plan; he saw no problems with the exception of the required paving of the alley. Mr. Stoel inquired as to the timing on the proposed purchase of the Elks property? Mr. W. M. Mcllvaine, partner in the proposed development, stated that they have been negotiating with the Elks for about three weeks; if he and his partners could locate a site that would meet with the approval of the Elks where they could relocate, the Elks would be agreeable to the sale of their property on Jason. He stated that they are looking at a couple of other pieces of property as possible sites for the Elks; if the Elks property can be obtained, they have one large tenant who would like a 15-story building constructed. Mr. Mcllvaine estimated that the timing would be about the first of the year before this matter could be determined. He stated that if the Elks property is not acquired, he and his partners would have no objection to the paving of the alley as required by the Engineering Services Department. He asked if the condition of paving the • alley could possibly be delayed until it can be determined whether the Elks property can be purchased. He stated that if the Elks property is purchased, the total development would go from an estimated $10,000,000 to an estimated $40,000,000. Mr. Mcllvaine again stated that if the Elks -3- property is not acquired, they would have no objection to paving the Inca- Jason alley between West Jefferson and West Kenyon. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer questioned whether it would be possible to delay the Certificates of Occupancy on the buildings abutting the alley until it is det"ermined whether or not the alley is to be paved? Further discussion ensued. Mr. Mcilvaine stated that they should know by the end of 1982 whether or not the Elks property can be purchased and their proposed development would be expanded; he assured the Connnission that '.'if we do what the present plan calls for, we will do what they want on the alley." Mrs. Becker stated that she would like to connnend the developers for the amount of proposed landscaping that is indicated on the plans. Mr. Mcilvaine stated that they plan to spend approximately $140,000 on landscaping; the trees they will be planting will be 30 to 35 feet tall at the time of planting. Mr. McBrayer inquired whether the exterior of the proposed buildings will be similar to the existing structure? Mr. Mcilvaine stated that the ex- teriors would be the same, and that if the high-rise development is con- structed on the Elks property, it would be of similar material. Mr. McBrayer inquired on the timing of construction of the proposed build- ings? Mr. Mcilvaine stated they hope to move into the existing building by the 15th or 20th of this month, and will do the next building within 90 to 120 days. Mr. Mcilvaine stated that he wished to state that he has been treated very courtesly by all City Departments, and it is their hope to do a very nice development. Mr. McB.rayer asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak? There was no one present who wanted to speak regarding the proposed development. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Connnission approve the parking lot plan for the Englewood Executive Center with the following conditions? 1. The paving of the Jason/Inca alley between West Jefferson Avenue and West Kenyon Avenue be tied to to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed two western buildings. 2. "Keep Right" signs should be installed at median noses at entrance and exit points for the parking lot. 3. Curb cuts should conform to city standards. Unused curb cuts must be closed. 4. Compact car spaces should be signed as such. 5. If there is to be a loading area off of the alley, and if there is to be a curb cut, they must conform to city specifications and be appropriately signed as a loading area. The present plans do not call for a loading area off of the alley, but one could possibly be installed in the future. -4- 6. There are six parking spaces that could cause a problem if they were used by other than compact cars; ~ these spaces are shown on attached Map 112 with an "X" identifying the six spaces. 7. The two entrance/exit access points for the parking lot may have a 28 foot opening, but the flares need to be three feet, not five feet. 8. Twenty percent of the lot shall be developed as land- scaped open space, with an automatic sprinkling system. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Barbre The motion carried. Mr. Gilchrist entered the meeting and assumed his chair with the Commission. IV. CINDERELLA CITY REMODELING. Mr. Gary Pittman, Chief Building Inspector for the City of Englewood, was present to give the Planning Commission an over-view of the improvements that are occurring in the Cinderella City Shopping Mall. He stated that it is the proposal of the Shopping Center management that the majority of the improvements will be completed by the Christmas season. He stated that it has taken two and one-half years to reach approval of final plans and obtaining of building permits on this work. Mr. Pittman stated that it has been of great concern to the Fire Department and to the Code En- forcement Division that this shopping center was not sprinklered; it is proposed under the remodeling and improvement program that the entire center will be fully sprinklered within the next couple of years. Mr. Pittman discussed the improvements that have already occurred in the Rose and Shamrock malls, and noted that the wood parquet flooring is being laid in the Rose Mall, and that the Shamrock Mall has brick pavers on the floor. The wood parquet flooring and/or brick pavers will be installed in all malls and common areas throughout the shopping center. The shopping center management has proposed allowing the stores to "encroach" to the columns if they will improve the facades; this would enable the individual stores to pick up