Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-05-03 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 3, 1978 The Planning Commission met in informal session at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Room, with members of the Housing Redevelop- ment and Residential Preservation Committee. Members of the Review Committee present were: Ms. Cindy Peterson, Ms. Jane Schnackenberg, Ms. Georgina Brown, Ms. Betty Beier, Ms. Eva Eisenberg, Ms. Julia Fitzpatrick, and Messrs. Joe Smolski and Bud Gilmore. I. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting was formally called to order at 7:30 P.M. with the following Commission members present: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Owens. Commission members absent were: Parker, Williams, Lathrop, and Mcclintock. Staff members present were: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development, and Steve House, Associate Planner. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Owens pointed out that the Minutes had not been available for the Commiss ion members review prior to the meeting, and asked the Commission's pleasure on the Minutes. Tanguma move d: Smith seconded: The consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of April 18, 1978, be postponed un- til the next regular meeting of the Commission. AYES: Owens, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Williams, Lathrop, McClintock The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Housing Redevelopment and Resident ial Preservation Review Committee. Mr. Tanguma stated that most of the members of the Housing Review Committee , which he chaired, are present, and he com- mended the members of this Committee for their efforts. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that in order to obtain basic data for the assignment, the City was divided into sections, and members of the Committee surveyed these sections, noting problem areas that are in need of maintenance, redevelopment. etc. Mr. Tanguma stated that he wanted to personally thank all of the members of the Review Committee for their good work, and asked Mr. Joe Smolski to make the presentation of the report to the Planning Commis sion. -2- Mr. Smolski read the formal presentation of the report to the Commission. Smith moved: Draper seconded : The Planning Commission receive the report of the Housing Review Committee. AYES: Owens, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: Mcclintock, Parker, Williams, Lathrop The motion carried. Mr. Owens asked if the Commission members had questions on the report? Mr. Smith questioned whether or not Aurora was also a "full- service City"; he requested that this matter be researched before the report is published in final form. Mr. Smith also questioned the recommendation for "better Hous ing Code inspection"; he asked if this pertains to new housing or to existing homes? Mr. Tanguma stated that the Committee was making reference to older homes, and that one of the questions that has arisen during discussions on this matter is whether the City has the authority to go into a house for inspection? Mr. Smith stated that no resident has to allow an Inspector into the house. Mrs. Romans pointed out that at this time, most inspections are made on a "complaint basis"; she pointed out that the purpose of the Housing Code is to attempt to prevent stable neighborhoods from becoming blighted. Mrs. Schnackenberg commented that people need to be made aware of the need for housing code inspections --an educa- tional process should be devised to make these residents aware. She suggested that possibly items could be pointed out which might constitute hazards in the homes, and that possibly there could be a follow-up inspection; Mrs. Schnackenberg also suggested that possibly this could be attempted in small areas two or three blocks at a time. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Eisenberg recounted her experiences in attempting to have her neighborhood cleaned up; she stated that she was recently informed by Mr. Wanush, Director of Community Development, that 11 the Code Division was the only department that could get in withou t a warrant." Mr. Smith disagreed, stating there was "no way a Code Enforc e- ment Inspector has to be let in the house." Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Housing Code does give the authority to make in- spections; but as a matter of practice, it might be difficult for the Inspector to gain entry without the resident's specific approval. The Housing Code was cited as authorizing the In- spector to enter a residence and to obtain a Court Order to do so, if the occupant refused to let the Inspector enter. -3- Mr. Smolski stated that during the time the City was being surveyed by the members, several badly deteriorate d and con- demned houses were noted. He pointed out that there was considerable discussion on ways to interest people in rehabilitating a structure before it becomes deteriorated or condemned. He noted one structure that had hastily been spray-painted, and while this may have slightly improved the outside visual impact, it gave no assurance that the interior of the house met the Housing Code, and was structurally sound. He questioned the impact this may have on purchasers. Mr. Smith stated that ''it is not the responsibility of the City to protect the buyer." Further discussion ensued. Mrso Eisenberg discussed her efforts to have her neighboehood cleaned up. She stated that she joined this committee be- cause she hoped that there would be some effort to promote cleaning up the City. She added that the residents need the cooperation of the City Government in order to get the City cleaned up and that she felt the employees should, if they feel there are not strong enough laws to accomplish something, make every effort to have the laws changed so that the intent of the law will be accomplished. Mrs. Pierso n pointed out that when the Commercial and Industrial Review Committee came across some very serious violations, they were turned in to the Chief Building Inspector, and these viola- tions were cleared up. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt possibly the Code Enforcement Division is under-staffed for the job they have to do. She acknowledged that the matter of Code Enforcement arose on many occasions during the time the Review Committees were meeting. Discussion further ensued. Mrs. Pierson stated that the case law, as she understands it, does give the right for an Inspector to enter without a warrant if there is a compelling need. Discussion on the need to change some of the ordinances ensued. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that the Review Committee report does point up the need for changes, but that it is up to the City Council to determine how to accomplish these changes. Mr. Smith then questioned the recommendation of paving the gravel alleys. He stated that he felt 99% of the property owners don't want the alleys paved. He questioned that the residents used the alleys sufficiently to justify the cost of paving. Mrs. Schnackenber g stated that she felt there should be a study on the health aspect of paving the alleys --the runof f vs. the mud of unpaved alleys. Mrs. Fitzpatrick pointed out that there is a real problem on the maintenance of gravel alleys. Mr. Gilmore stated that he had waited two years to get into a Paving District to get the alley paved in his block. Mrs. Eisenberg stated that she felt alleys were out-of-date :in residential areas. Mr. Owens acknowledged that there were some areas where the alleys could be vacated; but some people -4- do have access to garages from the alleys, and these could not be vacated. The need for an alley as a place for trash cans etc. was discussed, as opposed to setting the trash out for pick up on the front of the property. Mrs. Eisenberg pointed out that the trash pick up is on a given day, and that the trash and garbage would be out on the front of the property on that day only, vs. being in the alley for the entire week. Mrs. Pierson questioned the possibility of the City giving away trees for planting in the right-of-way by property owners. She pointed out that Aurora has offered free trees to any one who will plant and care for the trees in an effort to beautify the City. Discussion ensued. The repair of sidewalk and curbing, as well as street maintenance and paving was discussed. Mr. Smith asked if there was any discussion of a special code for rental properties? Mr. Tanguma stated that this possibility had not been considered. Mr. Owens questioned whether §(e) en Page 8 pertained to existing housing or new structures? Mrs. Fitzpatrick pointed out that this was primarily in reference to rental property; she pointed out that most rental properties do present a problem for a neighborhood. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson questioned if there was some way to require de- velopers to provide off-street parking and ~rohibit the charging of a fee to the tenant to use the parking. Mr. Smith questioned whether the developer is actually "providing" parking for tenant use if the tenants are required to pay to use the parking space? Discussion ensued. Mr. Draper questioned whether there is need to increase the off-street parking requirements, and if this would pertain to new construction in the single-family resi- dential areas? Mrs. Romans reviewed the present off-street parking requirements and pointed out tha.t there has been only one apartment complex constructed since the new off-street parking regulations went into effect some four years ago. Mr. Draper stated that he felt the proposal to alter codes to permit greater flexibility in lot coverage and setbacks and the provision to increase the off-street parking requirements might be in conflict. He pointed out that the property owner would only have a given amount of land to work with. Mrs. Georgina Brown stated that the Review Committee felt strongly that recreation vehicles should not be parked on the street. Mr. Owens asked if the members felt the recreation vehicles would be less objectionable if they were parked in a property owner's back yard? Mr. Tanguma stated that he feels this would be less hazardous for the motorist and pedestrian; he pointed out that quite often the recreation vehicles do obstruct vision. Mr. Gilmore stated that he felt the ordinance should be enforced limiting the size of vehicles that may be parked in a residential district. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Owens stated that he felt it should be determined what -5- district the Commit tee had reference to when it made the sug- gestion that off-street parking requirements be increased. He pointed out that the ground cost will enter into considera- tion for developers, and if the developer has to provide a considerable amount of off-street parking, this could stymie further developme nt. Parking around the Larwin development was discussed. It was pointed out that the tenants in the Larwin development park on the street because it is more convenient. Mr. Smolski stated that he is a resident of this area, and that the on- street parking does cause a problem for the adjacent property owner. Mrs. Beier asked about the possibility of eliminating on-street parking on the south side of Floyd? Mr. Smolski stated that this would eliminate any place for persons who use the Romans Park to park, and the tenants who are parking on West Floyd Avenue would park on the residential streets to the north and west. Mrs. Pierson asked about a restriction on over-night parking? Discussion ensued. Mrs. Fitzpatrick stated that she felt the committee was referring to apartment units when they recommended an increase in the off-street parking requirements. It was pointed out that increased off-street parking requirements cannot be made retro-ac tive: existing apartment units would not have to meet the increased parking standards. Mr. Smith stated tllat he fel t the existing off-street parking standards are adequate. Mr. Owens stated that he is concerned about discouraging de- velopment or redevelopment if the requirements are too strict, and he questioned whether the parking would be used even if it were to be provided. Mr. Owens asked how the City would go about enforcing off-street parking for motorists --how could these people be forced to use the off-street parking rather than parking on the street? Mrs. Romans pointed out that a great many of the apartment complexes charge a fee for the parking space, and if the space is provided for the use of the tenants, even though there is a charge, they are technically providing the re- quired parking. Mrs. Romans pointed out that one of the complaints received from Contractors in northwest Englewood is about the required off-street parking. They don't have alleys in the blocks in northwest Englewood, and the lots are very deep. Because the Ordinance says that the required i:arking cannot be located in the front 25 feet of the property, developers have threatened to pave the front 50 feet of the site, and to provide the parking on the paved area 25 feet back from the front lot line or in other words, the second 25 feet. Mrso Romans stated that the Denver Buick case had some effect on the parking situation: this court case determined that private off-street parking could not be "required", and when the 1963 Zoning Ordinance was drafted, an attempt was made to set forth parking "standards" and not "requirements" Further discussion ensue d. -6- Mrs. Eisenberg questioned why commercial structures were allowed to build right to the street line? She pointed out the Majestic Savings and Loan at Belleview and Broadway, saying that if either of these streets had to be widened, the building would have 1o be moved or demolished. Mrs. Romans stated that there are no setback requirements in the commercial zone districts, and that part of the reasoning behind the lack of setback requirement is the high cost of the commercially zoned property. Mr. Smith and Mrs. Beier commented on the new Gump Glass building in Denver. Both stated that this was a very attractive commercial development, and would hope there would be more of this type. The Commission recessed at 8:50 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 P.M. with the following members present: Owens, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper. Absent were: Lathrop, McClintock, Parker and Williams. Mr. Owens asked if there were further questions or comments on the text of the Housing report? Mrs. Beier questioned the use of the word "predominately" in the first sentence on Page 7; she suggested that the sentence be reworded to state to "low and moderate income" residents, and that the word "predominately" be stricken. Mr. OWens referred to the second paragraph on Page 7, and asked who should provide this additional housing. Mr. Smith stated that he felt this paragraph referred to the present process of providing low-income housing units. Mrs. Beier pointed out that the City would have to gain HUD approval of another project in addition to getting the proper financing. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Owens noted that Mrs. Romans had previously discussed the proposed Land Use Maps with the Commission, and asked if the Commission wished to go through them again. For the benefit of those who were not present when the map was discussed previously, Mrs. Romans reviewed the proposed mapping and classifications. She pointed out areas that have been identified as being in need of redevelopment; whether or not the Housing Authority will expand the "Areas of Concern" to encompass all of the areas being in need of redevelopment is not known at this point. Mrs. Beier questioned why the Mixed-use Medical classification encompassed the area between East Hampden Avenue and U.S. 285 she felt that this should be expanded to encompass the Swedish- Craig medical campus and those support facilities. Mr. Draper asked what zoning classification the mixed-use medical would be? Mrs. Romans stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will have to be amended. Performance Standards ..,.; ........ -7- would have to be drafted for the mixed-use areas, or possibly the Special Permit System will be implemented in such areas. Mrs. Georgina Brown inquired as to the process for adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Owens outlined the meetings that are scheduled with the various review committees, and the process that will be followed after the receipt of the review committee reports. The Commission will have to have a public hearing on the revised Plan, and then it will be re- ferred to the City Council. The Plan will be recorded in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's Office after approval by the City Council. Mr. Owens expressed the Commission's appreciation to those who have participated in the Review Committees. He commended the members of the Housing Review Committee for doing an outstanding job on their assignment, and invited these members to attend any of the meetings of the Commission they would wish to. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans reminded the Commission of an invitation to attend a breakfast meeting at Swedish Medical Center on May 20th, at 7:30 A.M. Members will meet in the main lobby at 7:30 A.M. where they will be met by representatives of Swedish and shown to the meeting room. V. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Smith suggested that a calendar of the proposed Commissim- Review Committee meetings be sent to members of the various review committees in order that they might participate in any of the meetings in which they are interested. Mr. Owens asked if there was any further .business to be con- sidered by the Commission at this meeting? The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.