Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-17 PZC MINUTES• • • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 17, 1981 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Members present: Becker, Carson, Draper, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: McBrayer Also present: Assistant Director Dorothy A. Romans Associate Planner Barbara S. Young Planning Assistant Susan T. King Planning Assistant Jed Goldstein II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of February 3, 1981, were to be con- sidered for approval. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Minutes of February 3, 1981, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Draper, Becker ABSENT: McBrayer The motion carried. III. REVIEW OF GOALS AND COURSES OF ACTION. Mrs. Romans introduced members of the Planning Staff to the Commission. Mrs. Pierson stated that she had spent some time earlier in the day re- viewing the Commission's Handbook and the City Charter, both of which set forth the duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Pierson noted that the Handbook sets forth four areas of jurisdiction for the Planning Commission, these being the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Regulations, and the Capital Improvement Program. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Charter states that the City Council cannot make any changes in the general plan of the city without having gotten a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that she has not discussed this provision with City Attorney · DeWitt, but that a previous City Attorney had indicated that the term "general plan" is very broad and meant that anything affecting the City must first be considered by the Planning Commission prior to action by the City Council. Mrs. Romans pointed out, for instance, that the Com- mission will have to consider the plan of the Downtown Development Authority. -2- Mrs. Pierson stated that it appears the Planning Commission has broad responsibility, and should consider anything that is to the good of the City, and there is very little that is not within the purview of the Commission. The Planning Commission may initiate consideration of matters, consider matters on special request, or on a scheduled basis such as the Capital Improvement Program and Highway Work Program. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the charges of the Commission had been well covered, and suggested that the Commission consider the Goals and Courses of Action that were suggested by the Comprehensive Plan and compiled by the Commission in November of 1979. Mrs. Romans stated that action on a number of these Goals and Courses of Action are underway, citing the program for the redevelopment of the downtown area as one item. Mrs. Pierson asked how involved the Commission would be in the downtown development program? Ms. Powers stated she felt the Commission should be involved all along; that she would need their input throughout the development of the plan, and the Planning Commission will have to consider any plan that comes out of the discussions with the Downtown Development Authority. Ms. Powers stated that one of the staff projects is the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which will be a step in the development of ordinances to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Powers stated that this would encompass the mixed-use district that has been mentioned, as well as other revisions to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Draper stated that he thought a mixed use could be permitted at this time in the down- town area with the approval of the Comprehensive Plan in 1979. Ms. Powers stated that the Mixed-use District was a Goal that has not yet been im- plemented. Mr. Draper asked what process should be pursued now? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt one step would be to work with the Downtown Development Authority. Mrs. Pierson noted that a meeting with Mr. Don Ensign of Design Workshop had been mentioned previously by Ms. Powers. Ms. Powers verified that Mr. Ensign will be meeting with the Commission in the near future to make a presentation. Mr. Tanguma expressed concern as to whether a "mixed use" district would be considered "spot zoning". Mrs. Romans stated that the mixed use district would not be spot zoning. Ms. Powers agreed; she stated that the mixed use district application would be "limited", but would not be "spot" zoning. Mr. Draper asked if the mixed-use district for the downtown area would allow residential uses limited to high-rise and/or condominium but would not include single-family? It was agreed that single-family residential use in the downtown district would not be considered as part of the mixed-use district. Ms. Powers stated that Mrs. Romans would be concentrating her efforts on the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the next few months. Mrs. Romans stated that in preparation to the revision of the Zoning Ordinance, she had asked Planning Assistant Jed Goldstein to review minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the past several years, and to note the types of variances that have been granted. Where there have been repeated requests for the same type of variance, it can be assumed that there is a "problem" with meeting the strict application of the Ordinance, and that this part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance should be given in-depth consideration. Mrs. Romans cited the area of over-lot coverage; in the R-2 and R-3 Zone Districts, garages and carports are not counted toward lot coverage in an effort to encourage property • • • • -3- owners to construct protected off-street parking. Mrs. Romans stated that one question .to consider is whether the same flexibility should be granted in the single-family zone districts --that covered parking not be counted toward lot coverage? Mr. Draper stated that one of the complaints of the developers trying to work with the City is that the restrictions are too rigid and inflexible, and that this causes problems in development. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt one area that needs considerable considera- tion is the problem of new residential housing. Mrs. Becker noted that there is limited land area for development, but when there is a site for residential development, would the City be willing to let the developer have a couple of units with a common wall? Mrs. Romans stated that some of this type of housing is being developed in Englewood at the present time, and cited a development on South Marion Street. Each separate unit is individually owned along with the ground on which the unit is located, but they do share a common wall. In discussions with banks, it has been determined that the lending institutions do not want to loan money on such development unless the ground goes with the units, and they do not like to get into financing condominium units unless there are at least ten (10) units in the complex. Mrs. Pierson stated that there was some discussion in the past about waiving the taxes for a period of time on substandard residential properties if these properties would be redeveloped. She stated that she felt this would merit looking into as one of the incentives to en- courage redevelopment of substandard housing. Another incentive is the allowance of two units on a previously single-family site with a common wall between the units. Mrs. Romans pointed out that one of the problems is that waiving a six (6) mill tax isn't that great an incentive for re- development, and that the six mills is all that comes to the City. Mrs. Romans also pointed out that construction standards on units with common walls vary depending on whether the units are to be sold or used for rentals. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the possibility of an increased density on an "in-fill" basis was discussed by the Planning Commission upon the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee, and that a former Planning Commission member had expressed strong opposition to this concept and the matter was more or less dropped. Mr. Draper asked if Aurora didn't have some sort of low-cost housing for single-family residents? Ms. Powers stated that the City of Aurora sold bonds; however, they are at 13-1/2% which doesn't help that much. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma suggested the possibility of a citizens committee to look into the matter of incentives to encourage residential development in Englewood. Mrs. Romans stated that this might be a topic to discuss with City Council before another citizens committee is formed. If the City Council is not in favor of some of the proposals, there is no need to pursue that course of action. She pointed out that the ad hoc committee that worked on .the revision of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan went into the possible ways to encourage development of single-family housing in Englewood, and felt that the increased density method had merit; it broke down at the Planning Commission level. -4- Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt a quick over-view of the means available might be in order prior to the meeting with the City Council, and asked that Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Carson, Mr. Senti and Mrs. Becker work on gathering this information if possible. The improvement of present housing was discussed . Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the Rehabilitation Program is making headway on this problem. Mr. Carson questioned if there was someway to encourage property owners to fix up garages; he stated that there are some garages in very poor con- dition which detract from the overall appearance of the property. Mrs. Pierson asked if Code Enforcement would be of help on this problem? Mrs. Romans stated that if the building is determined to be unsafe, Code En- forcement could help. Mr. Carson discussed a property on West Oxford Avenue; he noted that there had been previous contact with this property owner by the animal control committee because of the number of dogs and puppies they had. This property owner still has the dogs and puppies, and has now begun raising chickens and ducks on the property, also. Mr. Senti stated that he understood there are plans to build a new house on part of the site; he is not aware of any plans for the existing structure. Mr. Senti stated that he frequently walked to church from his place of residence, and commented on the tree limbs that hang down so low over the sidewalk that people cannot walk on the sidewalk. He noted that in Denver, it used to be if the limbs were lower than a 12 ft. clearance, the property owner received a notice from the City that the limbs had to be trimmed. He noted that the tree limbs are much lower than the 12 ft. clearance, and have been that way for a long time, yet it appears that nothing is done about the situation. Mr. Senti noted that he owns some property in Denver, and that he was notified to remove a dead tree within 30 days after the tree died. Discussion ensued. It was determined that a list should be made of locations where the tree limbs are so low that they interfere with use of the sidewalks, and that this be turned in to the staff. There was further discussion on the matter of Mortgage Revenue Bonds. Ms. Powers stated that a new law was recently passed by Congress, which places restrictions on the participants in a Bond Program to the point that the bond counsel for the City of Englewood advised the City to "forget it." Ms. Powers stated that the Rehab Program will be expanded through additional Community Development Block Grant funds which will include grants to ap- plicants for rehab loans who cannot qualify for the loan by not being able to make the loan payments. Ms. Powers noted that there have been several instances wherein loan applicants have been turned down because they cannot afford to make the loan payments, yet they need to have their property improved. In some instances if the applicant has very low income and limited assets, they would be eligible for a combination loan and grant under the expanded program. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it is too bad that something cannot be done to encourage use of solar energy. She . stated that she thinks the installation of solar energy is an "improvement" to a home. She noted that to get a tax credit, the installation must be "active solar", and not "passive solar". • • • • -5- Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt a P.R. program on the pride of keeping one's property up should be instituted. Ms. Powers stated that in some cities, they have invested in bulk purchase of paints in different colors, which is made available to homeowners who qualify. Such outside improve- ment is noticeable if concentrated in a "target area", for instance. She stated that she did not think the Conununity Development Block Grant funds could be used for such a purpose. Mrs. Romans noted that some- times the Jaycees are interested in projects for conununity improvement, and a couple of years ago the South Suburban Board of Realtors had a project of helping elderly and handicapped persons maintain their yards. She suggested that perhaps a contact should be made to these and similar organizations to see if they would be interested in undertaking such a project. Coordination with the City Council was discussed. Mrs. Pierson asked for suggestions of items for an agenda for the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. Mr. Draper stated that he felt the philosophy of the City Council regarding single-family residential vs. other types of resi- dential use had better be an item for discussion. Mrs. Romans conunented that she felt we must face the fact that housing as we have known it will have to be changed. Mr. Senti agreed, and stated that we cannot promote the single-family homes in Englewood any more; it just will not work. He stated that he felt the rezoning of the 4700 block South Bannock Street was a good start in encouraging redevelopment of deteriorating areas. He pointed out that several nice duplexes have been developed in the 4700 block of South Acoma Street, and he felt the redevelopment of these run- down properties with some of the nice doubles £g something to be proud of. Mr. Carson stated that he felt the prime argument will be that of the privately-owned unit vs. the transient occupant. Discussion ensued. Mr. Senti stated that the duplexes he is making reference to are very nice, and that the rental is such that "you won't get bad tenants." He dis- cussed the recent development of a duplex by Mr. McBrayer, noting that the grounds were fully landscaped, sprinkling system installed, the yard fenced --a very attractive development, which Mr. McBrayer sold in a very short time. Mr. Senti stated that he felt the development of duplex units is probably the only way that families will be encouraged to locate in Englewood. He noted that he has built and owns several duplex developments in Englewood, and that the ones he has an interest in are about 1,000 sq. ft. in floor area, a size which will accommodate a family. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Senti if he would discuss this aspect of the housing market at the joint meeting of the Commission and City Council? Mr. Senti reiterated that with economics as they are today, the only way to encourage family housing in Englewood is by the building of double units. He noted in some instances the duplex is owned by the occupant of one unit and the other side is rented out; in other instances, both units are rentals. He emphasized that with today's rental market, the rent is such that the poor tenant who does not care about the property cannot afford the units. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson commented that she felt it is a myth that tenants don't keep property up, noting that she has rental property in Englewood, and that of her property and those on either side, she feels her rental unit is the best maintained. Mr. Draper noted that he felt one of the worst off enders on maintenance of rental properties is Swedish Medical Center. -6- Ms. Powers stated that she felt the City Council would be interested in discussing any changes that the staff and Commission might be considering in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Other items suggested for discussion with City Council were the plan for the Downtown Development Authority, and the Hampden/Ithaca one-way couplet. Mr. Carson stated that he under- stood the greenhouse property that would be needed for the couplet is for sale at $5.00 per square foot. Mrs. Becker suggested that the Community Center should be an item on the agenda. Mrs. Pierson asked if the City Council was doing something on the Community Center project at the present time? Ms. Powers stated that there has been a group from the Lion's Club working on this matter, and that they made a recommendation a couple of weeks ago to build the com- munity center. Commercial ventures on south South Broadway were discussed. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt there is a need for a "search committee"; this would be a group whose purpose would be to seek out businesses interested in locating in Englewood. The possibility of the Chamber of Commerce doing something on this was discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that there is a new executive director and the new president has just assumed office, and she felt that possibly this idea could be presented to the Chamber to determine their reaction. Ms. Powers stated that she felt this was some- thing the dba (Downtown Business Association) was also interested in; it was discussed at one of their meetings at which Mr. Beattie of the Chamber of Commerce was present, and he expressed an interest in it at that time. The one-way couplet on Hampden Avenue/Ithaca Avenue was considered. Mr. Carson stated that he felt this is pretty much up to City Council at this time. Mr. Draper excused himself from the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Improvement of traffic patterns was discussed; Mr. Carson commented that if the one-way couplet is realized it would solve a number of the traffic problems. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the matter of traffic is some- thing that should be discussed with the people from Design Workshop, Inc., who are doing the downtown plan. Ms. Powers stated that she also felt consideration must be given to the possible RTD Transit Center and other RTD plans. Mixed-use Zone regulations were discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt this item would be taken care of with the review and revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt some of the more recent members on the Planning Commission might be interested in hearing a presentation on the Special Permit System by Mr. Kirk Wickersham, who has developed this system. Mrs. Pierson stated that Breckenridge is using this system. Mr. Tanguma asked what other communities had mixed-use legislation on the books? Mr. Goldstein stated that Arvada has a mixed-use provision as part of their Planned Development regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the Commission must consider whether or not something will work in Englewood, rather than whether it works in another municipality. She • • • • • -7- stated that any process that is devised must be considered as to whether it is feasible and if it is going to be acceptable in Englewood. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson asked that the staff contact Mr. Wickersham and see if a meeting could be set up with Planning Commissions from Englewood and possibly one or two other jurisdictions if they a"e interested, and that such meeting be set for May 12th if possible. General actions which should be taken by the City were discussed. Mrs. Pierson noted that enforcement seems to "spring from complaints", and that if no one complains about a situation, nothing is done about it. Ms. Powers noted that Ms. Susan King, Planning Assistant, is putting to-· gether a "developer's manual", which would be a walk-through to be followed by developers interested in doing something in Englewood. Improvement of Little Dry Creek was discussed. Ms. Powers stated that the flood problems on Little Dry Creek is one of the big problems facing the developers of a plan for Downtown Englewood. This problem must be addressed, and alternatives considered or there will not be any redevelop- ment in the downtown area. Ms. Powers stated that the staff is considering a couple of annexations to even out the city boundaries, one of which is along U.S. 285 between Cherry Hills Village and the City of Englewood. Another is along West Belleview Avenue, which may not be pursued at this point. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would have to leave at 9:00 P.M. Ms. Powers stated that she had a matter to discuss with the Commission prior to Ms. Pierson's departure; she stated that she had received a telephone call from Mr. Yurik, representing a fast-food chain, asking about a couple of locations for another fast-food operation. One of the locations Mr. Yurik expressed interest in was in the Core Area, and Ms. Powers stated that fast-food operations were not allowed in the B-1 Zone District, and that she could not support a rezoning request for that area. Mr. Yurik then asked about a couple of locations that are on the "fringe" of the B-1 Zone District, one being on South Broadway and Eastman Avenue, and the other being in the Dry Creek Shopping Center at Logan and U.S. 285. In both instances, it would require rezoning to allow the fast-food operation. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson stated that she personally felt better about the South Broadway location than she did about the U.S. 285/South Logan location. Mrs. Becker cautioned that perhaps the school should be consulted about a fast-food operation in such a close proximity to the high school. Further discussion ensued. Ms. Powers was asked to convey to Mr. Yurik that development standards --landscaping, etc. --would be very strict and of high priority. Mrs. Pierson reminded members of the workshop for Planning Commission members sponsored by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, which is scheduled for February 21, 1981. It was determined that members should meet in the east parking lot of City Hall by 8:30 a.m. and carpool to the workshop. Mrs. Pierson excused herself from the meeting at 9:10 P.M. Vice-Chairman Carson assumed the Chair. -8- Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the matter of energy conservation is of prime importance. She noted that the Fort Logan Branch Post Office is being discussed for closing; she noted that people would now have to drive to another post office, whereas many of them were able to walk to the Fort Logan branch. She stated that she felt things like this must be considered. Mr. Barbre asked about the Design Review Committee; he noted there had been one meeting of this group, and nothing further has been done. Mrs. Romans stated that efforts to coordinate consideration of design review with the Design Workshop project were felt to be the route to follow. Ms. Powers noted that Mr. Ensign of Design Workshop, Inc. will be making a presentation to the Planning Commission. The preliminary plan is due by June 1st, and several alternate plans will be presented. Ms. Powers reiterated that the matter of flooding on Little Dry Creek is the most critical problem facing them now. Mr. Tanguma asked if the City has looked into what the insurance companies want as far as flood control on Little Dry Creek? Mrs. Romans pointed out that the City is in the Flood Insurance Program now, and has been for several years since the adoption of the Flood Plain Ordinance. Ms. Powers stated that construction can be done now in the flood plain, but it must be done to certain criteria and is very expensive; the flood control study will look at this. If the flooding potential on Little Dry Creek is controlled upstream, it would change the boundary of the flood plain in the downtown area. Mr. Carson asked if RTD still wanted the Transit Center in Englewood? Ms. Powers stated that she understood that funds are available if the City of Englewood wants to proceed; the burden is back on the City if they want RTD to construct the Transit Center. A brief discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma moved that the meeting be adjourned. Vice-Chairman Carson declared the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. • •