Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-03 PZC MINUTES' • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 3, 1979 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 Draper. Members present: Becker, Bilo, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Williams Members absent: None Also present: D. A. Romans, Acting Ex-officio; Associate Planner Alice Fessenden II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Draper stated that the Minutes of December 19, 1978, were to be considered for approval. Lathrop moved: Smith seconded: The Minutes of December 19, 1978, be approved as written. AYES: Bilo, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Smith, Becker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma, Williams The motion carried. III. JAMES A. STRADLEY Subdivision Waiver CASE #1-79 Mrs. Pierson stated that she would disqualify herself from consideration on this matter because of a conflict of interest, and took a seat in the audience. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter before the Commission is a request to approve a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations re- quiring the platting of unsubdivided land. Mr. James A. Stradley is the applicant, and Mr . Stradley and Mr. Betts, the person who sold him the property are both present this evening. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Englewood Subdivision Regulations provide that properties must be part of an approved subdivision before land may be divided and sold. However, throughout the City there are small parcels of land which are not part of an approved subdivision plat, but which have street access, utility service, etc., and the Subdivision Regulations do contain a pro- vision by which such property can be divided without the necessity of filing a formal subdivision plat. This method is referred to as a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations. -2- In this particular case, Mr. Stradley purchased the land from Mr. Betts, and in the agreement of purchase, Mr. Stradley was to deed back to Mr. Betts a gore of land measuring 2.57 feet on the east, 103.55 feet on the north, 4.13 feet on the west, and 103.58 feet on the south, with an approximate area of 347 square feet. The 2.57 feet would be frontage on South Santa Fe Drive. There is a billboard on this parcel of land, and Mr. Betts wants to retain control of the parcel to realize the income from the billboard. The parcel of land is not of suf- ficient size to completely contain the billboard, and would provide no means of access for provision of services, such as fire-fighting, without trespassing on adjacent property. Mr. Stradley submitted the application for Subdivision Waiver pur- suant to the agreement he has with Mr. Betts. Mrs. Romans stated that this matter has been discussed with City Attorney Berardini, and with the County Assessor. The City Attorney stated that the matter would have to be referred to the Planning Commission even though the division of the land in the manner requested would serve no public purpose, and the gore of land is not of a size that could be used for any purpose other than the present billboard advertising. The County Assessor was also concerned about the proposed division of the property, and noted that the expense to his office to process the site would be the same as it would for the division of land into usable parcels. Other City Departments that have been contacted have stated they could not provide services to such a parcel of land without trespassing, and Mrs. Romans particularly cited fire fighting services. The staff has recommended that the Commission not approve the division of the subject property for the following reasons: 1. The division as proposed would serve no practical or useful public purpose and would not achieve the purposes of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. The applicant has not submitted sufficient proof of the necessity to divide the parcel in the proposed manner. 3. The division as proposed would result in a parcel of land which would be of a size which could not accommodate vehicular or emergency access to service the existing use (a non-conforming billboard) without trespassing on adjoining property. 4. The parcel proposed to be conveyed to Mr. Betts is of a size that it cannot accommodate the existing non-conforming billboard without said billboard trespassing onto the ad- joining property. 5. The parcel proposed to be conveyed back to Edwin H. Betts, Jr., would be of a size which could not reasonably be used for any use permitted in the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, should the present Non-conforming Use cease. , • ' -3- Mrs. Romans noted that a 99-year lease is set forth as an alternative to the waiver to the subdivision regulations in the agreement between Mr. Stradley and Mr. Betts. Mr. Draper asked if there were any questions of Mrs. Romans. Mr. Smith asked if the only reason for this application was to retain the income from the billboard? Mrs. Romans stated that this is the reason set forth on the formal application. Mr. Williams questioned the distance of the billboard from the South Santa Fe Drive right-of-way? Mrs. Romans stated that the billboard is positioned back of the front building line of the building designated as 3051 South Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Stradley stated that the billboard is back about 30 feet. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Stradley if he had received any notice from the State Highway Department to remove the sign? Mr. Stradley stated that he has not. Mr. Betts stated that he had originally sold the property to Mr. Stradley, and in the sales agreement, it was requested that this small piece of land be deeded back to him because he wanted to retain the income from the billboard advertising. He stated that there is access from Santa Fe Drive as far as power and such utilities is concerned, and there is a ladder to the billboard for servicing the billboard itself. He stated that he does have a yearly contract with Eller Outdoor Advertising for the placement of the billboard, and wants to retain the control of this land to keep the income. Mr. Smith noted that the 99-year lease is listed as an acceptable alternative; he asked why they just didn't sign the lease and why did they go through the formality of making application? Mr. Betts stated that he wants to "own" the land, and retain control of it in his family. The lease option was put in the contract as a second choice, or "escape clause" if it was found to be illegal to divide the property as proposed. Mr. Smith stated that with the billboard laws as they are now, he questioned why an individual would want to maintain control of two feet of frontage on Santa Fe Drive for 99 years? Mr. Betts stated that the income from the advertising device is his reason. Mr. Tanguma asked what effect the widening of South Santa Fe Drive would have on the billboard? Mr. Betts stated that the billboard is back a considerable distance from the property line. Mr. Stradley stated that the building would have to be removed before they reached the billboard. Discussion ensued. -4- Tanguma moved: Lathrop seconded: The Planning Commission reject the request to grant a waiver to the Subdivision Regula- tions on the grounds that no purpose would be served to the general public. Mr. Smith stated that the request does not fit the purpose of the Subdivision Regulations. He noted that the two individuals may have a contract between them, but it is not up to the City to effect this contract on a piece of property 2 ft. x 100 ft. He stated that he would have to vote in favor of the motion to reject the request. Mr. Williams pointed out that Mr. Tanguma's motion is a "negative" motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma withdrew his motion, with the approval of the second. Tanguma moved: Lathrop seconded: The Planning Commission approve the recom- mendation of the Department of Community Development in Case #1-79, that being that the Planning Com- mission not approve the division of the subject property as requested, for the following reasons: 1. The division as proposed would serve no practical or useful public purpose and would not achieve the purposes of the Subdivision Regulations. 2. The applicant has not submitted sufficient proof of the necessity to divide the parcel in the proposed manner. 3. The division as proposed would result in a parcel of land which would be of a size which could not accommodate vehicular or emergency access to service the existing use (a non- conforming billboard) without trespassing on adjoining property. 4. The parcel proposed to be conveyed to Mr. Betts is of a size that it cannot accommodate the existing non-conforming billboard without said billboard trespassing onto the ad- joining property. 5. The parcel proposed to be conveyed back to Edwin H. Betts, Jr., would be of a size which could not reasonably be used for any use permitted in the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, should the present Non-conforming Use cease. AYES: NAYS: Draper, Lathrop, Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Bilo None The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson took her seat with the Commission following completion of consideration of Case #1-79. -5- IV. ALLEY VACATION CASE #2-79 Adjacent to Lots 22 and 23, Block 9, Jackson Broadway Heights Mrs. Romans stated that this action is requested of the Com- mission to clear up a situation that has existed since the alley was recommended for vacation by the Planning Commission in 1976. She cited copies of the original staff report, the vacating ordinance, correspondence from Mr. Clanahan, Mr. Wanush, and Mr. Berardini, all of which were attached for the information of the Commission. Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. Kenneth Love owns property to the west of the City Ditch, and also owns a triangular piece of property east of the Ditch, that property being portions of Lots 22 and 23, Block 9, Jackson's Broadway Heights. The Planning Commission recommendation made in 1976 was that "the alley in Block 9, Jackson's Broadway Heights, be vacated." The heading of the vacating Ordinance enacted by City Council states that the alley in Block 9, Jackson's Broadwa y Heights, is to be vacated; however, in Section 1 ·of the adopting Ordinance, it states that the alley "adjacent to Lots 24 through 29, Block 9, Jackson's Broadway Heights" is vacated. It appears that this pertained to the east one-half of the alley and did not encompass the vacation of the entire alley, which was the intent of the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Love attempted to clarify the matter via his attorney, Mr. Clanahan, in August, 1978, at which time the matter was referred to the City Attorney's Office. A reply receiv.ed by the Department of Community Development from Mr. Berardini indicated that he "could not state as a matter of law", that the entire alley was vacated. Mr. Berardini re- ferred the matter to the Assistant City Attorney to contact Mr. Love and/or Mr. Clanahan about pursuing the matter further; however, no written record can be found of such contact. Following a second contact to the Department of Community De- velopment by Mr. Love and