Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-01-08 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 8, 1980 I. CALL TO ORDER. 5 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Vice-Chairman Lathrop. Members present: Carson, Bilo, Lathrop, Becker, Draper, Pierson Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans Associate Planner Alice L. Fessenden II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Vice-Chairman Lathrop stated that Minutes of December 4, 1979, were to be considered for approval. Draper moved: Pierson seconded: The Minutes of December 4, 1979, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Becker NAYS: Bilo ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Bilo questioned that his vote regarding use of the electronic voting procedure vs. voice vote was recorded properly and stated that his vote reflected that position . Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and assumed his place on the Commission. Mr. Lathrop turned the meeting over to Mr. Tanguma. III. CENTURIAN PARTNERSHIP Planned Development CASE #27-79 Mr. Tanguma stated that he understood Dr. Oliver, the applicant in this case, wanted to ask for a further continuation of the Public Hearing. Dr. Richard Oliver stated that he is one of the partners in Centurian Partnership, and that they are still trying to work out some of the problems with Mountain Bell and Public Service Company. He asked that the matter be continued until February 5th. -2- Pierson moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #27-79, Centurian Partnership Planned Development, be continued to February 5, 1980. AYES: NAYS: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Tanguma, Pierson, Bilo, Becker None The motion carried. IV. T. A. PELSUE/J.A.L. COMPANY 2500 South Tejon Street 2525 South Raritan Street CASE #1-80 Miss Fessenden gave the staff presentation, and stated that the applicant is the J.A.L. Company on behalf of the T. A. Pelsue Company. The parcel of land is unsubdivided, and is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. There is one building on the site, which has the address of 2500 South Tejon Street. The proposal is to construct a second building on the parcel, which would carry the address of 2525 South Raritan Street. By con- structing a second building on the site, the property is, in effect, divided even though it is proposed to remain under one ownership. The new structure would have frontage on South Raritan Street and West Harvard Avenue, and will also have access from these two streets. There is no substantial benefit to be gained by the public by requiring the filing of a Sub- division Plat, and the staff recommends that the waiver to the requirement of filing a plat be approved. The action re- quired by the Planning Commission would be to approve the Sub- division Waiver by Resolution, which would be recorded in the office of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder along with a reproducible drawing of the division. Mr. Brad Pelsue stated that he is Vice-President of Pelsue Company. He asked if the Commission had any questions of him? Mr. Carson asked what type building was proposed? Mr. Pelsue stated they propose to build another metal building of basically the same type as that constructed at 2500 South Tejon Street. Mr. Pelsue stated that they presently have rental facilities at 2800 South Shoshone Street, and they want to get their en- tire operation on one site. Carson moved: Lathrop seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Sub- division Waiver requested by the J.A.L. Company for T. A. Pelsue Company, as re- quested in Case #1-80. AYES: NAYS: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Tanguma, Pierson, Bilo, Becker None The motion carried. • -3- V. B-1 ZONE DISTRICT Permitted Uses CASE #3-80 Mrs. Romans stated that at the last meeting, Mr 0 Bilo had asked that the staff prepare information on Permitted Uses in the B-1 Zone District for discussion at this meeting. Mrso Romans stated that Mro James Keller, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority, has reviewed the uses in the B-1 Zone District, and has given the staff the benefit of his thinking on the matter. The Downtown Review Committee also considered the uses permitted in the B-1 Zone District, and the listing of proposed uses for that Zone District which is before the Commission this evening is a compilation of those submitted by Mr. Keller and by the Downtown Review Com- mittee. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt it would be very helpful if the problems of the downtown area could be taken care of by changing the permitted uses in the B-1 Zone Districto Mrs. Romans stated that she felt several of the uses that have been of concern are symptomatic of economic conditions, and asked that the Commission members keep in mind that a revision of the permitted uses in the B-1 Zone District, alone, will not solve the problems of the downtown business district. Mrs. Romans stated that the Downtown Review Committee was very interested in allowing high-density residential use in the B-1 District; it was their feeling that if the downtown area was not used 24-hours a day, it could not be a viable area. This use has been added to the list of permitted uses; however, there will have to be different standards for multi-family use in the business district than in the R-3, High Density Residence Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that the Downtown Review Committee had suggested that second-hand stores be permitted in the B-1 Zone District; however, Mr. Keller is of the opinion that an establishment devoting its business entirely to second- hand goods is not an appropriate use for the B-1 Zone District, and should not be permittedo Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has stricken the second-hand stores from the listed uses, and has more fully defined "antique" stores. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma asked where second-hand stores would be permitted? Mrs. Romans stated that they would be permitted in the B-1 Zone District. Mr. Tanguma asked what the reasoning is behind the elimination of second-hand stores from the B-1 District? Mrs. Romans stated that the goal is to up-grade the downtown area, and to avoid such uses in the B-1 District. Mr. Keller stated that he would agree that the aim of the Downtown Development Authority is to raise the quality of the stores in the downtown area; by restricting some of the uses it is felt that encouragement could be given businesses who have expressed concern about the quality of goods sold in some of the establishments and about the clientele attracted to those establishments. -4- Mrs. Romans reviewed the list of uses, noting those that have been eliminated, or combined with similar uses. Mr. Draper asked if a bicycle store would permit sale of Mopeds? Mrs. Romans stated that Moped sales could probably be included in a bicycle store. Mr. Keller suggested that if it is the intent to eliminate such sales, it could be noted that the sales would be limited to non-motorized, or put a horsepower limitation on the vehicle. Mr. Tanguma questioned what a "crating service" was. It was explained that a crating service would be the packaging of items for shipment. Mr. Tanguma then asked if there were any stores selling second- hand goods as well as new stock? Mrs. Romans stated that Grahams Furniture on South Acoma Street apparently takes trade- ins and offers the used goods for sale. Mrs. Romans further reviewed the list of uses as proposed. She noted that both members of the Downtown Review Committee and the Downtown Development Authority suggested that pawn shops be eliminated from the list of permitted uses for the B-1 Zone District. Mr. Draper asked if this proposal were to be adopted, wou l d the pawn shops in existence then become non-conforming, and would this preclude their expansion? Mrs. Romans stated t hat this was correct. Mrs. Romans continued the review of the listed permitted uses. She suggested that possibly Post Office could be included under "public buildings and public facilities", and could be eliminated as a specific item. Mrs. Romans questioned that "printing, publishing and allied industries" should be retained in the B-1 District, or whether it should be included in the industrial area. Mr. Tanguma noted that there is a restriction on the size of trucks allowed for the special trades contractors; however, a sign painting shop is allowed and no restriction on the size of vehicle is placed on this use. He noted that these busi- nesses carry a lot of equipment around and might use a rather large truck. Mrs. Romans stated that she had checked on the size of the vehicle used by a local florist, which is one ton; it was felt that this was a reasonable size to allow to remain on the premises in the Central Business District. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt most contractors used a one and one-half ton vehicle in their business. Mrs. Romans questioned that this vehicle should be in the downtown area except for loading or unloading; should they not be stored either in the B-2 or industrial areas? Mrs. Romans then questioned whether the contractors businesses should be allowed in the downtown business district, or whether the businesses should be restricted /' -5- to the B-2 or industrial districts, also. She stated that the one-ton vehicle limitation would appear to accommodate the retail businessman's needs. She noted that businesses such as furniture stores usually warehouse their vehicles elsewhere than on the primary business site. She emphasized that the intent is to upgrade the downtown business area. Mr. Draper stated that it would appear that the contractors would be limited on the use and size of vehicles, but that other businesses such as furniture stores would not be limited. Mrs. Romans suggested that perhaps a vehicle size limitation should be a reference that would apply to all businesses in the down- town area. Mr. Bilo stated that he felt this would be a good idea; with the allowance of multi-family dwelling units in the downtown area, the larger vehicles would create a lot of con- gestion. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker asked the difference between "Offices" and "Pro- fessional Offices." Mrs. Romans stated that there is a specific definition for "Professional Offices" which includes doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, vs. the "Offices" which would include insurance, real estate and similar businesses. Further review of the suggested permitted uses ensued. Mrs. Romans discussed other provisions suggested in the B-1 Zone District, such as requiring all signs to conform to the Sign Code, maximum height, minimum yards and entrances. It is suggested that the present requirement that doorways be set in three feet so that opening doors will not interfere with pedestrians on the sidewalk be retained. Mrs. Romans then discussed the suggested provisions dealing with external effects and the enclosure of uses. Mrs. Becker inquired if the pro- hibition of "glare" would preclude the use of the glass that is being used for walls on the newer buildings? She noted that the glare from this glass is pretty bad. Mrs. Romans stated that this is a point that would have to be discussed further. Mr. Wanush stated that such a provision is an "either/or" situation; if the structure did not meet the provisions, the permit would have to be denied. He pointed out that another way to approach this would be to require that all new con- struction in the downtown area be done by Planned Development or under a special permit system. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there was a Design Review Ordinance proposed several years ago; she stated that if the members of the Commission would be interested, copies of this proposal would be made available. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed section on Enclosure of Uses provides that every use shall be operated within an en- closed structure unless specifically exempted. -6-J' Mrs. Romans discussed some of the ideas that the staff is con- sidering regarding the multi-family dwelling units in the down-~ town area. The possibility of a premium for plazas and arcades ,_, or open space provided is one of the considerations; another is the matter of outside exposure for windows. The parking require- ments for an apartment complex will also have to be addressed. Mr. Draper asked what the means of height "exception" are? Mrs. Romans stated that one means of exceeding the stipulated height is to provide one additional foot of setback on each side for each foot of height over and above that which is per- mitted. Or, the applicant can apply to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval; the Commission would review the plans for the structure and make a recommendation to the City Council, which body would then hold a Public Hearing on the request. Mr. Lathrop asked if there would be any stipulation on side- walk sales? Mrs. Romans stated that any restrictions on side- walk sales would be covered by the Municipal Code. Mr. Lathrop stated that often merchants block the sidewalks with the mer- chandise offered in the sales. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council could require that the sidewalk not be blocked when approval is given for the sidewalk sales. Mr. Lathrop also discussed other situations where the sidewalks are blocked, such as at the bus station; the loading of freight and passengers completely blocks the sidewalk for pedestrians. He inquired if there could be a requirement for designated loading areas? Mrs. Romans stated that the Supplementary Regula- tions have specifications for loading areas. Mrs. Romans stated that in the future, off-street parking areas for bicycles are going to have to be required in the business areas. Mrs. Romans stated that there are many items that need further study and consideration, and asked if the Commission felt there would be any problem in going into this further at the meeting on February 20th? Mrs. Pierson asked if .there would be City Council representatives sitting on the Planning Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that this would be up to the determination of the City Council. Mr. Keller stated that he would like to make some comments on the proposed permitted uses. He suggested that #67, Plumbing retail sales, could be combined in #80, the Special Trades Contractor. He felt that by specifically stating that plumbing retail sales were permitted was "special treatment", and might be subject to question. He asked if the Commission and staff would be considering the "combination" of residential uses with business uses; residential uses on the upper floors and business uses on the first level? He noted that there are a couple of these mixed uses in existence. Mrs. Romans stated that this would be covered under the multi-family category. J -7- Mr. Bilo asked if the proposal would allow multi-family units on the first level or restrict them to the upper levels? Mr.Wanush pointed out that four units is considered multi-family; the multi-family use should be accomplished by planned develop- ment or special review procedure. He pointed out that there are several types of residential uses that are "multi-family" that would not be appropriate in the downtown area. Mr. Keller stated that he would like to see as much flexibility in this ordinance as possible, and that controls should be from an architectural conformance standpoint. Mr. Keller stated that the cost of land in the downtown area will preclude a lot of uses, and he feels it is imperative that the ordinance be very flexible to allow the developers to be very innovative. Mr. Draper asked what the range of land values was? Mr. Keller stated that the property on Lincoln that the Downtown Develop- ment Authority is looking at is priced at $8/sq. ft., and an- other property is priced slightly lower than this. He pointed out that South Lincoln Street is a "dead-end" street in this area, and compared this to land values on Hampden Avenue and Broadway. He noted that the land value of the Public Service property on Broadway has increased by 50%, while the structure value has decreased. Mr. Keller inquired as to the status of billboards? Mrs. Romans stated that new billboards are not permitted; there is no amortization provision in the Sign Code, however, and those that have been eliminated have been eliminated through cooperation with the sign company and the City staff. Mr. Keller noted that the Downtown Development Authority is looking toward creating a theme for the downtown area, and noted that it would be "distressing" to come up with a theme that would not be compatible with the provision that doorways