Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-07 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 7, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. , ' The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice-chairman Marjorie L. Becker at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Senti, Tanguma Also present: Senior Planner Susan T. King Planner I Larry D. Yenglin II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. May 3, 1983 Mrs. Becker stated that the Minutes of May 3, 1983, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of the meeting of May 3, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Venard AB.SENT: Senti, Tanguma The motion carried. III. CONDITIONAL USE 2855 South Broadway Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Barbre moved: CASE #10-83 Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #10-83 be opened. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Carson, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma The motion carried . Mrs. Becker noted that members of the Commission have the staff report in front of them, and asked if there were any questions of the staff on the staff report. Hearing no questions from the Commission, Mrs. Becker asked that the applicant come forward, be sworn in, and present his request to the Commission. • • Mr. J. D. Jacobs 4794 South Olathe Way -2- /• "· Aurora, Colorado 80015 -was sworn in. Mr. Jacobs stated that he had nothing further to add to the information con- tained in the staff report. Mrs. Becker stated that she wanted to complement the staff, applicant, and Commission on the landscaping that is proposed as a part of the development of this site as an auto mechanics shop. Mr. Carson asked when the landscaping was proposed to be planted. Mr. Jacobs stated that the landscaping would be done in conjunction with the construction of the building, or immediately following construction. Mr. Carson asked whether there is any way to assure the installation of the landscaping. Mrs. Becker noted that a condition for approval is that no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until the landscaping is in place. Mr. Allen asked if a landscaping plan has been submitted by the applicant. Ms •. King stated that the landscaping plan is part of the overall site plan submitted by the applicant. Mr. McBrayer asked what is proposed for the "future addition" area indicated on the plans; will this be blacktopped or left open. Mr. Jacobs stated that he proposes to sub-let this area; it would be a small one-bay addition to his establishment. Mr. Jacobs stated that this would be paved over for the time being. Mr. Venard stated that the background information in the staff report in- dicates that this site was used as a service station at one time; he asked whether the underground fuel tanks have been removed. Ms. King stated that the Oriental Refining Company used the site as an off ice, and recalled no reference to underground tanks. Mr. McBrayer noted that in other cities fuel tanks have to be removed prior to remodeling of buildings for a use that is not "fuel oriented." Mrs. Romans suggested that the matter of underground tanks, if there are any, would be handled at the time applica- tion is made for a building permit. Mr. Allen asked where this site is in location to the Pester Gas Station. Mrs. Becker stated approximately one-half block south and across the street. Ms. Susan King was sworn in and testified that she is the Senior Planner in the Department of Community Development. Ms. King presented a copy of the public notice that was published in the Englewood Sentinel on May 18, 1983 and a copy of the Certificate of Posting to the Secretary for the record. Ms. King stated that she would look into the matter of the underground storage tanks and whether they have been removed from the site. Mrs. Becker asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak either in favor of the request or in opposition to the request. There were no persons present who wished to address the Commission. McBrayer moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #10-83 be closed. • -3- AYES: Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Carson questioned whether the new Sign Code would apply inasmuch as this is a new building. Mrs. Romans stated that the Sign Code would apply. Mrs. Becker noted that the Planning Commission makes the final determination on the Conditional Use; this is not referred to City Council. Mrs. Becker asked the pleasure of the Commission on this request. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Planning Commission approve as a Conditional Use the proposed auto mechanics shop at 2855 South Broadway with the following conditions: 1. No body work, dismantling, or collision repair shall be permitted. 2. Motor vehicles being serviced or stored while waiting to be serviced or called for, shall not be parked on the street, in the alley, on the sidewalk, or in the parking strip. 3. All work shall be performed within an enclosed structure. 4. No materials or parts shall be deposited or stored on the premises outside of an enclosed structure. 5. An Occupancy Permit shall not be issued until the land- scaping is installed. AYES: Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Senti The motion carried. IV. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT South Clarkson Townhomes Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the public hearing. McBrayer moved: CASE #11-83 Stoel seconded: The public hearing on Case #11-83 be opened. AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Senti The motion carried. Mrs. Becker noted that the staff report had been available to the Commission for their review for several days; she asked if there were any questions of • -4- the staff. Hearing no questions, Mrs. Becker asked that the applicants make their presentation. Mr. Pat Murphy 4931 West Corals Drive -was sworn in. Mr. Murphy stated that he and his partners have reviewed the staff report, and con- cur with that report. Mr. Murphy gave the background of Mr. Robert Toof, president of Eagle Trace and a contractor and developer since 1972; Mr. Gary Petterson, a member of the Appraiser Group and a certified real estate appraiser, and himself, president of the Murphy Corporation and involved with contracting and development since 1973. Mr. Murphy noted that the Murphy Corporation developed a Planned Development in the 3500 blocks of South Sherman/South Lincoln in 1973, and he believes that this development was done to the satisfaction of the City. The proposed development is for five townhomes in the 3300 block of South Clarkson Street. Mr. Stoel asked how soon the applicants planned to begin construction of the townhomes. Mr. Murphy stated that as soon as the approval of the plan is given by the Commission and by City Council, and they obtain financing from FHA, they hope to begin construciton in July. Mr. Allen questioned the number of parking spaces, and the size of the spaces. Mr. Murphy stated that 8.5 off-street parking spaces are required; the development will provide 10. Mr. Murphy stated that part of the spaces are for compact vehicles, and part are for standard-size vehicles. Mr. Carson asked if the parking was adequate in number and size of space. Mr. Yenglin stated that the 10 parking spaces to be provided meet the require- ments of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and confirmed that the develop- ment is required to have 8.5 parking spaces. Mr. Yenglin pointed out that a development may have up to 50% of the spaces designated for compact cars. Mr. McBrayer asked if he understood that the development was to have asphalt shingles anclbe of stucco finish. Mr. Murphy stated that this is correct. Mr. Allen asked in what price range these units will be. Mr. Murphy stated that the range has been estimated to be in the $65,000 to $70,000 figure. Mr. McBrayer noted that the plans indicate stairs going down, and asked where they would be going. Mr. Murphy stated that there would be an un- finished basement which would have no windows and no plumbing; the unfinished basement is intended for storage and laundry facilities. Mrs. Becker asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposed Planned Development; she then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition of the proposed development. Mrs. Becker then asked that staff member Yenglin be sworn in. Larry D. Yenglin was sworn in, and testified that he is Planner I with the Department of Communit y Development. Mr . Yenglin presented a copy of the public notice which was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel, and a copy of the Certificate of Posting to the secretary for the record. Allen moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #11-83 be closed. -5- AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked the pleasure of the Commission on the Planned Development. Cars.on moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Connnission approve the Planned Development proposed for 3324 South Clarkson Street, and refer the matter to City Council for a favorable consideration. Mrs. Becker asked if there was any discussion. Mr. Venard asked if the submission of a drainage report should be requested as part of the motion. Mrs. Romans stated that a drainage report has been submitted to the Engineering Department and it has been approved. Mr. Carson asked that it be specifically noted in the Minutes of this meeting that there was no opposition to the request for the Planned Development. Mr. Allen stated that he has reviewed the plans for the proposed development, and it looks like a good development to him. Mrs. Becker also connnended the developers on their plans, and stated that the Commission is very in- terested in improving the housing stock within the City. The vote was called: AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Becker asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Connnission. No one wished to do so. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Mrs. B.ecker stated that Assistant City Attorney Menzies is ill, and could not attend this evening. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans had nothing to report. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker stated that notification of a Planning Commissioner's Workshop sponsored by the Denver Regional Council of Governments was included in • -6- the packet. This workshop will be at the Glandale Community Center on June 25, and will be from 8:00 A. M. to 12:30 P. M. She asked if Com- mission members were to make their own reservations, or if they were to be made through the office. It was suggested that Commission members who wanted to attend this workshop notify the Secretary, who would make the reservations. Members who indicated they wanted to attend the workshop were: Mrs. Becker, Mr. Venard, Mr. Barbre, Mr. Carson, and Mr. Allen. The secretary was instructed to check with Mr. Tanguma and Mr. Senti on their attendance at the workshop. Mrs. Becker expressed her concern about odors from the Waste Water Treat- ment Plant; she stated that she had driven by the plant recently and that the odor was very bad. Mrs. Becker stated that the formal business meeting would now adjourn and the Commission would reconvene in Conference Room A for a study session on the Condominium Conversion Ordinance, and on the Design Guidelines for South Broadway. The formal meeting adjourned at 7:40 P. M. * * * * * The Commission reconvened in Conference Room A at 7:45 P. M. Present: Absent: Becker, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard Tanguma, Senti Also present: Susan Powers, Director of Community Development D. A. Romans, Assistant Director -Planning Susan T. King, Senior Planner City Attorney Rick DeWitt Chief Building Inspector Pittman Fire Chief James Broman Fire Marshal Walt Groditski I. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Case #19-82 Mrs. Becker asked for staff discussion on the Condominium Conversion case. Ms. Powers stated that the information before the Commission is a compilation by the Building Department and Fire Department of the life-safety factors felt necessary for any structure to convert to condominium use. Ms. Powers noted that the Commission had asked for a list of life-safety factors at the last meeting, and this is in compliance with that request. Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission wanted to have staff go through the life-safety list, or just wanted to ask questions on areas that might be of concern to them. Mr. Stoel suggested that the staff review the list. Chief Broman stated that they have ~aken the information from the Uniform Fire Code as it pertains to existing buildings, changed some of the technical language and made some other minor modifications. • -7- Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council had concerns regarding the draft of the proposed ordinance that was referred by the Commission, and some of those concerns dealt with requiring converted condominiums to comply with existing codes. The Commission, then, asked that the Building Division and Fire Department develop a list of mandatory compliance items for their consideration, which has been done. Mr. Allen stated that two sets of standards had always been of concern to him. Mr. Allen stated that compliance with the standards set forth by the Fire Department and Building Department would bring older buildings up to a reasonable standard of safety. Mr. Pittman stated that the Colorado Code Change Committee developed basic guide lines for life-safety criteria for existing buildings. He stated that he and the Fire Department representatives added to this basic document such things as a fire alarm system. Mr. Pittman pointed out that the basic document on life-safety criteria was adopted in 1979 and revised in 1982. Mr. Pittman stated that in this last week, he had gone through an existing apartment building to determine whether it could be converted to condominium units by meeting these standards, and felt that it would be possible to convert to condominium units without being cost prohibitive. Mr. Pittman discussed the need for smoke detectors, fire alarm systems, and elevator systems with a manual over-ride. Mr. Pittman stated that he felt these were basic requirements, and are not excessive. Mrs. Becker asked how the Fire Department would have access to a complex with security doors. Chief Broman suggested that the Fire Department should have a key to a security box, which would contain a key to the com- plex; this was likened to the lock boxes used by realtors. Mr. Pittman stated that the life safety factors for the commercial, industrial, and educational institutions follow the same basic format as for the residential uses; areas that are different concern are the fire alarm section, and dif- ferent occupancy load requirements. Chief Broman stated that it would be at the option of the property owner whether or not the fire alarm system would be tied into the Fire Department directly. Ms. Powers stated that these life-safety features will have to be converted to Ordinance form, and a Public Hearing scheduled. Mrs. Becker asked if the staff and Commission members were comfortable with the life-safety provisions submitted by the Fire and Building Departments. Mr. Stoel stated that he wanted to see the ordinance form before it is set for public hearing. Ms. Powers stated that she felt the Commission also needs to discuss the matter of the application fee, and the inspection fee to be followed. Ms. Powers noted that when the inspections were to deter- mine compliance with present codes, the City did not have the time or the staff to accomplish this; the life-safety requirements are pretty straight forward. Ms. Powers stated that applicants would have to bring in plans with the initial application. Chief Broman stated that if the City adopts an ordinance with the life-safety factors clearly delineated, a developer should be able to understand it sufficiently to bring in proper plans. Chief Broman stated that he does not want to relinquish the right to review the plans, but neither does he want to see City staff have to "walk the developer through the project." Mr. Allen suggested that he could not • • -8- imagine trying to convert units without "someone telling me if it's practical." Ms. Powers stated that if the ordinance has the life-safety features clearly spelled out, a developer should be making this determination on his own, or hiring someone to determine the practicality of conversion. Discussion en- sued. It was suggested that either an architect or engineer should certify compliance of units with the life-safety factors. Ms. Powers asked if some type of certified report would be required with the application. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the staff should not be deciding whether a complex can convert to a condominium; he felt that the City should establish a set of guidelines, and it would then be up to the developer to determine if his building can meet this criteria. Ms. Powers stated that she assumed that the Commission wanted notification of the tenants left in the proposed ordinance. It was the consensus of the Commission that notification to tenants should be included in the pro- posed ordinance. Discussion ensued. Chief Broman asked if the "application" is for a building permit to do work on the units, or for approval to convert to condominiums. Ms. Powers stated that she was referring to whether an application is needed to convert. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the staff should point out matters, such as notice to tenants, that might require a time element to the developer. Mr. Allen stated that he felt the staff should make sure people understand the rules they have to comply with. Mr. Groditski, Fire Marshal, posed the hypothetical situation wherein someone would come in and state verbally that their building conformed to all the life-safety factors, and wanted permission to convert to condominiums, but does not bring in any plans of the building or verification of compliance with the requirements. Mr. Groditski stated that he felt there is a need for some certification of compliance with the life-safety rules, and foresaw potential problems if this was not required. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that if the building meets the guidelines, the staff should not be involved. Ms. Powers pointed out that if an up-front report is not required, how does the staff know if the building actually does meet the requirements. Mrs. Becker felt that the staff would still be involved on the matter of notification of tenants, and she felt there should be some certification that the building does meet the minimum requirements. Mr. McBrayer questioned why the staff would have to be involved in the matter of tenant notification. Ms. Powers pointed out that the tenant notification is required by State Statute. Mr. Stoel pointed out that if improper notification was given to the tenants, it would be a matter to be determined in the Courts, not by the staff. Mr. Allen stated that if he were an applicant wanting to convert a building to condominiums, he would get a copy of the ordinance from the staff, and then have an engineer or someone qualified to do so study the building in relation to the requirements in the ordinance to determine if it is practical to convert to condominium units. Mr. DeWitt suggested that the application and submittal of plans should be analogized to application for other building permits; if there is work that must be done on the complex, then plans should be submitted and applica- tion made for a building permit. Mr. Pittman pointed out that if a developer states that the building meets the requirements, but a certified report is not submitted, the burden is • • -9- placed on the staff to determine whether the building does, in fact, meet those life-safety requirements. Mr. Pittman stated that he felt there should be some certification by an architect/engineer that the building does comply with the regulations. Mr. DeWitt questioned the difference between the conversion of units and new construction. Mr. Pittman stated that in the conversion of existing units, one has to look at something that is already built, vs. something that is to be created. On existing units, he would not know what is hidden behind the walls, for instance. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood Mr. Pittman to want a signed letter or report certifying compliance. Mr. Pittman stated that a signed certifica- tion of compliance would put the liability back to the licensed architect or engineer, and not on the City. Mr. Allen asked what other cities are doing about this. Mr. Pittman stated that he knew Glendale requires compliance with existing codes. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker asked if the staff felt they had enough input from the Com- mission to come up with an ordinance. Ms. Powers asked if there is a need for an "application" to convert. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the Commission wanted verification of compliance from an architect, and the staff could then verify the compliance. Mrs. Becker asked if it was necessary to include in the ordinance provisions on the notification of tenants if there is a State Statute governing this. Mr. DeWitt stated that he would want to double check on the wording of the State Statute to verify what is required. Ms. Powers suggested that a general draft shall be prepared for the next meeting, and a public hearing be set following that meeting. Ms. Powers stated that she would like to thank the Building Department and Fire Department personnel for their work on the life-safety provisions and for their attendance at the meeting. II. DESIGN GUIDELINES CASE #12-83 Ms. Powers stated that Mr. Don Ensign of Design Workshop, Inc. prepared design guidelines, which were submitted to the Commission several weeks ago. The information that is before the Commission at this meeting, is the same information but in the Zoning Ordinance format. Ms. Powers stated that the design guidelines would be an amendment to the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, and is needed as soon as possible. She stated that on Thursday, June 9, staff members will be interviewing architects who are interested in doing the design work for facade improvements along South Broadway in the 3200 through 3500 blocks. Ms. Powers pointed out that this would not be "rezoning" any property, but would be adding a new section to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Powers discussed the proposed facade improvement/rehabilitation loan program for the 3200 through 3500 blocks of South Broadway; if a property owner/businessman wanted to change the facade of their structure, the proposed design guide- lines would be mandatory. Ms. Powers stated that most of the downtown merchants know about the design guidelines, and have been made aware of • -10- the proposed loan program. Ms. Powers asked that Mr. Don Ensign discuss the design guidelines. Mr. Ensign stated that the City Council request to have something done on South Broadway generated the facade improvement/design guidelines program. He stated that the focus on Broadway would be the first phase of the re- development project. Mr. Ensign discussed several approaches that have been considered on Broadway improvement, and stated that this design guide- line concept is a compromise proposal. Mr. Ensign stated that there will be funding available from the 1982 HUD grant to finance the facade drawings, and funding for the revolving loan program would come from the 1983 CDBG grant. Mr. Ensign made reference to a schematic illustration of South Broadway, which illustration depicts the present development along South Broadway, and also depicts on the lower part of the illustration what South Broadway could be following the facade