Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-22 PZC MINUTES• • I I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 22, 1985 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Vice-Chairman Venard. Members present: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Carson Members absent: Magnuson, McBrayer, Allen Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Connnunity Development Susan T. King, Senior Planner Harold J. Stitt, Planner II (Acting Director of Community Development Vargas and City Attorney Olsen entered during the course of the meeting.) II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. December 18, 1984 Mr. Venard stated that the Minutes of December 18, 1984, were to be con- sidered for approval . Carson 'moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of December 18, 1984 be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Barbre ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen, Magnuson Mr. Venard ruled that the motion carried, and the Minutes are approved as written. III. CONDITIONAL USE 3986 South Broadway Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-85 be opened. AYES: IStoel, Tangum~, Venard, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, Magnuson, McBrayer The motion carried. CASE 112-85 Mr. Venard outlined the procedure that will be followed during the course of the lPublic Hearing; all speakers are asked to come to the podium, give their name and address, and be sworn in. Mr. Venard stated that the Com- mission has had a copy of the staff report pertaining to this case for several days, and asked if the Commission members had any questions per- taining to the staff report. Mr. Venard stated that the Planning Commis- sion is the approving authority on Conditional Uses, and that the Commis- -2- sion shall make written findings approving, disapproving, or conditionally • approving this request for a Conditional Use. Mr. Magnuson entered the meeting and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Venard asked if the staff had anything further to add to the staff report. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing further to add to the staff report, but did point out comments contained within the report from the Division of Building & Safety regarding the change of classification of the building with the new garage use, which requires that the entire structure shall be brought up to Code. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Stitt, Planner II in the Department of Community Development, has worked with the applicant, and will be answering questions regarding this case. Mr. Tanguma noted that on Page 3, Item #4 states that "all work shall be performed within an enclosed structure"; does this mean that the work shall be concealed from the public, or only that the work area must be fenced. Mr. Stitt pointed out that fencing a property does not "enclose" a use, and this would have to be within a building. Mr. Tanguma further pointed out that the written statement by the applicant indicates that no construction or remodeling would be involved; is this correct. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Building and Safety Division has stated that the entire building will have to be brought up to Code for an H-4 occupancy; this will entail some modifications to the structure. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this application is dealing with a property owner, lessee, and sub-lessee, and that all persons involved should be aware that the building does have to comply with the applicable Codes or a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. Mr. Venard asked that the applicant come forward. Shiv Jee Jha, 3986 South Broadway, was sworn in, and stated that he is the applicant for the Conditional Use, auto repair, at the foregoing ad- dress. Mr. Venard asked if Mr. Jha had seen the staff report, and the staff report and the conditions proposed by the staff. wered affirmatively. understood Mr. Jha ans- Mr. Venard asked if there were any questions. Mr. Tanguma asked if the property owner is present. Mr. Henke stated that the owner is not present, but that he is leasing the property from Mr. Rippen, who is the owner, and subleasing to Mr. Jha, the applicant. Mr. Tanguma asked if Mr. Henke was aware that the entire building has to brought up to Code before the use could be approved. Mr. Henke answered affirmatively. Mr. Venard asked Mr. Jha if he had anything further to add at this time. Mr. Jha stated that he did not know whether he had further information to add; he would answer questions. Mr. Venard then called on Mrs. Joan Carter to speak. • ' I • I -3- Mrs. Joan Carter 3978 South Broadway -was sworn in, and stated that she wanted to speak in opposition to the proposed garage use. She pur- chased her property in May, and has an antique store with a nice inventory. The subject building shares a common wall with the building she owns, and she expressed concern that modifications to the structure at 3986 South Broadway would affect her building at 3978 South