Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-05 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 5, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Ed McBrayer. Members present: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Senti, Barbre Also present: Senior Planner Susan T. King II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of September 21, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved! Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of the meeting of September 21, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Gilchrist ABSENT: Barbre, Senti The motion carried. III. VIDEO GAME ARCADE 3439 South Lincoln CASE //20-82 Chairman McBrayer stated that the public hearing which had been scheduled for this date and time on the request for a video game arcade at 3439 South Lincoln has been cancelled; the request for approval has been withdrawn. IV. ITHACA INVESTMENT COMPANY Parking Layout Lots 6 -25 , Block 6, Englewood CASE //24-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were in receipt of the staff report pertaining to the proposed parking lot layout submitted by Ithaca Investment Company. He asked if there were questions regarding the staff report from members of the Commission? Mr. Tanguma asked how much right-of-way would be needed along West Ithaca Avenue if a one-way couplet with Ithaca and U.S. 285 is developed. Mrs. -2- Romans stated that it is hoped that the one-way street can be developed within the existing 60 foot right-of-way; it might be necessary to have a radius for the transition from this property, but understood that the applicants had taken this possibility into consideration in their planning. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood the staff had an addendum to the staff report; he asked that this be explained. Ms. Susan King stated that when Mr. Anderson, the applicant, initially contacted the staff about the proposed development, the proposal was to have 40 dwelling units in the mixed use development; the plans have been revised, however, and the latest figure is 48 dwelling units in this pro- posal. Ms. King cited figures required to meet the minimum off-street parking for the proposed mixed-use development, and noted that the develop- ment will be deficient 28 off-street parking spaces. However, the applicant does propose a joint use of parking areas provided for the residential and office areas, and it is the opinion of the staff that this is a feasible solution to the parking space deficiency. Mr. Gilchrist asked what affect approval of this proposal would have on the Master Street Plan if the one-way couplet were approved in the future? Ms. King stated that if the couplet were approved, more land would be opened for development; it would not change the off-street parking require- ments, however. Mr. Gilchrist asked if the couplet would require condemna- tion of land. Ms. King stated that she was not aware that it would require condemnation, but that she really could not answer that question. Mrs. Romans reiterated her earlier statement that it was hoped the one-way traffic could be handled within the existing 60 foot right-of-way. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the couplet has not been designed at this point in time. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the City has recommended the one-way couplet be implemented for the last several years; it has not yet been funded by the State Highway Department. Mrs. Becker noted that the staff report indicates 102 off-s treet parki ng spaces are shown; she stated that the plans before her indicate only 70 spaces. Ms. King pointed out that 32 spaces are shown in a lot to the south of West Ithaca Avenue. Discussion ensued. Ms. King pointed out . that the residential units are all one-bedroom, with a minimum of 750 sq. ft. floor area, which does meet the minimum floor area requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McBrayer asked the applicant if he would like to address the Commission. Mr. T. W. Anderson stated that he has had this property for 10 years; the Hampden Center was built in 1972, and they have been trying to determine the best use for the remainder of their ownership. Mr. Anderson discussed the possible imposition of the one-way couplet along West Ithaca Avenue, and noted that the land to the south of West Ithaca Avenue is largely un- developed, and if additional right-of-way were to be needed, it could be obtained from the south side of the right-of-way. Mr. Anderson stated that they did attempt to design the proposed development taking into considera- tion the possibility of the couplet being built. Mr. Anderson stated that he feels their proposed development will be unique and will provide addi- tional living quarters for people in this area. He stated that they had contacted Exxon regarding the proposed development. Exxon employs ap- proximately 600 people; the contact at Exxon indicated to Mr. Anderson's representatives that they felt strongly that their employees could take t • • • • -3- at least one-half of the proposed re$idential units. Mr. Anderson stated that they plan to proceed with construction as soon as they gain the ap- proval of the City. Ms. Becker discussed her concerns on the deficiency of provided off-street parking; she pointed out that while the parking for the office use will only be used from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., if Exxon employees do actually take a large share of the residential units, she felt there might be problems because they would be in walking distance of their place of employment and would want to leave their vehicles at home .. Mr. Anderson stated that he felt people who would be living in these units would drive their cars to work. Mr. Anderson further pointed out that it is his feeling that the parking ratio for office buildings is high in Englewood, the ratio being one (1) space for each 300 sq. ft. of rentable floor area; he noted that this ratio was in effect when the Hampden Center was constructed, and they now find that approximately 30% of the parking spaces are vacant on a day-to-day basis. He stated that he felt a ratio of 1:500 sq. ft. was more realistic, and that this would still give ample parking. Mr. Stoel asked if the parking lot across the street was proposed to be landscaped? Mr. Anderson stated that he feels they will have to put in some landscaping, even though it is not shown on the Plan. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Anderson was saying that roughly the same per- centage of landscaping would be installed in the lot to the south of West Ithaca Avenue as would be installed on the primary site? Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Anderson had any problem installing some shrubbery or trees as opposed to just grass. Mr. Anderson stated that he could have a problem depending on who determines the amount of landscaping and type of landscaping that would be required. Mr. Bob Sinkeldan, associate of Mr. T. W. Anderson, stated that one problem that could arise with the landscaping could be if a sprinkling system were required. He stated that it would be their intention to avoid high-main- tenance plantings, particularly on the parking lot to the south of West Ithaca Avenue. He stated that a sprinkling system would be installed in the primary parking lot. Mr. McBrayer asked how they would propose to main- taip the landscaping in the south lot? Mr. Anderson stated that they would have a caretaker, and would make sure that a source of water is available on the site. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that he felt there was a waste of water with sprinkling systems; that if they are not set properly, the water drains into the streets and does not serve the purpose for which it was intended. He felt that in many instances, hand watering was much more efficient. Mr. Allen stated that he did not feel the Commission should be that concerned about what "may" happen on Ithaca Avenue as far as the one-way couplet goes; he noted that development cannot be impeded because of something that may happen in the future. Mr. Tanguma asked about the minimum Mrs. Romans stated that the minimum stated that they had developed some minimum floor area was 450 sq. ft • units are quite large and livable . floor area for a one-bedroom unit? i s 650 sq. ft . floor area. Mr. Anderson uni ts on South Bannock Street, and the He stated that these new residential Mr. McBrayer asked if cnyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposal? No further member of the audience spoke in favor of the proposal. -4- Mr. Tanguma asked if the Commission had to approve the parking lot across the street south of West Ithaca Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that only lots with more than 50 spaces ar~ subject to consideration by the Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that inasmuch as it is being used in conjunction with the basic use across Ithaca Avenue to the north, he felt it is being con- sidered by the Commission at this time. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition? No opposition by any member of the audience was expressed. Mrs. Becker stated that she would be reluctant to act on this request un- til determination is made on the type of landscaping that will be installed, and what will b~ installed in addition to grass. Mrs. Becker again ex- pressed her concern over the insufficiency of off-street parking. She stated if the downtown area of Englewood is redeveloped and uses are per- mitted that do not provide suffi~ient 9ff-street parking, she felt that the City was asking for problems. · Mr. Allen stated that an analysis on problems with the housing industry indicates that one of the problems is restrictions placed by governmental agencies. He pointed out that the cost of ground and size of units must be taken into consideration in the cost of housing and rental units that people can afford. Mr. McBrayer stated that Mr. Anderson has gone on record as saying that the parking lot to the south across West Ithaca Avenue would be landscaped with a similar percentage as provided on the larger lot on the north side of Ithaca, and that maintenance of the landscaping would be taken care of. He stated that he would not have any problem considering a decision on this matter at this meeting. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he appreciated Mrs. Becker's concern, and would also like to support Mr. McBrayer's point of view. He stated that Mr. Anderson has done some developments in Englewood, and feels he will do a good job on this latest development. Mr. Tanguma asked if landscaping were to be provided in the parking lot to the south of West Ithaca Avenue, would this affect the number of off- street parking spaces that the lot could contain? Mr. Paul Maybury, architect for the proposed development, stated that the landscaping would be between the sidewalk and the property line --around the peri- meter of the site. He pointed out that this site has two street frontages, and that the area between the sidewalk and the property line could be grassed, with maybe some junipers and small trees planted in this area. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Maybury agreed that the same percentage of land- scaping could be placed on the lot to the south of Ithaca Avenue as on the lot to the north of Ithaca Avenue? Mr. Maybury stated that he felt the same percentage ratio could apply. Carson moved: • Tanguma seconded: The Off-street Parking Plan submitted by Ithaca Invest- ment Company be approved by the Planning and Zoning Com-~ mission with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping shall be provided and maintained. • • -,5- 2. A recorded easement for utility service shall be provided as required by the Utilities Department. 3. All broken or cracked curb, gutter, and sidewalks adjacent to the property must be replaced prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy. 4. All old curb cuts shall be closed and new curb cuts shall follow City standards. 5. Longer turning radii for emergency vehicle access shall be required at points of ingress and egress. 6. For better ingress and egress to the mixed use de- velopment, a 50-foot separation between the inter- section at West Ithaca Avenue and South Inca Street and at West Ithaca Avenue and South Jason Street and the two proposed curb cuts to the south should be maintained. 7. An agreement signed by the owner of the land to be used for off-site parking should be submitted committing that land to this use. This agreement should be re- corded in the office of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. If, for any reason, the land cannot be used for this purpose in the future, equivalent off-street parking must be provided within 400 feet of the property on which the principal use is located. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the Commission is in error to approve this parking lot layout without the appropriate number of off-street parking spaces being provided. She stated that she strongly felt a deficiency of 28 spaces is too many to be deficient. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt this deficiency can be compensated by the joint use which is permitted by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The vote was called: AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Carson, Gilchrist, Stoel, McBrayer NAYS: Becker ABSENT: Barbre, Senti The motion carried. V. PROMOTE ENGLEWOOD BROCHURE. Mr. McBrayer reviewed consideration of the Promote Englewood Brochure that was discussed at the last regula~ m~eting of September 21st and at the special meeting on September 28th. Mr. McBrayer stated that it was the consensus that he and Mr. Tanguma would appear before the City Co~ncil to discuss what the Commission has considered in regard to the brochure. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood Ms. Emelene Russell had indicated she did not want to do further work on this brochure unless she was assured of payment, that she has already put in 25 hours on this project, and pre- ferred not to do anything more on her own. Mr. McBrayer stated that he did not feel the Commission and/or staff can commit to anything at this -6- point in time, that this must be a determination of the City Council. He • stated that he and Mr. Tanguma would attend the October 18th City Council study session to discuss this matter. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had spoken to several businessmen in the community; they had indicated that while they did not feel there would be a direct benefit to their business as a result of the brochure, they indicated that they would consider contributing to the campaign. Mr. Allen asked the scope of distribution of the brochure? Mr. McBrayer stated that discussion had centered on businesses and people who might try to encourage people to come to Englewood, such as the Chamber of Commerce, realtors, etc. He stated that one of the banks he had contacted indicated they would consider including a brochure like this in their packets they distribute in response to inquiries. Mr. McBrayer stated that there would not be an actual mailing list, but would be sent on request. Mr. Allen asked if this was being done because of the downtown redevelopment, and were they going to contribute to the project? He asked about the pro- jected budget? Mr. McBrayer stated that Ms. Russell had prepared a rough estimate on her proposal, which was $20,00o+. Mr. Gilchrist asked if this was just for the initial pr~nting, or did it include costs for up-dating? It was pointed out that the brochure itself was proposed to be pretty "generic", and that the up-dated information could be inserted into the pocket proposed for the back cover 1 Mr. McBrayer stated that he and Mr. Tanguma would make a great effort to convince the City Council of the need for such a brochure. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Allen if they had any suggestions to add? Mr. Gilchrist asked if firms who may contribute to the publication of the brochure would be listed within the brochure? Mr. McBrayer indicated that it was the intent that the brochure not be commercialized in this re- gard. Mr. Gilchrist asked if the banks and other contributors would be allowed to include advertising in whatever packets they wished to insert in the pocket of the brochure? Mr. McBrayer stated that this would be permissible. VI. LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE CASE 118-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the proposed Landscaping Ordinance would be dis- cussed at a Public Meeting on October 14th along with a proposed Downtown Development Zone District. Mr. McBrayer stated that it is proposed that the Downtown Development D~strict be considered first at that meeting, and that Mr. Stoel then give a short presentation on the proposed Landscaping Ordinance. A second meeting has been suggested for November 16th, at which time, a full presentation on the Landscaping Ordinance would be made to property owners and businessmen in the B-1, B-2, I-1, and I-2 Zone Dis- tricts. Mr. McBrayer stated that it is proposed that slides be prepared showing existing businesses without landscaping, and what the result could be with landscaping. Mr. Gilchrist asked that the slides also depict establishments that are ~ well landscaped at the present time. He suggested that this slide pre- sentation also depict the City-owned lot across Floyd Avenue from the Yellow Front store, which contains a large sign giving directions to parking. Mr. Gilchrist stated that the oµly greenery on this City-owned property ' • -7- are broken green bottles; Mr. Gilchrist stated that he feels it is the "height of hypocrisy" for the City to institute a landscaping ordinance requiring other establishments to install and maintain landscaping in light of the condition of this lot and other City-owned sites. Mr. Gil- christ stated that he felt the City should clean up its own yard before going to the citizens with more regulations and restrictions. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were any further comments? He stated that he would like to have something to get to staff in time to get it typed and ready for discussion on October 14th. Mr. Stoel asked whether members felt the creation of a City Landscaping and Fine Arts Fund was a good idea? He stated that he personally does favor such a fund. He stated that he could not. think of a more equitable way to treat property owners who do provide landscaping and those who do not provide it. He stated that the matter of pro-ration of the contribution had been discussed based on whether or not a minimal amount of landscaping could be provided; he asked how this could be written. Mr. Tanguma stated that if it is proposed to "force people to do something", we should allow them to install a planter on the public sidewalk in front of their business and determine that this would be sufficient without a contribution to the Fine Arts Fund. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel questioned whether it is equitable to exp.ect someone constructing a new building to provide more landscaping than someone who is only remodeling would have to provide. Mr. Stoel asked how individuals who are not willing to do land- scaping or contribute to the fund voluntarily should be handled? Mr. Tanguma stated that the City should "buy him out and do what you want." Mr. Gilchrist stated that "you are taking his property; pay him for it." Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt we needed something to discuss with the busi- nessmen at the meeting on October 14th. Mr. Gilchrist cited the downtown area on South Broadway, where there is no setback; he stated that it was obvious when those buildings were constructed there was no required setback, but under the proposed provisions he felt these property owners would be penalized by this Commission, and the City would be putting impediments on the sale of the property by those individuals. Discussion ensued. Mr. McRrayer suggested that Mr. Stoel prepare a draft for the staff to prepare for the meeting of October 14th, and that the pro-ration factor should be included. Mr. Mc&rayer stated that the Community Bank is constructing a new building on South Broadway; he has discussed the proposed landscaping ordinance with some of their representatives; they have indicated that they propose to landscape approximately 9.5% of their property, which would be done voluntarily. VII. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Proposed Amendments CASE /122-82 Mrs. Romans stated that the first draft of proposed amendments to the residential Zone Districts was presented at the last regular meeting. The staff is working on proposed amendments to the business and industrial zone districts, which will be presented later. The staff is suggesting that a Saturday morning work session be scheduled to thoroughly review these proposed amendments --beginning at around 9:00 A.M. and extending -8- until 12 Noon or 1:00 P.M. The dates of November 13th or November 20th were suggested as a possibility. Mr. McBrayer asked that members of the · Commission determine whether they could attend a work session on either of these two dates, and be ready to report back at the next regular meeting of October 19th. Mr. McBrayer discussed the requirements proposed and in existence for a detached garage versus an attached garage. He questioned the rationale of the required setbacks. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that if the Commission has concerns regarding setbacks, now is the time to consider them during the reviiion of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that she per- sonally felt that the most usable open space should be in the rear yard, and that perhaps consideration should be given to the reduction of front and/or rear setbacks. She noted that fire protection would require there be setbacks between structures. Mr. Allen discussed some of the provisions for lot area in the R-1-B Zone District which require the purchase of three 25-foot lots to meet the minimum 60-foot frontage requirements, even though the total three lots are not needed. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there are not many vacant lots in the R-1-B Zone District, which requires 7,200 square feet for minimum lot area; she noted that this area which is zoned R-1-B was subdivided with 60 foot frontage on the majority of the lots. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance do contain a provision that would allow construction in the R-1-B Zone Dis- trict on a 50 foot lot if there were no adjoining land available. Vacant lots in Englewood were discussed. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had viewed a map in the Planning Off ice which indicated the vacant lots through- out the City. He suggested that other members might want to view this map, also. He asked if the staff could recall how many building sites there would be available? Ms. King stated that as she recalled, 6 % of the total land area was available for development; she emphasized that this included vacant land in the industrial and business districts as well as vacant land in the residential areas. Mrs. Romans stated that as she recalled, there would be less than 100 residential lots available for development. Mr. Tanguma made reference to the Home Occupation section of the R-1-A District, which section made reference to an inspection by the Department of Community Development and the Fire Department. He asked what the De- partment of Community Development would be looking for in an inspection? Mrs. Romans stated that one of the things to be included in the review would be the nature of the Home Occupation, whether there was a lot of storage entailed in the Home Occupation, and the type of materials being stored. It was pointed out by Mr s . Romans that Home Occupations are not permitted in the R-1-A Zone District at the present time. Further brief discussion ensued. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. McBrayer noted that no one was present to address the Commission under this section of the Agenda. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans formally announced the birth of Gregory Daniel Iturreria, who • . ' • -9- became an Englewood citizen on September 27, 1982. Proud parents are Mr. and Mrs. Julio Iturreria (Susan Powers). Mrs. Romans stated that the State Highway Work Program for 83/84 was con- sidered by the City Council at their meeting of October 4, 1982. City Council removed from the request the Oxford/Santa Fe Drive interchange and the improvement of South Clarkson from U.S. 285 south to Orchard Avenue. These amendments will be made before the request is submitted to the Arapahoe County Commissioners. Mrs. Romans discussed a new procedure that has been instituted in the Planning Division, which is being called the "buddy system"; the initial person contacted by the developer, or the staff person whose skills most closely approximate the need of a particular developer is assigned to work with that developer from first contact to completion of the project. Mrs. Romans stated that it is felt this will be a very workable innovation. Mr. McBrayer suggested that perhaps some similar system should be instituted in the Building Division. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans discussed the reorganization of the Building and Planning Divisions of the Department of Community Development. X. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Allen stated that in regard to problems with obtaining building permits, it had taken him two months in Denver to get a permit for remodeling a structure. He added that he had not had that delay in Englewood. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M .