Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-03 PZC MINUTES( : CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 3, 1983 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 Milton E. Senti. Members present: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Venard Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director -Planning David Menzies, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 5, 1983 Chairman Senti stated that the Minutes of April 5, 1983, were to be con- sidered for approval. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of April 5, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Senti NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard ABSTAIN: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT. Landscaping Regulations. CASE #8-82 Chairman Senti asked if members of the Commission had any questions, com- ments or suggestions on the proposed Findings of Fact on the Landscaping Regulations? Barbre mvoed: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission accept and approve the Findings of Fact for Case #8-82, Landscaping Regulations, and the Findings of Fact be forwarded to City Council. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel None Venard The motion carried. -2- IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #8-83 Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Map. Chairman Senti asked if members of the Commission had any comments, sug- gestions, or questions on the Findings of Fact for Case #8-83, the amend- ment of the Comprehensive Zoning Map rezoning a portion of the B-1 Business area to B-DD, Business-Downtown Development. Tanguma moved: Allen seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #8-83, amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Map, be accepted and approved by the Planning Commission, and forwarded to City Council. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. V. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #9-83 Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Senti asked if members of the Commission had any comments, sug- gestions, or questions regarding the proposed Findings of Fact? Allen moved: Tanguma seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #9-83, amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, be accepted and approved by the Commission, and forwarded to City Council. AYES: Allen, Barhre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. VI. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Proposed Regulations. CASE #19-82 Chairman Senti stated that Ms. Powers, Director of Community Development, and Assistant City Attorney David Menzies would lead discussion on this matter. Ms. Powers stated that the Condominium Conversion regulations were referred to the City Council following a public hearing before the Commission. The City Council, after review of the proposed regulations, had several questions on the regulations, and asked for clarification on given points in the pro- posed ordinance. These concerns were discussed briefly at the meeting on April 5, 1983, and it was the consensus of the Commission that these points did need further research and clarification, but that it was not necessary • to hold a study session with the City Council. • Ms. Powers stated that the points of concern expressed by City Council were addressed in her memorandum to the Commission dated April 14; this memo also addressed one or two concerns that she had with the proposed ordinance. -3- The first concern addressed is that of the application fee. The proposed fee is $500, with $250 to be refunded if the application is not approved. This proposal is contrary to standard practice, and whether an application is ap- proved or not approved the staff spends the same amount of time in review of the application. Ms. Powers suggested that if the $500 fee is felt to be ex- cessive, perhaps the Commission would want to consider a "minimum" fee, with a rate per unit in addition to the minimum. Mr. McBrayer stated that he recalled previous discussions on the proposed regulations, and that the initial drafts proposed $250 for the application fee; the Commission members felt that this was insufficient, and raised the fee to the $500 with the refund of part if the application is denied. Mr. McBrayer stated that the staff will be required to do the same amount of work on review of the application whether the project had 10 units or 200 units. Ms. Powers stated that the question of inspection responsibility prior to conversion would tie into the amount of staff time required on each applica- tion. Ms. Powers stated that she is concerned about the requirement that City staff conduct the inspections to determine code compliance. Mr. Tanguma asked how remodeling of structures is handled at the present time? Ms. Powers stated that inspections are done during the process of the remodeling; this is to determine whether the work being done is proper, and would would also have to be done on any units converted for condominiums if remodeling is required. However, the inspection prior to construction or remodeling is not done by the city staff; this is proposed in the Condominium Conversion regulations. Ms. Powers proposed two alternatives to the city staff doing the preliminary inspections: 1. The City could hire a certified engineer to do the inspections, and bill the applicant; 2. The City could maintain a list of certified engineers qualified to do the inspections; the applicant could choose an engineer from this list and pay the engineer directly. Ms. Powers pointed out that another matter is the City's liability if City