Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-07 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COI\'.IMISSION JUNE 7, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Covens called the regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Tobin, Becker, Dummer, Mason, Shoop, Covens Merkel, Ex-officio Members absent: Garrett Also present: Planning Administrator Harold Stitt Assistant City Attorney Dan Brotzman II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. May 17, 1994 Chairman Covens called for consideration of the Minutes of May 17, 1994. Tobin moved: Shoop seconded: The Minutes of May 17, 1994 be approved. Ms. Tobin stated that she was designated the Commission representative to Englewood By De- sign, and this is not reflected in the Minutes. It was pointed out to Ms. Tobin that this desig- nation occurred on May 3, 1994, and is reflected in the Minutes of that date. Mr. Covens asked that Page 3 of the Minutes of May 17, 1994 be amended by adding the fol- lowing sentence to the third paragraph: "After items were added and deleted, each Commis- sion member indicated their top three priorities among the items." The amendment was ac- cepted by Ms. Tobin and by Mr. Shoop. The vote on the motion to approve the Minutes of May 17, 1994, as amended, was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Becker, Dummer, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Covens None Garrett None The motion carried. 1 ill. LONE STAR TRUST Colorado Medical Center NE Corner of U.S. 285 and South Clarkson Street CASE #8-94 Chairman Covens stated the issue before the Commission is a Public Hearing on a Planned Development for Lone Star Trust, applicant. Mr. Covens delineated parameters for conduct of the Hearing, and asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Dummer moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-94 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Dummer, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Covens None ABSENT: Garrett ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. Covens asked that staff make their presentation. Harold J. Stitt was sworn in, and testified that staff has worked with Dr. Swinehart, the prop- erty owner, for approximately four years regarding the process and requirements for develop- ment of this site. Mr. Stitt estimated that his last conversation with Dr. Swinehart was about one year ago. The present proposal came to the staff's attention because an application was made for a Building Permit. Mr. Stitt called the architectural firm listed on the Building Plans, and informed them of the necessity to gain Planned Development approval from the Commission and City Council before any building permit could be issued for the site. Copies of the proposal were transmitted to City Departments, and they were asked to submit their comments to the Planning Staff. Mr. Stitt discussed the "conditions" which were cited in the Staff Report, and his perception of "long-term conditions" versus "short-term conditions". Mr. Stitt suggested that the majority of the conditions which are cited in the Staff Report are "short term", and should be resolved prior to consideration of the Planned Development by the City Council. Mr. Stitt then distributed two new pages of the Plans which were delivered to the staff approximately 2:00 P.M. on this date, which do, indeed, address many of the "short-term conditions" previously alluded to. The proposed development is for a medical office building, 20,000 square feet, two stories in height. Mr. Stitt discussed the architecture of the proposed structure, noting the steeply pitched roof covering an area of approximately 9,000 square feet which is not indicated as "habitable" but will be used for mechanical space. Mr. Stitt also discussed the topography of the site, and the efforts to design the structure for this site. Mr. Stitt stated he understands that the office building will not be completely finished on the interior in the first phase. Dr. Swinehart proposes to complete the second floor, and the public entry area, elevator areas, etc. on the first floor. Dr. Swinehart is a dermatologist, who also does medical research, and staff 2 understands that the unfinished portion of the first floor will eventually be used for the re- search labs. Medical office buildings are a permitted use in the R-3, High Density Residence Zone District, and there is a medical office complex directly across South Clarkson Street to the west, as well as a medical office building on the southwest corner of the South Clarkson Street/U.S. 285 intersection. This site is also in close proximity to Swedish Medical Center. Mr. Stitt discussed the flexibility a Planned Development can provide in matters such as set- backs , landscaping , and off-street parking. The proposed development does take advantage of one point of flexibility , that being on the north setback where they propose construction 10 feet from the property line rather than the required 15 feet. Mr. Stitt discussed the landscaping proposed. A specific landscaping plan has not been sub- mitted, but over 11,000 square feet of landscaping would be required. The location of the landscaping as shown on the plans, and the percentage of living materials were also discussed. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the proposed structure essentially has three street frontages , South Emerson Street, U .S. 285, and South Clarkson Street. The structure will be addressed from South Clarkson, but the majority of the landscaping will be along the east and south sides of the property, which will provide visual buffering for the off-street parking. The proposal does meet the minimum landscaping requirements. Off-street parking requirements were considered. Mr. Stitt stated that dividing the gross square footage of 20 ,000 by 300 square feet (the size of a parking stall), the development would require 67 off-street parking spaces. However, off-street parking requirements are based on "usable" square footage, excluding hallways, stairwells, elevator areas, etc., and in his estimation the 53 off-street parking spaces shown on the plans will be sufficient to serve the development at total build-out. If, when Dr. Swinehart proposes to finish the lower floor, it is determined that additional parking is needed , it will be Dr. Swinehart's responsibility to provide that additional required parking. Mr. Dummer inquired whether a pharmacy is proposed, and whether office suites will be rented out. Mr. Stitt responded that no pharmacy is proposed, and his conversations with Dr. Swinehart indicated that the majority of the building will be for his own practice and research. There will be an ambulatory surgery area to be located on the second floor, and the research activities will be on the first floor. Mr. Stitt acknowledged that there may be several "employees" who will be involved in the research, as well as receptionist and office staff for the building. Mrs. Becker inquired whether the research involved use of animals. Mr. Stitt stated he could not respond with certainty, but it is his belief that the research does not involve use of animals. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the phasing of interior completion will be part of the first floor, all of the second floor, and the mechanical area on the top level under the pitched roof. Mr. Stitt then reviewed the "conditions" cited in the staff report. Mr. Stitt stated that the re- quirement that all curb ramp "throats" be colored brick red is a visual requirement; this can be accomplished by separate concrete pours , or red pigment can be sifted over the throat area and 3 trowled into the wet concrete. Painting the throat is not acceptable. Vertical curbs and gutters are required, and concrete sidewalks shall be a depth of four inches except where subject to wheeled traffic, where six inch depth is required. The sizes of the parking stalls has been ad- justed to comply with the minimum parking standards. The stalls with eight foot width shall be signed for compact vehicles only. The paving in the alley shall be concrete, asphalt is not acceptable. The handicapped signage shall be seven feet from grade to the bottom of the signs, and all public sidewalks shall be five feet wide. Mr. Stitt stated the an engineered drainage report has not been submitted. This is a require- ment the applicant will have to comply with before the Planned Development is considered by City Council. Mr. Stitt emphasized that a drainage report is required whether property is de- veloped as a Planned Development or not. The applicant must retain or control the drainage created by the impermeable areas (building and concrete) of the development. Mr. Stitt stated that his discussions with Public Works Department indicates they would be comfortable with a "conditional approval" by the Commission, and the drainage plan being submitted and ap- proved prior to consideration of the proposal by City Council. Estimating that City Council may not hold a Public Hearing until some time in July, this would provide approximately one month for the applicant to submit and gain approval for the drainage plan. Mr. Tim Reed, president of Hoffman/Reed architects, was sworn in. Mr. Reed stated that he has worked with Dr. Swinehart about four years on this project. Dr. Swinehart is ready to begin construction, but they realize they must follow the proper procedures. Mr. Reed stated that they have made every effort to address the concerns cited in the staff report. The drainage issue has been considered by a civil engineer, who has proposed a retention area in the south- west corner of the property. Mr. Reed acknowledged he did not know how much water this retention pond would hold, or how long drainage of the pond would require. Mr. Covens inquired about the phasing of the interior finish work. Mr. Reed stated that the second floor will be built out, and will include an ambulatory surgery area, and Dr. Swine- hart' s practice area. The lower level will be developed with a vestibule, elevators, etc. The unfinished area will eventually used for the research practice. The mechanical area will have stair access, no natural light, and there is limited head room. It could also be used for the storage