Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-22 PZC MINUTES• I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1983 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Milton E. Senti. Members present: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Tanguma Also present: Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Planning Director Dorothy A. Romans Senior Planner Susan T. King Don Ensign, Design Workshop, Inc. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 8, 1983 Chairman Senti stated that the Minutes of March 8, 1983, were to be con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of March 8, 1983, be approved as written. AYES : Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, Barbre, Tanguma, Venard The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Business-Downtown Development Regulations Carson moved: CASE #9-83 Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-83, amendment of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, be opened. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Barbre, Tanguma, Venard, Allen The motion carried. Mr. Senti stated that all persons in the audience would be given an opportunity to speak if they so desire; Mr. Senti then asked Ms. Powers to give some com- ments on the matter before the Commission. Ms. Powers stated that the staff report will be presented by Mrs. Dorothy Romans, Planning Director in the Department of Community Development. Ms. Powers stated that she wanted to define the purpose of the Public Hearings which are scheduled this evening. The first hearing, Case #9-83, is to con- -2- sider an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by enacting a new Downtown Development District to govern the redevelopment in the downtown area. The second hearing scheduled for this evening is to consider amend- ment of the Comprehensive Zoning Map by designating a specific area for the Downtown Development District. Following consideration of these two issues by the Planning Commission, the proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Zoning Map will have to be considered by the City Council at Public Hearings before the proposed amendments be- come effective. Ms. Powers stressed that the Public Hearings tonight are not to consider the Downtown Plan or the Downtown Redevelopment Plan; these have been ap- proved by the City Council and are not an issue at this Hearing. The Hearings on the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Zoning Map are to consider means of implementing the Downtown Development Plan and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Ms. Powers pointed out that implementation of the Downtown Development Plan and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan deals with design guidelines, zoning, etc, One of the specific goals is for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and that the regulations contained in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance are compatible with the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Development Plan. Ms. Powers noted that copies of the illustrative plan are on display for the Commission members and for members of the audience. Ms. Powers stated that Mrs. Romans will be speaking on behalf of the staff in making the staff report; Mr. Don Ensign of Design Workshop is also present and may want to address the Commission, as well as other members of the audience. Ms. Powers asked that Assistant City Attorney Holland discuss the procedure on these Hearings. Mr. Holland stated that the purpose of the hearing is to gain input from the public on the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map. Mr. Holland stated that the nature of the hearings before the Commission is not that wherein anything is being "contested", but to get information to enable the Commission to make recommendations to the City Council. The hearings are legislative, and not adversarial --there will be no cross-examination of those persons speaking to the Cormnission. Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in, and testified that she lives at 3600 South Bannock Street, and is the Assistant Director of Community Develop- ment for the Planning Division. Mrs. Romans submitted for the record a copy of the Public Notice of the Public Hearing which appeared in the Englewood Sentinel on March 2, 1983. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the staff has been working on the proposed B-DD regulations for several months; there have been two public meetings to which members of the Urban Renewal Authority, the EDDA, the Englewood Business Association, the City Council, and the Pl anning Commission have been invited to discuss these regulations. Based on information presented at these public meetings, there have been changes made in the proposed regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has also been working very closely with the Management Team in drafting the proposed regulations. Mrs. Romans emphasized that there has been considerable input in the proposed regulations --they are not strictly staff proposals. .I • -3- Mrs. Romans stated that the Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been adopted by the City Council, and the hearings on the proposed B-DD District regula- tions