Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-02-05 PZC MINUTESPage 112 8 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION : Parkinson moved: Lone seconded: January 22, 1969 Vacation of 8 ft. on East Side of Lots 1 thru 12, Arkell's Subdivision. The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the west 8 ft. o f the land owned by the City adjacent to Lots 1 thru 12, Arkell's Sub- division be vacated. The motion carried unanimously. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1969 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Woods. Members present: Carlson ; Lentsch; Lone; Parkinson; Touchton; Woods Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: City Attorney Criswell II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Woods stated the Minutes of the meeting of January 22, 1969, were to be considered f or approval. Carlson moved: Parkinson seconded: The Minutes of January 22, 1969, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. W. H. THORNEY 3000 Block South Delaware Street REZONING R-2-A to R-3-B CASE #l-69A January 8, 1969 Parkinson moved: Lone seconded: The Public Hearing on the rezoning request filed by Mr. W. H. Tho r ney be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Woods asked Mrs. Romans to review the application. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Thorney filed the application for a change of zone classification from R-2-A (Two-family residential) to R-3-B (Multi-family residential) on January 2, 1969, for the 3000 block of South Delaware. Public Notice was given in the Englewood Herald, and the property has been posted the required length of time. Mr. Thorney 3700 S. Clarkson -stated that he owns eight lots in the 3000 block of South Delaware, and would like to have the zoning changed from R-2-A to R-3-B. Six of the lots he owns are on the northeast corner of .Delaware and Dartmouth; there are two structures on these lots at the present time. These structures would be demolished, and he would construct an apartment house. Mr. Thorney stated he purchased these lots one year ago from an Englewood realtor; checked the comprehensive zoning plan for the City of Englewood, and found that this area was being considered for higher density zoning under the revised ordinance. He stated that he had circulated a petition in the subject block and the signatures obtained were those of property owners who were in favor of the rezoning. Eight properties were indicated as being in favor of rezoning on the plot plan which Mr. Thorney presented with the petition. Mr. Thorney stated there were three property owners which he could not contact, and the other people in the block had told him that they are "just tired of signing petitions." Mr. Thorney statErl he is proposing a 25 unit apartment house on t his property --6 lots -- I I I I I I Page 1129 and is building it for investment purposes only. He stated that he will have approximately $180,000 invested in the development. There will be off-street parking for 31 cars, which is 1-1/4 spaces to each unit; the present Zoning Ordinance requires only one space per one unit. He stated the property he purchased was in poor condition , and he feels the new building will be an improvement to the area. He stated that the zone change will not change anyone's mode of living. Mr. Thorney stated there is a need for additional housing in Englewood, and cited the example of one of his properties in the 3000 block of South Delaware. the property had become vacant, and was advertised; within one day there had been 20 inquiries about the house, and some people were willing to rent it sight unseen. He pointed out that this area is very accessible to the Shopping Center, .and he feels it would be an ideal location for apartments for employees of the center. Mr. Woods asked if there were anyone present who also wished to speak in favor of the rezoning? No one indicated they wished to speak in favor. Mr. Woods asked for those in opposition to speak. Mr. John Holland stated he was representing the people who opposed the rezoning request. Mr. Woods asked Mr. Holland if he represented the people in this block , or if he was concerned with the hearing which would encompass the 3000 blocks of Elati , Fox and Galapago? Mr. Holland stated he represented the opponents of the entire area, and presented petitions which he said had been circulated by Mr. and Mrs. Coffin, and which petitions contained 152 signatures of residents in the area of these two rezoning cases who were in opposition to the rezonings. He stated they were opposed because the density of the area would be increased; the school would be overcrowded --he understood there was some busing of children at the present time; the traffic in the area will become much worse. He stated the residents for the most part are older people who purchased their home in this quiet area for the very reason it was quiet, not congested. He stated if the rezoning were approved, it would be possible to put 56 units on those six lots Mr. Thorney wants to develop. Mr. Parkinson inquired of Mr. Holland if the petitions he had presented were in opposition to both areas, or to the 3000 block of South Delaware? Mr. Holland replied they are in opposition to the entire area, and