Broadway. Mrs. Carter also addressed problems she has experienced with employees and/or customers of the adjoining business parking at the rear of her property so that she cannot use this area for parking for her customers . Mrs. Carter also ad- dressed the "junky" look of the property, noting there is a lot of brush, old chairs, tires, etc. along the fence, which is never cleaned up; cars that are parked on the site are in need of body work and repair. Mrs. Carter stated that because of the common wall between her property and the adjoining property, she feels it would be a fire hazard. Mr. Venard asked Mrs. Carter if she had seen a copy of the staff report. Mrs. Carter stated that she had not. Mr. Venard referred to a map of the subject block, and pointed out that the actual location of the garage would not share a common wall with Mrs. Carter's business. Mrs. Carter asked about the doors that are by her building that are being used presently; she further stated that something must be done about the parking situation, and emphasized that the parking problems have stemmed from the people operating the garage at the rear of the property . Mr. Robert Naudack 3997 South Lincoln Street -was sworn in, and also spoke in opposition to the proposed Conditional Use. Mr. Naudack stated that he also owned the properties at 3983 and 3971 South Lincoln Street; he stated that he has had to ask the operators of the garage to move vehicles they have "jockeyed" in on the rear of his rental property. Mr. Naudack agreed with Mrs. Carter's statement that there is a parking problem with this garage and the other businesses on Mr. Rippen's prop- erty. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Naudack how long he had owned his property. Mr. Naudack stated that he has lived in this block for 25 years. Mr. Carson pointed out that there has been a "machine shop" on Broadway for the same period of time. Mr. Naudack stated that he knew this, and there have been parking problems for a number of years, but they have worsened. Mr. Venard asked if people frequenting this garage have been parking on Mr. Naudack's property, or only using it for maneuvering. Mr. Naudack stated that while they do not actually park "on" on the property, they do pull in on the property at 3983 South Lincoln, and he does not want his tenant to become upset if he cannot get into his parking space. Mr. Naudack stated that he has had to ask people to move their vehicles, and that his wife has seen people backing in with big trucks. Ms. Patricia Hennesey 3974 South Broadway -was sworn in. Ms. Hennesey expressed her concerns about the appearance of the alley and the parking problems in this area. Ms. Hennesey stated that the vehicles she has seen at 3986 South Broadway are very "junked up", and the vehicles are left there for several days and over-night. Ms. Hennesey indicated that she had experienced people parking on the rear of her property, and has had to ask that the vehicles be moved. -4- Mr. Philip Henke I 3986 South Broadway -was sworn in, and stated that he is in support of the requested Conditional Use; he is the lessee of the property, and is sub-leasing to Mr. Jha . Mr. Henke stated that he leases the property from the property owner, Mr. Rippen, and did so five years ago; at that time, he was allowed to have two parking spaces at the rear of the building, with the remaining parking area being allocated to the businessman on the corner at 3998 South Broadway. This business has left disassembled auto parts on the premises, and some of them are next to the fence by the antique shop . The two parking spaces which will be allotted to Mr. Jha will be by the fence, and vehicles are not to be left in front of the garage. Mr. Henke stated that there should be no parking conflicts if this parking allotment is adhered to. Mr. Henke acknowledged that Mrs. Carter did find one short-term employee of Mr. Jha's who had parked on her property, and had to request that he move his vehicle; this is the only occasion he is aware of that people have been parking on her property. Mr. Henke stated that he would be happy to try to mediate between all the parties involved to reach a solution to the matter of parking. Mr. Henke stated that he would be glad to have a consultant view the building to determine what needs to be done to upgrade the structure for the H-4 Occupancy rating . Mr. Stoel asked the size of the space being sub-leased to Mr. Jha. Mr. Henke estimated the area is 500 square feet. Mr. Venard asked if there were questions for Mr. Henke from the audience. ~ Mrs. Carter inquired about the use of the two doors that are in use to the building by her property, and the cars that are parked next to and on her property. Mr. Henke stated that there is approximately 25 to 30 feet between Mrs. Carter's property and the doors she is referring to. Mrs. Carter pointed out that a lot of the cars appear to need body work. Mr. Henke st ated that those vehicles belong to Little Wheels. Ms. Hennesey asked if Mr. Henke could guarantee that the parking