HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-29 PZC MINUTES•
•
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 29, 1982
I. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman McBrayer.
Members present: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen,
Barbre, Becker, Carson
Romans, Acting Ex-officio
Members absent: None
Also present: Senior Planner King
Assistant City Attorney Holland
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of June 8, 1982, were to be
considered for approval.
Barbre moved:
Gilchrist seconded: The Minutes of June 8, 1982, be approved as
written.
AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Senti, Tanguma, Allen
The motion carried.
III. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1983 -1987
CASE #J.2-82
Mr. McBrayer stated that the City Charter requires that the Planning and
Zoning Commission consider a list of Capital Improvement Projects requested
by the City Departments, and arrange these projects in priority for recom-
mendation to the City Manager. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the procedure of
the past few years in considering the Capital Improvement Projects.
Mrs. Romans stated that it appeared that heavy emphasis will be given to
improvement of Little Dry Creek in the ensuing year. She reviewed the
information that was contained in the staff report, noting that a copy
of the recommendation to the City Manager in 1981 was included, as was
a copy of the six-quarter budget which reflects those projects which have
been budgeted. Discussion ensued. The Commission reviewed the projects
which were recommended last year., and compared this list to the six-quarter
budget to determine which projects had been budgeted. The merits of some
of the requests, such as bookmobile replacement, were discussed. Mrs.
Becker pointed out that a bookmobile replacement is cheaper and more
versatile than a branch library; this bookmobile is a critical factor in
library service, and discussed the life span of bookmobiles. It was
pointed out that the present bookmobile was put into service in 1968, and
the life span is estimated as 10 -15 years.
-2-
Projects for the water and sewer program were discussed; it was pointed
out that water and sewer projects are not funded from the Public Improve-
ment Fund, but from their own budget.
The ranking of the Capital Improvement Projects requested by the City
Department Heads for the 1983-1987 Capital Improvement Program was then
considered.
Can;on moved:
Gilchrist seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Manager
McCown the following five-year Capital Improvement
Program for the years 1983-1987.
1983
1. Little Dry Creek Improvements
2. Street Overlay and Sealcoat Program
3. Community Center
4. Paving and Sidewalk District
5. Housing Rehab
6. Aerial Photographs
7. Sidewalk Repair District
8. Traffic Safety/Controller Replacement
9. River Development Phase III
10. Police Parking Lot
11. Housing Relocation
12. Display Case
1984
Little Dry Creek Bicycle Trails
Englewo od Beautification
Widen Broadway -Yale to Floyd
Broadway Beautification
Little Dry Creek Improvements
Street Overlay and Sealcoat Program
Sidewalk Repair Program
Traffic Safety/Controller Replacement
Housing Rehabilitation
Housing Relocation
River Redevelopment Phase III
1985
Mountain Park Property Lease
Cushing Park Expansion
Centennial Park Expansion
Rousing Rehab
Housing Relocation
Beautification of Englewood
Little Dry ·Creek Improvements
Street Overlay and Sealcoat Program
Paving and Sidewalk Districts
Sidewalk Repair Program
Traffic Safety/Controller Replacement
•
•
•
•
-J-
1 98 6
Bookmobile Replacement
Right-of-way Acquisition
Cul-de-sac -3300 Block South Lincoln
Housing Rehab
Housing Relocation
Beautification of Englewood
Mountain Park Property Lease
Little Dry Creek Improvements
Street Overlay & Sealcoat Program
Paving & Sidewalk Districts
Sidewalk Repair Program
Traffic Safety/Controller Replacement
1987
Housing Rehab
Mountain Park Property Lease
Little Dry Creek Improvements
Street Overlay & Sealcoat Program
Paving & Sidewalk Districts
Sidewalk Repair Program
Traffic Safety/Controller Replacement
AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer,
Senti
NAYS: None
The motion carried.
Mr. McBrayer asked that the matter of the Display Case which was requested
by the Community Development Department be placed on the agenda for the
next meeting on July 7th to be discussed under Commission's Choice.
IV. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE CASE 118-12
Mr. Carson stated that since the last meeting, he has driven through the
City and paid special attention to the landscaping in all residencial
neighborhoods. He is of the opinion that the decision at the previous
meeting regarding elimination of landscaping requirements in the single-
f amily districts was in error, and that this motion should be reconsidered.
Carson moved:
Becker seconded: The Commission reconsider the motion made at the meeting
of June 15, 1982, removing the R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C
Zone Districts from the proposed landscaping require-
ments.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel spoke in opposition to the reconsideration
of the motion.