he would present these same petitions in opposition to the next hearing for rezoning. It was noted that the petitions referred only to the area now zoned R-2-A and being proposed for R-3-B, so they could not be submitted in opposition to the case initiated by the Planning Commission, which involves present R-2-B and I-1 Zone districts. \ Mr. Lone asked what children were being bused to school? Mrs. Coffin stated she understood that there were children being bused from Santa Fe. Mr. Criswell asked if the addresses indicated by some of the petition signers were the addresses of property owned by the signers? Mr. Holland replied that he understood they were the home addresses of the signers. Mr. Criswell cited four addresses some distance removed from the area which were on the petitions in opposition. He asked if these persons own property in the subject area? Mr. Holland stated that "some of them most definitely do." Mrs. Peterson 2806 S. Cherokee -stated she had circulated that particular petition, and that her parents had signed it because they were concerned about her welfare. She stated she was under the impression that anyone in Englewood who was concerned about the rezoning could sign the petition, whether or not they owned property within the subject area. Mr. Parkinson asked Mrs. Peterson if she was aware that the petition heading clearly states that the signers own property in the area? Mrs. Peterson stated she had read .the petition. Mr. Veenendaal 3021 S. Elati - Mr. McMillan 3045 S. Galapago - Mr. Summers 3140 S. Delaware - stated he owns this property, but is presently living in Denver. He hm been considering moving .back to Englewood; he did not sign the petition, but is concerned. stated they had tried to obtain signatures of owners of property in this area, so that no matter where the address is listed, they own property. stated he wanted more information on the matter. He asked if there would be a total of 56 units in this proposed complex, and asked if the applicant had the proper financing for the $180,000 investment he said he would have? He stated that he felt the renters living in the area are considered to be semi-permanent, and that they have the right to sign petitions in opposition. Mr. Parkinson stated that he was not questioning the right of .anyone to speak or sign in opposition; he was pointing out that the petition clearly states that the signers OWN PROPERTY IN THE SUBJECT AREA. Mr. Thorney also stated to Mr. Summers that he is only planning 25 units on this property, and that he does have financing. Mr. Summers stated that with 25 units in the area, you could figure on 3-1/2 people per unit; this would be 75 to 80 additional people in the area. Under the present zoning, these eight lots would be four buildings sites, with a total of may be 15 people. He stated the schools would be overcrowded, because there would be about 40 additional kids to attend the school. The stated the area is a "wonderful neighborhood" where people own their homes, and he .feels the proposal would be a liability. Mr .. Summers asked how many signatures were on the petition in favor of the rezoning? Mr. Lone replied that eight properties had signed the petition for the rezoning. Mr. Summers stated that eight properties was not a majority of even that block. Mr. Lone asked if Mr. Summers felt the three resi- dents who said they were in opposition were more meaningful than the eight who signed as being in favor? Mr. Summers replied that that was not necessarily true. Mr. Woods asked Mr. Summers how many new homes had been built in .the area in the last 20 years? Mr. Summers stated he did not know. Page 1130 Mr. Woodward 3060 S. Delaware -.asked how high the apartment structure would be? He stated he owned the property right next door, and was concerned about this. Mr. Schillinger, contractor f or Mr. Thorney, stated that the ordinance permits 35 ft. in height, which would be three stories plus a garden level. Mr. Schillinger also stated that the building would have to set in 15 feet from each side lot line, back 20 ft. from the front lot line, and in 25 ft. fr om the rear lot line. Mr. Thorney stated that he owns an apartment house in Littleton. There are no pets and no children permitted in that apartment house, and he does not intend to permit children or pets in this one if the zoning is granted. He stated he had children in the Englewood School System for the past 18 years, the youngest is now a senior. He plans to move into this apartment house next year if possible. He stated he wants to improve the entire area, and feels that this will help. Mrs. Walsh 415 W. Dartmouth -stated she felt the petition f or the opponents had been presented with a great deal of misinformation. She stated that she had been told the property could be condemned because of the rezoning, and that this is not true. Mr. Touchton asked Mr. Holland to explain the misinformation that was given out. Mr. Holland replied that he was not present when the petitions were signed, and he had no control over what was said. Mrs. McMillan 3045 S. Galapago - Mrs. Davis 3024 S. Delaware - Mr. McMillan 3045 S. Galapago stated if the zoning were approved, that other properties could be redeveloped with apartment houses, and they might