Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-28 PZC MINUTES, . , . • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Connnission was called to order at 7:10 P. M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson D. A. Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Allen, Gilchrist II. PROMOTE ENGLEWOOD Brochure Mr. McBrayer stated that the Connnission wanted to discuss more fully the type of brochure to be used for the "Promote Englewood" campaign. The discussion which occurred at the meeting of September 21st was reviewed, and samples of brochures were viewed by the Commission. Determinations made by the Connnission are as follows: Paper: 8011 "matte" or "satin" finish for cover and interior pages. (Paper to be similar to that used in the brochure from Columbia, Maryland). Pictures: Color photography, large pictures with brief statements. One large photograph to be extended across the cover of the brochure. Pocket style: Pocket to be included in the back cover, with var i ous in- serts. Size: 8-1/2 x 11. Logo: Large logo to be on inside of back cover where the pocket is to be. Print: Large, legible printing. Topics: Include "Industry" as one of the major headings; investigate the possibility of addressing one topic per page. Reference should be made to the brochures from Columbia, Md., and NCNB Plaza for format and paper types which the Commission favors . Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like these points of guidance submitted to Ms. Russell who had done the mock-up reviewed by the Connnission at the last meeting, and see what can be developed. He asked that the Connnission review the product one more time before a reconnnendation is made to the City Council, and suggested that perhaps one or two members of the Commission would want to appear before the Council at the time the recommendation is received from the Commission. -2- Mrs. Romans suggested that perhaps Ms. Dorothy Dalquist, Public Relations Director of the City, should be involved in this discussion, inasmuch as she would be involved in the preparation of the copy to accompany this brochure. Mr. McBrayer indicated that Ms. Dalquist would be welcome to sit in on the discussions. III. LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE. Mr. Stoel distributed Draft II of the landscaping ordinance, which is a modification of the Draft I prepared by the staff. Sections that have been eliminated have been so indicated, such as references to landscaping requirements in the R-1 Zone Districts. Mr. Stoel noted that the land- scaping provisions would apply to the R-2, R-2-C, R-3, and R-4 Zone Dis- tricts, which presently have landscaping requirements, as well as the B-1, B-2, I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts for which landscaping requirements are pro- posed. Landscaping requirements would also be set forth in the Planned De- velopment regulations, the Downtown Redevelopment area, and other special projects of mixed land use, and would be required where extensive remodeling is done. Mr. Stoel pointed out that there are areas along South Broadway where it would not be possible to do landscaping, but if the special fund for landscaping and fine arts suggested by the staff were to be created, perhaps these individuals could contribute to that fund. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not feel property owners who could not pro- vide landscaping on their properties that they presently own should be penalized because of a new ordinance that is being enacted. Mr. Stoel pointed out that the present property owners would not be required to do anything unless their property is extensively remodeled; only then, would they be required to provide landscaping or to contribute to the fund. He stated that he did not feel they should be allowed to do nothing. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt there were too many regulations for property owners to contend with now, and that regulations add to the cost of property and in the case of businesses, it is passed on to the con- sumer. Further discussion ensued. It was noted that perhaps the contri- bution the property owner who cannot provide the required minimum landscaping would be required to make to the landscaping and fine arts fund, could be pro-rated based on the amount of landscaping that can be and is provided. Mr. McBrayer asked the staff how the required landscaping provisions in the R-2 and R-2-C Zone Districts have functioned? Mrs. Romans stated that the developers in these districts have tried to comply with the provisions. Mr. McBrayer then asked how the landscaping requirements in the R-3 District have worked? Mrs. Romans pointed out there has been very limited multi- family construction since the R-3-A and R-3-B provisions were combined into the R-3 District; with the exception of the Cherokee Kivas and The Waterford complex, there have been no multi-family developments. Landscaping was pro- vided at Cherokee Kivas, and is a prominent feature with The Waterford development. Mr. Senti pointed out that no automatic sprinkler system was included in the landscaping of Cherokee Kivas. Mr. Stoel discussed the requirement of street trees; he stated that he would like to see this provision remain, and thinks it should also be in the R-2 and R-3 Districts. ' • • • • -3- Mr. Stoel inquired whether landscaping provisions for B-1, B-2, 1-1 and 1-2 could be written as one requirement, or is there a reason that the business and industrial areas might need to have separate regulations? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt that regulations encompassing both the business and industrial districts would be workable. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that perhaps the staff could take photographs of some establishments that have no landscaping, and superimpose what would be the minimum 10% landscaping to determine whether parking spaces would be eliminated, and what the resulting appearance would be. Mr. Stoel stated that perhaps properties devoted to the same use in different locations could be compared. Discussion ensued. It was felt that perhaps the 10% minimum landscaping requirement might yet be too high. Mr. Stoel stated that the screening between business and industrial zones and adjacent and/or abutting residential zones is already required, and he felt should be retained. Landscaping of parking lots was then discussed. Mr. McBrayer asked about landscaping of smaller lots with less than 50 vehicle capacity. Ms. Becker stated that she felt an automatic sprinkler system should be required in the landscaping provisions, because without the sprinkling system she questioned that the plantings would be watered and maintained. Mr. Stoel connnented that with some of the very small areas that could be landscaped, an automatic sprinkler system would be impractical and too restrictive. Mr. Stoel then cited a proposed maintenance provision whereby if the landscaping is not maintained, the City will have the authority to cause maintenance or to bill the property owner if the City has to assume that responsibility. Ms. Becker spoke strongly in favor of the automatic sprinkler system, and stated she could not support the proposed ordinance as it is presently written without this provision. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that on de- velopments that have very small areas to be landscaped, the staff has asked that an outside faucet be available to facilitate watering of the plant materials; she suggested that this might be an alternative solution to the requirement of an automatic sprinkler system in some instances. Mr. McBrayer suggested that this matter be considered again at the next regular meeting of the Commission. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:20 P.M. * * * * * * * * * * The Planning Commission then met in a discussion session with the Planni ng Connnission from Cherry Hills Village. Attending from Cherry Hills Village were: Steve Conner, Ed Connors, Buz Hill, Lib Matsch, Jane Gallow, Viola Lahana, Andy Love, Jan Roskam, Ed Wasson, City Manager Chuck Coward, and Councilwoman Ann Polumbus. Mr. Jack Bradbury and Ms. Kathleen Gabriella, marketing consultants for The Waterford development, and Mr. Dick Hinson, Economic Development Planner, were also present. -4- I. The Waterford Development. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Bradbury and Ms. Gabriella would make their presentation on The Waterford project at this time. Mr. Bradbury introduced himself, stating that he is a resident of Cherry Hills Village, and is the Executive Marketing Director for The Waterford project. Mr. Bradbury introduced Ms. Gabriella who is the Marketing Di- rector for The Waterford. Ms. Gabriella stated that The Waterford has not been a simple project to market; there is no development in this area that is comparable to The Waterford --no luxury condominium units in a suburban setting. Ms. Gabriella stated that the first requirement for marketing such a project is "quality" throughout the development. She noted that there have been 4,000 people who have gone through the project within the last 12 months, and many of their suggestions are being incorporated in the finishing of the units. Ms. Gabriella pointed out that she and Mr. Bradbury had found the previous discussion of the Commission on landscaping requirements to be of great interest to them, because there would be a great amount of land- scaping in The Waterford development. She noted that they want to complete the landscaping along the Highway (#285) first to give an attractive view . to the passers-by. Ms.Gabriella stated that the one problem they have ex- perienced is the limited access to the site; at the present time, there is one signalized intersection with U.S. 285, and no direct access to Floyd Avenue. It is hoped that a second signalized intersection on U.S. 285 could be realized. Mr. Bradbury stated that there would approximately 20% of the land area. in the complex is projected to begin in the southwest corner of the site. be five buildings, which will cover Construction on the second building in the spring of 1983, and would be Ms. Gabriella pointed out that they have found there are three distinct groups of buyers who are interested in The Waterford development: 1. People who live in the immediate area. 2. Out-of-town, out-of-state, and out-of-country. 