Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-03 PZC MINUTES.. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION · -JUNE 3, 1975 • 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 Martin. Members present: Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith; Wade; Jones; Jorgenson Supinger, Ex-officio ~ember s absent: Tanguma; Brown Also present: Assistant City Attorney Lee; Assistant Director Romans; Associate Planner House II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Martin stated that Minutes of May 13, 1975, and May 20, 1975, were to be considered for approval. Wade moved: Parker seconded: The Minutes of May 13, 1975, and May 20, 1975, be approved as written . AYES : Parker; Pierson; Smith; Wade; Jones; Jorgenson; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma; Brown The motion carried. III. PROPOSE D ORDINANCE Movement & Demolition of Structures Parker moved: Pierson seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. CASE #2-75 AYES: Pierson; Smith; Wade; Jones; Jorgenson; Martin; Parker NAYS· None ABSENT: Tanguma; Brown The motion carried. Mr. Ma rtin asked that those persons wishi ng to speak regarding the proposed ordinance give their name and address for the record. Proponents would be asked to speak first, followed by the opponen ts. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Supinger-for a brief back- ground of the proposed ordinance. -2- Mr. Supinger stated that the staff and Commission have been in the process of developing the proposed regulations for some time. Because of a number of buildings that have been moved into or demolished in Englewood, there have been some problems with these operations. The staff has proposed a much more comprehe nsive set of regulations than now exists in .the City, and more comprehensive than regulations existing in the State, to the knowledge of the staff. Mr. Supinger stat ed that the staff has attempted to take the proposed regulations out of the realm of primary concern with traffic problems caused by these operations, and have suggested some very specif ic performance standa rds that would need to be met under the new regulations. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has attempted to keep the members of the industry and other in- terested parties informed of the proposed changes, and have sought comments and suggestions on the proposed regul ations. There has been very little feed-back to this date, and that has been concerned with insurance coverage that should be re- quired, or a question concerning the constitutionality of re- quiring a performance bond for house movers, but not requiring such a bond for new construction. Mr.Supinge r stated that Assistant City Attorney Lee has stated that the requirement of a Performance Bond is not unconsti tutional. Mr. Supinger stated that the propos ed regula- tions have been given wide distribution; there has been press coverage on the proposal, also . Mr. Tanguma entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Mart in stated that the Commission has had considerable discussio n relating to the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Martin then asked that proponents of the proposed ordinance present their views. No one spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Martin then asked for those opposed to present their views. Mr. Ernie Ryberg Ryberg House Movers -stated that he was not oppose d to the proposed Ordinance; however, there are some points he feels will cause problems. Mr. Ryberg asked "who is the Code Enforcement Division?" Mr. Supinger stated that ~ais was the Building Department. Mr. Ryberg stated that he couldn't necessarily go along with a Performance Bond required on each and every job (reference Page 2, #6, proposed regulations); he stated he had no objection to a License Bond. Mr. Ryberg stated that if a Performanc e Bond were to be required, the cost would have to be passed on to the general public, and with the economy as it'is today, he felt we shou ld be concerned with saving the public money . • Mr. Ryberg stated that a License Bond is purchased each year, , and covers all jobs done within that year. The License Bond would serve the same purpose as a Performance Bond, but would be considerab ly less expense. • • -3- Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated he felt Mr. Ryberg was making a distinction between a bond that is applied to the company and would apply to all jobs done within a specified time, and what is suggested in the proposed ordinance, i.e., a specific bond for each individual job. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff does not like to propose performance bonds, and such bonds should not be necessary; but with the problems .we have had in this community in getting moving and demolition projects completed, the suggested performance bond for each project is felt justified. Mr. Martin asked if t h e premium for the License Bond that would cover all jobs for a specified period of time, would be greater than a Performance Bond purchased for specific jobs? Mr. Ryberg stated that the Performance Bond cost would be much greater than the fee for the License Bond. Mr. Ryberg emphasized that the License Bond would cover every job he did in the metro area for the time specified on the Bond. Mr. Jorgenson asked if the License Bond contained any wording requiring completion of a job within a specified time limit? Mr. Ryberg stated that he did not believe it did so; the intent of the License Bond is to protect the City from damages. Mr. Smith asked if a License Bond would cover whatever the requirements would be for a licensed mover in a community? Would it cover all the requirements of each City? Mr. Ryberg stated that he thought this was the case, but was not certain • Mr. Martin asked why the staff preferred the Performance Bond to the License Bond? Mr. Supinger reiterated his previous statements on requirement of a Performance Bond vs. the License Bond. He stated he felt there· should be some way to tie the bond down to an individual structure or job. Mr. Supinger stated that if the City did not have the provision for a Per- formance Bond, what would give us the authority to refuse to issue a permit when previous jobs had not been completed as required? Mr. Supinger stated that the City has to have a good basis to refuse to issue a permit; the individual performance bonds were felt to be the best way to protect the City and the public interest. Mr. Ryberg asked if the property owner shoul:lnot have some responsibility ; he noted that no reference is made on the responsibilit ies of the person who may sell the structure to be moved. Mr. Supinger stated the City has no objection to the seller of the structure being a party to the Bond. Mr. Ryberg stated that he felt the provision of requiring a Completion Bond is unconstitutional; he noted that contractors building a new structure are not required to post a Completion Bond. Mr. Martin stated that when a structure is moved, all that really needs to be done is connect to the utilities and see that the structure meets the Code; the completion bond is to assure that these steps are taken within a reasonable time. -4- Mr. Ryberg stated that he feels those persons who do house- moving are being discriminaged against in the requirement of a Completion Bond. Mr. Lee stated that this is proper discrimination; you are allowed to discriminate as long as it is within the same "class"; the class of moving structures is distinctive from that of construction of new buildings. Mr. Lee stated that as far as he is concerned, the provision is constitutional and is proper discrimination. Mr. Lee stated that possibly the Commission would want to look at placement of completion bonds on new construction. Mr. Ryberg stated he did feel the provision is unfair. He stated there has been a required completion bond in the City of Englewood on house moving for many years. Mr. Ryberg then discussed the provision requiring issuance of a State Highway permit prior to issuance of a moving permit from the City of Englewood (Page 3, #8 of proposed regulations). Mr. Ryberg stated this will cause a problem; Englewood requires a three-day waiting period to get a permit, and the State Highway Department will not issue a permit until the day of the move. Mr. Ryberg stated this is a ruling of Mr. Shepherd of the State Highway Department. Mr. Supinger stated that this has been proposed in the proposed Ordinance to require "pre-planning" for the house moves. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff would work with the house movers and the State Highway Department to come up with a provision that would be workable for all concerned. Mr. Ryberg again referred to Page 3, Application for Moving Permit, #2. He asked why the City of Englewood should be concerned whether another jurisdiction has given permissi on for the structure to be moved through or into it? Mr. Martin stated that the City did not want to be a party to a move that had not been approved by another jurisdiction, and have the structure halted at a City boundary because the other jurisdiction refused to allow the move. Mr. Ryberg stated there are some jurisdictions in the State that do not require issuance of a permit. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger suggested that the word "adjoining " could be added to this section to read "adjoining jurisdiction .•. ". This amendment was agreed to. Mr. Ryberg referred to Page 5, §§f, and stated that in many instances, it would be physically impossible to get the structure raised from the foundation and loaded for moving in 48 hours. Mr. Ryberg stated that if it was a large structure it could require one day just to jack it up off the foun dation; another day to roll it off the foundation, and another day to get it on the truck. Mr. Jones asked if a paragraph could be inserted to provide for an extension of time in unusual instances? ~ Mr. Supinger stated that if this is the wish of the Commission, ~ such wording could be inserted in the proposed Ordinance. • • -5- Mr. Smith stated he would have to agree with Mr. Ryberg; it takes longer than 48 hours to move some small structures. Mr. Smith suggested that might the interpretation be given that the structure should be moved 48 hours after the beams are placed under it? Mr. Ryberg stated that it just would not be possible. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated the· Com- mission could increase the permitted time, or could allow a time extension at the determination of the Building Inspector . Mr. Ryberg stated that every building is different and might require a different time; he felt reliance on the judgement of the Building Official would be the way to handle the matter. Mr. Supinger noted that the Commission could suggest a maximum time limit that could be allowed on the move. Mr. Ryberg stated he felt the time limit is something that should be between the mover and the Building Inspector. Mr. Duane Reynolds Duane Reynolds Housemovers -stated he had almost the same objections as Mr. Ryberg had voiced. Mr. Reynolds stated that he does betwe en 30 -50 jobs per year; he has a License Bond in Jefferson County, for in- stance, for $5,000; if he does all the jobs in that County, and if he had a claim on each job, he would still have cover age. Mr. Reynolds stated that the fee for a Performance and Completion Bond is more than that for a License Bond, but does give the same protection . Mr . Tanguma asked how much an unlimited bond would cost, and if they could be purchased. Mr. Reynolds stated that as far as he knew, they could not be purchased. Mr. Reynolds stated that the License Bond covers every job for a one year period every rule and regulation, and technically, every violation. Mr. Lee suggested that perhaps the Commission might want to consider some sort of qualifying language such as " •.. or other suitable bond be posted ••• ". Mr. Lee stated he felt we are dealing in semantics. Mr. Ryberg asked if there were provisions contained in the proposed Ordinance allowing for delays caused by weather con- ditions or other causes beyond the control of the mover? Mr. Supinger stated there is. Jorgenson moved: Pierson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Jones; Jorgenson; Martin; Parker; Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown The motion carried . Mr. Supinger stated the staff will revise the proposed ordinance for Commission review before recommendation to City Council. ----------------- -6- IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment of R-2-A and R-2-B to R-2 Medium Density District. Wade moved: Pierson seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. CASE #17-75 AYES: Tanguma; Wade; Jones; Jorgenson; Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing was given in the official City Newspaper, the Englewood Herald. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Commission met with members of the Multi-family Development Standards Review Committee and City Council on March 31st to review in detail the provisions of the proposed R-2 Medium Density District. If this provision is approved, it would affect all areas in the City that are now zoned R-2-A or R-2-B; Mrs. Romans then designated these areas on the Zoning Map. Mrs. Romans stated that the minimum frontage requirement for a two-family use in the R-2-A District is 75 ft.; in the entire district, there are only eleven two-family units on 75 ft. frontage. This signifies there is something wrong with the regulations governing this district. Mrs. Romans • stated that the staff has recommended one or two modifications of the amendment as proposed by the Multi-family Development Standards Review Committee. Mr. Brown entered and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that one change the staff has proposed is to require four or more units to be approved under the PD provisions, rather than the presently recommended "three or more units." The second change is on the required landscaping; the staff is suggesting that 40% be required in the front yard rather than the presently recommended 50%. It is a physical impossibility to get 50% of the required landscaping in the required front yard; 40% is workable. Mrs. Romans noted that several members of the Multi-family Development Standards Review Committee were present this evening and stated she felt they did an outstanding job on this Com- mittee and deserved recognition for their service. Mrs. Romans read the following letter into the record: ' • -7-[B REALTOR• StiurH SUBURBAN BOARD OF REALTORS ##Serving the South Metropolitan Denver Area" June 3, 1975 The Englewood Planning & Zoning Commission 3400 South Elati Engle11.0od, Colorado 80110 · Attn: Mr. Art Martin, Jro Dear Art: 4301 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Telephone: 781-0841or781-2231 The South Suburban Board of Realtors compliments the committee on Multi-Family Development Standards. These citizens, and those working on other committees and study groups for the city, display a true civic interest. Their donation· of long hours and creative thoughts is one reason why Englewood is such a fine place to live and work. The South Suburban Board of Realtors Political Action Committee has reviewed the recommendations regarding the revisions of the R-2 and R-3 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. After a thorough analysis, we respectfully submit the following suggestions for your consideration: Section 22.4-5 R-2, Medium Density. We suggest that a PUD requirement on a small complex is "oppressive upon the economics of the Builder/Developer." We feel that your goal to encour- age a variety with this PUD requirement is going tQ make the development of some complexes, economically unfeasible and we suggest at least six units as a minimum for a PUD approval. Section 22. 4-6 R-3, High Density c. Minimum Lot (3) Multi-family dwellings, 42,000 sq. ft. It is important for the ultimate upgrading and redevelopment of Englewood, that private investors find it economically feasible to invest their money in helping to upgrade the Englewood community. This proposed increase in minimum lot area might very well spell the end, if not a drastic slowdow~, to further multi- family developments because of the problems involved with dealing with up to seven owners to put together a minimum assemblage. in this situation, there will be several holdouts, who will tip the project financially or stop it completely. The proposed density bonus of maximum of 70 b/u per acre, might improve the economics but not the atmosphere. -o- The Englewood Planning & Zoning Commission 3400 So uth Elati Englewo od, Colorado 80110 Page -2- Section 9. Accessory Uses. An extremely large number of residential units are necessary to support specialty service shops and it might be wall to develop an innovative approach to these naadso Perhaps you could consider a mixed use zone classification which would permit shops of this kind in an R-3 zone. Under certain conditions as ••• Proximity to a large number of existing & proposed residential units. Arapahoe County and the city of Littleton have both initiated a mixed use zone classification which seems to us to be a very good method of balanced redevelopment of those areas which have experienced deteri.oration. Design Review Process llJB realize that certain past improvements may appear to some individuals to be unattractive aesthetically, while at the same time not being offen- sive to others. Indeed, some of the "batter" designed structures (such as the Key Savings & Loan Building on Broadway) might not have been per-· mitted to be built if a Design Review Committee had existed when they were constructed, possibly preventing that kind of improvement in the community. Design and aesthetics are so extremely subjective to indivi-. dual tastes, that we do not feel this is a proper area for the city to regulate. This additional procedural step, the potential delays and costly changes, even though the project or development completely complie s . ~ with the zoning and building codes, would definitely discourage much ne ede d .., de velopment. We feel that the PUO requirement on any large complex is sufficient and therefore, we recommend that you do not initiate a Design Review Committee. You rs truly, SO UTH SUBURBAN BOARD Of REALTORS, INCo c::::xiie~ ~n -C. Bagnall, Pre JCB/lgs cc : Jim Supinger Director of Community Development City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Englewood, Colorado 80110 • ' ' • -9- Mrs. Romans stated that a third modification the staff has proposed is the inclusion of an "efficiency unit ---550 sq. ft. floor area". The staff is of the opinion that some statement regarding efficiency units would be advisable -- either that such units are permitted with a minimum floor area given, or that they are not permitted. Mr. Jones stated that efficiency units in the medium density district was discussed at the joint meeting with Council and the Committee, but he could not recall that it was introduced as a part of the recommendation. He asked if one-bedroom units would not suffice in the medium density district? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff did not know; the staff has to try to anticipate inquiries. She suggested that the wording could be: "Efficiency. and/or one-bedroom uni ts ---650 sq. ft." Mrs. Wade stated that with the minor difference in square footage as initially proposed by the staff, most developers will probably build the one-bedroom units anyway, but pro- viding for the efficiency units does give them an option. Mr. Jones stated that inclusion of the efficiency units will be introducing higher density into areas that are basically low density now. He stated he would be opposed to this particular modification of the Committee recommendation. Discussion followed. It was the concensus of the majority of the members the wording should include provision for "efficiency and/or one bedroom unit ---650 sq. ft.", and asked that the proposed amendment be so changed. Mr. Martin asked if anyone were present to speak in opposition to the suggested amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? No one present spoke in opposition. Mr. Martin stated, on behalf of the Planning Commission, he would like to commend the members of the Multi-family Development Standards Review Committee for their dedication to their task, and for the great job they did. Pierson moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Wade; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried . -10- V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment of R-3-A and R-3-B to R-3 High Density District Jones moved: CASE #18-75 Jorgenson seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. AYES: Brown; Jon es; Jorgenson; Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith; Tanguma; Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that legal notice of the public hearing was given i n th e Englewood Herald. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed amendment would result in an R-3, High Density Zone District, rather than the R-3-A, and R-3-B Zone Districts that now exist. Areas which are zoned R-3-A and R-3-B now were indicated on the map. Mrs. Romans stated that the s t aff again suggests the addition of a provision for "efficiency unit ... 