Mrs. Romans suggested that perhaps the staff should have had further dis-
cussions with the Commission members to determine exactly what they wanted
to accomplish before presenting a draft ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that
--4-
she had discussed with the City Attorney whether it was discriminatory
to require medium-density uses to provide landscaping but not require it
of single-family development when they were in the same zone district.
Mrs. Romans reported that it was Mr. DeWitt's interpretation that he would
not say this was a legal issue, but rather a practical issue to require
landscaping throughout the City if it is going to be required. Mrs. Romans
suggested that Ms. King, Mr. Temple and she would like to spend some time
discussing in depth with the Commission just what the intent is --who is
the landscaping designed to please, the passer-by or the resident/tenant;
should the proposed ordinance be written to be all-encompassing and then
points negotiated such as was done with the Sign Code?
Mr. McBrayer reiterated his opinion that the provisions should not apply
to single-family development; he felt there is a very distinct difference
between single-family home ownership and a multi-family, commercial or
industrial use. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt inclusion of the single-
family development in landscaping requirements would discourage develop-
ment of single-family uses. Mr. Stoel stated that he had recently purchased
a duplex in northwest Englewood, and received a bid of $4800 to landscape
the property. Mr. Tanguma stated that when additional costs are imposed
on builders and developers, it is the consumer who ends up paying these
additional costs, and the single-family consumer can no longer afford to
pay for these regulations and requirements. Mr. Allen stated that the
same would apply to developers of multi-family uses; the land cost is
higher to begin with, and it is no longer feasible to build multi-family
uses and rent them --the cost per unit is too high for people to afford.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist suggested that the second withdraw her
second, and let the motion die at this time; it could then be brought up
at a later time. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Carson stated that he
felt there should be a study session on this matter, and that he wanted
to reconsider the exclusion of the R-1 Districts. Mrs. Becker stated that
she would like to hear what the staff has to present on this matter. Mrs.
Romans noted that it is now after 9:00 P.M., and the staff presentation
could take one and one-half to two hours; she asked the pleasure of the
Commission?
Mr. McBrayer asked for the vote on Mr. Carson's motion to reconsider:
AYES: Becker, Carson
NAYS: Tanguma, Barbre, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel
ABSTAIN: Allen
The motion was defeated.
Mrs. Romans stated that a special meeting has been scheduled for July 13th,
at which time residents of Northwest Englewood would be attending to discuss
a proposed zone classification that they and the staff have been working on
for the past several months. It was suggested that perhaps the presentation
by these residents could be scheduled from 7:00 -8:00 P.M., and the staff
could then discuss the landscaping provisions in depth.
•
Mrs. Romans then reviewed the agendas for the regular meetings of July 7th •
and July 20th. Mr. McBrayer asked that on the agenda for the next regular
meeting that a reconsideration of the Commission Work Schedule and Goals
be scheduled under "Director's Choice".
•
-5-
V. PUBLIC FORUM •
There was no one present to address the Commission.
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission had discussed the possibility of
visiting different businesses in the community at a recent meeting; the
Commission has received an invitation to tour the Ragsdale Company at
7:30 A.M. on July 13th. Mrs. Romans suggested that possibly some members
of the City Council would also be interested in going on the tour. Mr.
McBrayer asked that members of the Commission be called on July 12th to
remind them of the tour.
VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
Mr. McBrayer asked what has been done on the promotional committee that
Mr. Tanguma was appointed to at the last meeting? Mrs. Romans stated
that she has contacted Dr. Davidson of the Englewood Public Schools;
she has not heard back from the City Council at this time on a delegate
from that body. Mr. Haviland is planning to participate on this committee,
and the Chamber is aware that one of their members should be designated
to participate.
Mr. McBrayer stated that the Sign Code comes up for second reading before
the City Council on July 6th; he stated that he plans to attend the Council
meeting in support of the proposed Sign Code.
Mr. McBrayer asked whether there had been any additional informat:'.on
received by the staff on the suit involving the adult entertainment use
at 4370 South Broadway? Mrs. Romans stated that she was aware that the
legal staff was attempting to quash the subpoenas, but is not aware
whether they have been successful.
Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council held a Public Hearing on designating
commercial amusement establishments as Conditional Uses, which would require
these uses to be considered by the Planning Commission on an individual
basis; this matter will become effective immediately.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
--