Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-21 PZC MINUTESI • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 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 McBrayer. Members present: Carson, Senti, McBrayer, Stoel, Barbre, Becker Powers, Ex~officio Members absent: Gilchrist, Tanguma, Allen Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of September 8, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of September 8, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Gilchrist, Tanguma, Allen The motion carried. III. STATE HIGHWAY WORK PROGRAM 1983/84 CASE #21-82 Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission members had any questions on the staff report pertaining to the proposed projects to be requested? Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood the Commission was to prioritize these items, and recommend them to the City Council. Ms. Romans stated that the Highway Work Program request identifies projects on the Federal Aid Urban System and State Highway System for which funding is needed. Upon consideration by the Commission, a recommendation is made to the City Council. The City Council in turn forwards the list of pro- jects which the City of Englewood wants to have included in the State High- way Work Program to the Arapahoe County Commissioners for inclusion in the County request to the State Highway Commission. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the projects which are suggested in the staff report are not new --they have been requested previously, but funding has not been approved. Mrs. Romans stated that the list has been reviewed with Director of Public Works Kells Waggoner, and has been submitted as suggested by Mr. Waggoner. Mr. McBrayer again asked if the Commission had any questions? Mr. McBrayer conunented that he found the median planters in Broadway in Littleton to be , -2- most attractive, and expressed the hope that a similar style could be carried ~ out along Broadway. Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7:06 P. M. Mr. McBrayer asked for clarification of the term "sheeting" action in re- lation to drainage? Mrs. Romans stated that the runoff waters flow across the street, creating a hazardous driving condition. The storm runoff would be controlled if the project were approved. Mrs. Becker expressed the hope that whatever construction work is done on South Santa Fe Drive and the proposed interchanges does not result in an interchange such as at West Evans Avenue and South Santa Fe Drive. She stated that she would hope the construction would be more attractive. Mr~ McBrayer questioned whether there was to be a grade separation at Quincy Avenue and Dartmouth Avenue with South Santa Fe Drive and the railway tracks? Mrs. Romans stated that when the proposed interchange is constructed, there would be separation. Mr. McBrayer stated that he thought the relocation of the railroad tracks has begun in Denver at approximately the 2000 block south. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker asked about the note that is included in the staff report re- garding the "designation" of West Quincy Avenue between I-25 and West Kipling Avenue; she asked if this meant designation as a main artery? Mrs. Romans stated that Quincy Avenue had been designated on the regional transportation ~ plan as an arterial from I-25 west to Kipling at one time, and that this ..., street does have the possibility of being extended, whereas Oxford Avenue could not be extended. Because of Cherry Hills Village's position, it has been removed from the plan; but there is always the possibility it may be reinstated in the future. If it were, Quincy would be the proper location for the interchange. Mr. Stoel asked if South Clarkson Street is on the State Highway system south to Orchard Avenue? Mrs. Romans stated that it is requested to be placed on the Federal Aid Urban System. Brief discussion ensued. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed projects cited in Case #21-82, and that they be recommended to the City Council for inclusion in the State Highway 1983-84 Work Program. AYES: McHrayer, Senti, Stoel, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma ABSENT: Gilchrist, Allen The motion carried. IV. PROMOTE ENGLEWOOD CAMPAIGN. Mr. Tanguma discussed the objectives and goals of the Commission in developing a means of promoting Englewood. He stated that an ad hoc committee, of which he is a member, has met three times. Mr. Haviland, a member of the committee, is present this evening to discuss the concept of a brochure on Englewood. • • -3- Mr. Haviland stated that Ms. Emelene Russell, a free-lance artist in ad- vertising, has been working with him to develop a possible layout for a brochure. Mr. Haviland distributed copies of a marketing proposal, a bro- chure outline, and a job estimate prepared by Ms. Russell to the Commission. Mr. Haviland stated that there has been no commitment made with Ms. Russell that the brochure, will, in fact, be used, or that if it is used, that she would be awarded the contract to actually do the brochure. Mr. Haviland then discussed the points that have been s~ggested be covered in the bro- chure, and noted that there would be seven major headings to be addressed. Mr. Haviland stated that the mock-up brochure which has been prepared b y Ms. Russell was done as a "tool" for the Connnission to see, and to give a cost estimate to work with. Mr. Haviland stated that it is up to the Commission to determine the level of quality they desire in such a brochure, and what kind of general product they want to have as the end result, and the estimated cost they want to expend for the product. Mr. Haviland asked that Ms. Russell present the mock-up of the brochure she has prepared. Ms. Russell gave a brief synopsis of her background in advertising and stated that she is now free-lancing. Ms. Russell discussed her concept of the pur- pose of the brochure, ways to communicate ideas, and how to put this down on paper. Ms. Russell displayed the brochure mock-up, which would make use of photographs; she noted that no actual copy has been written for this brochure, but that lines have been indicated to depict what the finished product would look like. The brochure she has proposed would be an "eight-page" document, which count includes the front and back covers. Ms. Russell emphasized that the pictures to be used in this brochure would be photography, and not drawings; there would be a variety, and no two pages would look alike. Ms. Russell discussed the cost estimate that she had prepared, noting that a similar cost estimate would be prepared by anyone wanting to follow through on such a project. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the Commission and City Council might want to consider ways to recoup some of the expenses incurred in the preparation of the brochure by offering it for sale to realtors, for instance. He noted that in his business, he would be willing to purchase a quantit y of them at a reasonable price for handouts to prospective clients. He acknowledged that in some cases, the brochure should be given away, but he also felt there was a strong possibility that it could be marketed to recoup some of the ex- pense. Ms. Romans stated that the possibility of soliciting "subscribers" or "con- tributors" has been considered; this subscriber or contributor would then have a means of advertising by paying towards the publication of the brochure. Discussion ensued. Discussion of paper stock ensued. It was also noted that the brochure could contain a "pocket" for inserts in the back, if desired; this concept would necessitate a different layout from that which has been prepared by Ms. Russell, however. Mr. McBrayer noted that if the brochure was to be pre- pared on "generic" lines, up-dated information could be prepared and inserted in the back pocket; this could make the overall brochure useful for an ex- tended period of time. Further discussion on the "pocket" brochure concept ensued. Mr. Haviland expressed the opinion that the Committee cannot really pro- ceed much further without an expression of intent on the format and what funding may be available. -4- Mr. Tanguma stated that he would suggest the Commission discuss this idea ~ in more detail at a special session. He stated that the notion of a small pocket-sized brochure had been discussed. He expressed the opinion that all these options need to be explored, and a consensus reached so that he can report back to the Committee and a recommendation can be made to the City Council. Discussion ensued. It was determined that a special meeting of the Commission had been scheduled with the Cherry Hills Village Planning Commission for September 28th, and that they would not be in attendance until after 8:00 P. M. It was suggested that perhaps the Commission could discuss the brochure concept until the arrival of the Cherry Hills Commissioners for the joint meeting. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt a list of things the Commission is going to have to consider is the size of the brochure, type of paper, the number of pages it should contain, and whether or not to use the "pocket" concept. Ms. Russell asked that the Commission also consider what general concept they wanted to promote: a "slick" brochure, or a "down home" type document. Ms. Russell asked that if it is determined to use the brochure concept such as she has displayed, that she be given an opportunity to further present her capabilities and talents in the field of advertising and be considered as a candidate to do the brochure. Mr. McBrayer suggested that possibly Ms. Russell would have to convince the City Council that she was the logical choice to do the brochure. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Proposed Amendments. CASE #22-82 Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission members had reviewed the proposed amendments presented by the staff. Ms. Becker asked if prohibition on retail in the R-4, Residential/Pro- fessional District, would prohibit the dispensing of glasses from optical laboratories, for instance. Mrs. Romans stated that glasses may be dis- pensed because this is in conjunction with a "professional use"; an actual retail use would not be permitted. Ms. Becker asked for further clarification on the "shared" housing; will this be restricted to a family member or an elderly person? Mrs. Romans stated that the matter of "shared" housing was initially discussed with the people in Northwest Englewood at which time it was suggested that the occupant would be a family member. This concept was felt to be too restrictive and the committee finally agreed that the shared housing would be for an elderly person who would not necessarily have to be a realtive. Ms. Powers suggested that it would be difficult legally to limit the shared housing to a "family-member". Mr. McBrayer expressed his concern that landscaping requirements are again included in the revisions of the R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C Zone Districts; he emphasized that the Commission has determined, by majority vote, on at least three occasions that landscaping requirements should not be included in the single-family districts. He asked that the staff keep in mind the wishes of the Commission, and that this proposal not be included in the single- family zone districts. • -5- Mr. McBrayer