Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-12-07 PZC MINUTESPage 1378 IV. HOUSING CONFERENCE November 18, 1971 Mr. Carlson noted that the location of the Housing Conference has been moved to the Wellshire Inn Banquet Room South, 3333 South Colorado Boulevard, rather than at the .Council of Govern- ments Offices. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. It was noted that reservations have been made for Messrs. Lentsch, Senti, Barton and Carlson, and that members of the staff also plan to attend this conference. - - --- --- - --- - - --- - --- -- -- -- - - V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that notification of the Seventh Annual Colorado Business-Economic Out- look Forum has been received. This is scheduled for December 3, 1971, in the Brown Palace Hotel beginning at 2:00 P.M. There is no registration fee, if members of the Commission wish to attend. Mr. Supinger reported on action taken at the City Council meeting of November 15, 1971. Ordinances on the Planned Development District and amendments to the R-3-A and R-2-B Dis- tricts were tabled until the next meeting. The Ordinance which places all parking re- strictions in the Supplementary Regulations of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was passed on final reading. The proposed Flood Plain District Regulations, which was recom- mended by the Planning Commission at their meeting of November 9, 1971, was introduced at the City Council meeting. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Carlson read a letter from Mr. Bill Patrick to the City Council, copy to the Planning Commission, wherein Mr. Patrick tendered his resignation from th.e Planning Commission. Mr. Supinger was asked to write a letter to Mr. Patrick expressing the regret of the Com- mission on his resignation, and commending him for his efforts on behalf of the Commission. Lentsch moved: Barton seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried; meeting adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Senti moved: Henning seconded: The motion carried. November 16, 1971 Vacation of Portion of South Ogden Street, 3300 Block. The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the request to vacate the following portion of South Ogden Street be approved: "That portion of South Ogden Street adjoining Lots 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, Block 46, Evanston Broadway Addition, and Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, Block 47, Evanston Broadway Addition, all in Arapahoe County, Colorado." Respectfully submitted, I 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 December 7, 1971 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carlson at 8:00 P.M. Members present: Vobejda; Senti; Mosbarger; Henning; Barton; Carlson Members absent: Weist; Lentsch Supinger, Ex-officio I I I I I I Page 1379 Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Planning I I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Carlson stated that Minutes of November 16, 1971, were to be considered for approval. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The Minutes of November 16, 1971, be approved as written. The motion carried. III. OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Efficiency Units and Guest Parking Henning moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. The motion carried. CASE #23-71B October 5, 1971 October 19, 1971 Mr. Carlson asked Mrs. Romans to summarize the steps leading up to the proposed increase in off-street parking for efficiency units and requiring guest parking. Mrs. Romans stated that notice of the public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on November 17th and November 24th. Mrs. Romans noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was amended, effective August 13, 1971, requiring off-street parking spaces for efficiency units on a 1:1 ratio. It was the feeling of the Commission members and other concerned .citizens that the City could be encouraging the construction of a surplus of efficiency units by requiring less parking for these units than the 1-1/2:1 required for one and two bedroom units. Also, no requirement is in effect for guest parking, which members and others felt was needed. As a result, the staff has prepared an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.5-5a, Minimum Standards, to read as follows: §22.5-5a. Minimum Standards. (10) Residential Uses: (a) Occupants or Tenants (i) Single-family Dwelling --two (2) spaces per each dwelling unit. (ii) Two or more Family Dwellings: Efficiency Unit, One or Two Bedroom Units --one and one-half (1-1 /2) spaces per each dwelling unit. Three or more Bedroom Units two (2) spaces per each dwelling unit. Such parking shall be designated and identified as parking for the occupants of the building only. (b) Guests or Visitors. Five or more dwelling units --one (1) space for each five (5) units. Such parking shall be designated and identified as temporary parking for the use of guests or visitors of the occupants of the building only. Guest or Visitor Off-Street Parking is also defined, and it is suggested that §22.5-5j be amended to include the following definition: "Guest or visitor off-street parking as used herein, shall mean an off-street parking space provided for the temporary use of guests of, or visitors to the occupants or tenants of the building, whether for social, business or professional reasons." Mr. Lentsch entered the meeting and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Carlson asked if there were members of the audience who wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment. No one indicated a desire to speak. Mosbarger moved: Vobejda seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried. Henning moved: Senti & Lentsch seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended, increasing off-street parking requirements for efficiency units, requiring off-street parking for guests, and defining guest or visitor off-street parking, as follows: §22.5-5a. (10) Minimum Standards. Residential Uses: (a) Occupants or Tenants. (i) Single-family Dwelling --two (2) spaces per each dwelling unit. (ii) Two or more Family Dwellings: Efficiency Unit, One or Two Bedroom Units --one and one-half · (1-1 /2) spaces per each dwelling unit. Three or more Bedroom Units --two (2) spaces per each dwelling unit. Page 1380 The motion carried. Such parking shall be designated and identifieq as parking for the occupants of the building only. (b) Guests or Visitors Five or more dwelling units --one (1) space for each five units. Such parking shall be designated and identified as temporary parking for the use of guests of visitors of the occupants of the building only. §22.5-5j. Guest or Visitor Off-Street Parking. Guest or visitor off-street parking as used herein, shall mean an off- street parking space provided for the temporary use of guests of, or visitors to the occupants or tenants of the building, whether for social, business or professional reasons. IV. ALLEY VACATION Block 4, Englewood CASE #27-71 Mrs. Romans stated that T. W. Anderson Mortgage Company has requested the vacation of the alley in Block 4, Englewood, which block is bounded by West Hampden Avenue on the north; South Galapago Street on the east; West Ithaca Avenue on the south; ~nd South Huron Street on the west. Mrs. Romans noted that the request is also made on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Hugo G. Olsen, owners of Lots 1 thru 27, inclusive of Block 4; and on behalf of Skelley Oil Company, owners of Lots 28 thru 32, inclusive, of Block 4. Mrs. Romans noted that T. W. Anderson Mortgage Company has leased the Olsen property, with option to purchase within the first twenty years. Mrs. Romans stated that the request for alley vacation is for the e~tire block, and that Mr. and Mrs. Olsen and the Skelley Oil Company have signed "Agreements" with T. W. Anderson Mortgage Company pledging cooperation in obtaining the alley vacation. Mrs. Romans stated that the request had been referred to the utility companies and depart- ments, and there appears to be no objection to the vacation of the alley; however, some utilities will have to be relocated, and it will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide the easements when the relocation is determined. Mrs. Romans noted that the Compre- hensive Plan designates this area for commercial usage, and that the proposed office building is in comp~iance with the Plan. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Staff feels that this may be the first step in the redevelopment of the area south of U.S. 285, and that other property owners may be given the incentive to redevelop their property by this proposal. Il is recommended by the staff that · the alley be vacated, subject to the applicant providing necessary utility easements. Mr. Ottenbriet T. W. Anderson Co. -presented artists renderings of the proposed structure to the Commission Mr. Ottenbriet stated that T. W. Anderson Mortgage Company agrees to all requirements and demands of Public Service Company and Mountain Bell in relocating utility easements, and this will be at the cost of the T. W. Anderson Mortgage Company. Mr. Ottenbriet stated that the structure will have 24,000 sq. ft. on each floor, and they are proposing a 5-story structure. The major tenant will occupy at least 1 /2 of the total space, and will be announced around the first of the year. Mrs. Henning asked how soon the construction was to start? Mr. Ottenbriet stated that they would like to start excavation as soon as possible, and would hope that occupancy could be accomplished by the middle of August, or t~e first of October, 1972, at the latest. Mr. Mosbarger asked if adequate parking spaces were to be provided for this office building, and asked if the area north of the location of the building would be devoted to parking? Mr. Ottenbreit stated that they had sufficient area for parking requirements, and noted that the area fronting on Hampden will be devoted to green space, or a small, complementary office building, and the Skelley Oil Company on the northwest corner. Discussion followed. Lentsch moved: Senti seconded: Motion carried. The Planning Co.mmission recommend to City Council th.at the alley in Block 4, Englewood Subdivision, be vacated; the applicant shall provide utility easements as required. No public purpose would be served by retention of this alley. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council will receive this recommendation at the meeting of December 20, 1971. -- - --. - - - - - ------- - ---- -- - - - --- - V. WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATION CASE #28-71 Mrs. Romans stated that members of the Planning Commission have met with the Workable Pro-. gram Citizens' Committee to discuss the Workable Program Application. The City Council has referred the application to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt a lot. of work has gone into the compilation. of the Workable Program application. Mr. Lentsch then discussed the "areas of concern" as designated in the Workable Program application. Mrs. Romans noted that these areas of concern are also identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and indicated the areas on the map. Mrs. Romans stated that the 1970 Census indicates the average value of homes in Englewood is less than $17,000, and that in tpe preliminary . 1970 Census information on Housing, Commerce City is the only municipality in the Denver SMSA with a lower average value.. Mr. Lentsch no.ted that, in his opinion, in other communities some of the newer houses are in worse condition than the old homes in Englewood. Discussion followed. I I I I I I Page 1381 Mrs. Henning stated that she felt possibly some question could be raised on why Area "A" was chosen over another area, but felt that the reasons were well documented in the Application. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt from discussion at the meetings of the Workable Program Citizens' Committee, that residents of ·Area "A" are concerned that public housing might be instituted in that area. A member of the Committee . from Area "A" has suggested that the City consider the redevelopment of the downtown area first, inasmuch as a downtown core area study has already been considered. Mr. Mosbarger commented that he didn't feel there would be great opposition voice.ct in Area "A". Mr. Carlson stated that if there were an area in the City that was of concern and the• residents were in favor of the Program, that perhaps that area should be chosen as the first project. Mr. Mosbarger noted that the North- west Englewood area does have "credits" now in the new School, and the proposed fire station, and that the project does tie in with the "facelifting" that is taking place in the College View area in Denver. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt people would have to be educated in what can be done under a Workable Program application. Mrs. Vobejda asked if any effort had been expended toward this education? Mr. Mosbarger stated that there have been two meetings in the Northwest Englewood area, and that they have been very poorly attended. Mr. Barton stated that he felt if the approval of the Workable Program application was granted by the Federal Government, a publicity campaign could be begun, and that probably people would support the program. Discussion followed. Mr. Mosbarger stated that he had heard that some people were informed that if the application were approved, they would not be able to do the work on their homes themselves, and could not even choose the contractor to do the work. He asked if this is correct? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would look into this matter and report back. Further discussion followed. Henning moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Workable Pro- gram application be approved and submitted for certification. The motion carried. VI. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CASE #18-71C September 21, 1971 September 8, 1971 August 17, 1971 Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council, at their meeting December 6, 1971, referred the Planned Development District to the Planning Commission for further consideration after con- cern was expressed by the Chamber of Commerce on the provision permitting a reduction of off-street parking requirements (§22.5A-6[e]) in certain cases. The Chamber of Commerce has recommended the deletion of this particular section [e]. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt discussion at the Council Meeting had cetered around the fact that (1) a body not made up of elected officials is given, by this Ordinance, the power to authorize variations .from the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, with the feeling that if any variations are authorized, it should be accomplished by "elected officials". And, (2), if there are minimum requirements set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, developers should abide by the minimum requirements. The questions posed to the Commission were: Should this section be eliminated? Should other standards be developed? Should variances be authorized only by City Council? Mr. Carlson asked what purpose the Planned Development District Ordinance would serve? Mrs. Romans stated that it is an attempt to provide flexibility and encourage development and re-development. Mr. Carlson agreed that this was the reason the PD Ordinance was con- sidered, and pointed out that there cannot be a change in the uses permitted, nor the density permitted