not be built with t~e same restrictions that Mr. Thorney has. stated that she has lived there f or 27 years, and there have been six new houses built in that length of time in her block; the last was built in 1956. stated he was opposed to anything going up in the middle o f the City such as this has been proposed. Mr. Merlyn Eve stated he was with ParMac Realty, and that he had canvassed the area p~ior to the initiation o f the rezoning, and his findings were entirely opposite what has been demonstrated this evening with the petitions o f opposition and those present who are opposed. He stated ~hat he did feel that there had been incorrect inforroation circulated throughout the area, and commented that during his time spent in the area, 20 o f the houses were tenant-occupied, and the owners weren't even living in the area. Mrs. Peterson 3025 S. Galapago - Mr. Fisher 3080 S. Fox - stated she carried some of the petitions and they made every effort to contact all of the property owners. stated that most of the homes were occupied by renters, and the property owners did nothing to modernize their property. He stated he is in favor o f the rezoning, and felt the area could stand some "repair". There are quite a few vacant lots, and he would like to build something for investment purposes himself. Mr. Woods asked for those persons in this particular block who were in favor of the rezoning .to raise their hands. Two persons raised their hands. Mr. Woods then asked for those opposed to the rezoning in this block to raise their hands. Five persons responded. Mr. Kelley . 3020 S. Delaware -stated he was not opposed to Mr. Thorney being allowed to build an apart- ment house on his property, but he is c oncerned about the density the R-3-B district will permit. He asked if the R-3-A zone had been considered? He didn't feel the density would be as high in the R-3-A Zone, and asked if it would be more appropriate than the R-3-B. He felt the City should consider some other type of zoning, possibly that would permit the court-type de- velopments, with a height limitation of o ne story. He didn't like the 35 ft . height limitation in R-3-B. Mr. Kelley also asked if the Planning Commission would consider rezoning just the six lots Mr. Thorney wants to develop? City Attorney Criswell stated that he has given the opinion that such rezoning could be done if it were proved to be f or the general welfare of the residents o f the area and for the City. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the R-3-A District will permit heights of five stories or 60 ft., and that a minimum o f 12 units must be built on a minimum fr ontage o f 100 ft., with a minimum lot area of 12,000 sq. ft. The maximum lot coverage is 30% in R-3-A , and is 35% in R-3-B; however, in the R-3-B the height restriction is only 35 ft., and the developer does not have to build a minimum number of units .as would be necessary under the .R-3-A Zone Dis- trict. The R-3-B will permit single-family and two-family developments and the court-type of development mentioned by Mr. Kelley, as well as apartment house and office building develop- ments. Mrs. Romans also pointed out that in the R-2-A District, which the 3000 block of South Delaware is presently zoned, the minimum frontage for a duplex is 75 ft. If this block were rezoned to R-3-B, property owners with 50 ft. frontage could have a duplex. Mr. Woods asked that those within the area of the subject request raise their hands if they were in fav o r of the rezoning .. Twelve persons indicated they were in favor. Mr. Woods then asked for the opponents of the rezoning living in the general area to raise their hands. Nineteen persons responded. Touchton moved: Parkinson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. I I I I I I Page 1131 Parkingon moved: Touchton seconded: The matter of the rezoning request made by Mr. Thorney be tabled for further consideration. The motion carried unanimously. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION 3000 Blocks South Elati, Fox and Galapago. Parkinson moved: REZONING R-2-B and I-1 to R-3-B. CASE #2-69A January 8, 1969 Touchton seconded: The matter of the Commission initiated rezoning in the 3000 blocks of South Elati, Fox, and Galapago Streets be tabled. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Parkinson asked that before the matter was taken fr0m the table, that the area be re- posted and legal publication given in the City newspaper to notify the residents of the area. Mr. Woods asked anyone in the audience who had questions about the zoning, to please con- tact the Planning Director and discuss the matter with her. V, MEDICAL CLINIC 3601 S. Clarkson CASE #20-68F January 22, 1969 January 8, 1969 July 31, 1968 July 10, 1968 June 26, 1968 June 5, 1968 Mr. Baume, architect for the proposed medical clinic, was present to discuss the revised parking plans as submitted to the Planning Department on July 31, 1968. Mrs. Romans stated that the revised plans show the northernmost curb cut on South Clarkson Street has been closed as suggested by the members of the Commission, and the entrance from U.S. 285 has been moved 5 ft. to the east as requested by the Public Works Department. Both proposed curb cuts have been widened as was suggested by the