additional square footage, and would make for a uniform alignment along the malls. The signage will be changed, and there will be a "sign strip" with the identification of the individual stores installed. Mr. Pittman stated that further improvements include such things as the repainting of the malls, and hanging of colored flags. Ms. Becker inquired if the flags were representative of anything, or were they just for color? Mr. Pittman stated that they would just be for color. Mr. McBrayer asked how many shopping centers were sprinklered? Mr. Pittman stated that most of the new ones are fully sprinklered, and cited South Glenn, Aurora Mall, and Buckingham as being sprinklered. Mr. Pittman discussed the removal of the fountain in the Blue Room, the opening of the Blue Room down to the lower level where the food court is being installed. Mr. Pittman stated that the mezzanine area in Penneys and The Denver would be used for office space. The Building Permit for the parking deck to be -5- located between The Denver and Penneys has issued, but construction has not begin at this time. Transparencies of the proposed improvements, particularly in the Blue Room and the Food Court were shown. Mr. Pittman stated that consideration is being given to the installation of a small fountain in the food court area, but final determination has not been made. Improvements in the Gold Mall will be a new grid ceiling, and increase of the size of windows above the stores. Mr. McBrayer asked how many tenants had signed up for the Food Court area? Mr. Pittman stated that he did not know how many tenants had signed up for the Food Court; he stated he was aware that the intent is to get most of the fast-food operators in the shopping center to concentrate in this area. Mr. Pittman stated that there are other projects going on that are not re- lated to the shopping center itself, but are a result of this remodeling. Mr. Pittman pointed out that The Denver has leased the third floor of their store to Mountain Bell, and The Denver is using the main floor and lower level for their merchandising. Joslins has remodeled the third floor in their store to house their regional offices, and are also re- modeling many of the separate divisions within their store. It is their intention that all this work will be completed by the Christmas season. Mr. McBrayer asked if the parking deck had been stabilized. Mr. Pittman stated that the parking deck has had some modifications, but this will be an on-going project, and will take a lot of maintenance. Mrs. Becker asked if the small shops that are projecting into the walk areas are there because they have been displaced during the construction program? Mr. Pittman stated that they are temporary structures, and would be removed when the remodeling is completed. Mr. Pittman pointed out, however, that there will still be some kiosk areas in the Blue Room area, and in other select locations. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer expressed the appreciation of the Com- mission to Mr. Pittman for his presentation. V. MONTAGE OF A MODEL PLANNING COMMISSION. Mrs. Romans presented a brief narrative and slide show on a Montage of a Model Planning Commission. VI. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS CASE ff 8-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that he would assume that all members of the Commission have reviewed the background information on landscaping standards that they were given some time ago. He asked if any of the members had given any thought to what they wanted to see in Englewood relative to landscaping standards? Mr. Allen stated that it should be very clear to the developers at the beginning of their project what they would be expected to do. He suggested that the landscaping requirements on commercial, industrial, and multi- -6- family developments should be based on a percentage of the lot area. He urged that there be a system of "checks and balances" written into the Ordinance so that staff does not try to "landscape people out of business." He stated that he felt the requirements could be very simply stated --a percentage of the lot area with the checks and balances to prevent abuse by both the developer and the staff. Mrs. Becker asked if it was proposed that the landscaping standards be drafted by a subcommittee, or by the entire Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was thinking the entire Commission would consider the matter; he pointed out that guidelines from several adjoining municipalities had been submitted to the Commission for review, and that he felt the standards set forth in Lakewood were the best. Ms. Becker stated that she felt the proposed ordinance should include re- quirements that the developer use native or natural vegetation, use plantings that grow easily without too much water, and an automatic sprinkler system should also be required. Ms. Becker stated that she felt the ordinance should also include some means of dealing with replacement of dead vegetation, and establish who would be responsible for the replacement of the dead plantings. She suggested that perhaps subsequent plantings should conform to whatever was proposed on the original site plan. Mrs. Becker stated that she did not feel the regulations and standards should be over-burden- some to the developers, however. Mr. Allen stated that he felt a "review committee" was to be avoided by all means; that the standards and restrictions should be set forth in the ordinance so that the developer and staff both know what is required and permitted. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that a review committee would not be formed. Mr. McBrayer stated that he personally felt the Lakewood Ordinance on landscaping requirements was very good, and that he had called Lakewood officials to discuss their experience with enforcement, complaints on the requirement of landscaping, etc. He stated that he talked to a Mr. Hoffman, and he indicated that he would be very happy to meet with members of the staff to discuss their experiences with their ordinance. It was suggested that perhaps a member of the Community Development staff meet with Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt the question of landscaping should be in the nature of a "recommendation" rather than an "order", and that the recommendation should be within certain boundaries and should be practical, requiring low-cost maintenance. Mr. Gilchrist stated that "standards" are difficult to meet, and reiterated his belie f that this should be a "recommendation", and not an "order", and that the recommended plantings should be those requiring low-cost maintenance. Problems with maintenance of landscaping by property owners and by tenants was discussed. Mr. McBrayer suggested that a straw poll be taken to determine whether the landscaping should be "required", or shoula be "recommended". Mr. Allen asked what the staff actually did at the present time? Mrs. Romans stated that landscaping is not required except in the R-2, and R-3 residential zones, and in the industrial district where the site abuts a residential district. The staff negotiates with developers • • -7- on other commercial developments to encourage plantings and landscaping. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt there should be minimum standards set forth. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the larger developer would be more willing to install landscaping to ensure an attractive develop- ment than the smaller uses along Broadway, for instance. Mr. Allen pointed out that the initial cost of the land plus the cost of the water tap also dictate the amount of landscaping a developer may be willing to install. Mr. Stoel stated that he basically is in favor of a percentage of a site being used for landscaping, and not setting forth what type vegetation should be planted. Mrs. Becker pointed out that one of the work items on the Commission's list for this next year is an ordinance regarding landscaping requirements. Ms. Powers entered the meeting. Mr. Gilchrist commented that the staff presently negotiates with the developers regarding landscaping; he asked if there was a means to en- force whatever is negotiated between the staff and the developers? He suggested that perhaps the staff should continue with the procedure they are presently using. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt there should be some written authority to support the staff recom- mendations. Mrs. Becker agreed that there should be written authority to support both the Commission and staff. Mrs. Romans stated that a written policy would be helpful to the staff; she pointed out that a developer may agree to the installation of landscaping, but not actually do it, and the staff has no way to enforce the agreement. Mrs. Romans indicated that the staff is prepared to begin drafting the proposed regulations, but wanted to get input from the Commission. Mr. McBrayer recapped the discussion: members are agreeable that a per- centage of the lot be required for landscaping, and that a member of the staff contact Lakewood Community Development to discuss their experience with the landscaping provisions, and that a preliminary ordinance will be drafted by the staff. Mr. McBrayer declared a recess of the Commission at 8:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened with the following members present: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Becker, Carson. Absent was Mr. Barbre. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM/GOALS 1982/1983 Mr. McBrayer announced that City Council has accepted the Planning Com- mission's request for a second meeting with the Council, and has scheduled this meeting for May 18th at 5:00 P.M. in the Library Conference Room. He stated that the Commission work program and goals which were to be dis- cussed with the Council need to be set at this meeting. Mr. Senti noted that he could not be present at the meeting with the City Council on May 18th. -8- Mr. McBrayer stated that the regular Planning Commission meeting would be scheduled for May 18th at 7:00 P.M. following the meeting with City Council. Mrs. Becker led discussion of the work program and goals as previously outlined by the Commission. She presented Commission members with a chart setting forth the objective, the action plan to achieve the objective, who will carry out the action plan, and the approximate date. Each of the nine objectives were reviewed and discussed, with the action plan determined, responsibility assigned, and an approximate date deter- mined. This will be prepared in final form and submitted to members of the Commission prior to their meeting with the City Council. VIII. LITTLE DRY CREEK Flood Control Alternatives Ms. Powers stated that the City signed a design contract with Wright- McLaughlin on the flood control improvements on Little Dry Creek, which contract was signed in January, 1982. The contract calls for the design of the flood control improvements to take one year, and the actual con- struction of the improvements to also take one year. The improvements would extend from South Clarkson Street to Santa Fe Drive, and are to be completed by January 1984. The engineering firm the City hired has pre- sented several alternatives on the improvement of Little Dry Creek. The discussion this evening will center on the design of flood control improve- ments in the block between Girard Avenue and Hampden Avenue. Ms. Powers stated that at the meeting of April 22nd, to which all boards and com- missions were invited, all four alternatives were presented and discussed by the design firm. It has now been narrowed down to two alternatives, one of which is an open channel through this block, (Alternative #3), and the second (Alternative #4) is an extension of the closed conduit to West Hampden