Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-09-08 PZC MINUTESI 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. Page 1356 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated that the Minutes of August 17, 1971, were to be considered for approval. Henning moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Minutes of August 17, 1971, be approved as written. The motion carried. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CASE #18-71A August 17, 1971 Mr. Carlson asked that Mr. Supinger review the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Supinger stated that the public hearing on the proposal has been set for September 21st, and that public notice has been given in the offici~l Ci~y Newsp~p~r~ the Englewood Herald. Mr. Supinger stated that the proposed amendment will give flexibility that is not presently available to developers, and will be of help in redevelopment of the older areas of town. Mr. Supinger stated that the Planned Development District will be "superimposed" over an existing zone district, thus the use and densities permitted remain "fixed", and the flexibility is given in the location of the structures, the ability to construct a four-plex on 100 ft. frontage in an R-2-B Zone District rather than two duplexes, for example. Mr. Supinger stated that the designation of a Planned Development District is set up as administrative approval by the Planning Commission, with their decision being final, and may be appealed only to the courts. Mr. Supinger stated that detailed plans for the Planned Development must be submitted at the time of the application, and if approved, must be developed according to those plans. City Attorney Berardini entered the meeting. Mr. Weist asked Mr. Supinger what kind of development under the proposed amendment could be expected? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt this proposal could be utilized in developing raw land, and also in providing incentive and flexibility for redevelopment in older sections of town. Mr. Supinger pointed out that there is no size restriction written into the pro- posal, and stated that it is the feeling of the st~ff that flexibility is needed just as much and maybe more on smaller developments than it is on large developments. Mr. Lentsch entered and took his chair with the Commission. Mr. Weist asked if the expenses a develope~ would go to to provide the detailed plans, etc., to submit ~ith the application might preclude making use of this provision for small develop- ments? Mr. Sup~nger stated that if the developer desires any flexibility in his proposal, he will have to make use of this provision. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning questioned whether or not there was a conflict in the provisions of the proposed amendment and the existing regulations? Further discussion followed. Mr. Mosbarger asked what would keep developers from erecting high-rise apartments in every block under this proposal? Mr. Supinger pointed out that the uses and density remain the same as are in existence unless the developer requests a rezoning change; in other words, an apartment house could not be built in a single-family zone district even under the Planned Development District --the developer would have to abide by the single-family restrictions. Mr. Supinger further pointed out that the Planning Commission must pass ap- proval of every Planned Development proposal before a Building Permit could be issued for such. Mrs. Henning noted that the 25' buffer strip requirement, as set forth on Page 8, is more restrictive on the Planned Development District than is presently in existence. She asked if this would apply to properties separated by a street? Mr. Supinger stated that the street separation would eliminate the 25 ft. buffer strip, and stated that he anticipated more stringent r~quirements in other zone districts in the revised zoning ordinance. Mrs. Henning stated that she noted o~ Page 7 that minimum requirements for open space are mentioned, but that such requirements are not set forth in the proposed ordinance. She asked if this was to be left to the 9iscretion of the Commission? Mr. Supinger stated that the Commission would have to decide on the minimum requirements for open space on each Planned Development that they considered. Mrs. Henning asked if the requirement that a landscape plan be pre- pared by a "registered" landscape architect could be putting an undue burden on the developer of a small parcel? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the staff would be willing to compromise on that point and not require that it would be a "registered" landscape architect. Mrs. Henning stated that she would hesitate to include such a requirement in the ordinance if it would cause undue burdens. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked if the staff felt this proposed amendment was the final step in a Planned Development Ordinance, or was it "gently easing us into a real Planned Development Ordinance, which would allow different uses and densities in one planned development?" Mr. Supinger stated that he didn't feel the City would need anything more in a Planned Development Ordinance in the future than is proposed in this amendment. He pointed out that densities and uses could still be changed by going through a rezoning. Discussion followed. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE "Miscellaneous" Amendments CASE #19-71A August 17, 1971 Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is proposing two changes in the R-3-A Zone District, namely the removal of the restriction that a minimum of 12 units must be built, and that no more than two rooms may be designed for sleeping purposes in any one unit. Mrs. Romans noted that in the R-2-B (Two-family) Zone District, there have been problems in that many of the ownerships are 75 ft. frontage with one old home located thereon. It has proven economically unfeasible to demolish or remove the old house and construct a new single-family use or even a duplex on such a property. Under the proposed amendment, a tri- plex would be permitted on the 75' frontage, and a four-plex would be permitted on a 100 ft. frontage. This would not be increasing the density permitted in the R-2-B District, which is 14 units per acre; but, it would give the property owners greater flexibility in the re- development of their property. I I I I I I Page 1357 Mra. Romans noted that other amendments that have been proposed are "housekeeping" amend- ments; for instance, the parking section in the Supplementary Regulations was , amended to require increased off-street parking for residential uses and was f~nal on August 13, 1971. However, the parking regulations were set forth separately in each zone district of the Ordinance, and these are now proposed for amendment to alleviate the possibility of con- fusion. Brief discussion followed. v. MERCHANTS PARKING LOT 3400 Block S. Acoma St. CASE #20-71 Mr. Carlson stated that Commission ,members are in receipt of a copy of a letter from City Manager Dial, asking that the Commission review parking needs in the "vicinity of the 3300 and 3400 blocks ; of South Broadway.I' Mr. Carison asked if the Commission should be doing research on the matter, and holding meetings with the merchants? Mr. Lentsch stated that this matter had been considered by City Council, and it was felt that they didn't have enough information to make a decision, and referred the matter to the Commission for study and a recommendation to Council. Mr. Lentsch stated that he noted the staff report recommend$ no action on the part of the City Government unt~l such time . as the proposed Core Area study is completed, unless funds for such study are not appropriated in the 1972 budget. Mr. Lentsch commented that land values are .not decreasing, and he saw nothing wrong with the City purchasing land in the downtown area for parking. He stated that he felt the City should want to keep the merchants in the downtown area in business. Mr. Lentsch stated that he hoped the study would be done, but felt that some assurance should be given to the downtown businessmen that the City is interested and concerned. Mr. Lentsch noted that there have been discussions and meetings on the parking situation in downtown Englewood for at least 10 years, and he didn't feel the City should wait to do something that is needed now; he felt that the City has waited too long in . the past for anything to happen. Mr. Patrick questioned whether parking areas could be secured on the east side of South Broadway also. Mr. Lentsch stated that he had met with officials of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Curry, and these businessmen are considering the parking problem in the downtown area. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt the Planning Commission should get together with these people and see if a plan of action could be devised. Mr. Supinger noted that in a preliminary study of the Core Area, it has been found that 30% of the downtown area is in public ownership --streets, schools, utilities, public parking, etc. He noted that this figure did not include Swedish Medical Center. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the City should use great care in spending of monies available, and noted that if the City , purchased the land it would be removed from the tax rolls. He commented that the Core Area study may disclose that the City doesn't need 30% or more of the downtown area in public ownership, and may recommend large parking .lots, but not as many small ones. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it would be "prudent to wait" on any action on the matter. Mr. Carlson asked if a Committee from the Commission should work with the Chamber of Commerce on the parking problem? Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Supinger if he had attended the meetings of the Chamber of Commerce on the parking situation?. Mr. Supinger indicated he had not. Mr. Weist asked if the Chamber of Commerce was "making any real effort on behalf of downtown parking.?" Mrs. Romans stated that the ~taff has worked quite closely with the Chamber on several occasions when the matter of parking has ~risen; she noted that the Chamber of Comme rc e has appeared before City Council to discuss the matter; that efforts to form an improveme n t dis- trict to purchase property for parking have been carried on by the Chamber of Comme rce . Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked if the Merchants Parking Lot was used by customers, or if it is used for employee parking? Mr. Lentsch stated that the lot isn't "policed very well"; he stated that some stalls are rented by the businessmen, but that the majority is provided for the customers. Mr. Carlson stated that situation. Commerce to asked if a mode of procedure would be suggested by the Commission? Mr. Lentsch he would like to see tqe Commission meet with the Chamber of Commerce on this Mr. _Weist commented that he felt it would be "appropriate for the Chamber of push something on this." Mr. Lentsch indicated that he had talked with Mr. Watson of Cinderella City, and that the Business and Occupational Tax as a means of financing additional Capital Improvements had been discussed. He indicated that Mr. Watson felt Cinderella City merchants would approve such a tax for Capital Improvements. Mr. Carlson suggested that Mr. Supinger should meet with Mr. Peterson of the Chamber of Com- merce. Mr. Weist stated that he felt the downtown businessmen should have some sort of com- mitment from the Chamber of Commerce and City Council on the parking situation. He noted that there seems to be some sort of hesitation on the part of City Council to give such com- mitment, and he stated that he felt there are reservations in the minds of the downtown businessmen on the sincerity of the Chamber of Commerce to work for the downtown area. Mrs. Henning asked if the proposed Core Area Study had been discussed with any of the down- town businessmen? Mr. Supi·nger ·indicated that it had been discussed with a few, and that no opposition to the proposal has been voiced. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning commented that she didn't see how the parking problem could be studied apart from a consideration of the entire downtown area. Further discussion followed. Mr. Henning asked what use the Cify could make of eminent domain? Mr.· Berardini stated that eminent domain is the taking of private property by a public authority for public purposes. He noted that utility companies can also make use of eminent domain. Mr. Berardini stated that uses the City might make of this method is parking lots, golf courses, streets, etc. Mr. Berardini stated that the City would have to negotiate with the owner of the private property, and then if such negotiations should break down, the City could appeal to the courts. Mr . Berardini stated that the City must have a policy establishing the need of the land prior to the use of eminent domain. Page 1358 Discussion followed. Mr. Weist stated there has been "a traumatic change" in the downtown area in the last four years or so, and noted that the City administration "went out of its way to encourage the development of Cinderella. City"; he felt this would be sufficient justi- fication for the City to make an effort to help the downtown businessmen. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt we had to consider a "larger area than just the 3400 block"; he indicated that he felt there would be proposals in the Core Area Study that would be of benefit to the whole city, and that the Commission must look to this end. Further discussion followed .. Mr. Senti stated that he would be all for the city's purchase of the land tomorrow if he felt it would be the complete answer to the problem, but he questioned if it would solve anything at this time. He stated that he didn't feel a change of ownership on that particular parking lot was going to help the Broadway businessmen at this time. Mr. Lentsch stated that he didn't feel the downtown businessmen could "wait forever", and noted that the businesses located in the downtown area do bring in considerable tax money for the City. He stated that he felt youhhad to "consider it an investment for the City to keep these businesses located in the downtown area." He discussed the "decay" that has occurred in the core area, and stated that something must be done to stop such decay. Mr. Lentsch stated that the property in question would only increase in value, and he stated that he didn't see how it could be wrong for the City to purchase the property. Discussion followed. Mr. Carlson suggested that a meeting with the Commission members, Mr. Supinger, Mr. Peterson, members of the Parking Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and officials of the Englewood Square might be beneficial. Mr. Carlson stated that he would try to get such a meeting set up. VI. SUBMISSION OF MATERIAL FOR COMMISSION AGENDA. Mr. Supinger stated that pursuant to direction from the Commission at the last meeting, a policy for submission of requests to be included on the Commission agenda has been drafted by the staff. Brief discussion ensued. Vobejda moved: Patrick seconded: The following policy be adopted as submitted: "POLICY FOR SUBMITTING REQUESTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION In order that the City Planning and Zoning Commission members will be able to give due con- sideration to each matter which comes before it, it is necessary for a person wishing to appear on the agenda of the Commission to submit their requests and all accompanying informa~ tion to the Planning Department at least two (2) weeks prior to the meeting at which they want their request considered. Meetings are held on the Tuesday following the first and third Mondays of the month. (If a legal holiday falls on the first or third Monday, the Planning Commission will meet on Wednesday night rather than Tuesday night). The meetings are held at 8:00 P. M. in the Council Chambers in the City Hall. The applicant should discuss his proposal with the Planning staff prior to submitting his request to determine whether or not the proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and to determine zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations or other requirements, and the information which should accompany the request. Although it is desirable for the applicant to attend the meeting to answer questions of · the Commission and to understand the reasons for the action taken, he is not required to be present. In the event he does not attend the meeting, he should contact the Planning Of fice the following day to learn of the Commission's action." The motion carried unanimously. - -- --- - -- ---- - - --- - --- --- -- VII. BOULDER PLANNING CONFERENCE September 30 & October 1 Mr. Supinger .stated that preliminary notification of the annual conference for Planning Of- ficials held at the University of Colorado has been received. Mr. Supinger noted that the Commission budget for Conference and Convention Attendance has a balance of $44.40 as of August 31, 1971. Mr. Carlson