3. People living in other parts of the Denver metro area. The height of the structures was briefly discussed. It was noted that the first building is 14 stories; the other four condominium structures will be 18 stories in height. Mr. Bradbury pointed out that there would be no more than 700 units on the . total site under the proposed development. Mr. McBrayer asked how many units are in the first building? stated that there are 113 units in the first building, which structure. This is 22 % -23 % pre-sold at the present time. from $147,000 to $525,000, with the average selling price at of the penthouse units are sold. Mr. Bradbury is the smallest Prices range $326,000. All • Ms. Jan Roskam asked if there were occupancy requirements; what is the • ratio of owner/occupants to tenants that is permitted? Mr. Bradbury stated that they wanted to hold the investor units --those which would be rented -- down to no more than 10%. Mr. Hill asked when the development would be completed? Mr. Bradbury stated that it is projected to be a seven or eight year project to total completion. The earliest projected date for occupancy • -5- in the first building is November 15th. In answer to a question, Mr. Bradbury stated that the total site is 35 acres, and that the condominium structures will cover no more than 20% of the land area. Mr. Bradbury discussed the security provisions in the buildings, as well as the fire safety features of the development. He noted that the Fire and Building Codes have been very strictly interpreted by the City, and that each unit is fully sprinklered, in addition to the required fire walls, etc. Pass cards are required to gain access to the underground parking areas; there will be coded telephones to each unit, and a 24-hour guard service will be required. II. TEMPLE BUELL PROPERTY. Cherry Hills City Manager Chuck Coward discussed the resort hotel and condominium development proposed to be constructed on the Temple Buell property on the southeast corner of U.S. 285 and South University Boulevard. The proposal is for a 600-room, five-star resort hotel, 200 condominium units, and a golf course. There would be the supporting restaurants and specialty shops in conjunction with the resort hotel. Mr. Coward stated that application was made in August, 1981, by Tucker-Boulineau for approval of the , .proposed development. Mr. Coward discussed two plans which were on display, the "conforming" plan, and the "desired" plan, noting that even the "conforming" plan is not in conformance with the regulations of Cherry Hills Village. Mr. Coward discussed the zoning in Cherry Hills Village, and pointed out that golf courses are not permitted in the R-1 Residential Districts, and that condominium units are not permitted in the R-A-1 Zone District. A resolution recently approved by the Cherry Hills Village City Council approves the basic "conforming" plan, but does not give approval to the condominium units, and does not approve the larger 18-hole golf course. Height of the hotel would be limited to 90 feet. Discussion ensued. Ms. Becker questioned the imposition of a "resort" hotel in this immediate area. Mr. Coward indicated that this is a concern of the Cherry Hills Village Planning Commission, City Council, and staff. III. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Mr. Wm. Richard Hinson, Economic Development Planner for the City of Engle- wood, discussed projected plans for the redevelopment of the downtown section of Englewood, and improvements which are projected on Little Dry Creek from South Clarkson Street through Englewood to South Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Hinson noted that the improvements on Little Dry Creek are in the design stages at this time, with actual construction to begin in spring, 1983. Requests for Proposals from developers have been requested, and a briefing meeting will be scheduled in mid-October; firm proposals from developers would be due 30 days from the date of the briefing, and it is hoped that an agreement with a developer can be signed sometime in December, 1982. Mr. Hinson discussed the background leading up to the redevelopment process including the contracting with Design Workshop, Inc., for the development of the Downtown Development Plan. The Urban Renewal Authority was activated, and this body is charged with the financing of the public improvements by the creation of a tax increment district, and the sale of tax increment bonds. Mr. Hinson indicated those areas which would be included in the tax increment district, noting that Cinderella City is included in the dis- trict as far as land value is concerned; sales tax revenues from Cinderella City are not included in the tax increment district. Mr. Hinson stated -6- that the Urban Renewal Authority approved the Downtown Redevelopment Plan (Urban Renewal Plan) in May, 1982; the Planning Commission found the Plan to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan in July, 1982, and the City Council approved the Downtown Redevelopment Plan following a Public Hearing on August 23, 1982. This Plan has been certified to the County, and the tax increment district has been formed. Further discussion ensued on the proposed redevelopment plan, including the development of a mall along West Girard Avenue, and development of a "commons" area along Li ttle Dry Creek through the downtown area. Members of the two Commissions agreed that it was beneficial to get to- gether in joint sess i ons, and that they should try to do so at least once a year. Mr. McBrayer expressed his appreciation for the attendance of the members from Cherry Hills Village, and declared the session ended at 10:15 P. M. •