Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-23 PZC MINUTES... • CITY .OF ENGLEVDOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 23, 1982 The Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission met in special session with members of the Littleton Planning Commission and members of the Littleton Department of Community Development staff. Dinner was served in the Library Conference room at 6:00 P. M. Chairman McP.cayer called the meeting to order at 6:45 P.M. Members present: Allen, Barbre, Pecker, Carson, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Mc Pc ayer Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Pierson Englewood staff present: Assistant Director Dorothy A. Romans Assistant City Attorney Holland Littleton Commission members present: Orr, Smith, Robbins, Albrecht, Obermeyer, Regnvall Littleton Commission members absent: Kasch, Clapsaddle, Ostermiller .Littleton staff present: McMinimee, Herman, Douglas Mr. McP.cayer stated that prior to commencing discussion with the Littleton Commission, he would like to announce that the Englewood City Council has scheduled a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission for March 29, 1982, at 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mc Pcayer welcomed the members of the Littleton Planning Commission and Community Development staff to the meeting, and stated that it is his hope that mutual problems can be informally discussed at this meeting. The future development of Centennial Race Track was discussed. Mr. Orr stated that proposed development will include office buildings constructed around the pond in the center, with high density residential development also proposed. It is suggested that South Prince Street be extended north to Felleview Avenue. Mr. McMinimee stated that a nine-hole golf course is also pro- posed on this site, and that approximately 2,400 dwelling units of different types are proposed in the development. Mr. McMinimee stated that the total site is 160 acres, the majority of which is on the east side of the river. He stated that they anticipate a Development Plan will be filed in May, and that the Planning Commission could be considering it in June, and the City Council will consider the proposal in approximately July. Mr. McMinimee stated that one problem that must be considered is the channeliza- tion of the South Platte River; the site is within the 100-year flood plain. Due to a change in funding schedules, the channel -2- through Littleton will not be built until 1983, which will affect the development schedule for the site. Mr. McMinimee stated that the plans could include a hotel, but the final determination has not yet been made. Mr. Allen asked when the race track would cease operation? Mr. McMinimee stated that the track would be open for racing through the 1983 season. Upon a question by Mr. Stoel re- garding the river front project in Littleton, Mr. McMinimee stated that the developer proposes to orient part of the pro- posed development to take advantage of the work to be done by the Corps of Engineers. The Littleton River Front Project starts to the south of this area proposed to be developed in conjunction with the race track. Mr. McMinimee stated that the development could accommodate possibly 6,000 residents, and that he felt the proposed development would complement the River Front Project proposed by Littleton. Mr. McMinimee stated that the Littleton River Front project comprises approxi- mately 25 acres. The Arapahoe County Fair Grounds was discussed. Mr. McMinimee stated that this site was annexed to the City of Littleton in approximately 1974 or 1975; it was then de-annexed from the City at the request of the Fair Board, with the agreement that at the time the land was to be developed, it would be re-annexed into the City of Littleton. Mr. McMinimee stated that the zoning of this site is agricultural or open space in the County. The South Drive-in Theatre site was then discussed. Ms. Powers stated that it was her understanding that the Home Lumber Company is interested in expanding onto this site, which is in Arapahoe County. She stated that no approach has been made to the City of Englewood for annexation of the site. Mr. McErayer commented that it is his understanding that the Home Lumber Company is not interested in annexing to any municipality. Mr. McMinimee stated that was also his understanding. Annexation policies of the two cities were discussed, as were logical boundaries such as Belleview Avenue and/or Eig Dry Creek. Mr. McMinimee noted that the sewer service boundaries for the joint W:iste 'W:lter Treatment plant follow the line of Big Dry Creek; there is an agreement between the cities of Englewood and Littleton that Littleton shall not serve anything north of Big Dry Creek, and that Englewood would serve nothing south of the Creek. He felt this was a point in favor of using Big Dry Creek as a logical boundary between the two municipalities. Mr. McBrayer . noted that the City of Englewood is pretty well landlocked, with very few areas remaining which could be annexed to the City . In response to a question asked by Mr. Orr, Mrs. Romans discussed two areas which, in addition to the land on the northeast corner of ~lndermere and Belleview, would be eligible for annexation to Englewood by virtue of contiguity, those being the Brookridge residential area, and an area on the northeast corner of U.S. 285 and South University Boulevard. Mr. Gilchrist entered the meeting at 7:10 P.M., and was intro- duced to those in attendance . • -3- Ms. Romans stated that there was also an area west of South Santa Fe Drive and north of West Union Avenue that might be annexed to either Englewood or Sheridan. Mr. McMinimee stated that the City of Littleton is interested in pursuing annexations west to the Jefferson County Line; to the south, they do not anticipate