Mr. Clanahan, the staff is referring the matter back to the Planning Commission at the suggestion of Mr. Berardini, to get a recommendation on the vacation of this specific portion of the alley. Mr. Love stated that Mrs. Romans has covered the matter very well. He stated that the west one-half of the alley is basically in "limbo", and becomes very "trashy." He stated that other property owners discard rocks, tree limbs and other materials on this site, and he would like to have it taken care of. Also, the weeds are not cut, and exiting from the driveway at the property at 777 West Oxford Avenue is rather hazardous as far as visibility is concerned. -6- Smith moved : Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the alley adjacent to Lots 22 and 23, Block 9, Jackson 's Broadway Heights, be vacated. Mr. Love stated that another concern he has is on the City Ditch; they have a cottonwood tree with limbs extending over their property line. To have the tree trimmed, they would need to get a truck in; he questioned whether the right-of- way along the Ditch is vacated, who has control on this, etc. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the City is still carrying water in the Ditch, and she is not sure whether or not the right-of- way has been vacated. She indicated that she would check into this for Mr. Love, and report back to him . Mrs. Becker asked who property in a vacated alley or street reverted to? To the adjacent property owner? Mrs. Romans stated that the City Attorney has stated that the City does not get involved in the disposition of the land once the vaca- tion is approved. As a rule, however, the land reverts to the property from whence it came. The vote was called: AYES: Lathrop, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Bilo, Draper NAYS: None The motion carried . V. PUBLIC FORUM . Mrs. Romans introduced Mr " Mike Hutchison, who was attending the Planning Commission meeting. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans reminded Commission members of the seminar on Special Permit Zoning to be held in Frisco, Colorado on January 26th . If anyone is interested in attending, she asked that they please contact the office. Mrs. Romans then presented a set of plans from a contractor who is interested in constructing housing for those who cannot a f ford housing on today's market. The proposal is for a two- bedroom unit for the property owner, with four efficiency rental units which would provide income to help make payments. These are proposed to be two-story complexes, with two efficiency units on each level, the size of the efficiency units being 321 sq. ft. and 317 sq. ft. The two-bedroom unit would be slightly over 600 sq. ft. in floor area. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Wanush asked her to bring this to the attention of the Commission, that he feels the proposal might have some merit and that possibly the Commission might want to consider a change in goals and standards for housing construction to accommodate ~hose who are out of the market for today's housing. -7- Mrs. Romans stated that one of her concerns was that once a project such as this is approved, there would be no way the rental and selling price could be controlled to assure housing for the "low income" individual for which it has been stated they are intended. Mr. Smith stated that he felt construction of duplexes would accomplish the same thing; this would generate larger units, the property owner could rent out one of the units which would generate a great deal of the house payment. He questioned why this type of development was not promoted over the very small efficiency type unit? Mrs. Pierson asked what the minimum floor areas are now for efficiency and two-bedroom units? Mrs. Romans stated that in the R-2 Zone District, an efficiency unit must be a minimum of 650 sq. ft.; these units are proposed as 321 sq. ft. at the maximum. In the R-3, Multi-family Zone District, the efficiency units must again have a minimum of 650 sq. ft. and a two-bedroom unit must be a minimum of 750 sq. ft. Mrs. Romans stated that the developers also proposed to use the front setback for parking, which is in violation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and the side and rear yard setbacks would not meet the requirements of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that for the last several years, the philosophy of the City has been to "beef up" the standards on the minimum size of units in an effort to encourage family occupancy, and to encourage permanent tenants. The question now is whether these standards are unrealistic, whether there is a need for the smaller unit, and whether housing costs have exceeded the means of a large segment of the population. It was pointed out that a development such as this proposal would not fit the goals set forth by the Housing and Residential Preservation Committee in their review of the housing stock in Englewood this past year. She suggested that if the housing market has changed this much, that possibly those goals and standards should be redirected and reconsidered. Mr. Lathrop commented that the floor area of the efficiency units proposed would be approximately half the minimum presently required. He cited the small efficiency and buffet units along Girard Avenue and the tenant turn-over that is experienced in these units. He stated that he felt this was one thing that the City was trying to avoid by increasing the standards. Mr. Lathrop stated that he felt developments of duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes had much more potential to attract permanent residents. He stated that this type of housing would