prob- lems will not keep occurring, and noted that she had experienced parking problems on her property at least three times. Mr. Henke stated that he cannot offer any guarantees, but will do his best to work with his sub- lessee to assure that people do not infringe on the parking rights of other businesses in the block. Ms. Hennesey asked about the junky appearance of the property. Mr. Henke stated that he cannot do anything about the property that belongs to Little Wheels, even though part of it is on the site that he leases from Mr. Rippen. Ms. Hennesey asked what will happen to the appearance of the alley. Mr. Henke stated that if the junk is something that is the responsibility of his business, or of Mr. Jha's business, they will take care of it. Mr. Venard stated that it appears some of the disagreements and problems between the neighboring businesses and residents may be worked out. Mr. Henke pointed out that the large trucks referred to by Mr. Nau dack were making deliveries to his place of business; these deliveries are now being made from Broadway. I • • I -5- Mrs. Carter stated that when she took out the insurance on her business, she was asked about the business next door; she asked if the garage use would cause her insurance rates to increase. Would they be storing flam- mable liquids, such as barrels of gas and oil to clean motors. Mr. Henke stated that the oil that would be drained from cars is stored in containers; the main type of work being done by Mr. Jha is tune-ups, filter changes, etc.; he didn't think storage of flammable liquids would be a prcib:l.em. ~He stated that he does have flammable liquids in his own place of business, but it is stored within enclosed containers. Mr. Naudack asked what hours of business Mr. Jha proposes. Mr. Henke stated that the hours will be 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on weekdays. Mr. Naudack stated that he did not want his weekends ruined by hotrodders and speeders in the alley as a result of this garage. Mr. Venard asked if there were other questions or statements to be made in favpr of or in opposition to the proposed Conditional Use. No further comments were made. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-85 be closed. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. Mr. Venard asked if the Conditional Use is granted, including the con- ditions recommended in the staff report, what recourse do the neighbors and/or City have if these conditions are not met by the applicant/prop- erty owner. Mrs. Romans stated that the Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the use is in compliance with the conditions set forth. Mr. Venard asked if Mr. Jha understood this. Mr. Jha apologized for the parking problem, and acknowledged that he did have one employee who had parked on Mrs. Carter's property; this person is no longer employed by Mr. Jha. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use of an automotive repair shop at 3986 South Broadway with the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use approval be tied to the business operated by Shiv Jee Jha. If the business is sold, the Planning Comission would require a review of the new business to grant a continuance of the Conditional Use. 2. No bodywork, dismantling or collision repair shall be permitted. 3. Motor vehicles being serviced or stored while waiting to be ser- viced or called for, shall not be parked on the street or in the alley. -6- 4. All work shall be performed within an enclosed structure. 5. No material, stock , or parts shall be deposited or stored on the premises outside of an enclosed structure. 6. Screening must be provided to shield adjacent single-family residences. 7. Prior to the issuance of a new Certificate of Occupancy, the owner of the building mus .t: a. Submit to the Code Administrator, an analysis of the structure by a building consultant, setting forth the existing condition of the structure, and how it will be brought into compliance with all applicable City Codes; and b. Do the necessary work to bring the building into co mpliance with all applicable Codes. Mr. Stoel asked how the Commission proposed to address the parking prob- lem cited by the neighbors. Mr. Carson suggested that the Police Depart- ment should ticket the offenders. Mr. Stoel asked if this was approved, with the conditions, and people in the neighborhoo d are still having problems, what recourse do these adjoining residents/property owners/businessmen have. Mr. Olsen, City Attorney, suggested that they would have to hire a lawyer and seek an injunction against the garage. The choices are to ask the City to step in and take action against the offenders, or to take the matter to court on their own. Mr. Tanguma stated that there are already automotive repair shops on the property and this portion of the block; he stated that he did not really feel that a two-bay garage will add that much to the parking problem. He stated that he feels the property owner and the lessee will have to make sure there are no further problems. Mr. Venard