staff does the inspections. She asked that Assistant City Attorney Menzies address this issue. Mr. Menzies stated that some court cases, particularly in the eastern cities, have found the city liable if an inspection was "negligent", and the defects were not corrected, or were overlooked. Mr. Menzies stated that this seems to he a trend to hold cities liable for negligent inspections, through there have not been any cases in Colorado to test the matter of "soverign im- munity." Mr. Allen questioned the rationale wherein the City would pass an ordinance with specific requirements, but would not accept the responsibility to make i nspections to determine compliance on these specific matters. Discussion ensued. Mr. Menzies stated that if a certified engineer chosen by the ap- plicant from a list was responsible for doing the inspection, he did not see how the City could be held liable if there was an injury or damage to a unit. Mr. Menzies stated that he felt the cost of requiring the City staff to do the preliminary inspections is of concern to the City ad- ministration; he stated that he did not feel the matter of liability is of major concern at this point, but is a trend he felt the Commission should be aw.are of. -4- Compliance with codes was considered. Ms. Powers noted that several of the ~ City Council members questioned the need for compliance with current codes. ~ Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the requirement to comply with current codes would limit the conversion of apartments to condominiums. He stated that he felt the reasons a condominium conversion ordinance was considered to begin with was (1) to give the City some guidelines to follow in such cases, and (2) to protect the people who are purchasing the uints --to protect the public. Ms. Becker noted that there are some older apartment buildings in the City that are certainly not at present code levels, and questioned whether we would want to see those units converted to condominiums unless they are brought up to code. Ms. Becker stated that she felt it would make sense to require compliance with current codes on such buildings. Mr. Stoel asked what the alternative to compliance with existing city codes would b.e? Ms. Powers sugg.ested that requiring compliance with codes in effect at the time of construction would be an alternative. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt this could cause numerous problems, citing the difficulty in determining which codes were in effect at the time of construction. Mr. McBrayer suggested that a list of safety factors be established to which a building must conform before conversion to condominium units would be approved. Items which could be included on this list include fire safety hazards, public ingress and egress, proper amperage, etc. for electrical service, proper venting of plumbing pipes and other safety features. He stated that he felt it would be reasonable to bring these items up to today's codes. Ms. Powers stated that she felt this would be a workable alternative. e Mr. Barbre questioned where it is stated in the proposed regulations and why it is stated, that the city staff would have to do a preliminary inspection; why couldn't the inspections be done during and after the course of remodeling? Mr. Menzies pointed out that these regulations pertain to application for conversion of units --necessitating the preliminary inspection to determine whether the units can, indeed, be converted. Mr. Tanguma asked if it would be possible to request the developer to present plans for the review of the staff? Ms. Powers stated that plans will have to be presented in conjunction with the application. Mr. Stoel asked how conversions are handled by the staff at the present time? Ms. Powers stated that there are no requirements regarding conversion to condo- minium units now. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the question is do we or don't we want conversion to condominiums in the City of Englewood? If it is the intent to discourage conversion to condominium units, requiring compliance with current codes is one way to accomplish this. But, if the intent is to develop a "path" to follow, other alternatives will have to be considered. Mrs. Becker stated that she didn't feel the City had much choice in the matter --buildings are being converted for condominium use. Mrs. Becker stated that she would agree that the purpose in considering the proposed regulations was to assure safety aspects and to protect prospective purchasers. She felt these e two items need to be considered. Mrs. Becker stated that she questioned whether City staff will have the time to make the preliminary inspections on units that are to be converted to condominium use. e . -5- Mr. Tanguma asked how many apartment buildings could feasibly convert to condominium units? Mrs. Romans estimated 20 to 30 buildings to convert. Mr. Stoel pointed out that there are office buildings and warehouses that are also converting to condominium units; the regulations need to be written to apply to these units, also. Mr. McBrayer stated that Ms. Powers request the Building Inspectors, specifically Sturctural Inspector Macrander, to develop a list of items of a safety nature where converted units would have to comply with existing codes. He suggested that a second list be developed with "negotiable" items. Mr. Allen pointed out that if a contractor builds a new condominium unit, he must comply with all existing codes, which results in "very expensive condo- minium units." Mr. Allen stated that he did not understand how older build- ings could be allowed to convert to