550 sq. ft.", and that the landscaping required in the front yard be 40% rather than 50%. Mrs. Romans again referred to the letter from South Suburban Board of Realtors and their suggested amendment of §22.4-6c(3) regarding the minimum lot a r ea for multi-family dwellings. Mr. Martin asked if there were any one who wished to speak in favor of the proposed amendment? No one spoke in favor. Mr. Martin then asked if there were anyone who wished to speak in opposition of the proposed amendment? No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Jones stated that he has a personal concern about ratios of efficiency units to other units; Mr. Jones stated he realized there is no restriction the Commission could place on developers requiring a "mixture" of units to avoid development of all efficiency units, etc. Mr. Jones stated that he understands the concern of the staff that efficiency units should be permitted with a restricted floor area, or should not be permitted. Mr. Jones stated he felt we need to encourage construction of more family units for the good of the community at large. Mr. Supinger stated that if it is the wish of the Commission to permit the effic i ency units, they could require the efficiency and/or one bedroom units to have a minimum floor area of 650 sq. ft. Jones moved: Jorgenson seconded: Minimum floor area requirements for efficiency units in the proposed R-3 High Density District, be 650 sq. ft. Discussion ensued. The vote was called: . ' ' ' • -11- AYES: Jorgenson; Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mr. Martin asked if there were any further comments pertaining to the propose d R-3 amendment? Brown moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Jones; Jorgenson; Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith; Tangumaf Wade; Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mr. Martin asked that the staff make the suggested changes in the R-2 and R-3 amendments before the Commission makes a recom- mendation to City Council. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger stated that the Commission members have been in- vited to meet with representative s of Swedish Medical Center on Saturday, June 28th, 7:30 a.m. at Swedish Medical Center. All members indicated they would attend this meeting. Mr.Supinger stated that the Commission had set a study session for June 10th on RTD matters. The City Council did not take action on the Commission recommendati on regarding the Park & Ride facilities at their meeting of June 2, 1975. It is the desire of the Council to set a joint meeting with the Commission and representatives of RTD, and City Manager Mccown has sug- gested this session might be held on June 14th. Mr. Martin stated he would hope that Englewood "is not going to sit back and wait to find out wha t is going on." Mr. Martin stated he has heard that RTD has negotiated three Park & Ride facil ities in the metro area at this time. Mr. Martin stated that he hoped something could be set up and acted on rather quickly; he emphasized that time is of the essence. Mr. Supinger stated that he understood Council wants the opportunity to ask some questions ; he stated that he feels Council is aware that time is important. Discussion followed. Mrs. Wade asked what time the meeting on the 14th would be? Mr. Supinger stated he understood it could be an all day session . -12- Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any way this could be split into two sessions, such as on Tuesday evening, and finis h the session on Saturday morning, in lieu of an all day Saturday session. Mr. Supinger stated that the problem would be in getting the Council and other personnel who is to attend notified in the time span we have --plus, they may have something else already scheduled. Discussion followed. It was the concensus of the majority of the Commission they would prefer to not meet on Saturday if another day was possible. Mr. Jones suggested, if an evening session is possible, that the meeting begin at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Supinger stated that City Council had directed City Attorney Berardini to prepare a resolution approving the Halcyon Heights II project. City Council did include addi- tional conditions, which include provision for ventilation control of the building during fire; elevator system shall be suitable for evacuation by stretchers in emergency situations, and restrictions on storm water runoff. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Tanguma moved: Mr. Parker seconded: The following letter be made part of the official record: "The members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission wish to state that Mr. James Supinger has been an inspiration to this Commission, and a leader of the highest caliber who is devoted to his job beyond the call of duty. He has exerted his seemingly inexhaustible energies to comply with all of the wishes and demands of this Commission. "The Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission gives Mr. James Supinger a vote of confidence and thanks for the many hours he has spent advising and guiding this Commission through the many difficult decisions we have been confronted with in the past." AYES: NAYS: ABS EN Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson None None The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ~errueG~IY ~ Recording Secretary ' •