stated that he would like to emphasize at this point that while the Planning Commission is sensitive to the rights of the neighbors, the Commissio n is also sensitive to the right of an individual to use his property within the paramaters of the applicable ordinances . Mr. Venard stated that Mr. Henke and Mr. Jha appear willing to work with the neighbors to solve the problems that have been cited this evening, and that he would support approval of the application. Mr. Olsen asked that the Commission consider the application without the imposition of the conditions suggested in the staff report, and consider th e imposition of conditions in a separate vote. Mr. Olsen stated that the applicant does have the right to have a determination on his application, as submitted, and if he then agrees to the imposition of the Conditions, they may be done in separate action. Discussion en- sued. Magnuson moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission S o into Executive Session. AYES: Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: NONE • • I • I -7- ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. The Commission came out of Executive Session. Mr. Venard thanked the audience for their patience and understanding, but the Commission needed to clarify the procedure to be followed. Mr. Venard then asked Mr. Jha and Mr. Henke to come to the podium. Mr. Venard stated that the applicants were asked earlier in the meeting if they understood the conditions cited on Page 3 of the Staff Report, and if they were willing to go along with those conditions. Mr. Venard stated that the question now is, will Mr. Jha and Mr. Henke be willing to amend their request to include the seven condit~ons cited in the staff report. Mr. Henke asked for clarification of Condition 116, "Screening must be provided to shield adjacent single-family residences." He asked if this meant an enclosed privacy fence with gates. Mr. Stitt stated that when a business property is adjacent, abutting, or adjoining a residential district, there must be screening to block the view of the business property from the view of the residential property. This may be done by an opaque fence with gates to provide access. Mr. Henke stated that the businesses adjacent to him are not providing screening, and asked if he is being singled out. Mr. Stitt stated that this is not the case. Mr. Olsen asked if the applicant would state whether he would or would not agree to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Henke stated that he does not feel Condition 116 on the screening is necessary. He feels by cleaning up the property, it would be more suitable, and that the screening would be "counter productive" as far as solving the parking consideration. He will agree with the remaining conditions as proposed. Mr. Olsen asked if Mr. Henke was willing to amend the application. Mr. Henke stated that he did not agree with Condition 116, and would not agree to amend the application to include this condition. Mr. Carson, with the approval of Mr. Barbre, withdrew his motion to grant approval with conditions. Mr. Venard noted for the record that he does have in hand a copy of the legal notice which was published in the official City newspaper, and a Certification of Posting provided by the applicant. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission not approve the Conditional Use of an auto repair garage at 3986 South Broadway, because without certain conditions being met, the use would not be compatible at that location, and the applicant has not agreed to the conditions as sug- gested by the Department of Community Development. AYES: Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen -8- The motion carried. Mr. Venard stated that the application, as submitted, is denied. Mr. Venard suggested that the applicants work with the staff in an ef- fort to solve some of the problems, and they may reapply for approval at a later time. Mr. Jha stated that he cannot put up the fence; he has two parking spaces for his business, and it is not his property, so he cannot put up the fence. Mr. Venard suggested that the property owner and/or Mr. Henke as the lessee will have to bear the cost of the fencing, and of bringing the building up to required Code levels. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel suggested that the applicants know what is required of them to gain approval of the Conditional Use, and it is now up to them to work things out so that the Commission can grant such approval. IV. CAMDEN PLACE ONE CASE 111-85 Amendment of Sinclair Park Planned Development Carson moved: Magnuson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 111-85 be opened. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. Mr. Venard stated that he has in hand a copy of the public notice published in the official City newspaper, and copies of the Certificates of Posting for the property. Mr. Venard stated that all persons wishing shall come to the podium and be sworn in. any additions to the staff report. to address the Commission Does the staff wish to make Ms. King stated that the staff had nothing to add at this time. Mr. Venard asked if the Commission had any questions on the staff report. Hearing no questions, Mr. Venard then asked that the applicant make his presentation. Dasel Hallmark 3600 South Yosemite • Denver, Colorado -was sworn in. Mr. Hallmark stated that he is the engineer and planner on this site. Mr. Heffley and I Margaret Kerwin own Camden Homes, and are the applicants. Mr. Hallmark stated that he wanted to address the "Comments from Other Departments" section of the staff report. He stated that the fire lane will be posted "No Parking" in accordance with the wishes of the Fire Department and Building Department. A preliminary drainage study has been done; there will • • I -9- be some retention on site, and the details of drainage release will be worked out with the City Engineer. Mr. Hallmark stated that the applicants realize this site is in a low waterpressure zone; the size of the meters and lines to service the units will be increased to 1-1/2", and they will continue to work with the Utilities Department to resolve this. Public Works has suggested that a cul-de-sac would be a more efficient turn- around at the south end of the proposed development; Mr. Hallmark stated that Fire Marshal Groditski did approve the "hammerhead" type of turn- around and the hydrant location as shown on their plans. Mr. Hallmark stated that the applicants agree with the staff comments, and understand the problems; they are working to solve the problems that have been pointed out. He asked that Mr. Heffley now address the Commission. Mr. Joe Heffley 7824 South Magnolia Way -was sworn in. Mr. Venard noted that Mr. Heffley had distributed to the Commission copies of the landscaping plan, which are depicted on easels before the audience, and snapshots of similar projects that have been constructed in the Denver area. Mr. Heffley gave an overview of the formation of Camden Homes; he has worked in the Denver area for four or five years, and has joined with Ms. Margaret Kerwin to form Camden Homes. They want to build quality units that will give something back to the community, in an affordable price range, and take pride in what they do. They feel that this site will lend itself to their aims, and hope to do a development that will provide quality housing with lots of landscaping, and a good living en- vironment for those who will reside within the new development, and for those residents in the neighborhood. This type of development, townhouses, will provide a buffer between the heavy density apartment buildings to the east and the single-family homes on South Delaware Street. The pro- posed development of Camden Place One will be townhouses designed for home ownership; the Sinclair Park Planned Development was designed to be a rental community. The sale price for the townhouse units will be in the high 70's to low 80's. The units will be two and three bedrooms, two and one-half baths, with two-car garages, and basements. The pro- posed Planned Development has been designed to emphasize privacy for the townhouse buyer, and for the adjoining single-family homeowners to the west. A privacy fence is to be installed on the west boundary of the site, with landscaping also to be provided. Each unit will have a two-car garage, and 10 off-street parking spaces for guest parking have been provided; they are required to provide only four guest parking spaces for a development of this size. The landscaping will include 31 trees and 98 shrubs, in addition to grass and rock covering. Mr. Heffley stated that he and Ms. Kerwin accept this as "minimum" standards for landscaping in this project, and are willing to be "held to this plan". Mr. Heffley discussed a market study that they had done before starting this project, which indicated that 80% of the people who purchased homes such as they propose did so because of the quality of life style, size and design of the unit. They feel there is a market demand for the type of unit that is proposed. Mr. Stoel asked how similar the pictures Mr. Heffley presented to .the Commission are to what is proposed. Mr. Heffley stated that units in -10- the picture are 30 feet in height; this proposal is less than 25 feet in height, but they will have the same floor plans. Mr. Hallmark again addressed the Conunission; the request is to approve 22 townhouse units on 1.556 acres, +/-. Mr. Hallmark contrasted the proposed development with the Sinclair Park Planned Development which had been approved by the Commission several years ago, noting that the present applicants propose garages, landscaping, privacy fences, and ownership of the units. Mr. Hallmark stated that they do not feel the density is excessive, and this development will serve as a buffer between the high density apartment district to the east, and the single-family neighborhood on South Delaware Street. Lou Cangilla 5000 South Delaware -was sworn in and asked how far from West Grand Avenue the first unit is proposed to be built. Mr. Heffley