Commission and the Traffic Engineer to allow for a safe flow of two-way traffic. The parking stalls have also been widened to the minimum 9 ft. width. Mrs. Romans stated that the present zoning ordinance restricts the width of curb cuts to 25 ft., which isn't wide enough to allow ease movement of two-way traffic. It was her suggestion that if the Commission requires a cut in excess of that permitted by the Ordinance, that the Commission should notify the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals of their decision for the Board's consideration when the matter of the request for variance is before them. Mr. Criswell commented that he understood there would have to be a variance granted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on the parking in the "front yard" also, inasmuch as the ordinance states there are as many front yards as there are street frontages, and parking on this plan is shown along U.S. 285, interpreted by the Chief Building Inspector to be a front yard according to the Ordinance. He felt the Board of Adjustment and Appeals could also consider the matter of the width of the curb cuts at the same time. Mrs. Romans stated that the traffic Engineer had indicated to her that he is of the opinion that 25 ft. is not adequate width for free flow of two-way traffic. Parkinson moved: Lentsch seconded: The parking layout dated January 31, 1969, presented for the medical clinic at 3601 South Clarkson be approved subject to the granting of variances by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for curb cuts to a width approved by the Traffic Engineer, and the parking in the area determined to be "front yard." The motion carried unanimously. VI. FIRST NATIONAL BANK CASE #9-69 Messrs. Eachon and Malone were present to discuss the possibility of vacating easements and releasing covenants which are on the property the First National Bank owns at the corner of U.S. 285 and South Elati Street. Mr. Eachon stated that the bank will retain ownership of the land, lease the building on a long-term basis, and will lease back office space for the bank. The lease will be to the builder. Mr. Eachon stated they must get a clear title to the ground, and the easements and covenants must be cleared. Th~y hope to start construction by April 1, 1969, and will occupy their portion of the building by July of 1970. He stated that the matter of the easements has been discussed with Public Service officials and with officials from Mountain States Telephone, both of which have stated they will submit a letter to the Planning Department stating they have no need for the retention of the easements. There are no water or sewer lines in these easements. Mr. Eachon stated there are also covenants they want released on the land as soon as possible. Discussion followed. City Attorney Criswell stated the covenants were drawn by the former owner of the land and the City of Englewood, and run in favor of the City. These covenants are: (i) Landlord shall not use or permit the use of the burdened land for any purpose other than that of office purposes such as offices for professional persons, financial institutions, administra- tion and the like. (ii) Landlord shall maintain on the burdened land at all times at least one automobile space for each 300 square feet of floor space in buildings erected on the burdened land; and (iii) Landlord shall not erect or permit the erection of any building or other structure on the burdened land (other than parking structures less than one foot high) closer than forth feet to the existing east boundary line of Elati Street. Page 1132 Discussion followed. Touchton moved: Parkinson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that easements existing in Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, Block 1, McKinley Subdivision, 2nd Filing, be vacated conditioned upon the receipt of letters from the Utilities Companies and City Utilities and Public Works Departments stating the easements are not needed. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Malone discussed the covenants which are on the land. The covenant which requires a parking space for each 300 sq. ft. of floor area is in contrast to the requirement of the zoning ordinance, which is one parking space for each 300 sq. ft. of RENTABLE floor area. The representatives of the . bank feel the City will be protected by the zoning ordinance, and that this covenant should definitely be released. The covenant which prohibits any structure closer than 40 ft. to Elati Street presents problems in the construction of the drive-in facility for the bank. It was pointed out that there are no setback requirements in the zoning ordinance for business or industrial zoned property. Mr. Malone stated that the bank would prefer to have this covenant lifted also; but they will not object to a reasonable setback if this is the desire of the City. However, they feel the 50 ft. is unreasonable inasmuch as a similar setback has not been required in any other instance. They are proposing to build the underground drive-in facility approximately 15 ft. from the east line of Elati Street , if possible , and to allow proper clearance for camper trucks etc., which would make it necessary for the structure to be 6 to 8 feet