not accommodate "families", but would be geared toward the single individual or the elderly people; this would serve no benefit to the school population or permanency of residents. -8- Mrs. Pierson stated that one of the things that was considered of prime importance during the review of the Comprehensive Plan was the "quality of life"; she stated that she felt this concept was one of the reasons for the increase in minimum standards of floor area, lot area, etc. Mrs. Pierson stated that she cannot believe that the present economic condition can last, and that it will improve . The City would then be "stuck" with these small, unlivable, units. Ms. Pierson stated that she felt to allow such a development would be a step backward. Mr. Williams asked if the R-2-C, Two-family Zone District, would encompass some development such as this? Mrs. Romans pointed out that the R-2-C Zone District is strictly two- family, and this would have five units per structure. Mr. Tanguma agreed that to permit such a development would be a definite step backward. He pointed out that even the "family" unit is so small that a couple could not live in it for any length of time. He stated that he felt that the City would find these units would be rental properties in a very short time, and would not encourage long-term tenancy. He added that this would also lead to an increase in traffic. Mr. Tanguma stated that he can see no benefit to granting some- thing like this anywhere in the City of Englewood. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that upon checking with FHA, it was found that their standards include such minimums as 460 sq. ft. floor area for a two-bedroom unit, such unit must have three closets; 180 sq. ft. for a one-bedroom unit, such unit must have two closets; and that a one-bedroom house may be built with a 360 sq. ft. minimum floor area, plus two closets. Mr. Bilo stated that he could not approve of this type of housing; he felt that it would soon be "substandard" and he did not want to see that. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans suggested that it would be interesting to investigate to see how much the cost of housing is affected by governmental requirements: tap fees, building permits, etc. Mr. Draper stated that he understood the Governor of Colorado is appealing to the metro counties to provide more open space to help in the fight against air pollution. Mrs. Becker inquired if there was any place in the Denver metro area, or in the State of Colorado, where there is housing moderately priced that is satisfactory for young families. She stated that she would like to see this type of housing. Mrs. Pierson stated that she knew of some condominiums that can be purchased for as low as $26,000. Mr. Smith stated that there is some medium priced housing available; however, it may not be available in the location in which you want to live. Further discussion ensued. • -9- VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE • Mr. Tanguma stated that he would like to register an objection to the fact that City Council gave the Planning Commission a 100% increase in the expense payments, in direct contrast to President Carter's plea to hold increases to 7%. He stated that he does not feel this is helping the fight against infla- tion, and questioned that such an increase is justified. He noted that to serve on the Planning Commission is a voluntary thing done to serve the community. He emphasized that he does not feel this increase is going along with the guidelines set by the President of the United States. Mr. Smith stated that the payscale for the City Council and the Board and Commission is "antiquated", and this is merely bringing it into line with the current situation. He emphasized that none of the Councilmen will realize the increase unless they are re-elected to City Council. Mr. Draper asked when City Council would appoint a member to the Commission to replace Mr. McClintock who tendered his resignation at the last meeting in December? Mrs. Romans stated that she anticipated a new member to be appointed by the first meeting in February. Mr. Draper asked about the election of officers for the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that this is usually done at the first meeting in February, also. Mrs. Becker stated that she was appointed to complete Mr. Parker's term, which was to expire February 1st; she asked whether the City Council would consider her for reappointment? Mr. Williams and Mr. Smith both suggested that Mrs. Becker submit a letter to City Council indicating her interest in re- appointment to the Commission. Mrs. Pierson commended Mr. Tanguma on his comments on the in- crease for the Planning Commission. She then asked if there is a time schedule on plans for the Larwin site? Mrs. Romans stated that a tentative date of January 30th is being considered for the consideration of these plans. The applicant is going to ask for an amendment of the existing Subdivision Waiver. This procedure will not require a Public Hearing; but the staff assumes that the Commission will want to notify the adjacent property owners of the meeting at which it will be considered. Discussion ensued. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. k,L;vl~ ·Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: January 3, 1979 SUBJECT: Proposed Alley Vacation RECOMMENDATION: Smith moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the alley adjacent to Lots 22 and 23, Block 9, Jackson's Broadway Heights, be vacated. AYES: Lathrop, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Bilo, Draper NAYS: None The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary •