Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-12-19 PZC MINUTESI ) • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 1974 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Regular Meeting of the Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Chairman Martin. Present: Jones; Brown ; Wade ; Smith; Martin; Lentsch Supinger, Ex-officio Absent: Jorgenson; Weist; Tanguma Also present: Assistant City Attorney Lee; Assistant Director for Housing Lois Kocian; Housing Authority members Burns; Beier; Mann; Merlin II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Martin stated that Minutes of October 22, 1974, were to be considered for approval. Smith moved: Jones seconded: The Minutes of October 22, 1974, be approved as written . AYES: Lentsch; Jones; Brown; Wade; Smith; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson; Weist; Tanguma The motion carried. III. IRVING J. MOCK 2285 West Iliff REZO~ING R-1-C to R-2-B CASE #30-74 Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting and took his place with the members of the Commission. Lentsch moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. AYES: Martin; Lentsch; Jones; Brown; Wade; Tanguma; Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson; Weist The motion carried. Mr. Supinger stated that the area included in the rezoning request is that bounded by West Baltic Place, South Zuni Street, West Iliff Avenue and South Tejon Street. The request, filed by Mr. Irving Mock, is for a change of zone from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-B, Two-family Residence Dis- trict. Mr. Supinger pointed out that in the R-2-B Zone Dis- trict, it is possible to construct a triplex or fourplex, etc., -2- provided there is 3,000 sq. ft. lot area per unit, and 25 ft . frontage per unit. The minimum lot area and frontage for a single-family or duplex is 6,000 sq. ft. lot area, and 50 ft. frontage. Mr. Supinger pointed out that it is possible to have a density up to 14 units per acre. Mr. Supinger noted that the rezoning request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood, which Plan projects medium density development in the Northwest Englewood area. Mr. Martin asked those persons in favor of the rezoning re- quest to speak. Mr. Irving Mock 2285 West Iliff -stated there was considerable vacant land in these two blocks; the access is good, and he felt something must be done to start development of the area. Mr. Mock noted there are school facilities available to accommodate children that might live in the proposed development. No one else in the audience indicated they wanted to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Martin then asked for those persons who are in opposition to the proposed rezoning to speak. Stanley Rhodus 2323 West Harvard -stated he was not opposed to two-family dwelling units, but questioned the 14 units/acre as "medium density". Mr. Supinger stated that the City considers single-family and two-family residences as low density; from two-family up to 20 units/acre is considered as medium density, and above that would be high density. Mr. Supinger stated that 14 units/acre is considered medium density. Mr. Supinger noted that the proposed development would have to meet all requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and other codes and ordinances. Mr. Rhodus asked if there were any provisions for off-street parking? Mr. Supinger reviewed the off-street parking require- ments, and noted that off-street parking would have to be pro- vided to meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the parking requirements can depend on the number of bedrooms in a unit. Discussion followed. Mr. Rhodus then questioned the floor space required in the R-2-B Zone District. Mr. Supinger stated that the minimum floor area for a two-family unit is 650 sq. ft. per unit; the minimum for a single-family unit is 850 sq. ft. Mr. Rhodus asked if "basements" could be used as apartments in the proposed R-2-B District? Mr. Supinger stated that there are some restrictions on the use of basements for apartments; but if the "basement" is designed for occupancy and meets the code, it could be rented. Mr. Rhodus noted that when he was on the Board of Adjustment they spent a great deal of time " I • • • \ ( • • -3- investigating the rental of basements. Mr. Supinger noted that many of those basements were probably rented during the Second World War, and were not designed for occupancy --they did not have proper access, poor lighting, etc. There are restrictions in the Code now requiring proper access, lighting standards, etc. Mr. Rhodus stated he realized there was vacant land in the Northwest Englewood area, and he was not against multi-family dwelling units; however, he did feel the area should be developed to certain standards and not allowed to develop with just anything. Mr. Rhodus stated that he and Mr. Mock had circulated petitions several years ago asking for two-family zoning, and nothing has come of it. Mr. Rhodus stated he was firmly against spot zoning. Mr. Lentsch asked if Mr. Rhodus wanted the Commission to zone more of the area for R-2 development, or to leave the zoning as it exists? Mr. Rhodus again referred to spot zoning and high density developments; he noted that across South Zuni Street to the west, "if people step out their door, they are in the street"; there is no open space. Mr. Rhodus also referred to a development in the subject block under considera- tion, where three residences have been permitted on one-half acre; he stated that no off-street parking is provided, and it is too crowded . Mr. Martin stated that if he understood Mr. Rhodus, he wanted to make certain the development of the area is a "planned" development, with considerable consideration given to the density factor. Mr . Lentsch asked how many units could be constructed in one of the blocks under consideration under the proposed R-2-B? Mr. Supinger stated that 120+/-units could be constructed in this block, b~sed purely on the density factor. Mr. Supinger pointed out that even if the rezoning is ·approved, the entire block probably will not develop at the same time. Discussion ensued. Mr. Jones pointed out that the area has large lots, with no open alley to give access to parking areas in the rear of the lots for the units. Mr. Jones also noted that the R-2-B Zone District provides that a duplex or triplex, whatever, shall be under one roof. He asked if it was possible that a row-house development could be constructed in this area if the zoning were to be changed? Mr. Supinger stated that it was possible. Mr. Martin asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in opposition? Mrs. Rhodus 2323 West Harvard -stated she was against the 14 units/acre. She asked if there was a Zone District that would permit only two-family development? 11 -4- ll Mr. Supinger stated that the R-2-A Zone District does indeed allow only single-family or two-family development; however, .l this District does require 75 ft. frontage, 9,000 sq. ft. lot area for a two-family use. Most of the lots in this area are 60 ft. frontage; this would necessitate variances by the Board of Adjustment or the ownership of two lots. Mr. Supinger pointed out there is a Committee presently reviewing the multi-family development standards; they expect to have a recommendation to the Planning Commission by late December. Mr. Supinger discussed the scope of this Committee, and the problems that have to be considered in reaching a recommendation. Mrs. Rhodus stated that she would approve of two-family develop- ment, but felt that the possible density of 14 units/acre under the R-2-B was unacceptable. Mr. Rhodus noted that in a unit of 650 sq. ft., there would be insufficient space to accommodate families; therefore, this rezoning probably wouldn't aid in the school situation very much. Mr. Supinger suggested that possibly the Commission would want to delay action on the rezoning application until such time as the Multi-family Development Standards Review Committee has made their recommendation and they are adopted. Mr. Larson 2020 West Warren -noted there were several property owners in the area who have not dedicated the right- of-way for the streets that are proposed to be put through; he asked if they would be forced to do so now? He noted that "condemned" houses have been moved in on some of the vacant lots. Mr. Larson stateq he was opposed to the rezoning re- quest. Mr. Dennis Kelley 2393 West Warren -stated he did not see how the Commission could go along with the 14 units/acre possible density and approve the requested rezoning, even though Mr. Mock assures people he will construct only two- family units. Mr. Kelley stated that developments that could take place with the 14 units /acre would not be "good" for Englewood. Mr. Kelley asked the Commission to deny this re- quest at this time; when there are ordinances that will con- trol the development better the matter can again be considered. Mr. Kelley pointed out that Mr. Mock does not own the entire area encompassed in the application. Discussion followed. Mr. Marquez 2224 South Vallejo -stated that he was speaking for Mrs . Ferguson, owner of the above address; he stated that he rents the property with an option to purchase. He stated that he has "future plans for the property", and doesn't want to be "crowded out". He stated this was a nice • • ' • • • • -5- residential area now, and the City would be "asking for problems ·• if the requested rezoning were approved. He pointed ou.t that crowding led to more crime. He also asked that the requested rezoning be denied. Mr. Rhodus pointed out that additional density could be gained by just cutting streets through the deep blocks; he noted that "Englewood hates to put out money, but they've put out money for a lot less than this." He noted that it shouldn't be too difficult to acquire that land that hasn't been dedicated for right-of-way. He pointed out that the deep lots are just too much property to be cared for properly. The matter of cutting the streets through was briefly discussed. Mr. Jones stated that if this would encourage some development of the properties, it might be best to move in this direction. Mr. Lentsch asked that a show of hands for those in favor of the request and those in opposition of the request be taken. Three persons indicated they were in favor; eleven indicated opposition. Mrs. Wade asked of Mr. Mock if he had potential development plans on any of the property at this time. Mr. Mock stated he wanted to develop the land that he owns, and just wants to put two-family units on the land . Mr. Supinger noted that Mr. Mock could file a Planned Develop- ment Plan restricting his property to two-family development if he so desired. Lentsch moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Smith; Martin; Lentsch; Jones; Brown; Wade; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson; Weist The motion carried. Lentsch moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission deny the requested rezoning from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-B, Two-family Residence; the residents of the area are opposed to the possible density of 14 units/acre, and zoning is available that will allow only two-family development. Mr. Rhodus stated that he did not feel Mr. Mock should lose his $50 application fee, and asked if there were some way the City could accommodate this? Mrs. Wade asked if the zoning could not be deferred until the Multi-family Development Standards Reveiw Committee report and recommendations have been received? Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt in the long run the request \\OUld have to be denied. II • -6- Mr. Supinger stated that possibly Mr. Mock would want to withdraw his application at this time. Mr. Martin stated that the Commission could waive the application fee for Mr. Mock if he determined he wanted to reapply at a later time. Mr. Mock stated that he would like to withdraw his application for a rezoning of Blocks 15 and 16, Evans Park Estates at this time. Mr. Lentsch stated that with the permiss~on of the second, he would withdraw his motion to deny. Mr. Tanguma gave his consent for the withdrawal of the motion. Smith moved: Lentsch seconded: The application fee be waived for Mr. Irving J. Mock at such time as he next determines to apply for rezoning of this arm . AYES: Wade; Smith; Tanguma; Martin; Lentsch; Jones; Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson; Weist The motion carried. The merits of a Planned Development under the R-2-B Zoning was briefly discussed. IV. ENGLEWOOD HOUSING AUTHORITY Use Not Mentioned -B-1 Zone District. CASE #31-74 Mr. Supinger stated that the Comprehensive Zone District has a provision whereby the Planning Commission may approve uses not mentioned as :being similar to permitted uses, and not ob- jectionable by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare or vibration, or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of fire or explosion. Mr. Supinger noted there is no specific mention in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that housing projects for the low-income elderly are permitted. The Englewood Housing Authority is applying to the Planning Commission for approval of such a housing project in the B-1 Zone District. Mr. Burns, Chairman of the Housing Authority, stated that a housing project for the low-income elderly is not an enumerated permitted use in the B-1 Zone District,or for that matter, any other Zone District. Mr. Burns stated he felt the proposed housing project would be compatible with the area, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood cites the need for housing in the Core Area. Mr. Burns stated that the Housing Authority must have a satisfactory bid by December 31, 1974, or they will lost the Section 23 program. Mr. Burns noted that the Authority had closed on six lots south of the former Bloedorn Lumber Company earlier in the afternoon, and will close on the Bloedorn Lumber Company property on December 3rd. Ii • • • • • • • I -7- Mr. Martin questioned what effect approval of the housing project as a use not mentioned would have on other developers who desire to build apartment houses in the business district? Mr. Burns pointed out that the low-income elderly housing project is a governmental project, there will be rent subsidies, age requirements, and income limitations to be followed in approving tenants for the project. Discussion followed. Mr. Burns noted that attempts are being made to raise the rent levels from $175; the Authority will own the land on which the structure will be built. The Authority may choose to lease the land to the developer, or may ask the developer to purchase the land from the Authority. Discussion of the amount of rent subsidy ensued. Mr. Burns stated that the consulting architect for the Authority is Maxwell Saul. Mrs. Kocian, Assistant Director for Housing, noted that Mr. Saul has helped the Authority design performance standards and draw up the bid package; he will not design the project. This will be the responsibility of the developer and the architect he chooses. Mr. Brown asked the height of the structure? Mr. Burns stated that it would probably be five stories, but until the bids and designs are in this cannot be finally determined. Mr. Burns noted there will be no residential units except for the manager's unit on the first floor; this will be devoted to laundry facilities, the commercial kitchen, dining rooms, etc. Mr. Burns stated that he felt six stories would be the highest the structure could be. Mr. Brown asked the size of the units. Mrs. Kocian stated the units would be 550 sq. ft. one-bedroom units. Brief dis- cussion ensued. Smith moved: Brown seconded:· The Planning Commission approve the request of the Englewood Housing Authority that the housing project proposed for the low-income elderly at East Floyd Avenue and South Lincoln, is a use similar to other per- mitted uses in a B-1 Zone District. It is noted that this approval applies to rent subsidized housing, with restrictions on income and age limitations. AYES: Wade; Tanguma; Smith; Martin; Lentsch; Jones; Brown NAYS: None . ABSENT: Weist; J .