annexing any land south of the Arapahoe County Line; to the east, they would accept annexa- tion petitions, but only on a voluntary basis from the petitioners; to the north, the City is interested in annexing the Fair Grounds. Pedestrian access trails along the Big Dry Creek and South Platte River were discussed. Mr. Orr stated that there is discussion about extending the Denver trail system south along the Platte River, and to eventually have a trail system connecting from Chatfield to Brighton. The cost of constructing such a trail system was briefly discussed. Mr. Douglas of the Littleton staff discussed the development of the trail system further. He noted that Littleton is completing the acquisition of their 650 acre natural park area along the River, and will tie in with the Centennial Race Track develop- ment to the north. There is also the golf course area in Engle- wood which is developed along the river front. He noted there are other isolated green areas that are developed along the river front, which could be tied together by the trail system. Mr. Albrecht asked if there was a problem with public access to the river front in any area? Mr. Douglas stated that there may be problems with some of the area in Sheridan. The development of additional bicycle trails was also discussed. Mr. McBrayer noted that the bicycle trail system can now cross Santa Fe at Kenyon Avenue, rather than having to use the Dartmouth/Santa Fe Drive intersection. Mr. Douglas asked if the bicycle trail would go under Santa Fe Drive when it is improved? Mr. McBrayer stated that this was the intent of the system. Mr. McBrayer asked if the City of Littleton proposed trails along Big Dry Creek? Mr. McMinimee stated that the plans of the Corps of Engineers show a trail system along Big Dry Creek, and that he feels there is an opportunity to provide a trail system that would tie Progress Park and Belleview Park together, for instance. The River Front redevelopment program ·was discussed. Mr. Douglas gave Englewood Commission members a copy of the Urban Redevelop- ment plan adopted by the Littleton River Front Authority, and which has been ratified by the Littleton City Council. Mr. Douglas discussed the boundaries of the riverfront area, and commented that there may be some elements which could compete with the race track development; however, the development in the river front area would be "theme" oriented. Mr. Douglas stated that the idea for the riverfront development area was developed about ten years ago, but the Plan was not approved until last September. The role of the Littleton Planning Com- mission in the development of the plans and the zoning classifica- tions to facilitate this proposal was discussed. Mr. McMinimee discussed the efforts of the City of Littleton to eliminate the -4- flood plain for the Littlest Creek. He discussed the Small Grants Program, which has been used in various elements of the River Front project. Mr. Albrecht asked if the funding schedule change from two years to three years would have an impact on the River Front project? Mr. McMinimee stated that it would have an impact; attempts are being made to encourage dedication of right-of-way by property owners rather than re- quiring purchase of the right-of-way. He noted that utility relocation costs will use most of the allocations, and that they need to have right-of-way dedicated to facilitate the pro- ject. Development of the land east of the Target Store was then con- sidered. Mr. McMinimee stated that this property is in Englewood, zoned for high-density development, and abuts property in Little- ton which is zoned and developed for single-family residence. Developers have contacted the City of Littleton on several occasions on the possibility of extending a road from the sub- ject site to South Washington Street, which is in the single- family developed area. Mr. McMinimee stated that the City of Littleton has indicated they would not permit such an extension and impose traffic from a high-density residential area on this single-family neighborhood. Mrs. Romans stated that this site was zoned for multi-family development approximately 15 years ago; the 1969 Comprehensive Plan shows that it should be developed as a park; however, the Englewood City Council has felt that the City could not spend money to develop a park in that location which would serve primarily residents of Littleton and Greenwood Village and not Englewood residents. The Fire Department has indicated that they would not approve plans for a high-density development because of the poor access. The possibility of de-annexing this area from the City has been considered; however, this would require a special election. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff still feels the most appropriate use would be for park purposes. She also stated that whenever a developer has come in to the office to discuss any proposed development of this site, she has notified Littleton and Greenwood Village of the potential development. Mr. McMinimee asked if there is a possibility this site could be developed for single-family use? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt this was a possibility. Mr. Douglas stated that there is a high-tension utility easement across this parcel, and questioned that single-family development would be realized on this site. Sign control was then considered. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is very interested in the experiences that Littleton might have had during the time they adopted their Sign Code; were there law suits, did businesses have to relocate or cease operation because of the restrictions in the Sign Code, and what is the general attitude of the citizenry toward the Sign Code now? He noted that Englewood is in the process of developing a new Sign Code which would reduce the size and height of signs, and contains an amortization clause guaranteeing a nonconforming sign a 10-year period from the date of installation. He dis- cussed the testimony and concerns that have been expressed to ' -5- the Commission and staff by members of the business community and by the Sign Company representatives. Mr. McMinimee stated that he was not a member of the Littleton staff when the Sign Code was adopted in 1975; this Code contained a three-year amortization provision for nonconforming signs, but also contained a provision that signs would be given a seven- year use guarantee. Mr. McMinimee stated that Gordon Neon Sign, for the Woodlawn Shopping Center, and joined by Dodge Country, sued the City on the procedure followed in the adoption of the Code. There had been an error in the publication, and the Sign Code was struck down by the Court. The City corrected the error, re-enacted the Sign Code, and there have been no further challenges. There were approximately 390 to 400 signs in the community, and approximately 98% of them were nonconforming following adoption of the Sign Code. He noted that relatively few appeals were made to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and that the Board was very strong in their support of the provisions in the Sign Code. Within three years following the adoption of the Sign Code, 90% of the signs were conforming. Mr. McMinimee stated that the last of the nonconforming signs were amortized about one year ago. Mr. McMinimee noted that in one instance an in- dividual had refused to modify his sign, because he said this particular sign was required by the "parent company". The City staff contacted the parent company, and the staff was in- formed that this sign would conform to the Sign Code within 90 days, and it did. Mrs. Becker asked if there were billboards that had to be re- moved, and if the City experienced any problems with this? Mr. McMinimee stated that there were billboards that had to be re- moved; however, their ordinance has the provision that there may be only one principal structure on a lot; if a billboard is on a "lot", it is termed to be the principal structure and the lot may not be developed with anything else. The billboards are removed to facilitate development of the lot. Mr. Orr stated that his advice would be to "hang tough." Mr. Orr stated that the support from the citizenry has been good, and cited an ordi~ nance that has been enacted requiring landscaping maintenance on rental properties in Littleton which was initiated by neighborhood concern. Mr. McBrayer asked the feeling of the majority of the business- men in Littleton regarding the Sign Code today? Mr. McMinimee stated that he feels they are pretty well satisfied at this point in time. Mr. McBrayer stated that testimony had been submitted to 'the Englewood Commission that businessmen would be forced out of business; he asked if Littleton had any knowledge of businesses actually having to close because of the Sign Code? Mr. McMinimee stated that he knew of no instance where businesses actually closed as a result of the Sign Code restrictions. Discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas stated that a survey was done which indicated that 80% of the shoppers were "destination-oriented", and did not stop by a particular business just because of the sign. -6- Mr. McMinimee pointed out that when he stated that 90% of the signs were brought into conformance within three years, this did not entail total replacement of the sign; it might have meant removal of a portion of a sign, or the lowering of the sign. Mr. Orr commented that today's "educated consumer" is often "turned off by gaudy signs". Mr. Albrecht stated that with today's gasoline prices, he felt the survey would indicate a higher percentage of "destination-oriented" motorists. Mr. Holland noted that in the last year two decisions have been rendered regarding Sign Codes, which he felt would render some aspects of most sign codes unconstitutional. He noted that Englewood is attempting to be very certain that all technical aspects covered by these decisions are addressed in the proposed Sign Code. The solar system in the Littleton City Hall was discussed. Ms. Becker stated that she was very interested in use of solar energy, and was curious as to how well the system worked in the City Hall. Mr. McMinimee stated that the system cost approximately $250,000 and the first year of operation was a period to work the bugs out of the system. A manual control was installed for the back-up system; this back-up system was then turned off, and wasn't used until the third day of this most recent cold spell. Mr. McMinimee stated that he felt the system has worked very satis- factorily. He stated that they have not been able to determine how much money has been saved by using the solar system, be- cause they cannot find a comparable building and comparable use of that building. He noted that the total cost has been under $50,000 for a 56,000 sq. ft. building. He stated that the solar panels face due south with a 60° angle. Ms. Becker asked if the City had done anything about enacting a solar access ordinance? Mr. Orr stated that Rockwell International has done research on solar access, but that nothing has been en- acted in the City of Littleton. Mr. McMinimee stated that they do see a lot of retro-fitting taking place on single uses. Ms. Becker stated that she found the landscaping maintenance program of interest; she inquired if irrigated landscaping was required. Mr. McMinimee stated that any plan for development other than single-family residential, must be submitted for review by a development review committee. It was pointed out that low-maintenance landscaping is encouraged because of water rationing. Mr. McMinimee stated that not more than 50% of the landscaping may be "dry landscaping" .. Mr. McBrayer asked if the