improvement. Mr. Ensign stated that the intent of the program is to get Broadway back to the way it was in facade appearance at the time the buildings were constructed. Mr. Ensign stated that the approach is to create "continuity", and noted that along Broadway the lots are 25 feet in width, and the buildings appear to be of consistent widths. The provisions state that a building may be four stories; however, the fourth story must set back 12 feet from the right-of-way. On buildings two stories or more in height, it is suggested that the first floor be set back from the right-of-way to provide for weather protection and facade shadow. Mr. Ensign stated that a "sign zone" has been identified on each building. Materials have also been addressed, and Mr. Ensign noted that existing buildings along South Broadway are primarily masonry. Mr. Allen asked if he understood there would be no new development on Broadway? Mr. Ensign stated there would not be unless someone bought land and razed an existing building. Mrs. Becker stated that as she understood the program, it is voluntary, and if a property owner chooses to remodel, they must then comply with the design guidelines. Ms. Powers stated that this is correct; the staff will be interviewing architects on Thursday who would work with the mer- chants in designing the facade of the buildings. The City would hire the architects., and would pay the fee for the design facade through the 1982 CDBG funding. Ms. Powers stated that the architect would be selected to work with the interested merchant; it would be determined what the merchant wants, the plans would be drawn and reviewed for compliance with the design guidelines. If the merchant wants to proceed with the facade improvement, application for a loan would be made to the First Interstate Bank, the lead bank in the financial consortium for the loan program. Ms. Powers stated that it is hoped funds from the banks can be obtained, and loaned to the merchants at a lower interest rate than the banks normally charge. The City could also loan up to $5,000 to each merchant at zero interest rate, using the funding from the State in the 1983 CDBG. Ms. Powers stated that one of the problems in the South Broadway improvement is the absentee land- lord. Mrs. B.ecker stated that the sign code will be enforced in conjunction with the design guidelines/facade improvements. Ms. Powers agreed. Ms. Powers noted that property owners with a prohibited sign would have to get rid of that sign within 180 days from date notice was received. Mr. Allen asked if the City would require uniform landscaping in this im- provement program. Ms. Powers stated that the ordinance has not yet been • • -11- approved by City Council. Mr. DeWitt stated that the landscaping ordinance has not been prepared yet, and he isn't sure when it will be. He pointed out that there have been several law suits filed, and matters coming in from other departments, which have been given priority over the Landscaping Ordinance. Mrs. Becker stated that she understood the Commission approved an "ordinance" when they recommended the landscaping regulations to City Council. Mr. DeWitt stated that what the Commission approved must be put in ordinance form, and noted that other matters from the Planning Commission, such as the B-DD Zone District and the Zoning Map amendment, have been dealt with. Mr. DeWitt noted that with the resignation of Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland, he and his staff have not had time to get to all matters. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Commission recommendation was submitted to the City Council on May 16th, with body then referred it to the City Attorney for preparation of an Ordinance. Mr. DeWitt estimated that it would be sometime in July before the Landscaping Ordinance would be before City Council. Several memb.ers of the Commission expressed displeasure and concern with the performance of the City Attorney's office. Mr. Allen asked if Broadway would retain a State Highway designation and whether there would be medians constructed in the center of South Broadway. Ms. Powers stated that merchants have expressed concern about the proposed medians, feeling that there is not sufficient right-of-way along South Broadway to accommodate the medians. EDDA has determined the medians would be unacceptable along South Broadway. Mrs. Becker asked if parking would still be permitted along South Broadway. Mr. Ensign stated that parking will be permitted. He understands that City Council is committed to study the Floyd Avenue realignment, and that a major effort will be made to address traffic problems. Mr. Allen stated that at one time, consideration was given to removing all traffic from South Broadway; is this still under consideration and does it have merit? Mr. Ensign stated that the mall will now be along West Girard Avenue. Traffic will still be allowed along South Broadway. Mrs. romans pointed out that South Broadway does not have a State Highway designation north of U. S. 285. Mrs. B.ecker asked if an "earth-color .'P.a lette" would be developed. Mr. Ensign stated that this would be difficult to develop, and felt that con- sideration of the earth-tones would be done by review. The intent would oe discussed with the architects, and with the staff person who will be making the determination of compliance. Mr. Ensign stated that he felt this would have to be by consensus rather than by legislation. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ensign pointed out that South Broadway is not in- cluded in the B-DD District recently approved by the Commission; South Broadway will be zoned B-1, Business, and the design guidelines will apply to that area. Ms. Powers reiterated the need for approval of these regulations as soon as possible. After discussion, the Commission determined to schedule the Public Hearing on the design guidelines for July 6, 1983, if at all possible. • • • -12- The meeting concluded at 9:20 P. M. Welty ecording Secretary