·orgenson The motion carried. Mr. Supinger noted that an addenda has been given the Commission this evening pertaining to required off-street parking for the Housing project. The staff does not feel the project should be considered as an apartment house and required to provide the same ratio of parking. Mr. Supinger noted that the staff has done research and has found that on projects of this type, the usual ratio is one parking space for each two units; this • -8- particular development of 100 units would require 50 off-street • tenant parking spaces, and 10 guest parking spaces. At least 5% of the residential parking spaces shall be arranged for convenience of the physically handicapped. Mr. Supinger suggested that the Commission should set parking standards for this particular type of project so the Authority could proceed and the developers could know what is expected in the way of parking area. Mrs. Wade stated that she did not feel this formula would provide sufficient parking for this development. Mr. Lentsch agreed, and noted there is a parking problem existing today. Mr. Martin asked if there was space where additional parking could be provided if it was determined to be needed? Mr .. Supinger stated this is unknown as there is no design for the development; the staff does not feel this project should require the maximum in parking. Mr. Lentsch pointed out there will be employee parking as well as deliveries which will require parking spaces. Mrs. Kocian noted that areas for deliveries have been written into the bid package, and must be provided over and above whatever off-street parking is to be provided. Mr. Burns noted that there are income levels applied to this project, and noted that most persons who have inquired about a unit in the project have walked to City Hall, taken public transportation or called because they do not have a car now. Mr. Burns noted there are 60 persons on the waiting list for a unit. Surveys of the surrounding municipalities show that parking required for their housing projects are: Boulder, 1/2:1; Littleton, 1/2:1 + 6; Colorado Springs, 1/2:1 with the pro- vision they have land available for a 1:1 ratio. Mr. Brown noted that there would be some on-street parking area that guests could use, and he didn't see too great a problem. Mr. Lentsch noted there isn't a lot of on-street parking now. Discussion followed. Mrs. Wade stated she liked the provision included in the Colorado Springs projects that additional land must be available for parking, but it might not be developed for parking immediately. Mr. Martin asked if it could be spelled out that additional parking would be provided, if needed? Mrs. Kocian stated that she felt it could be in the lease contract between the Authority and the developer. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch noted the possibility of persons other than tenants or guests parking in the parking lot and asked what type policing would control the lot? Mrs. Kocian noted that in the Boulder project, the tenants themselves do most of the policing of the lot. Mr. Lee noted that tickets could be issued by the EPD to offenders who park in the lot upon the signature of the tenant. Further discussion followed. • • • • • -9- Smith moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission approve the parking ratio for the low-income elderly housing project, which would be based on one parking space per two residential units, and ten spaces for guests. This would be a minimum of 60 parking spaces. This standard is considered to be average for several similar projects for elderly housing in the metro area. Housing for elderly and/or handicapped shall have 5 % o f residential parking space arranged for convenient use b y people on crutches or in wheelchairs. AYES: Brown ; Jones ; Lentsch; Martin; Smith; Tanguma; Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist; Jorgenson The motion car r ied. Mr. Martin stated that on behalf of the Planning Commission he wanted to commend the Authority and staff for the magnificent job they have done in getting the elderly housing project started. V. DIRECTOR 'S CHOICE Mr . Supinger noted t hat the employees Christmas Party has been scheduled for December 16th, the evening of the regular City Council meeting; therefore, the Council has rescheduled their meeting to Tuesday , December 17th. This will necessitate the Planning Commission rescheduling their meeting to Wednesday, December 18th. VI. COMMISSION 'S CHOICE Mr. Lentsch asked about the BouMer Planning Conference? Discussion follo wed. Mr. Martin asked which members were interested in attending? Mrs. Wade and Mr. Jones stated they would be interested in attending this conference. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m . II I