of records, but no offices are proposed for this area. Mr. Covens inquired about the type of architecture chosen for the site. Mr. Reed stated that the Library in Silverthorne was the "inspiration" for the medical building. The exterior will be brick with some stonework detail. Ms. Charlene Smith, 7596 East Warren Drive, was sworn in. Ms. Smith testified she owns 3533 and 3535 South Emerson Street. Ms. Smith discussed the slope of the alley, and wanted to make sure there will continue to be access from the alley. She expressed concerns during the period of construction. Mr. Stitt assured Ms. Smith that the Public Works Department will ensure access to the alley as much as possible during the period of construction. Mr. Stitt also pointed out that western leg of the "T" alley was vacated a number of years ago. 4 Ms. Becker asked about the grade of the alley. Mr. Stitt stated that the alley will be at grade with the second level of the building. Ms. Becker inquired about trash removal. Mr. Reed discussed the proposed construction on the site, noting that the trash will be removed from the second level on the east side of the building. Mr. Shoop noted the generator pad. He asked if this would create a noise problem for the neighborhood. Mr. Reed stated the generator is small, and would be used only in the event of electrical failure. Mr. Covens inquired about the rationale for the decrease in setback requirements· from the north property line from 15 feet to 10 or 11. Mr. Stitt stated he assumed there is need to have the building as far north on the site as possible to provide sufficient space for parking, a driv- ing aisle, and the detention area. Mr. Stitt presented the Certification of Publication, and stated that he does not have the Certi- fication of Posting in hand, but will testify to the posting of the property the required number of days. Mr. Shoop questioned improvements on U.S. 285, whether proposed improvements might im- pact this site. Mr. Stitt discussed the study of U.S. 285 that was commissioned by the City with CRSS. The bulk of the recommended improvements will be median improvements; how- ever, a deceleration lane on the north side of U.S. 285 between South Emerson and South Clarkson has been considered. If this deceleration lane were to be pursued, it would require 10 to 12 feet of additional right-of-way. He emphasized there are no designs, no engineering work done for the deceleration lane, and funding is not available. Mr. Stitt stated that this would be a very "costly" improvement, and in his opinion unlikely to occur. Tobin moved: Mason seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-94 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Dummer, Covens None ABSENT: Garrett ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Discussion on the drainage study ensued. Dummer moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Planned Development filed by Lone Star Trust for the site on the North- east corner of South Clarkson Street and U.S. 285. The Drainage Study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved before the Public Hearing on the Planned Development is held by City Council. 5 Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Dummer, Covens None ABSENT: Garrett ABSTAIN: None The motion quried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment of §16-5-5 I Mr. Covens asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Becker moved: Covens seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-94 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Dummer, Mason, Covens None ABSENT: Garrett ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Mr. Covens asked that staff present the issue. CASE #9-94 Mr. Stitt stated that concerns on the handicapped parking standards in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance have been expressed, on both the size of the stall required, and on the num- ber of spaces required. The present size is 12 foot wide by 19 foot in length. The standards cited in the ADA legislation is a minimum of 8 foot in width by 19 foot in length, with a 5 foot aisle between handicapped stalls to provide for maneuvering space. The second concern is the number of spaces required --Englewood presently requires 4 % of the total number of proposed spaces to be designated for handicapped parking. Mr. Stitt discussed a chart of re- quired designated spaces based on the total number of the required spaces in the parking lot. This proposal will have little effect on those businesses with parking lots containing less than 100 spaces. Mr. Stitt emphasized that these are "minimum" standards, and that the intent is not to reduce the number of required parking spaces for handicapped, but to make the require- ments more workable. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed amendment will bring the require- ments into compliance with the ADA. Enforcement of the requirements and proper designation by signage and painting was dis- cussed. Mr. Stitt stated that possibly Code Enforcement could give notices if the painting on the surfacing of the lot was worn away. The designated spaces must have both painting on the 6 , stall, and signage above ground level. Mr. Shoop inquired whether volunteer patrols such as they have in Denver have been considered for enforcement purposes. Discussion ensued. Mr. Brotzman suggested that the minimum size (8'x19' +5' aisle) be included in the "requirements" set forth in the proposed amendment. Tobin moved: Shoop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-94 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tobin, Becker, Dummer, Mason, Shoop, Covens None Garrett None The motion carried. Mr. Covens asked that Mr. Brotzman's suggestion of minimum size be designated as #2, and the subsequent requirements be renumbered accordingly. Dummer moved: Mason seconded: A new requirement #2 be added to read: The minimum size of handi- capped parking spaces shall be eight (8) feet in width by nineteen (19) feet in depth, with a five (5) foot access aisle between parking stalls. Subsequent requirements shall be renumbered accordingly. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Becker, Dummer, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Covens None Garrett None The motion carried. Becker moved: Shoop seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, §16-5-5 I, be amended as follows: I. Handicapped Parking. 1. The minimum number of required handicapped parking spaces shall be as follows: Total Number of Required Handicapped Spaces Required Parking 7 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Spaces 1,001 & over 7 handica 8 handica 20 handicapped spaces plus 1 handicapped space for each 100 s aces over 1, 000 s aces 2. The minimum size of handicapped parking spaces shall be eight (8) feet in width by nineteen (19) feet in depth, with a five (5) foot access aisle between parking stalls. 3. Each handicapped space shall be marked with a freestanding sign and pavement markings using the standard uniform words, symbols and colors that signify that the space is for parking by the handicapped only. 4. Designated handicapped spaces shall be located as near to the entrance of the use as possible and shall be generally designed so that pedestrian access between the parking space and the building shall not involve crossing an area used for vehicular circulation. 5. Access ramps usable by the handicapped shall be provided for any change in grade between the parking space and the use. 6. The total number of spaces provided for the handicapped shall be in- cluded in the total number of parking spaces otherwise required by this Ordi- nance. Dummer, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Covens None Garrett None The motion carried. 8 , v. CAPITAL Il\.1PROVEMENT PROGRAM 1995-1999 CASE #7-94 Mr. Merkel asked the Commission to review the Capital Improvement Project listing prepared following the meeting of May 17. The Commission had expressed a desire to do so prior to submission to the City Manager. Discussion ensued. Mr. Dummer spoke on the need for activities centered around Cinderella City to be well publicized; he noted the concern of the majority of the citizens regarding the fate of the Mall and what the City is doing. Brief discussion ensued .. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Covens suggested that #5, under Infrastructure/Transportation, the word "station" be inserted after RTD light rail. Tobin moved: Shoop seconded : The CIP list for 1995-1999 be submitted to Acting City Manager Fonda. AYES: NAYS: Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Becker, Dummer, Covens None ABSENT: Garrett ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Merkel stated he had nothing to discuss. vn. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin discussed her attendance at the last two Englewood By Design meetings, and com- mented that she was "appalled at the animosity" from the Englewood By Design members to- ward her as a representative of the Planning Commission. Ms. Tobin stated that she has tried to make it clear that the Commission only wants to know what is going on, and there is no animosity on the part of the Commission toward the Englewood By Design. Discussion en- sued. Ms. Becker discussed the issue of posing questions to staff following closure of a Public Hearing. Mr. Mason pointed out that Mr. Stitt is staff support and questioned that a response to a direct question is "giving testimony". Mr. Brotzman emphasized that the Commission should get all the information they want from staff prior to the closure of the Hearing; if, 9 during the course of discussion, another question comes up, the Hearing should be reopened and the response given as part of the record of the Hearing. Or, the Commission could ask the question of Ex-officio member Merkel, or of himself as Legal Counsel if they do not want to reopen the Hearing. Mr. Mason stated that the Belleview Park plane is ready for painting, and reminded Commis- sion members who had volunteered to help that their assistance would be welcomed. He also inquired when the new members would be appointed to the Commission. Mr. Merkel stated that appointments are made at the end of June. The meeting adjourned at 9: 10 P. M. 10