above grade. The main building will be approximately 10 to 12 stories, and will be set closer to Cherokee Street , with parking areas right off of Cherokre . Mr. Eachon stated the bank will lease back 30,000 sq. ft. of the main building, and they will build the drive-in facility at their own expense. Further discussion followed. A recess of the Commission was called at 10:15 P.M.; the meeting was again called to order at 10:25 P.M. Further discussion on the setback of the buildings ensued. Mr. Malone pointed out that the drive-in facility is planned for at least 15 ft. from South Elati street, and at a height of no more than 8 ft. above grade. Lone moved: Parkinson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the following covenants as recited in People's Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1964, §23 (a) (i), (ii), (iii), which covenants also appear in other related documents,. be released: (i) Landlord shall not use or permit the use of the burdened land for any purpose other than that of office purposes such as offices for pro- fessional persons, financial insititutions, administration and the like. (ii) Landlord shall maintain on the burdened land at all times at least one automobile space for each 300 square feet of floor space in buildings erected on the burdened land; and (iii) Landlord shall not erect or permit the erection of any building or other structure on the burdened land (other than parking structures less than one foot high) closer than forty feet to the existing east boundary line of Elati Street, and that the imposition of the following restrictive covenants be imposed in lieu of the aforementioned restrictive covenants: 1. No structure is to be permitted in the area described as follows: Beginning at a point on the SE corner of the SW 1 /4 of the SW 1 /4 of Section 34, T 4 S., R68W; thence North 68 feet to the North line of West Hampden Avenue, thence West and along said North line 313.33 feet to the intersection with the East line of South Elati Street, the true point of beginning; thence .North and along South Elati Street 144.14 feet; thence East 14 feet; thence South and parallel to said East line of South Elati Street 144.17 feet; thence West 14 feet to the true point of beginning. 2. No structure in excess of 8 feet in height is to be permitted in the area described as follows: Beginning at a point on the SE corner of t~ SW 1 /4 of the SW 1 /4 of Sect. 34, T4S, n6SW; thence North 68 feet to the North line of West Hampden Avenue; thence West and along said North line of West Hampden Avenue 299.33 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North 144.17 feet; thence East 17 feet; thence South 144.21 feet; thence West 17 feet to the point of beginning. I Further discussion followed. Members expressed concern that if this covenant were releasec completely, the City Hall could be hidden by future construction. Mr. Lentsch pointed out , that any building that went in would hide City Hall to an extent, but that he felt with proper signing the matter could be solved. Mr. Touchton stated that he could see no real good reason for the restriction. Carlson moved: No structure be permitted on the western-most 32 ft. of this land in an effort to place future construction in line with the west line of the City Hall. There was no second to the motion by Mr. Carlson. Upon the call of the roll for the motion by Mr. Lone: AYES: NAYS: Lentsch; Lone; Parkinson; Touchton; Woods Carlson The motion carried. I I I I I I Page 1133 VII. WILBUR WRIGHT REZONING CASE #43-68C R-1-C to R-3-B January 22, 1969 Mr. Woods stated this matter had been tabled at the last meeting following the Public Hearing. Touchton moved: Parkinson seconded: The matter be raised from the table. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wright's rezoning request was discussed. Mr. Carlson asked whether the 100 ft. to the south of Mr. Wright's property could develop, or would it be an isolated parcel? It was pointed out that there are two separate 50 ft. ownerships involved in this 100 feet. Mr. Wright stated he feit that as ·one parcel it could develop and would probably develop before too long. Parkinson moved: Lentsch seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the application filed by Mr. Wright for Lots 11 thru 23, Block 15, Jackson's Broadway Heights, be approved for the following reasons: (1) There were five persons in favor of the proposed rezoning and no one in opposition at the Public Hearing; (2) The structures on Lots 11 thru 19 has deteriorated to the extent that it is a hazard to the public, and the proposed rezoning shows promise of relieving that condition; (3) The requested rezoning will permit apartment house construction, which appears to be one use much in need in ~he City of Englewood; (4) There was a petition circulated in the area, and only three persons did not sign the petition in favor of the rezoning. Further discussion followed. Some of the proposed restrictions in the revised Zoning Ordinance were discussed. It was pointed out that the property to the south of Mr. Wright's property would still be usable, but possibly not to the density permitted under the R-3-B. Further discussion followed. Upon the call of the roll, the motion carried unanimously. VIII. ALLEY VACATION CASE #6-69A 3600 S. Penn./Pearl January 22, 1969 Mrs. Romans stated that letters have been sent to the various utility departments and companies, but not all have yet sent replies. No action was taken. IX. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION. Mr. Lone moved: Carlson seconded: The motion carried. That Mr. Woods and Mr. Lentsch be re-elected as Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year 1969. It was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 12 Midnight. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary •l' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Touchton moved: Parkinson seconded: February 5, 1969 Easement Vacation on First National Bank Property The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that easements existing in Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, Block 1, McKinley Subdivision, 2nd Filing, be vacated conditioned upon the receipt of letters from the Utilities Companies and City Utilities and Public Works Departments stating the easements are not needed. The motion carried unanimously. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary -- - --- - ---- --- - - - - -------- Page 1134 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Parkinson moved: Lentsch seconded: February 5, 1969 Approval of Rezoning Request The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the application filed by Mr. Wright for Lots 11 thru 23, Block 15, Jackson's Broadway Heights, be approved for the following reasons: (1) There were five persons in favor of the proposed rezoning and no one in opposition at the Public Hearing; (2) The structure on Lots 11 thru 19 has deteriorated to the extent that it is a hazard to the public, and the proposed rezoning shows promise of relieving that condition; (3) The requested rezoning will permit apartment house construction, which appears to be one use much in need in the City of Englewood; (4) There was a petition circulated in the area, and only three persons did not sign the petition in favor of the rezoning. The motion carried unanimously. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 12, 1969 Special Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Woods. Members present: Carlson; Lentsch; Lone; Parkinson ; Touchton; Woods Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also Present: City Attorney Criswell This meeting is a special meeting called to reconsider the matter First National Bank property at South Elati Street and U.S. 285. was discussed at dinner; the meeting adjourned to Conference Room of the First National Bank, Mr. Eachon, and counsel for the bank. was not in attendance at the meeting in Conference Room A. of the covenants on the The matter of the covenants A to meet with the president Mr. Malone. Mr. Lentsch Mr. Eachon presented a set of plans for the proposed bank facilities; he stated that these plans are not final, and that a new set of plans and specifications had been due on this date, but did not arrive. Mr. Eachon discussed the bank building in great detail; the main en- trance will be from the east, and the bank itself will occupy the basement, first and second floors, and the ninth and tenth floors. The second floor will be used as their first area of expansion. He stated that by 1985, the bank, by exer ising its options to occupy additional floors every five to ten years, will have 85% to 90% of the building. Mr. Eachon stated that the possibility of a pedestrian tunnel from the underground parking in the adjacent shopping complex, located on the west side of South Elati Street, to the bank, is still under consideration. He stated they would have a depth problem, inasmuch as they would have to come from 21 feet underground to surface or a reasonable depth in approximately 105 feet. It will cost, he stated, approximately $50,000 to tunnel under Elati Street. Mr. Eachon stated the bank had a 35 year minimum lease on their building space, with options to 90 years, and a 55 year lease on the land with options to 90 years. Mr. Eachon stated there will be three high speed elevators to serve 120,000 sq. ft. net rentable area. This is contrasted to an adjacent 10 story bank building which has a net rentable area of 70,000 sq. ft. The building will be of poured-in-place concrete, and will have polarized glass in the windows. There will be a Board Room and two conference rooms on the top floor which will be under the control of the First Nat iona .l Bank. There will be a Community Room in the base- ment next to the elevators, for the convenience of the public. Mr. Eachon stated that when the original plans were being made for construction under the bank ownership, they had planned a heliport, but now that another party will have ownership of the building, he isn't sure what is planned. Mr. Eachon again pointed out that the bank will lease back from the builder their space in the building , but that the builder has said he does not waut the responsibility of the drive-in facility; for this reason, the bank itself will have to have these facilit:ies built. Mr. Eachon stated there will be eight drive-in windows, two of them to be manned, and the rest monitored by television, with room for two additional windows. It is planned that I I I