under the provisions . He stated that the Commission must consider what would be gained and what could be lost if the proposed Ordinance was passed as written. Mr. Peterson, Executive Director of the Englewood Chamber of Commerce, stated that he felt the City was having to live with the error of not requiring sufficine off-street parking in the past. Mr. Peterson stated that members of the Board of Director's of the Chamber were at a loss as to how less than the present required minimum parking needs could be guaranteed over the lifetime of a particular development built under this proposed Ordinance. Mr. Peterson pointed out that uses of structures do change, and with this change of use would undoubtedly come a change in parking needs, and he pointed out the difficulty of trying to obtain additional parking area. Mr. Peterson stated that the Chamber of Commerce would like to see 'e of §22,4A-6 deleted, or the provision that minimum parking standards cannot be violated included in the section prohibiting the change of use and density. Mr. Peterson stated that the Chamber Board felt the overall concept of the Planned Development District Ordinance was good, but urged that the minimum parking standards be required. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that any provision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, but that once the Planned Development Plan was approved and recorded, the plan would be final. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated he felt there should be a provision for appeal to Council from the decision of the Planning Commission. He suggested that a provision be written into the proposed ordinance either referring it to Council for final approval, or requiring a 7-2 vote of the Commission for approval of the parking standards. Mrs. Henning stated that the theory and purpose behind the Planned Development District Ordinance is to provide flexibility for developers, encouraging new development and re- development of older areas. Mrs. Henning stated that the setback requirements and height limitations may be .changed under the Planned Development Ordinance, and she felt to give flexibility on some provisions and not on others would defeat the purpose of the Planned Development. Mrs. Henning stated that she did not agree with the provisions of the proposed Ordinance that prohibits change of use and density. She stated that she felt that flexibility on parking should be given, particularly if the property owner agrees to participate in a "parking district." She then noted that she would prefer, if it is the decision to refer the Planned Development Plans to Council for final approval on the parking requirements, that all plans be referred to Council and not just those wherein parking is of concern. Page 1382 Mr. Peterson asked why, if the required off-street parking ordinance approved in August is . valid, the City should turn around and make provisions to avoid meeting these requirements? Mrs. Henning noted that she can visualize types of developments coming to the Commission for approval under the Planned Development ordinance where the minimum off-street parking requirements would be invalid, but that it would take strong over-riding factors to persuade the Commission to approve a Plan with insufficient parking. Discussio~ followed. Mrs. Romans noted that prior to approval of any Planned Development Plan, a public hearing must be held by the City P~~nning .and Zoning Commission. She stated that pt this time, any persons wha might have objections _may be heard. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the property will have to be posted, as well as a pRblic notice given in the official City newspaper. Discussion followed. Senti moved: Henning seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the Planned De- velopment District Ordinance be approved and adopted as written. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt there should be some recourse open to the Public on appeal, and that final approval of a Planned Development plan should be with the City Council. Discussion foll owed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt City Manager Dial was of the opinion that there should be such a change in the proposed Ordinance, referring the final decision to the City Council. Mrs. Henning stated she didn't feel it should go to Council only if the parking provided were below minimum requirements. Further discussion foll owed. Lentsch moved: The proposed PD Ordinance be amended to require that all Planned De- velopment applications be referred to City Council f or final approval. The motion was not seconded. The vote on Mr. Senti's motion was called: the motion carried, Mr. Lentsch voting nay. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans reported that Planning Assistant, Mrs. Barbara Young, has been working on the designation o f bicycle trails through the City o f Englewood. Mrs. Romans stated that there have been several meetings with other municipalities on this matter, attempting to coordinate the routes throughout the metropolitan area. It was noted that a proposed r oute along the . City Ditch will be difficult to work out because Assistant City Engineer Sagrillo reports that there are areas of vacation of the right-of-way, and there are fences across the right- of-way, etc. It was suggested that at some point the City must decide whether or not they want bicycle paths developed, and if so, there must be a policy set f orth on vacations of such right-of-way. Furthermore, such vacation requests should come before the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Barton stated he understood that the request f or bicycle paths had been presented to Council; he asked if such request will come to the Planning Commission? Mrs. Romans stated that she understood the City Manager wanted a report on progress made on the matter sub- mitted to him sometime this week f or his submission to Council. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked how long the vacation o f the City Ditch right-of-way has been going on? Mrs. Romans stated she did not know. Mr. Senti stated that he knew that such vacations were going on 15 years or so ago, and that the applicant dealt directly with the City of Denver, who at that time had control of the Ditch. Mr. Carlson asked how long the bicycle paths had to be to be practical? Mr. Senti stated that the proponents of the paths hope to make them interconnecting throughout the metro- politan area. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE . Mrs. Henning .discussed a letter to the Policy Advisory Committee of the Denver Regional Council o f Governments from Mr. Supinger, dated Decembe r 2, 1971, stating the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and approved improvements for Jason Park, Miller Field, Bates- Logan Park, and Centennial Park. Mrs. Henning asked when this was considered by the Com- mission? Mr. Carlson and Mrs. Romans indicated these improvements were considered in the Capital Improvement Program and approved by the Commission at that time. Mrs. Henning asked the status o f the Voorhees Traffic Study? Mrs. Romans replied that the study has not been completed. Mr. Barton inquired about the possibility o f being kept up to date on matters such as park development, etc. Mr. Carlson stated that one way to accomplish this would be to have periodic meetings with Department Heads and Commissions on a regular basis --once every quarter, f or instance. Mr. Lentsch asked the opinion of the Commission on the meeting o f November 30 1971 at which meeting Mr. Joe Simmons of the Denver Community Renewal was guest speak~r. The members indicated they felt Mr. Simmons' presentation was very concise, and excellent in content. Mr. Lentsch suggested that perhaps the City o f Englewood Planning Commission should attend meetings of the Planning Commissions in the adjoining municipalities. It was moved and seconded to adjoin the meeting. The motion carried; meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recordi~g Secretary - - ------- - --- - - ---- I I I I I I Page 1383 MEMORANDUM . TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 7, 1971 SUBJECT: Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended, increasing off-street parking requirements for efficiency units, requiring off-street parking for guests, and de- fining guest or visitor off-street parking, as follows: §22.5-5a. Minimum Standards. (10) Residential Uses: (a) Occupants or Tenants. (i) Single-family Dwelling --two (2) spaces per each dwelling unit. (ii) Two or More Family Dwellings: Efficiency Unit, One or Two Bedroom Units --one and one-half (1-1/2) spaces per each dwelling unit. Three or more Bedroom Units two (2) spaces per each dwelling unit. Such parking shall be designated and identified as parking for the occupants of the building only. (b) Guests or Visitors. Five or more dwelling units --one (1) space for each five units. Such parking shall be designated and identified as temporary parking for the use of guests or visitors of the occupants of the building only. §22.5-5J . Guest or Visitor Off-Street Parking. Guest or visitor off-street parking as used herein, shall mean an off-street parking space provided for the temporary use of guests of, or visitors to the occupants or tenants of the building, whether for social, business or profession~! reasons. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 7, 1971 SUBJECT: Alley Vacation, Block 4, Englewood Subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the alley in Block 4, Englewood Subdivision, be vacated; the applicant shall pro- vide utility easements as required. No public purpose would be served by retention of this alley. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Sec:ir etary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 7, 1971 SUBJECT: Workable Program Application RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Workable Pro- gram Application be approved and submitted for certification. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary Page 1384 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: Recommendation: December 7, 1971 Planned Development District Ordinance The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the Planned Develop- ment District Ordinance be approved and adopted as written. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I I