Place. Comments and recommendations are b.eing solicited from the boards and commissions who were in attendance at the meeting on April 22nd, and these comments and recommendations are to be submitted to the Advisory Committee by May 7th. Ms. Powers stated that City Council has not made any decision on the alternatives at this point in time. Ms. Powers dis- played conceptual drawings of Alternative #3 and #4. Ms. Powers pointed out that Alternative #3 would require removal of structures on the east side of South Bannock Street and on the west side of South Acoma Street in the 3400 block. Alternative #4 would not require the immediate removal of the structures on South Acoma Street, even though they would eventually have to be removed. Ms. Powers more fully discussed the proposed flood control measures pro- posed in Alternative #3. A pumping system is built into this design, which would recycle the water in Little Dry Creek back to the pond which is proposed in Skerritt Park; this would keep the water moving continually and would be an aesthetic feature as well as prevent water from stagnating in the pond and creek bed. Ms. Powers stated that the improvements will require a channel width of 150 feet from bank to bank. There will be a realignment of Hampden Avenue/Hampden Place. Ms. Powers then discussed the design improvements proposed in Alternative #4; the actual conduit would be extended to the south of Hampden Place. Ms. Powers pointed out that an "overflow" channel will have to be designed into whatever alternative is chosen; this is a safety feature to accommodate If I ' • • • • -9- flood events in excess of the design capacity. Ms. Powers stated that the engineers have expressed a preference for the open chan nel alternative, be- cause this alternative would be easier to keep clean. Mr. Tanguma asked about maintenance costs? Ms. Powers discussed some of the maintenance features that would be required. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers stated that there have been meetings with proper ty owners who wo u ld be affected and have to relocate, and that City Counci l has also met with some of those property owners. She reported that Mr. Brady of Brady Enter- prises is now of the opinion that the flood control improvements need not be completed by January of 1984, in order to accommodate his deve lopment, but that he could possibly work around them for an additional six months. Ms. Powers stated that one of the problems that must be decided is that of the businessmen on South Acoma Street who will be disp l aced; it may be some time before they can relocate in the new development, but their existing businesses must be removed to facilitate improvement of the Creek to allow for the new development and redevelopment. Mr. Allen questioned the cost of the project? Ms. Powers stated that the improvement of Little Dry Creek is estimated to be $10,000,000. Mr. Carson excused himself from the meeting. Ms. Powers pointed out that the estimated $10,000,000 cost does not i nclude land acquisition costs, which figure approximately $5,000,000, making the total estimated cost on Little Dry Creek improvements $15,000,000. She pointed out that much of the land acquisition costs could be recovered when the land is sold to developers after the completion of the flood control improvements. Mr. Gilchrist inquired on the financing of the improvements? Ms. Powers stated the financing would be by issuance of tax increment bonds. Mr. Gilchrist asked what contacts had been made regarding purchase of the land either before or after development? Ms. Powers stated that there has been discussion with Sheraton regarding construction of a hotel in this area, and some of the property owners along South Acoma have expressed an interest in doing a joint project with Brady Enterprises. Further dis- cussion ensued. Senti moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend that Alternative #3 be the design plan chosen for Little Dry Creek. AYES: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Becker NAYS: Allen ABSENT: Barbre, Carson The motion carried . IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated that City Council has set a public hearing on June 7th to consider amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on the auto repair/auto laundry businesses. -10- May 10th is the date of the Public Hearing before City Council on the Sign Code. Members of the Commission were urged to attend this meeting of the City Council. Ms. Becker asked if the Commission should speak on the matter of the Sign Code? Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would be out of town, and asked that Mrs. Becker speak on his behalf in support of the Sign Code. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker stated that she wished to commend Mrs. Romans for the tour which members of the Planning Commission went on on the first of May. Mr. Stoel expressed concern regarding the wastewater treatment plant; he asked how he, as a private citizen, could be assured that what had occurred prior to entering into the contract with the present Company did not again occur? He stated that it is his understanding that the contract will ex- pire in September of 1982; he asked if this firm would be re-engaged to manage the plant? He stated that he felt the firm should be retained. Mrs. Becker asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to indicate to City Council that they are aware of the improvements that have been made at the plant since this firm has been retained, and that the Commission would recommend the firm's contract be extended? Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer noted that a "Suggestion Form" has been given to the Commission members; he asked that if any member had any suggestions they wished to make that the form be filled in, and submitted to Mrs. Romans. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. ' . ' • - •