also questioned the statement in the R-1-A general statement: "To these ends, development is limited to ..... plus certain public facilities, " He asked whether the recent amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance pertaining to exclusion of public facilities from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance was included here? Ms. Romans defined public facilities as noted later in this proposed revision as being such things as streets, alleys, sidewalks, water and sewer lines, fire hydrants, etc. Mr. McBrayer asked why a minimum floor area is not indicated for other per- mitted uses, but only for a single-family residence? Mrs. Romans discussed the difficulty of determining a minimum floor area for a church, school or public facility, noting that a school must meet state certification standards, and that restrictions cannot be placed on churches. Further discussion ensued on the matter of Usable Open Space and Landscaping. Mrs. Romans stated that the 30% Usable Open Space was derived by figuring the area in the required minimum setbacks. This figured out to be 30 % of the total lot. Mr. Stoel suggested that if the minimum setback requirements are set forth, he did not feel a separate section was needed for Usable Open Space. Ms. Becker noted that detached garages and sheds could be put in this area, which would cut down on the Usable Open Space; these accessory uses have their own minimum setback requirements. Definitions of both Usable Open Space and Landscaping were cited by Mrs. Romans. Mr. Tanguma expressed his belief that there are too many restrictions; that there is a need to make housing more affordable, but the requirement of 30 % open space would limit the development that can be done on a lot. Mrs. Romans pointed out that under the present ordinance, only 25% of the lot can be built upon. Under the proposed revision, 70% of the lot could be covered with buildings or structures. This would be 70% developed under the pro- posed amendment vs. a maximum 25% lot area that could be developed in the existing ordinance. Mr. McBrayer asked for clarification of (2) under "Other Provisions and Requirements". Mrs. Romans stated that this would enable a property owner with less than the required minimum 75 foot frontage, but whose lot is in excess of 60 feet in width, to build on that lot without having to appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. This provision is carried on throughout the R-1 districts, permitting construction on lots in the R-1-C District, for instance, which have a frontage of 37 feet rather than the required minimum 50 foot frontage. Mrs. Becker asked why barbers, hairdressers, cosmetologists and beauticians are specifically excluded from home occupations? She noted that many people are, in fact, fixing hair in their homes. Ms. Becker stated that if they are licensed by the state and meet the requirements, she questioned why this type of business could not be permitted as home occupations; she noted that this type of business would attract very limited traffic, and there is no noise associated with it. Mrs. Romans pointed out that one of the bigger changes in the proposed amend- ments would be the inclusion of home occupations in the R-1-A Zone District; at the present time, home occupations may not be conducted in this Zone Dis- trict. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would have no problem permitting home occupations in the R-1-A. -6- Mr. Stoel questioned that utilities should be required to be underground in a new development. Mrs. Romans stated that this has been suggested to be required in new "subdivisions", and not for one small development. Mr. McBrayer suggested that in a Planned Development, the utilities could be required to be underground. Mr. Tanguma questioned the restriction on storage sheds. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommends a maximum size on storage sheds. She noted that with a storage shed, and a large garage, it is very easy to get into a commercial activity. It is proposed that there be a restriction on the size of private garages, also. The individual would still have the option of appealing to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals if they wanted to exceed the restrictions suggested. Mrs. Romans stated that it has been the experience of the staff that large garages (four or five car garages) lead to neighborhood problems. Mr. Tanguma stated with the economy the way it is, he felt large garages were needed to allow people to work on their own cars. Mr. Tanguma again voiced his opposition to "restrictions". Mrs. Becker expressed her opinion that there should be a limit on the size of garages. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the appeal procedure to the Board of Adjustment was costly and time consuming, and that a property owner should not have to go through this. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this draft of the ordinance is based on the experiences of the staff and building inspectors, and by going through the record of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Ms. Becker stated that she is concerned about noise in a residential neigh- borhood. She noted that large garages can lead to work on vehicles and if this is done by "considerate" neighbors it may not be a nuisance to the neighborhood. She cited a case wherein a resident is splitting wood in his yard and selling from his yard; this is very disruptive to the neighborhood. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the matter of further review of the Ordinance amendments be placed on the agenda for October 5th. Ms. Powers asked that the Commission go through the proposed Downtown Develop- ment District. She pointed out that this is a new zone district that is being proposed, and will replace the B-1 Zone District in the downtown redevelop- ment area. Ms. Powers stated that this area will encompass provisions for a "flexible use area", a "periphery area", a "commons area", and a "mall area". Ms. Powers stated that this District is designed to promote pedestrian-oriented uses and pedestrian traffic, and to discourage high vehicular traffic. Ms. Powers pointed out that no adult entertainment uses would be permitted in this district. Ms. Powers pointed out features of the proposed zone district, such as height restrictions, setbacks, building bulk, etc. The maximum height of structures would vary according to the area of the district in which they are to be located; heights along the mall area would be restricted to three stories; the maximum height permitted in the Flexible Use Area would be fourteen (14) stories. • Ms. Powers addressed the issue of parking requirements in this proposed dis- trict. Multi-level parking structures are encouraged, and screening of ~ parking is encouraged. Ms. Powers discussed the fact parking requirements for mixed use projects are different in Colorado, and it is difficult to set forth specific requirements. The staff is proposing that developers be re- quired to submit a study from a traffic engineer or their marketing or financing people setting forth what parking would be required to support the proposed use, and they would then have to meet those requirements. • -7- Ms. Powers then discussed the section on Usable Open Space. She noted that there is none required in the Mall or Periphery areas; in the Flexible Use Area, 30% of the site must be Usable Open Space. Regulations for especially permitted mall activities were discussed, and procedures for development were also discussed. Ms. Powers pointed out that design review procedures have been written into the development pro- cedures. Ms. Powers stated that it is very important to make certain that any development occurring in this downtown development district is in com- pliance with the Downtown Development Plan, and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan), and that there be some controls over this develop- ment. It is proposed that a Design Review Committee be established which would work with a developer from the beginning. An appeal process is built in, and appeals would be to the Planning Commission, who would have final determina·tion. Mr. Tanguma asked if the City representative on the design review committee was to be a City Council member? Ms. Powers stated that it would not be; it is suggested further in that section that the representatives be staff members. Ms. Powers stated that this proposed zone district will be reviewed by the Downtown Development Authority, and while the approval of that body is not required, they will be involved in the redevelopment process and their in- put should be received. Ms. Powers stated that the idea of setting up a work session with the EDDA, EBA, and Planning Commission has been discussed, and asked the opinion of the Commission on this possibility. Mr. McBrayer asked what the timing of this proposal is? Ms. Powers stated that if possible, she would like to have the Commission schedule a Public Hearing on the matter late in October or early November. Discussion ensued. It was determined that a public meeting would be scheduled for October 12th, to which meeting members of the EDDA, EBA, Chamber of Commerce, and other interested citizens would be invited. The possibility of scheduling a public hearing for October 26th was then considered. It was noted that both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman would be unavailable for a meeting that evening, and that another date would have to be determined. Further discussion ensued. Ms. Powers noted that a section pertaining to utilities would have to be inserted into the body of this Ordinance. Ms. Becker asked if there was a reason that hardware stores were not in- .eluded as a permitted use, or was this only an oversight? Ms. Powers stated that the wording on the lead-in paragraph needs to be revised, and that hard- ware stores should be included as a permitted use; she stated that this use would be appropriate in the periphery area, but would not be appropriate in the Mall area, for instance. Mrs. Romans reminded the Commission that there would be other sections of the proposed ordinance amendments forthcoming for their consideration, also. VI. LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE CASE #8-82 Mr. Stoel discussed the progress that has been made in reviewing the land- scaping ordinance that was prepared by the staff, and in determining just what the Commission wants and what is needed. He stated that in driving around the City, he has come to the conclusion that the main problem with -8- lack of landscaping is in the commercial and industrial areas. He pointed • out that the Commission has previously determined that landscaping require- ments would not be imposed in the single-family districts, and landscaping requirements are presently written into the R-2 and R-3 Zone Districts. Mr. Stoel stated that it is his proposal that the proposed ordinance be con- cerned only with the industrial and commercial zone districts. Mr. Stoel stated that the proposed ordinance drafted by the staff required 20% of the total site be landscaped in the business and industrial districts, and that one tree for every 40 foot frontage was required. Fifty (50%) percent of the landscaping must be of living materials. He stated he would like to see these provisions remain in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 