stated that it would be built 50 feet from the curb. Mr. Cangilla asked if the Home Owners Association would be mandatory, and whether the Conunission could assure that there is a Home Owners Association if the Plan is approved. He noted the importance of main- tenance in townhome/condominium developments. Mr. Stoel stated that there are laws in Colorado that will require a Home Owners Association for such a development as is proposed. Mr. Heffley stated that they are in the process of applying for VA/FHA loan approval, and to get this approval, they must have a Home Owners Association set up; they do not have any choice in the matter if they want to get the financing. Mr. Cangilla stated that the residents of this area have seen some pretty bad plans presented for this particular piece of property, and that it is about time something was built there; he likes the idea of selling the units. Mr. Cangilla stated that he is concerned about the setback of 16 ft. vs. 25 ft. for the units, and asked that the Commission keep this in mind. If the privacy fence is installed, he felt this would be of help, but does question :whether the 16 foot frontage is sufficient. Ms. King pointed out that this was one of the concerns of the staff, also, and pointed out that the Planned Development District does require a 25 foot buffer strip, which is not being provided under the proposed Camden Place One plan. Roy Rankle 5050 South Delaware -was sworn in. He stated that Mr. Heffley met with • • all the neighbors regarding the proposed plan, and the 16 foot frontage was a concern at that time. Mr. Heffley stated that the "kind of people who would be buying these units, were not the kind to use a front yard." Mr. Rankle stated that he feels 16 feet from the rear of his property to the proposed townhouse unit is pretty close. Even with the privacy fence, they would be looking right into each other's yards; he I thinks the 25 foot setback would be more desirable. Mr. Rankle stated that he also feels 22 units is too many, and pointed out that Sinclair Park proposed only 20 units. Mr. Rankle agreed with Mr. Cangilla that there have been a lot of proposals on this property, and that he would like to see a reasonable development go in. He cited the weeds and trash • • I -11- that the adjoining residents have to be concerned about each summer. He noted that the property to the west is an R-1-A Zone District, and they do not want to jeopardize the value of their single-family neigh- borhood by a poor quality development on this site. Mr. Rankle stated that he "could live with the 16 foot setback, but it would be better with 25 feet." Mr. Heffley stated that he has met with the homeowners in the area, and did present the plan to them; he felt there was a consensus of the home- owners that this was a pretty nice proposed development. The fence and patio will offer privacy to both homeowners along Delaware and to the homeowners within the development. There is some recreational area that is being provided in the "hammerhead", such as basketball hoops, etc. Mr. Heffley stated that they are trying to comply with the landscaping requirements and offer a good standard of living. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing o n Case #1-85 be closed. AYES: Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried . Mr. Magnuson asked the staff to clarify their recommendation in the staff report, that the plan be referred back to the applicant for further con- sideration. Ms. Romans stated that the staff has tried to point out some of the problems they saw in reviewing the plans. It is the opinion of the staff that more thought should be given to the plans because of the proximity to the property on the west. This proposed development would be at the maximum permitted density and it is a pretty high density to develop right next to an R-1-A area. Mr. Venard asked the response of the Commission to statements on Page 4 of the Staff Report, citing areas wherein the proposed plan does not comply with specific ordinances. Mr. Magnuson stated that he would disagree with the applicant's statement that if this development is family-oriented that the yards will not be used. Children must have some place to play. Mr. Venard asked if Mr. Heffley wanted to respond to Paragraph #2 on Page 4 of the Staff Report. Mr. Olsen suggested that if further testimony is being elicited from the applicant, the public hearing should be reopened, and that anyone else wishing to speak be given the right to do so. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-85 be reopened to hear further testimony. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. -12- Mr. Heffley stated that the usable open space figure of 40% as cited by staff does not take into consideration the recreation area provided in the "hammerhead". No parking will be allowed in this area, so it will be devoted to recreational purposes in addition to providing a means to turn vehicles around. The building envelope actually provides a 17 foot setback on the west side of the development; not the 16 feet cited by staff. Mr. Heffley stated that in working with the landscaping/open space pro- visions, the patio should be considered as open space. The landscaped area is 42.5%; this takes into account right-of-way along Grand Avenue. Without this right-of-way along Grand, the landscaped area is 40.5%. Mr. Heffley stated that they are not offering a lot of amenities such as swimming pools, and noted the proximity of the swimming pool, basket- ball, handball and tennis courts at Sinclair Middle School. He feels that there is quality open space, and that the proposed development is in a "park-like atmosph e re", with the proximity to the recreational facilities at the school. Ms. King explained the process staff used in calculating open space figures; any space that was absent of any building or structure was considered usable open space; the patio is not considered part of the usable open space because it is part of the structure. Mr. Heffley stated that it should not be so considered; there is no overhang, and it is an "open" patio. Ms. King also stated that surface parking is not to be considered as usable open space. Mr. Heffley stated that they have provided 10 guest parking spaces vs. the required four guest parking spaces. Mr. Heffley disagreed that a six foot privacy fence will not provide privacy to both developments; Mr. Heffley further pointed out that the patios on the proposed develop- ment will not be adjoining. Mr. Stoel asked what the exterior finish of the units will be; the pictures indicate a brick finish. Mr. Heffley stated that they will use some brick, but have had to add cedar siding to keep the cost down. Mr. Venard asked if there were additional comments from the audience or staff. No additional comments were forthcoming. Stoel moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-85 be closed. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. • • Mr. Stoel stated that he feels a Planned Development should have a greater ~ degree of flexibility with guidelines; the issue of the 16 foot setback vs the 25 foot front setback is one that the Commission has considered in the past, and have talked about cutting down on the front setback because of the lack of use. Mr. Stoel stated that he feels the proposed Camden Place • • I -13- One amendment looks superior to him in terms of land use, and will fit within the present time and housing era; the units will be built to "sell". If someone feels the front yard is too small, they will not buy the unit. He stated that he did not feel the 40% vs. 50% usable open space is a matter of great concern. Mr. Stoel stated that he does feel that the three conditions cited by the staff in the Staff Report should be met, namely: 1. The fire lane must be posted. 2. Detailed drawings of flow release structures through walks into West Grand Avenue will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Water service design will have to meet with the Utilities Depart- ment approval prior to issuance of building permits. Mr. Venard asked if Mr. Heffley was in agreement with the cited conditions and if he would amend his application to include these three conditions. Mr. Heffley stated that he does agree with the three conditions, and does agree to amend his application to include those three conditions. Stoel moved: Magnuson seconded: The Planning Commission approve, and refer to City Council, the Camden Place One amendment of the Sin- clair Park Planned Development; the applicant has agreed to amend his application to include the following conditions: 1. Th~ fire lane must be posted. 2. Detailed drawings of flow release structures through walks into West Grand Avenue will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Water service design will have to meet with the Utilities Depart- ment approval prior to issuance of building permits. Mr. Tanguma stated that he is concerned about the front setback, but if the adjoining property owners feel they can live with it, and do not strongly disagree with the proposed Plan, he will vote to approve it. Mr. Venard stated that he also was concerned about the 16 ft. vs. 25 ft. setback, and knows that it is of concern to the staff. However, there have been many attempts over the years to deal with this property and get it developed in a reasonable, acceptable way, and this may be an opportunity to realize some development there. Based on this, he will vote to support the motion. The vote was called: AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. -14- Mrs. Romans stated that after the Planning Commission has approved the Findings of Fact, this matter will be referred to the City Council for a Public Hearing. Mr. Venard thanked the audience for their participation in discussing the issues with the Commission A recess of the Commission was called at 9:10 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one addressed the Commission under Public Forum. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans reminded Commission members of the work/study session with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals scheduled for January 29 at 5:30 P.M. in the Community Room. This study/work session will be devoted to re- viewing the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance prior to the public hearing before the Commission, which is proposed for February 20, 1985. Mrs. Romans asked how the Commission wanted to pro- ceed on this meeting: do they want the staff and Attorney's Office to • go through the Ordinance pointing out changes, or does the Commission • want to lead the discussion on particular sections of the Ordinance. Mr. Stoel suggested that the proposed changes should be reviewed by the staff for the Board members as they were for the Commission members. Mrs. Romans discussed two items that were included in the packets to the Commission members. One item is a section of the Denver Planning Code which relates to solar energy installations. Mrs. Romans also submitted copies of a Boulder City ordinance pertaining to solar energy, which Mr. Olsen had given her. The second document contained in the packet is a copy of policies adopted by the City of Littleton governing development in the South Santa Fe Corridor. Mrs. Romans suggested that members of the Commission might want to review these documents for future discussion. Mrs. Romans reminded members of the Commission that the annual election of officers is scheduled for the first meeting in February, February 5th. Mr. Carson inquired about the status of the Fairgrounds property; now that Brock Homes has not exercised their option to purchase and develop the site, will it remain in Englewood. Mrs. Romans stated that the land is annexed to Englewood, and zoning has been imposed. Mr. Vargas dis- cussed events that have occurred since Brock Homes failed to exercise the option to purchase. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Stoel stated that he appreciated the attendance of the City Attorney at the Commission meetings. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans noted that several years ago, members of the Commission ex- I • • I -15- pressed an interest in reviewing the rules and procedures with the At- torney's Office, but this was not done. Mrs. Romans suggested that this would be advantageous, and that the Rules and Procedure Manual was written a number of years ago. Mrs. Romans suggested that if the staff and Com- mission are to operate in a professional manner, they need to get guidance in advance of a public meeting. Mr. Olsen suggested that the Commission should continue conducting their business as they have done in the past; they do have an established set of procedures to follow, and have been doing a good job. Mr. Tanguma agreed with Mrs. Romans that the Rules and Procedures are quite old and should be reviewed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Venard stated that the Commission has asked for clarification of their responsibilities and authority, and stated that he had some questions whether the Commission could approve an application that did not conform to the minimum requirements of the ordinances, such as was the case this evening in Case #1-85. Mr. Olsen suggested that perhaps members of the Commission would want to have a luncheon meeting with him to review the responsibilities and authority of the Commission. Mr. Olsen stated that he finds it unusual for the members to express their reasons for their vote prior to the vote being called; it is usually expressed following the vote . Mr. Stoel stated that he felt it was helpful to express the opinion prior to the vote being called, because different points of view are expressed that some members may not have thought of; this may or may not affect the outcome of the vote., Mr. Vargas stated that he felt Mr. Venard raised a good point to consider; he stated that his ur derstanding of the Planned Development District regula- tions is not that cl ar, and that he also questions whether the Commission has the authority to approve something that does not comply with the minimum standards of the Or~fnance. Mr. Stoel suggested that a proposal that does not meet the minimu1 requirements should not have been brought to the Com- mission for considerrtion. Mr. Vargas stated that the applicant does have the right to ha~e the Commission consider what they propose, even if it does not meet fiinimum requirements. Mr. Tanguma expressed his opinion that the Planned Dev e lopment District is a special district, and that there is more flex ib i lity in what the Commission may or may not do in this Distr 1 ict. Mr. Stoel pointed out that the Commission is not the final voice on approval of a Planned Development, and that the City Council may wel ~ view the propos e d development differently and reach a different decision. The Connnission members indicated that they would be willing to meet with Mr. Olsen for lunch to review their responsibilities and authority. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:35 P.M. // _/ // { _ . t >f { -l--c ,,,!"4.·- jertrude G. Wel Recording Secr 'tary