stated that he felt the Conference .is very worthwhile, and that as many persons should attend as is possible. He suggested that possibly reservations might be shared if persons cannot attend both days. Mr. Lentsch indicated he would attend the Conference for both days as did Mrs. Henning and Mr. Senti. Mr. Weist stated he would try to attend the Conference' at least one day, and Mr. Patrick stated he would attend the Conference on September 30. - ---- -- ----- - VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that copies of the proposed 1972 Budget for both the Planning Commissio.n and Planning Department have been given the Commission members. Mr. Supinger noted that in the 1972 Budget, the _Planni,ng Department is propo.sed to be combined with the Building Depart- ment, and will be called the Department of Community Development. One position has been proposed in addition to present staffing, and that is the position of ~ousing Coordinator, which position will have charge of housing and redevelopment. Mr. Supinger noted that he believed the Workable Program Ci tize.ns' Committee is consider.ing recommending a ddi t iona 1 personnel for the enforcement of the Environmental Code Pr~gram. Mr. Lentsch stated that he didn't feel that budgets were "fair", and cited the times the Commission and Planning Department have needed to have work completed without delay, and have b~en unable to do so because of the shortage of funds for additional personnel, hiring I I I I I I Page 1359 of consultants or whatever. He stated that he felt the money should be requested and that it should be approved so that the many projects could be accomplished. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated that the Flood Plain Regulations would be ready for Commission considera- tion very shortly, and the revised Mobile Home Park Ordinance will follow the Flood Plain Regulations. Mr. Carlson suggested that the discrepancy in travel pay for the Planning Commission mem- bers and other board members be checked into. Mr. Supinger reported on the Sign Code meeting which he, Mr. Weist and Mr. Lentsch attended. IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch reported that City Council had designated Girard Avenue from Elati Street to Logan Street as two-way at their meeting September 7, 1971. Mr. Lentsch discussed the Broadway/U.S. 285 interchange and the landscaping of the open areas in the interchange. Mr. Lentsch stated that the State Highway Department will put in the grass, but if the City of Englewood wants trees and additional landscaping, it must be put in by the City, and will cost $8,000 per year to maintain it; the trees would only be a 4 ft. height at the time of planting. Mr. Lentsch noted that there are approximately four acres of open area to be considered. Mr. Lentsch noted · that a sprinkling system will be installed, but the City of Englewood will furnish the water, which will amount to ap- proximately $1,800. Discussion followed. Mr. Mosbarger commented that he felt the greenery would be better cared for if the City assumed the responsibility. Djscussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt this could be a very attractive area, and would aid the downtown area revitalization. Mr. Lentsch stated that Council approved an Ordinance restricting parking within 20 ft. of an intersection, and also approved an Ordinance prohibiting trash cans in the alley right-of- way. It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned .. The motion carried; the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P. M. GeEtrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ·* * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . · SEPTEMBER 21, 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: Patrick; Senti; Vobejda; Weist; Carlson; Henning; Lentsch; Mosbarger Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Barton I Also present: Assistant Planning Director Romans; City Attorney Berardini; Messrs. Eason, Kramer, Dransfeldt. ----~- II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Carlson stated that the Minutes of September 8, 1971, were to be considered for approval. Lentsch moved: Henning seconded: The Minutes uf September 8, 1971, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. ALLEY VACATION CASE #21-71 Block 79, Sheridan Heights Mr. Supinger stated that the vacation of the alley in Block 79, Sheridan Heights Subdivision, has been requested by School District #1. This is the site of the old Scenic View School, and is no longer in use by the School District. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has checked the request out with the Utility Companies and City Departments, and no objection to the request has been voiced .. Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Eason or Mr. Kramer if they wished to make a presentation. Mr. Eason stated that he was appearing for the applicant, School District #1, and that amended surveys of the subject block have been placed before the Commission. Mr. Eason noted that the buildings in this block were completed in the 1930's or 1940's. There are no utilities in this alley, nor has the alley ever been in place in the block or used as an alley. Mr. Eason noted that with the opening of the new Scenic View School at 2323 West Baker Avenue, this property (Block 79, Sheridan Heights), became "surplus" property, and it is the policy of the School Board to dispose of such surplus property at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Eason stated that the property will be easier to sell if the alley is vacated, and can be sold as one parcel. Mr. Eason noted that the requested vacation will not leave any property in this block without access to a dedicated street.