condominium use, and not be required to meet the existing codes. He further pointed out that there are some buildings that, economically, cannot be converted because they cannot be brought up to code; these buildings should not be allowed to convert. Mr. Allen stated that it is no more dangerous for a condominium unit owner to live in a building that is not to current code than it is for a tenant. He stated that this reasoning is inconsistent. Ms. Becker stated that she would agree that what is good for a property owner is good for a renter, also. Ms. Becker reiterated that she felt matters per- taining to safety, fire, protection of purchaser are items that have to be considered. Mr. McBrayer stated he felt this could be .likened to remodeling of an older single-family home in Englewood; unless the remodeling is more than 50% of the value of the home, it does not have to be brought up to existing code. Mr. Barbre approved of the proposed mandatory compliance list and a negotiable compliance list. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt an alternative to Mr. Allen's statement would be to place no regulation or standards on the conversion of units for condominium purposes. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt with the imposition of standards on converting units, that some of the older buildings in the City would be improved and brought up to a higher code standard. Mrs. Becker asked what the next step for the Connnission is if they determine that the points of concern should be changed. Would this require another public hearing before the Connnission? Ms. Powers stated that a public hearing would be one way to handle the changes; another way would be to submit a written report to City Council stating that the Connnission has reconsidered the points of concern and setting forth the reconnnended provision. Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels this discussion this evening has resulted in a total change in the basic philosophy, and that the Commission should have another public hearing. Mr. Carson agreed that the Connnission should start over. Mr. Allen stated that he didn't think this will help, but has no objection to a public hearing. Mr. Menzies cautioned that he did not feel an ordinance should be approved that would, in effect, prevent conversion of units to condominium use. He noted that ordinances that emphasize public safety seem to be upheld in the courts. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: -6- The Commission ask staff to redraft the condominium con- version ordinance, with input from the Building staff on the check list of mandatory and negotiable conversion re- quirements, to be considered at a study session on a later date. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the proposed changes would be making the ordinance more specific. Mrs. Romans stated that this was incorrect; the changes would make the regulations less restrictive. Ms. Powers asked how the Commission wanted to handle the matter of applica- tion fee? Mr. McBrayer suggested that a blank be left and filled in later. Ms. Powers suggested that rather than preparing another draft of the proposed regulations, the suggested mandatory compliance and negotiable compliance be prepared and transmitted in memo form. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt this would be acceptable. Mr. Menzies commented that he felt the ordinance "will fall into place after the safety factors have been addressed." Mr. McBrayer suggested that Building Inspector Macrander be asked to meet with the Commission informally. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Barb.re, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: Allen ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Dorothy Romans introduced Ms. Joanne Halls, a Planning Intern in the Department of Community Development. Ms. Halls is from Montreal, and is a Geography major at the University of Denver. Ms. Halls is an unsalaried intern, and puts in 20 hours per week for "experience"; she has been w::irking on the landscaping brochure with City Forester Coleen Stowell. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Mr. Menzies stated that he had checked with the City Attorney's Office, and had nothing to bring b.efore the Commission. Mr. Senti noted that City Attorney DeWitt had entered the meeting in the last few minutes. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOLCE. Ms. Powers stated that the APA Conference in Seattle, Washington, was very good, and will prepare her report in the near future. • -7- X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson commended Mrs. Becker for her interesting written report on the APA Conference in Seattle, Washington. Mr. Stoel also commended Mrs. Becker on her report. Mrs. Becker stated that she took many slides of the area, and has some of the slides developed. She asked the indulgence of the Commission while she gave a brief presentation this evening. Mrs. Becker's slides were of the restored Pike Market Area; also depicted were roof gardens, terrace gardens, and of the Acquarium. The Pike Market Area and the Acquarium are redevelopment projects. A double-deck highway was also depicted in the slides, as were the various levels of shops in the Pike Street Hill Climb. Mrs. Becker stated that she realized the importance of having a city center for special activities after this trip. Mrs. Becker stated that further pictorial presentations will be on transporta- tion, historic preservation, and she would like to do one on the Water Front area. The m~eting adjourned at 8:30 P. M. ude Welty rding Secretary