Zone Districts. In the business districts, he felt that perhaps 20% is too high, and that perhaps we should consider a requirement of 10% of the area to be landscaped. He stated that the cost of the land, and the parking requirements have to be considered, and he feels that the 20% minimum requirement is excessive. Mr. Stoel stated that he feels the provision requiring screening between business or industrial uses and adjacent and/or abutting residential zones is proper. Mr. Stoel discussed landscaping of parking lots. The proposed ordinance would require that for parking lots with 50 or more vehicles, that a minimum area of 10% must be landscaped, and that 25% of that must be in living materials. He stated that he felt this is a good provision. Mr. Stoel discussed the enforcement and maintenance of landscaping. He asked if the Commission members felt that this was the direction they wanted to go in proceeding with this project? Mr. Senti stated that he felt Mr. Stoel had done a good job, and was satisfied with the direction the proposal was taking. Mr. McBrayer stated that he also felt this was the right course to pursue. Mr. Stoel stated that he had reviewed the sample ordinances provided by the staff, and felt that the Englewood Ordinance should be very simple, and not as complicated as the Lakewood Ordinance, for example. Mr. Stoel cautioned that the Commission must keep in mind that there are areas along South Broadway, for instance, that cannot provide landscaping. Mrs. Becker stated that in Downtown Denver, there are areas where hanging baskets are placed during the summer months in an effort to provide greenery, and she felt that the same could be done in Englewood. She suggested that perhaps funds paid into the Landscape and Fine Art Fund which was proposed to be created could be used to finance such things as the hanging baskets. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to see something put together, and suggested that perhaps this could also be a point of discussion at the public meeting on October 12th. Discussion ensued on the percentage to be required for landscaping. Mr. Stoel discussed two separate proposals for providing some landscaping around a business on West Floyd Avenue; one proposal required 2.8% of the site, and the more elaborate landscape plan required 7.8% of the lot. The second plan required a redesigning of the parking lot, and removal of some asphalt, but did not eliminate required parking. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel emphasized that provisions in the landscaping ordinance could not be made retroactive. Further discussion followed. Mr. Tanguma expressed p • • • -9- the opinion that in some instances, the 10% requirement might be too high. Mr. Stoel stated that he would agree it could be excessive in some cases. He suggested that there must be some flexibility incorporated into the pro- visions, and leave it to a judgment call of the staff. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would question leaving this to a judgment call of the staff; that he felt the provisions should be "specific". Ms. Becker asked about landscaping in the parking lots for less than 50 vehicles; she stated that landscaping was needed in those lots just as much as the larger lots. She also felt that there is some way to provide greenery and/or landscaping in the downtown area. Mr. Stoel indicated that he would try to get something put in writing for further consideration on the landscaping ordinance. VII. COMMISSION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. The Commission reviewed their progress on the goals and objectives that had been set out earlier in the year. It was felt that the Commission is making good progress, in that many projects have been started and are under con- sideration at the present time. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission under Public Forum. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans noted that the first November is on election day; the or could move the meeting day to following week on November 9th. meet on November 9th. meeting of the Commission scheduled for Commission can choose to meet on that date, November 3rd, a Wednesday, or meet the It was the consensus of the Commission to Mrs. Romans reminded members of the joint meeting with the Cherry Hills Village Planning Commissi~n on September 28th. The Cherry Hills Commission indicated that if they were to be invited to Englewood for the meeting, it would be about 8:15 P. M. before they would be here. Discussion items pro- posed for that meeting are the projected development of the Buell property in Cherry Hills Village, and the Englewood Redevelopment Project and the Waterford development. The annual City Parade was discussed. It was noted by Mrs. Romans, Chairman of the Parade Committee, that the parade is scheduled for Saturday, November 6th at 10:00 A. M., and the theme is "Transportation, Then and Now." X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. There was nothing brought forth for discussion under Commission's Choice. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. retarv ... -10- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION • OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Stoel seconded: September 28, 1982 1983/84 State Highway Work Program Requests The Planning Commission approve the proposed projects cited in Case #21-82, and that they be recommended to the City Council for inclusion in the State Highway 1983/84 Work Program. AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma ABSENT: Gilchrist, Allen The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ,/ . ~~~ Gertrude G. Welty . Recording Secretary