should be in-set. Mrs. Romans stated that this is a safety factor, and suggested tha t it should be kept in mind when the DDA is choosing the theme for the downtown area. Mr. Keller felt that the five horsepower limitation could create hardships for structures and businesses requiring use of elevators, refrigeration units in grocery stores, etc. He suggested that no limitation be placed on the horsepower, but rather to base any restriction on the impact a particular unit might have. Mr. Wanush asked if Mr. Keller was stating that a design review aspect of the proposed ordinance should not be considered un- til the DDA has developed a theme? Mr. Keller stated that he is an advocate of design review. Mr. Wanush stated that the Commission and staff would be dealing with the process that is part of the development of the theme; how would Mr. Keller suggest they proceed on this? Mr. Keller stated that he would like to work together on this --the Commission and the members of the DDA and staff. Mr. Keller stated that at the second -8- Board meeting in January, members of the Downtown Development Authority will address the reconstitution of the Downtown Merchants Association; he stated that he felt there would be more promotional activities conducted in the downtown area, and they would want to do everything possible to increase pedestrian traffic. Mr. Tanguma asked if members wanted to discuss the proposed B-1 Permitted Uses any more at this time, or lay it over to the meeting of February 20th? Mr. Wanush asked if the members had any suggestions, to please call them in to Mrs. Romans or to him. Mr. Bilo stated that he felt the matter of parking is going to be one of the biggest problems to be faced in the downtown area. Mr. Lathrop suggested that the opening of doors in buildings be standardized; some of them open inward and some open out. Those than open to the inside are fire hazards, and could be vary dangerous particularly where there are large congregations of people. Mrs. Romans stated that all new structures will have to meet the provisions of the Building Code and Fire Code. VI. COUNTRY CLUB JOINT VENTURE CASE #21-78 Mr. Wanush stated that there has been no progress on this pro- posal since he reported in December. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. Tanguma asked if any member of the audience wished to address the Commission? No one indicated that they wanted to speak to the Commission. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. Mrs. Romans stated that at the meeting of December 4, 1979, Assistant City Attorney DeWitt attended and he and the Com- mission discussed the matter of administrative hearings vs. quasi-judicial hearings. It was planned that further discussion be held at this meeting; however, Mr. DeWitt was unable to attend the meeting and it was suggested that perhaps this could be postponed to a later date when Mr. DeWitt will be in attendance. It was suggested that the matter be put on the agenda at a later date. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush stated that on September 5, 1979, the Planning • ' • -9- Commission recommended to City Council the vacation of the Acoma/Bannock alley north of West Jefferson Avenue. This recom- mendation was approved with conditions, one of which was that the 8 11 sewer line in the alley be relocated. This determination of the Planning Commission's was made based on the recommenda- tion from Utilities Director Stewart Fonda. Since this time, Mr. Fonda has talked to Mr. Davis, an adjoining property owner, and has submitted a letter to Mr. Davis stating that the sewer line need not be relocated so long as an easement is maintained. Mr. Wanush stated that this results in the City Council having before it a recommendation from the Planning Commission stating that if the sewer line is not relocated, the alley should not be vacated, and a letter from Mr. Fonda to Mr. Davis stating that the sewer line does not need to be relocated if an easement is retained. Mr. Wanush stated that when the staff made their recommendation to the Commission, it was based on the recommenda- tion from Mr. Fonda that the sewer line be relocated or the alley vacation not be approvedo He stated that he did not think there was any action that the Commission needed to take at this time, but he felt they should be aware of what the City Council would be considering. Mr. Tanguma stated that this matter came up before the City Council at the meeting on January 7th; he asked if there was any way the Planning Commission could clarify their position? Mrs. Pierson suggested that perhaps a letter could be sent to City Council. Mr. Wanush asked what the Commission wanted the letter to reflect? That their recommendation was based on the recommendation of the Director of Utilities at that time, and if Mr. Fonda's opinion has since changed, the Commission would still go along with Mr. Fonda's current recommendation? Pierson moved: Bilo seconded: The Planning Commission send a letter to City Council stating that the Commission would support Mr. Fonda's current recommendation regarding the maintenance of an easement for the 8 11 sanitary sewer line in the Acoma/Bannock alley north of West Jefferson Avenue. AYES: NAYS: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Tanguma, Pierson, Bilo, Becker None The motion carried. Mr. Wanush stated that the Downtown Development Authority is in the process of circulating petitions to get the parking lot and mini-park "off the ground." He stated that progress is being made on these projects. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M •