Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-01-04 PZC MINUTESI I . . I I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 4, 1972 Page 1385 The Regular Meeting of the City Planning .and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Lentsch; Barton; Mosbarger; Robins; Brown; Weist; Vobejda Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Henning Also present: Assistant Director of Community Development Romans; City Attorney Berardini II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated the Minutes of December 7, 1971, were to be considered for approval. Lentsch moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Minutes of December 7, 1971, be approved as written. The motion carried. III. ALLEY VACATION CASE #1-72 Block 6, Premier Addition Mr. Carlson asked Community Development Director Supinger for a summary of the request. Mr. Supinger stated the request is for vacation of a porti6n of the alley in the 3400 block between South Lincoln Street and South Sherman Street. Mr. Supinger stated that the ap- plicants, Offices, Ltd., have option to purchase Lots 6, 7, 8, 17 and 18, Block 6, Premier Addition. There is 72.5 foot frontage on South Lincoln Street and 47.5 foot frontage on South Sherman Street in the properties under option by Offices, Ltd. Mr. Supinger stated the request for vacation is for the portion of the alley adjacent to the aforementioned lots, and the applicants also suggest that the remainder of the alley be considered for vacation. Mr. Supinger stated that letters notifying adjacent property owners of the re- quest were sent by the staff; no objections to the request have been received by the office. Mr. Carlson asked the applicants to present their case. Mr. Harry Car.leno, representing applicants and property owners, stated that at the time the request was filed, it was tor vacation of that portion of the alley adjacent to the lots tre applicants have under option. They would now request that the alley abutting Lot 19, Block 6, Premier Addition, also be included in the requested vacation. Mrs. Henning entered and took her chair with the Commission. Mr. Carleno stated that Mr. Watson, owner of Lot 19, has no objection to the vacation of the alley. Mr. Carlena sta.ted he had discussed vacation of the entire alley with Mr. C. A. Parker, property owner, and Mr. Pirker has indicated he would be opposed to vacation of the entire alley; he needs access to the ~ear of his property fronting on East Girard Avenue, which access is provided by the alley. Mr. Carleno noted that Lot 19, Block 6, Premier Addition, is not under option by Offices , Ltd.; he again asked that the alley abutting this Lot be included in the request for vacation. Mr. Carlson asked if there were utility lines in the alley? Mr. Supinger stated that all utility departments and companies were notified of the request, and there is no objection to the request, subject to retention of adequate easements to service existing utilities. Mr . C. A. Parker stated he felt the requested vacation, if granted, would ruin access patterns for the subject block, and that it would detract from the value of the property. He suggested that possibly there should be consideration given to obtaining dedication of the alley south of Lots 8 and 17, Block 6, Premier Addition. Mr. Parker noted that an "undedicated accessway" across the Hagge property south of Lots 8 and 17 has been used for 19 +/-years. Mr. Parker stated he personally has no objection to the vacation of the portion of the alley abutting Lo~s 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19, Block 6, Premier Addition, even though he considers such action "poor planning" . Mr. Carlena stated he discussed the request with Mr. Sneli, property owner to the south of the Hagge property, and that Mr. Snell has no objection to the alley vacation request. Mr. Snell reportedly stated that tenants of his apartment house at 3458-70 South Lincoln do not use the north /south alley for access to the parking area at the rear of the apartment house, but use an east /west alley running west from South Sherman Street just north of the Safeway Store. Mr. Robins asked the necessity of vacating the alley? Mr. Robins pointed out that there is a sewer line and other utilities in the alley. Mr. Carlson asked the applicants what development is proposed for the property, and if a structure is proposed over the alley? Mr. Oliver Giseburt, applicant, stated that the alley area would be used for parking for a proposed five-story office building. Mr. Giseburt stated he had discussed the proposal with the staff of the Utilities Department, and has been assured there will be no problem with the alley vacation so long as no structure is placed in the alley area. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger noted the staff had recommended vacation of the southerly 50 ft. portion of the alley. Mr. Supinger stated that, with the inclusion of the alley abutting Lot 1 9 in Page 1386 the request for vacation, the staff would have no objection to the vacation of the full 72.5 ft. portion, as requested. Mr. Supinger .advised that easements for existing utilities will have to be retained. Mrs. Henning asked the size of the property south of Lots 8 and 17 owned by Hagge? Mr. Supinger stated this property had 50 ft. frontage on Lincoln and Sherman Streets, and the applicants have option to purchase this property also. Mr. Mosbarger asked if any communication had been received from Mr. Watson, owner of Lot 19? Mr. Supinger stated no communication had been received by the staff. Mr. L. D. Watson was present, and stated he had no objection to the vacation of the alley as requested. Mr. Robins asked what would happen should the alley be vacated by the City, and the applicants did not exercise their option to purchase the property? Mr. Supinger stated the vacated alley would revert to adjacent property owners. Mr. Robins noted that if the options weren't exercised and the alley va.ca ted, there would be no a.ccess .to. the rear of these properties. City Attorney Berardini noted that all properties do have access on a dedicated public street. Mr. Lentsch asked get onto a public property and back will have to back Weist moved: Barton seconded: if the trash haulers used the alley for pick-ups , and if so, how d~d they street again? Mr. Parker stated the trash haulers drive onto the Hagge around to go back out the alley to Girard. Mr. Parker noted the drivers out into a street if the alley is vacated. Discussion followed. The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the southerly 72.5 feet of the alley in Block 6, Premier Addition, be vacated . Utility easements are to be retained. Discussion followed. Mr. Robins stated he felt the property under option by the applicants could be used for their proposal, and still retain a dedicated alley. Further discussion followed. Mr. Berardini again noted that propert~es would not be denied access by vacation of the alley. The vote was called. The motion carried ~ Mr. Mosbarger and Mr. Robins voting nay, and Mr. Brown abstaining. IV. HEIGHT EXCEPTION CASE #2-72 Block 6, Premier Addition. Mr. Supinger stated that Offices, Ltd., have plans to construct a five-story office building on property they have under option in Block 6, Premier Addition. The proposed structure will have a maximum height of 80 ft.; however, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance limits height o f structures in the B-1 Zone to five stories, but not higher than 60 feet. The applicants are requesting a height exception as permitted under §22.5-7a(4) of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. Criteria which is to be considered by the Planning Commission in reviewing applications for ~xceptions to permitted height include: (i) The effect of the increased height or floor area on adjacent property including the effect on light, air and ventilation. (ii) The avail~bility and suitability of private off-street parking. (iii) The location of the structure with reference to fire, health and safety factors. (iv) Such other factors as may affect the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Supinger noted that requests for height exception must be referred to City Council by recommendation of the · Planning Commission. Mr. Carlson asked the applicants to present their case. Mr. Schock, architect, stated the overall height of the proposed structure is 71 ft., and the requested waiver for 80 ft. height will encompass the mechanical enclosure on the roo.f. Mr. Schock stated the development proposed by Offices, Ltd., will adhere to the five story limitation , but· that in commercial structures, it is not possible to have five stories in 60 feet. Mrs. Henning asked if the applicants had considered a four-story structure? She pointed out that a five-story structure is not "required" by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance ; rather, it is "permitted". Mr. Schock stated the four story structure would not be economically feasible considering the cost of the land and construction. Mr. Schock stated the five story structure would make . for ~ore "efficient" use of the property. Discussion foll9wed. Mr. Barton asked why the height should be limited? He stated he saw no reasons to stop progress because of height limitations. Mr. Supinger stated there may have been reasons to limit the height, such as ability to serve such structures with fire protection and water pressure, at the time the Ordinance was written. Mr. Robins suggested that possibly the Ordinance should be amended to allow heights greater . than the present 60 ft. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff will, in the future, recommend that greater height be allowed, but at the present time, the staff is not prepared to designate the areas where these structures should be permitted. Mr. Supinger stated that the request isn't a "variance" but is a request for an "exception", which is permitted by Ordinance. Discussion followed. I I I I I I Page 1387 Mr. Lentsch asked what the required parking is for an of f ice building? Mr. Supinger stated it is one space for each 300 sq. ft . of rentable area. Discussion .followed. Mr . Weist asked how many spaces they were short from the required parking? Mr. Supinger stated that with the vacation of the entire 72.5 ft. portion of the alley, there would be the required number of spaces, but noted that the design is improper. He pointed out two parking spaces shown on the extreme north of the site plan; he stated the turning radius renders one space un- usable. Also on the north row of 45 ° angle parking, people backing out o f a space on the east boundary of the site will have to back out over the sidewalk, which is not good practice. Mr. Supinger noted that on the double row of parking ; on both the east and west property lines, car doors will be opening over the sidewalk area; this factor will be dangerous to pedestrians. Mr. Schock stated the two spaces on the extreme north of the site would be assigned to custodians of the building. He stated he felt people would become accustomed to the parking layout, and would not have difficulty getting into the parking stalls. Mr. Schock referred to the matter o f car doors opening across the sidewalk area, and noted that the minimum width f or a stall was 9 ft. The east /west dimension of the property is 266 ft., and they have 29 spaces in this area. He noted that they could decrease the size of these parking stalls to the 9 ft. minimum and gain 2.5 ft. on either end of the row. Mr. Schock stated that it was not uncommon for cars backing out of a parking stall to back across the sidewalk. Mr. Lentsch commented that it is difficult to acquire additional parking for a development after said development is completed. He noted that inadequate parking provided by a developer works hardships on adjoining property owners and parking lots. He stated he . didnftt feel he could go along with cars backing over the sidewalk. Mr. Supinger noted that unless planters or some similar structure is used on the east and west property lines, people will be driving over the sidewalk to get into the parking spaces on the corners. Discussion followed. Mr. Schock presented an artist's rendering of the proposed development .. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were any reason the building could not be built within the 60 ft. limitation? Mr. Carleno stated it isn't economically feasible. Mr. Lentsch asked if the 80 ft. height exception were approved if the applicants would be willing to provide additional parking? Mr. Carleno stated "if it became obvious more parking was needed it would be pro- vided." Mr. Lentsch pointed out the plans were drawn so that the minimum number of required. parking spaces was dependent upon vacation of the alley. Discussion followed. Mr. Robins asked if there would be objections to acquiring property owned by Hagge and Lesage on the southeast corner of Girard and Lincoln for parking? Mr. Carleno stated that if they did purchase the additional property , it would be necessary to increase the height of the building to make it economically feasible. Discussion followed. Mr. Mosbarger asked if it would be feasible to have underground parking on this site. Mr. Robins stated this area is subject to flooding. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that the height of the building will have an adverse effect on the property adjacent on the north, primarily restricting the light to the property; furthermore, it is the opinion of the staff that the parking plan is not properly designed for this proposal. Mr. Oliver Giseburt stated the Ordinance requires one off-street parking space for each 300 sq. ft. of rentable area, and this is what the applicants are providing. He stated that the staff is objecting to the design of the parking plan. Mr. Lentsch pointed out that minimum required parking would not be provided unless the alley were vacated. Further discussion followed. Mr. Robins asked what type tenant was proposed for the building? Mr. Schock stated that tenants would probably be lawyers, insurance agents, etc. Mr. Schock stated there would be a maximum of four offices per floor. Mr. Robins noted that if each tenant had only three employees, this would use 60 of the 68 parking spaces for employee parking alone. Mrs. Henning stated she didn't want to discourage development , but she was of the opinion that this is over-building on property of this size. Mrs. Henning stated she would be op- posed to granting a height exception and would also be opposed to approval of the parking plan as is now proposed. Henning moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the request of Offices, Ltd., for height exception for property in Block 6, Premier Addition, said property being within the boundaries of the B-1 Zone District be denied for the following reasons: 1 . An 80 ft. building -in this particular location will adversely affect .property immediately to the north. 2. The area of the site involved does not furnish enough space for adequate parking to serve the increased office area. Discussion followed . Mr. Lentsch asked the applicants if they could and would build the office building if the height were to be limited to the 60 ft.? Mr. Carleno stated this has been considered. Mr. Carleno discussed proposals that had been considered, and found to be economically impractical. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Henning stated she was in sympathy with developers faced with economic problems, but felt the Planning Commission should be concerned with the citizens-at-large and what effect such developments as this will have on the City as a whole. Mr. Lentsch suggested that the applicants look at property on the east side of South Sherman Street as possible additional parking area. Further discussion followed. The vote was called: AYES: Robins; Vobejda; Henning; Mosbarger NAYS: Weist; Carlson; Lentsch; Barton ABSTAIN: Brown The motion was defeated. Page 1388 Mr. Lentsch suggested the applicants come to the Planning Commission again on January 18th and present an alternative parking plan. Lentsch moved: Vobejda seconded: The matter be tabled until . the next regular meeting on January 18, 1972. The motion carried, Henning and Mosbarger voting nay; Brown abstaining. v. OFF-STREET PARKING PLAN Block 6, Premier Addition CASE #3-72 Henning moved: Lentsch seconded: The matter be tabled until the next regular meeting on January 18, 1972. The motion carried. Discussion on previous action on the requested alley vacation followed. Henning moved: Lentsch seconded: The motion carried. Henning moved: Lentsch seconded: The Commission reconsider the requested alley vacation. The recommendation to City Council on vacation of a portion of the alley in Block 6, Premier Addition, be delayed until after the next regular meeting of the Commission on January 18th. The motion carried; Mr. Carlson and Mr. Barton voting nay ; Mr. Brown abstaining. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger stated that a tentative date of January 18th had been set f or a presentation on the program of Denver Regional Council of Governments by a member of their staff. It was the concensus of the Commission that January 18th should be confirmed with the COG staff. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch stated he would like to see members of the Commission receive tbe agenda for the City Council meetings. He felt it would be well for members of the Commission to attend the Council meetings when a recommendation from the Commission is considered. Mr. Lentsch asked what information was available on the former KLZ Site in northeast Englewood? Mr. Supinger stated the sale of the land to Larwin Company was finalized December 31st. Mr. Berardini stated that petitions for rehearing may be filed until January 6 , 1972 , at 5:00 P.M. Mr. Berardini stated that members of Larwin Company have indicated they would be happy to meet with representatives of the Plannipg Commission, Council and staff on their develop- ment plans. Mr. Brown stated he felt the Commission should be aware of the fact there are many people in the northeast area who feel the City should reserve a portion of the former KLZ Site for a park and drainage area. Mr. Brown stated he hoped the Planning Commission would be sympathetic to the needs of the citizens. Mrs. Henning commented that the matter of a park on the KLZ Site was referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mrs. Henning stated she felt City personnel should meet with Larwin people as soon as possible, hopefully within two or three weeks. Mr. Lentsch asked the Commission to recognize new Council representatives to the Commission, Mrs. Henning and Mr. Brown, and Mr. Royce Robins, newly appointed lay-member of the Commission. Mr. Carlson welcomed Mrs. Henning as Council representative , and also welcomed Mr. Brown, who is Mayor Pro-tern. Mr. Carlson then welcomed Mr. Robins to the Commission. Mrs. Henning stated she would like to see the Planning Commission work on the Planned Develop- ment Ordinance again. Mr. Carlson stated he didn't feel the City was quite ready for the Planned Development concept. He stated he felt the concept wasn't really understood and that people could not see how it could apply to Englewood. Mrs. Henning pointed out the fact that the Commission has twice voted in favor of the proposed Ordinance. Mrs. Henning stated she would like to see the matter considered again with the amendments as proposed by City Manager Dial. Mr. Lentsch stated he felt people applying for permits under the PD should have recourse to City Council. He pointed out that the Planning Commission is not a legislative body. Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Berardini discussed the situation, and questioned whether the Com- mission could request an opportunity for additional review. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Supinger commented that the PD Ordinance seems to have become tied in with development of the KLZ Site, and stated he felt it was immaterial whether the PD Ordinance was applied to that site. Mr. Lentsch stated he didn't feel the Commission communicated well enough to Council; he stated he questioned whether Council really understood materials sent them from the Com- mission. Discussion followed , Mrs. Henning stated she would hate to see the Planned De- velopment Ordinance dropped. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I I