and the amendment of the Zoning Map are a step toward the implementa- tion of that Plan. Mrs. Romans stated that one of the primary ways to con- trol land use is through zoning regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed B~DD District regulations is a new classification which is necessary because the existing B-1 Zone classification does not focus on the downtown redevelopment needs. Many uses are presently permitted in the B-1 Zone District which are not felt to be appropriate for the "pedestrian-oriented" redevelopment area; also, some uses which are felt to be appropriate for the redevelopment area were not permitted by the B-1 Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that the general boundaries of the area proposed to be included in the B-DD District designation are West Floyd Avenue on the north; the Acoma/Broadway alley on the east between West Floyd Avenue and West Hampden Avenue and adjacent to Little Dry Creek between South Broadway and South Lincoln Street; on the south by U. S. 285, and on the west by South Elati Street. Mrs. Romans stated that the intent of the proposed B-DD District is: 1. To guide the development within the designated redevelopment area. 2. To create an attractive and competitive downtown in order to retain our position as a viable commercial and financial activity center. 3. To serve as a focal point for community activity and community pride. Mrs. Romans reviewed objectives of the redevelopment project, which include such matters as the need to provide a "connection" between the Broadway business area and Cinderella City; to provide an auto-free pedestrian area, to attract business and professional offices; maintain a proper balance of the public and private sectors. Mrs. Romans stated that the effect of the regulations, when approved, will be to provide for residential use in the downtown area, professional and general office space, retail and personal services, special uses, public facilities, and a hotel and convention center. The regulations apply to three distinct areas within the redevelopment district: The Commons, along Girard Mall and Little Dry Creek; the Periphery, along West Floyd Avenue; and the Center, which will experience the most intense development. These areas were indicated on a projected map of the total district. The area along the Commons will be an activity center and will be "people-oriented." Mrs. Romans then reviewed the uses permitted in the existing B-1 Zone Dis- trict which are not permitted in the proposed B-DD District, and uses which will be permitted in the proposed B-DD District which are not permitted in the existing B-1 Business District. Mrs. Romans also reviewed a list of uses which have been combined, such as "financial institutions", which will encompass banks, savings & loans, bonding companies, etc. Mrs. Romans reviewed the permitted uses in the B-DD District, pointing out that a "physical fitness center" has been included in lieu of a "health treatment on payment of a fee." Mrs. Romans also reviewed Conditional Uses, Prohibited Uses, and Accessory Uses in the proposed B-DD District. Mrs. Romans then reviewed the development requirements, such as setbacks, maximum height of buildings, off-street parking, usable open space, land- scaping, etc. Mrs. Romans noted that there are minimum floor area require- ments for the residential units set forth in the ordinance. The minimum floor area requirements do not apply to other uses. -4- Mrs. Romans noted that the maximum height of the structures will vary de- pending on whether they are proposed for The Commons, The Periphery, or in The Center. Mrs. Romans noted that along the south side of West Floyd Avenue in the area which is adjacent to the residential district to the north, buildings must be set back from the property line an amount equal to the height of the structure. This is not required in The Commons, or in other areas of The Center. Minimum setbacks, building bulk and parking requirements were further re- viewed by Mrs. Romans. Mrs. Romans pointed out that if a developer brings in a parking study prepared by a traffic engineer or other qualified pro- fessional, which indicates that the parking proposed by the developer is sufficient for the proposed use, the parking study will be accepted. If no parking study is presented by the developer, the parking standards set forth in the proposed B-DD regulations would apply to the development. Mrs. Romans discussed the Usable Open Space provisions, and pointed out balconies and roof tops that are improved for the use of the tenants would be counted as usable open space. Landscaping requirements were noted; Mrs. Romans pointed out that the landscaping requirements would be governed by the Landscaping Ordinance. Utilities for the redevelopment would be re- quired to be underground. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Downtown Redevelopment Plan addresses the creation of a design review team to review all redevelopment proposals. The proposed B-DD District provides for the appointment of a design review team which team will consider all redevelopment plans to assure quality de- velopment in the redevelopment area; this team will also be responsible to assure that all redevelopment proposals are in compliance with the Downtown Development Plan and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This team would be appointed by the City Council, and would be ~omposed of not more than five members. Because of the technical nature of the review that would be re- quired, it is suggested that the members be staff representatives of the Urban Renewal Authority, the EDDA, and the City of Englewood. One member of the Committee would be required to be a "design professional", and the fifth member would, preferably, have development background. Mrs. Romans discussed the procedure which is proposed to be followed through the design review. The design review team would have 14 days to consider the proposed plans and to take action; if the design review team were to determine that the proposed plans do not comply with the Downtown Develop- ment Plan or Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the developer could amend the plans to bring them into compliance, or he could file an appeal to the City Planning and Zoning Commission. The determination of the Commission on any plans considered under appeal would be final. Mrs. Romans stated that she had presented the highlights of the proposed B-DD District, and asked if there were any questions? Mr. McBrayer asked what criteria was used to determine what uses were to be permitted in the B-DD and what uses would be eliminated? Mrs. Romans stated that initial consideration of the downtown area began i n 1978 when the Planning Commission revised the Comprehensive Plan; there were ad hoc committees formed, chaired by Commission members, which con- sidered specific areas and facets of the City. Former City Councilman and • • -5- Planning Commission member Donald L. R. Smith chaired the committee that studied the downtown district. This committee went through the existing B-1 Zone District regulations, and it was the consensus of this Committee that there were uses permitted in this zone district that should not be allowed in the central business district. The B-1 District was also re- viewed by the EDDA when Mr. Keller was the Executive Director, and several uses were suggested for elimination from the B-1 Zone District. These recommendations were referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. The proposed uses in the B-DD District are based on this background; the uses which are permitted or prohibited are not an arbitrary determination by the staff. Mr. McBrayer expressed his concern about the restriction of specific uses from a specific zone district without supporting criteria. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt it would be essential to have a list of specific criteria which is used to justify elimination of specific uses. Mrs. Romans pointed out that while some of the uses may not be permitted in the B-DD District, they are permitted in other zone districts in the City; they are not eliminated from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance en- tirely. Mrs. Romans stated that it is her understanding that uses may be prohibited in a specific district. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. McBrayer's concern is a point well-taken; the purpose of the hearing is to get input on the proposed B-DD regulations. Mr. Holland pointed out that this proposed zone district is being formed for a specific purpose, and in keeping with the purpose of that zone dis- trict, a determination is made on uses that would be compatible. Uses that are felt to be incompatible with the purpose of the district may be excluded. Mr. Holland agreed that there is a need for rationale to eliminate a classification of uses, and cited elimination of car dealerships from a pedestrian-oriented zone. Mr. Holland stated that if a legislative body has rational reasons to exclude uses from a zone district, that judgment normally is not questioned. Mr. Holland stated that the decisions should not be made arbitrarily, but if there is rational reason, uses may be excluded. Mrs. Becker questioned the elimination of Health Treatment Facilities, and asked if this would apply to doctors offices, a development such as the medical complex, or to massage parlors. Mrs. Romans stated that doctors offices would be included under offices. Mrs. Romans stated that the pro- hibition of Health Treatment Facilities would include massage parolors. Mr. McBrayer reiterated his concern that there should be a written list of supporting criteria to justify exclusion of specific uses in the pro- posed district. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the other zone district classifications do not address reasons uses are not permitted in that specific zone, and that this could be addressed in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Mr. Senti asked if there were other questions from the Commission? Hearing no further questions, he then asked that members of the audience who wished to address the Commission come forward and identify themselves. Mr. Holland stated that it was not necessary that those persons speaking to the Connnission be sworn in. -6- Mr. Dennis Ross stated that he is ~n Englewood resident and an architect by profession. Mr. Ross stated that he has gone through some of the de- velopment restrictions in the B-DD District, and feels that the figures cited are highly unrealistic, such as the 12.5 foot height from floor to floor, and the bulk of the building. Mr. Ross stated that he did not think any developer could put a building on any site using those restrictions. Mr. Ross pointed out that the 12.5 foot floor-to-floor height limitation does not take into account penthouses, elevators, etc. which would be atop the structure. He stated that he feels the floor-to-floor height limitation needs to be increased by one foot for office buildings. Mr. Ross stated that the bulk of the buildings --150 x 450 ft. --"would be so massive it would look horrendous." Mr. Ross stated that he felt staff should look at the figures more closely. Mrs. Romans asked what Mr. Ross would suggest; is he saying the buildings would be too large? Mr. Ross stated that these figures should be reviewed, but he feels that the floor-to-floor height is insufficient, and the bulk of the building is far too large. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the building bulk figures are "maximum"; this does not mean that the structures must be built to that size. Mrs. Romans pointed out also that the figures are based on the construction figures used for the First Interstate Bank and the First National Bank buildings. Mr. Ross questioned that these two structures could "be built again to those standards and size and be a rentable building." He reiterated that he did not feel a building designed to the figures cited in the proposed ordinance would be workable, or that financing could be arranged. Mr. Ross stated that the proposed ordinance does not address whether parking facilities should be within the building or separate from the building. He felt the matter of underground parking or parking structure should be taken into account in consideration of any high-rise structure. Mr. Ross reiterated his initial concerns that the 12.5 foot floor-to-floor height is far too small, and that the permitted building bulk is far too large; further, that the maximum height of the buildings does not take into account elevator structures, parapets, pent- houses, etc. Mrs. Romans pointed out to Mr. Ross that the proposed B-DD District would become a part of the existing Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and that re- quirements contained in other parts of the ordinance would apply to the redevelopment. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Supplementary Regulations, which are contained in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, state that elevator structures, penthouses, parapets, etc. are not included as part of the height of the building. Ms. Powers asked Mr. Ross what he felt would be reaonable for a floor-to- floor height? Mr. Ross stated that 13.5 feet would be reasonable, and that it could possibly be 13 feet. Mr. Cletus Gasson, 3333 South Bannock Street, addressed the Commission, and stated that he is Chairman of the Englewood Downtown Development Au- thority, and president of the First Interstate Bank of Englewood. Mr. Gasson sta~ed that, as mentioned by Mrs . Romans, the EDDA has been involved and included in a number of meetings to consider previous drafts of the proposed B-DD Distr i ct regulations. Mr. Gasson stated that the EDDA held a board meeting on Monday, March 21, 1983, at which meeting the following resolution was adopted and approved: • • ENGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 3535 S. Sherman Street EnglNood. Colorado 80110 Phon<l 3031781 -7885 -7- R E S 0 L U T I 0 N WH EREAS, a revised downtown zoning will provide a strong implementation t oo l for the Downtown Redevelopment , THE REFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED tha t the Englewood Downtown Development Authority supports the zoning proposal being considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Englewood. ""; ".I Adopted : ::::atur~~:ZL:;r (Chairman) \ ... • .... / ••· f I . ( ' I ( I . : · / ,: l ) I' t • ' \ : ' . ~ ' · ', I(• 'l ) . •. '· '• '/ .'J 1) \ .\ .•• ., . •, '·" ·-;/y"····· , //.111\ Date: Signatur e : -8- Mr. Gasson stated that speaking as president of the First Interstate Bank, the bank is aware and very interested in the downtown area because the success of the downtown area is important to the success of the bank. Mr. Gasson stated that on behalf of both the EDDA Board and the First Inter- state Bank of . Englewood, he supports the proposed B-DD District. Mr. Gasson then presented a copy of the Resolution to the secretary for the record. Mr. Senti then asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission? Mr. Robert D. Phillips, 295 West Hampden Avenue, asked that the Commission consider the shadows cast by buildings at noon during the winter months. Mr. Phillips noted that at high noon in the winter months, a building will cast a shadow 2-1/2 times the height of the structure; for those residential uses along West Floyd Avenue on the north side of the street, this could mean being in the shade of structures built on the south side of Floyd Avenue during the winter months. Mr. Senti asked if there were further comments? Mr. McBrayer discussed the Landscaping Ordinance as it would apply to the Downtown District. Mr. Senti stated that in light of the information that has been presented at this meeting, and due to the absence of several of the Commission mem- bers, he would suggest that this Public Hearing be continued. Mr. Holland suggested that a date certain be contained in the motion to continue the Hearing. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-83 be continued to April 5, 1983. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barb~e The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked if Case #8-83, amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Map, should also be continued and if it could be continued without opening the Hearing. Mr. Holland stated that the Hearing could be continued to a date certain without opening the Hearing. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-83, amendment of the Com- prehensive Zoning Map, be continued to April 5, 1983. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre The motion carried. It was stated for benefit of the audience that the public hearings on the adoption of the B-DD District and the application of that district to a specific land area has been continued to April 5, 1983, and will be con- sidered further on that date. • • • • V. FINDINGS OF FACT Condominium Conversion -9- CASE 1119-82 Mr. Senti stated that the Findings of Fact on the proposed Condominium Con- version Ordinance are to be considered for approval. Carson mvoed: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on Case #19-82, the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. Senti asked if there was any member of the audience who wished to address the Commission? Hearing no comments from members of the audience, Mr. Senti thanked them for their attendance. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE • Mr. Holland stated that he had nothing to bring before the Commission at this t ime. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers reported that the City Council had directed the legal staff to prepare a resolution approving the Spencer's Landing Planned Development. The City Council also approved the Marion Street Villas Planned Develop- ment. IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer stated that Mrs. Romans, Mrs. Dalquist, Ms. Emmalene Russel, Mayor Otis, Mr. Haviland, Mr. Tanguma, and he met on March 18th to discuss the publication of a promotional brochure for the City. Mr. McBrayer stated that the text for the brochure was considered, and that the theme will be "Englewood --a nice place to come home." Minor changes were made in the text, and Ms. Dalquist and Ms. Russell will work on refining the text and preparing for publication if approved by the City Council. Ms. Powers stated t hat she un der stood publication of the brochure was approved by City Council, but they did not approve the format containing the pocket for inserts on the back of the brochure • Ms. Becker asked if the registration for her had been mailed to the APA Con- ference, and whether it was approved as a "student" registration. It was noted that the registration has been mailed in; it has not been determined whether t he student designat ion has been approved by APA. -10- Mr. Stoel questioned the reason for continuing the two public hearings this evening. It was noted that several members of the Corrnnission are not in attendance, and this would give them an opportunity to participate in the determination. Ms. Powers commented that the figures cited by Mr. Ross were reviewed with the architect working with the prime redeveloper, and he approved these figures. Mr. McBrayer inquired of Assistant City Attorney Holland if the legal staff plans to address the issue of criteria for eliminating certain uses from the B-DD District? Mr. Holland stated that a legislative body can determine whether a use is compatible to the stated purpose of the district. Mr. McBrayer referred to the landscaping ordinance, and while it indicates that the B-DD District is included in these provisions, it also states that the requirements for the B-DD District can be "disregarded." He stated that he feels this should be tied down either in the B-DD District or in the land- scaping ordinance; he does not want to see this much flexibility on the re- quirements. Mr. Holland stated tha t the intent is that the redevelopment must meet the minimum requirements of the landscaping ordinance. The Down- town Design Review team can review the plans independently of those require- ments. • Mr. McBrayer stated that he is disappointed that nothing is being done to improve South Broadway in the downtown area. Ms. Powers stated that staff members have been informally told that funds will be available from the state to implement the revolving loan fund with a zero interest rate, which program will be available to businessmen on South Broadway. Ms. Powers stated that funds were granted from the Federal Government to pay for ~ architectural designs for improvement of the Broadway businesses. Ms. Powers reviewed the illustrative plan maps with the Commission. There was further discussion on the promotional brochure. Mrs. Romans stated that City Council approved publication of 20,000 brochures. Mr. Senti asked if there was anything else to come before the Commission? The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P. M. trude G. Welty cording Secretary •