City of Englewood could get a copy of the Littleton Ordinance on landscaping for our review . Mr. Orr stated that with the sign code and landscaping requirements, it is making a difference in the quality of development that is occurring. He pointed out that both Englewood and Littleton are landlocked to a degree, and efforts must be made to entice developers to the area. Mr . Orr stated that the Commission has tried to look at their community and determine how they wanted the community to develop; based on the feelings and opinions of the Planning Commission, the noise control ordinance, landscaping maintenance, and sign code were developed and enacted. • -7- Mr. Robbins stated that he did not feel it was the rules and regulations that disturbed developers, but the "lack of up- front rules", and the lack of uniformity between jurisdictions which causes concern. He stated that a developer "never knows where you stand". Mr. Allen agreed with Mr. Robbins that this causes frustration to developers. The matter of Home Occupations in residential areas was con- sidered. Ms. Powers stated that the City of Englewood prohibits home occupations in the R-1-A, Single-family District. A majority of the complaint reports investigated by the Code Enforcement Division pertain to home occupations that have been reported in the R-1-A Zone District. Ms. Powers stated that the staff feels that this matter should be considered by the Planning Commission, and was wondering whether Littleton had experienced any similar problems with home occupations? Mr. McMinimee stated that Little- ton permits home occupations in any residential district. Beauty shops are not permitted as a home occupation, and there are restrictions on the operation of the home occupation: no separate outside entrance, no employees, etc. There can be no storage and sales of any products on the site. Mr. McMinimee acknowledged there is some problem with home occupations in Littleton, but they are trying to deal with it through the Code Enforcement Division. Discussion ensued. Mr. Robbins stated that if the home occupation was not doing any harm to anyone he saw no problem with it, and perhaps the rules and restrictions should be reviewed. Mr. McMinimee discussed the problems Littleton has experienced with regard to "roomers and boarders" in single-family districts. He stated that no one seems to object to an exchange student, which is essentially a roomer and boarder, but almost everyone objects to the establishment of separate apartments for some roomers and boarders. Mr. McMinimee stated that the City of Littleton has made amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on the definition of "family", and developed a new definition for a single-family dwelling. Not more than three unrelated people may live together as a "family" unit. There may not be separate entrances for roomers or boarders, and no separate kitchen facilities may be developed. Mr. Orr inquired as to the projects that are underway in Englewood. Ms. Powers discussed the downtown redevelopment efforts, and gave the boundaries for this area that is under consideration. The Urban Renewal Authority, which was formed in 1973 but was not active, was reactivated in October of 1981 as a tool to achieve the .financing for the project. Tax Increment Bonds will be issued by the Urban Renewal Authority for the Little Dry Creek improvement project . Brady Enterprises is very in- terested in pursuing redevelopment in the downtown area, and is interested in purchasing property east of the City Hall. West Girard Avenue is proposed as a pedestrian mall, and would be closed to traffic between Broadway and South Elati Street. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council has made it very clear that if any condemnation is needed, that it will be the responsi- bility of the City Council to do the condemnation, and not the responsibility of the Urban Renewal Authority. The plan calls for approximately $220,000,000 in private investment, and Brady -8- Enterprises has indicated interest in the total project. There ~ has been some contact from other developers who have expressed ~ interest in the redevelopment project. Ms. Powers stated that Mr. Brady came to the City to explore the possibility of redevelop- ment in the downtown area, but realized that he could not under- take the total project on his own; a three-party agreement be- tween Brady Enterprises, the City of Englewood, and the Englewood Downtown Development Authority has resulted. The public improve- ments to be undertaken include the improvement of Little Dry Creek as the first step to eliminate the flood plain throughout the downtown area so that redevelopment can take place. The overall redevelopment plan is projected over a 10-year period. Ms. Powers stated that there are various office developments underway, one of which is on the northeast corner of U.S. 285 and South Clarkson Street. Ms. Romans stated that a condominium off ice development is proposed on the former Holberg Greenhouse property south of U.S. 285; this will encompass eight or nine buildings. Mr. Orr asked if anyone on the Littleton Commission had anything further they wished to add to the meeting. Mr. Albrecht asked if there was anything that could be done to improve the traffic flow on U.S. 285? Ms. Powers stated that some of the traffic lights have been removed, which did aid the situation some. Mr. Robbins suggested that perhaps the traffic lights on South Broadway could be synchronized better. He stated that it is impossible to make two green lights from Evans south to Arapahoe Road. Mr. Orr thanked the Englewood Commission on behalf of the Littleton Commission and staff for the invitation and dinner, and expressed the hope that it could be done more frequently. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. rtrude G. Wel ecording Secretary