Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-08-17 PZC MINUTESPage 1352 "to have a dozen square blocks to chang~ anything; much can be done in just one block." Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Weist stated that he felt the "critical" people could be the individual property owner, and .asked "what do you do after you get the study?" Mr~ Patrick stated he felt that there hasn't been any "definite ideas or plans and no goal to work toward." He stated that he felt if the study would indicate what is needed that the people may ''get behind it." Further discussion followed. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNJNG AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 17, 1971 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: ~embers absent: Also present: Weist; Vobejda; Senti; Patrick; Mosbarger; Lentsch; Henning; Carlson Supinger, Ex-officio None City Manager Dial; Assistant Director of Planning Romans. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated that the Minutes of August 4, 1971, were to be considered for approval. Lentsch moved: Patrick seconded: The Minutes of August 4, 1971, be approved as written. The motion carried. III. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 1971 -1976 Mr. Supinger stated that at the meeting .of August 4, 1971, members of the Commission had questions about some of the items listed in the study document prepared by the City Manager's office, and asked that City Manager Dial attend this meeting to discuss the proposed Program with the Commission. Mr. Dial stated that he appreciated the opportunity to discuss the Capital Improvement Program with tµe Commission. Mr. Dial noted that the Planning Commission does have a great responsibility in reviewing projects proposed by the City Administration, and in setting the priority for Capital Im- provement Projects for the City. He noted that the revenue estimates given were "hopefully" reliable --that it "seemed safe to count on" spending $1,400,000 each year for the next five years for Capital Improvements. Mr. Dial pointed out that the estimates listed for individual projects are not "highly refined estimates", and that revisions may have to be made. Mr. Dial cited as an example the Police/Fire complex, which lowest bid for construc- tion e~ceeded monies budgeted by $286,000. He stated that if City Council determines that the project should be constructed as bid, the $286,000 would necessarily have to be diverted from some other projects that have been proposed and budgeted. Mr. Carlson noted that in a "comparison" table of projects suggested by the Commission and those for which appropriations were made in 1971, a wide variance is indicated in the estimates the Commission was given and the final amounts appropriated. Mr. Dial stated that in the matter of the animal shelter, the discrepancy can be the result of two reasons: 1. The building was enlarged from what was originally planned due to a contractual agreement with Arapahoe County for the City to handle animals from the unincorporated areas. 2. The building was much more expensive to construct than had been estimated. Mr. Dial stated that while the Council appropriated $150,000 for the Northwest Englewood Greenbelt vs. the Commission's recommended $30,000 that only $80,000 or $90,000 has been committed at this time. Discu~sion followed. Mrs. Henning asked to be up-dated on the proposed replacement of Fire Station #4 and a sub- station in Centennial Ac~es? Mr. Dial stated that the replacement of Station #4 in Scenic View is primarily the "replacement of a temporary building" but up many years ago, and it is proposed that the new Station be relocated to a more centralized portion of the Scenic View area. Mr. Dial pointed out that there is a definite n~ed for a sub-station in that area. He also pointed out that there is a possibility that some land purchased by the City for the Greenbelt could be utilized as the site for the Fire Station also. I I I I I I Page 1353 Mr. Dial stated that the State Inspection Bureau recommended the closing of Station #2 at East Quincy Avenue and South Pearl Street, and the relocation of "Station #2" to the Centennial Acres area, which is isolated from the rest of the city, and is without easy access by the Englewood Fire Department. Mr. Dial stated that the City has closed Station #2 for the City of Englewood purposes, but has it leased to Cherry Hills Village, which jurisdiction is keeping a truck there. Mr. Dial stated that no land has been purchased for the Centennial Acres station at this time. Mr. Weist asked if the contractors bidding on City construction jobs were including a "pro- tection factor" in their cost estimates? Mr. Dial stated that he did not know whether such was included in the bids or not. Mr. Weist asked what affect the wage and price freeze announced by President Nixon would have on such projects as the fire /police complex? He asked if the City would benefit by rebidding the project? Mr. Dial stated that he felt the bids that came in were very well grouped, and noted that all of them were well over the architect's estimate. He commented that he didn·'t feel the City would better their position were the bids re-let. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked which Department the City Forester was responsible to? Mr. Dial stated that Englewood, Littleton, and the South Suburban Metropolitan Park and Recreation District contribute financially for this position, and that the Forester is actually on the County payroll, but is responsible for carrying out the program for Englewood. Mr. Dial stated that it is hoped a "replanting program" can be instigated in the City in an effort to re- place the trees that must be removed because of disease, etc. Mrs. Henning asked if this could and should be included as a Capital Improvement project? Mr. Dial stated that it could be recommended as such by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt appropri ations should be made for a tree replanting program in the Capital Improvements budget. Mr. Senti stated that he was interested in such a proposal; he cited the 2700 block of South Pennsylvania where the City had removed trees to facilitate the paving program, and he stated that he would like to see new trees planted in this block this next year. Mr. Dial excused himself from the meeting. Further discussion on the tree replanting program ensued. Mr. Supinger noted that the Director of Parks and Recreation was considering a "nursery" for the City, and that perhaps this coull be worked in conjunction with the tree replanting program. Mr. Carlson discussed the possibility of conducting a "plant a tree week" in the City' he felt that the results would be very worth-while. Mr. Supinger noted that in California some cities sell to the public various trees for $2.50 or so, and the City will do the planting. Mr. Senti commented that he felt if the City would start the program, the people would go along with it. Further discussion followed. The matter of the community center was then considered. Mr. Supinger noted that the Workable Program Citizens' Committee members had recommended that this particular project be el·imina ted completely from the program. Mrs. Henning stated that she didn't feel it is sufficiently important at the present time to include it in the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Mosbarger indicated that he felt the school buildings could be put to greater use in the evenings, week-ends, and in the summer for meetings, etc. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans · commented that at one time, a member of the School Board was appointed to the Planning Commission, and that this seemed to provide a satisfactory liaison between the City and the School system. Further discussion followed. The priority for funds to underwrite operational costs for a golf course was discussed. Mr. Supinger stated that he questioned the priority given this project; he felt there could well be others of greater importance that do not have a high priority at the present time. Mrs. Romans noted that the City first began considering a golf course for Englewood in 1961. Mrs. Henning asked if a study had ever been made on the number of Englewood citizens who use the Denver golf courses? Mr. Supinger stated that he was not aware of any such study. Mr. Weist stated that he thought there was a committee whose express purpose was to study the question of a golf course; he felt that perhaps this committee should "find out what the citizens of Englewood want". ·Mr. Senti commented that he thought the percentage of citizens in favor of a course would run between 10% and 12%. Mr. Weis·t questioned whether this would be sufficient to support a golf course. Mrs. Vobejda stated that she felt the course would be supported, and cited the difficulties golfers have now in getting on a course. Further discussion followed. · Henning moved: Lentsch seconded: Henning moved: Lentsch seconded: Mosbarger moved: Henning seconded: Lentsch moved: The Planning Commission approve the Capital Improvement Program as out- lined in the study document prepared by the City Manager's Office. The motion be amended to include in 1972 budgeting under the Parks and Recreation projects the establishment of a City Nursery and tree planting program; no suggested funding to be given by the Commission. The motion be amended to eliminate the proposed community center for $250,000 from the 1973 projects. Mosbarger seconded: The $60,000 funds for the golf course be deleted in 1973, and $20,000 be added to projected funds for the golf course in 1974, 1975, and 1976. Mrs. Henning questioned the proposed widening of South Broadway from Yale to Hampden? Mr. Supinger stated that this project has been delayed due to the traffic study. Further dis- cussion followed. Mr. Carlson called for the vote to amend the motion by adding the City Nursery and tree planting program in 1972. This motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carlson then called for discussion on the motion to amend the motion by deleting the proposed community center from the 1973 projects. Mr. Weist questioned whether the City and schools could cooperate on the use of the all-purpose rooms in the schools and satisfactorily solve the need for a "community center?" Mr. Supinger indicated that he felt 'it would "help" solve the problem. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt the Community center would be needed · "sometime", and that he didn't think the City could rely on the schools furnishing such a need. Further discussion followed. Page 1354 The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Mosbarger; Patrick; Vobejda; Carlson; Henning Lentsch; Weist; Senti The motion carried. Mr. Carlson stated the motion to amend by deleting funds for the golf course in 1973 would be discussed. Mr. Weist questioned the budgeting of funds for a "non-existant golf course." Mrs. Vobejda asked if the land were to be purchased if funds wouldn't be needed in 1973 or before for this purpose? Mr. Weist stated that the funds which. have been included in the Capital Improvement Program are for Operational expenses only. Mr. Weist discussed the possibility of developing an area. along the Platte River as a golf course, and stated that he felt the proposal, which has been widely considered, has merit and questioned why the hesitancy to develop a course in this location. Further discussion followed. Mr. Carlson called for the vote: AYES: NAYS: Mosbarger; Patrick; Senti; Carlson; Henning; Lentsch Weist; Vobejda The motion carried. Mr. Carlson then called for the vote on the motion to approve the Capital Improvement Pro- gram, as amended: AYES: NAYS: Mosbarger; Patrick; Lentsch; Senti; Vobejda; Henning; Carlson Weist The motion carried. - - - -------- - -- -- -- --- ---- ---- - - IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS A. Planned Development District Case #18-71 Mr. Supinger stated that this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, if approved, will give a flexibility and positive approach to development within the City. He noted that Ordinances providing for Planned Developments are the "coming thing", and he felt that the City of Englewood should take advantage of such an ordinance. Mr. Supinger stated that the Planned Development District would be an "over-lay" on any Zone District within the City. Mr. Supinger stated that the ~ermitted uses listed within a given zone district would not be modified, nor could the residential density of a . district be increased under the provisions of this proposal. He stated that no area limitations have been imposed on the proposal, as the small developments are as much in need of flexibility as the large developments. Specific plans will have to be submitted for each development, and a public hearing held by the Planning Commission. Inasmuch as : approval of a Planned Development would not constitute a change of zoning, the ordinance is written to provide that administra- tive approval by the Planning Commission is final. The Plans for the PD will be filed with the Clerk and Recorder of Arapahoe County after approval by the Commission. Mr. Patr1ck asked if other cities in this metro area were operating under this Planned Development Ordinance? Mr. Supinger replied that this particular proposed ordinance is "tailored to Englewood", but that several cities in the area are considering or already utilizing similar ordinances. Mrs. Henning stated that she had understood one of the good points about a Planned Develop- ment project was the "variety of residential types", combining multi-family with single and two-family uses and even commercial uses in one "development". She stated that she had hoped that the City might be able to devise a similar plan for redevelopment of the core area. Mr. Supinger indicated that such a development could be accomplished, but would have to be done by "legislative action" of the Council. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked about the maintenance of interior roads and private roads in a development? Mr. Supinger stated that if the roads are indeed private, they are privately maintained; if they are "public" roads, the City would maintain them. Further discussion followed. B. Ordinance Amendments Case #19-71 Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is very involved in the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, but there are two or three items which the staff feels should be cared for prior to the time when the revision of the entire Ordinance will be completed. She noted that two changes of considerable importance are suggested: 1. In the R-3-A District, the present restrictions state that a developer must built a minimum of twelve units, with no more than two rooms designed primarily for sleeping purposes. It is proposed that this restriction be deleted from the ordinance. 2. In the R-2-B District, single or two family uses are permitted on 50 ft. frontage; if a person has 75 foot frontage, he is still permitted only the single or two-family use. Mrs. Romans showed slides of portions of the City which are presently zoned for R-2-B use, which slides depicted many instances wherein a developer could remove two older deteriorating houses and replace them with a tri-plex on 75 ft., or a four-plex on 100 ft., and have it be economically feasible. To replace the two old houses with two single-family homes, or even with two duplexes, would not be as economically feasible as the four-plex would be. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there are 186 acres of land in the City which have the R-2-B Zone designation; 3 % of that land is vacant, and only 8 % of the land is developed as two- family. It is felt that the proposal will allow further development and encourage re- development. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this is proposed only in the R-2-B Zone District. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this proposal would not be increasing the density permitted in the R-2-B District, but would allow more flexibility in development. I I I I I I Page 1355 Mr.Senti commented that he felt the proposals were very good. Mr. Lentsch asked if the change in the R-2-B District would apply to areas along Broadway where an extension of the business zoning had been discussed with property owners? Mrs. Romans stated that it did not. Discussion followed. It was determined that the Public Hearing could be scheduled for September 21, 1971, and that the Commission should study the matter further. V. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF AGENDA ITEMS. Mr. Supinger stated that the present "deadline" imposed by the Commission on matters to be included on an agenda is Friday noon preceeding the meeting. Mr. Supinger stated that this is not functional, inasmuch as no time is allowed the staff for preparation of staff reports, much less the clearing of matters with other department heads, utilit¥ companies, etc. Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt a two week limitation might need to be imposed, and suggested that a policy be prepared by the staff for consideration at the next meeting. This was agreed to by members of the Commission. ,.... VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger stated that copies of a letter from City Council requesting the Commission to further study the parking ratio for apartment developments had been given the Commission. Another problem which was advanced for Commission study and recommendation is the situation which occurs when apartment developers purchase all but one or two properties in a block -- usually the middle property, and develop all around it with apartment houses. Mr. Supinger stated that attached to this letter from Council are copies of a letter sent by the Planning Department to various apartment house owners requesting that the Planning staff be granted the privilege of interviewing the managers of the apartment houses and the tenants in regard the parking matter. Copies of the interview forms were also available to the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that members of the Commission have been given copies of a letter from City Manager Dial to City Manager Larry Borger of Littleton, in regard to the adoption of a Sign Code. Mr. Supinger stated that, in an effort to get both cities to adopt "similar" codes, a member of Council and a member of the staff has been appointed to meet with officials of Littleton on the matter. It is also felt that a member of the Planning Commission should be ~ppointed to this committee. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger -noted that a Model Sign · Code would be presented to the Denver Regional Councir of Governments on August 18th. Further discussion followed. Mr. Bob Weist was named to serve on the committee with Mr. Supanger of the staff and Mr. Leo Lentsch of the Council. -- -':"""' -.- VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch stated that a letter would be coming to the Commission, directed by Council, asking that the Commission review the parking needs in the 3300-3400 blocks of South Broadway. Mr. Lentsch stated that he had attended .a meeting with Messrs. Curry, Abbott, Peterson and Watkins, and stated that the Chamber of Commerce does have a study and plan on parking for the core area. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt the Planning Commission should meet with these gentlemen, and give the plan some study. Mr. Carlson further discussed the request of Council to have the Commission look into the problem of an ownership being left between two apartment houses. He stated that he felt there could be some serious legal implications involved in such an undertaking. Mr. Senti commented that no one could force a person to sell his property. Mr. Supinger discussed progress on the Core Area revitalization planning. Mr. Lentsch discussed action by the City Council in granting an encr0achment on a sidewalk for a canopy to a downtown businessman. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1971 The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Henning; Mosbarger; Patrick; Senti; Vobejda; Weist; Carlson Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Lentsch Also present: D. A. Romans , Assistant Director of Planning; Alan Koepping, Draftsman.