Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-02 PZC MINUTES' ' • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 2, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. 1"1 •• ' The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Senti. Members present: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Becker II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 19, 1983 Chairman Senti stated that the Minutes of July 19, 1983, were to be con- sidered for approval. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Minutes of July 19, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Barbre ABSENT: Becker The motion carried, III. FINDINGS OF FACT Video Arcade -Centennial Shopping Center CASE /114-83 Chairman Senti stated that the Findings of Fact on the Conditional Use of a Video Arcade to be located in the Centennial Acres Shopping Center are to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #14-83. be approved as written. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Barbre ABSENT: Becker The motion carried, IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 2855 South Broadway Case fflS -83 Chairman Senti stated that the Findings of Fact for the Conditional Use of a United Tire Sales outlet at 2855 South rtroadway were to be considered for approval. -2-' Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #15-83 be approved as written. AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Ca rson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Barbre ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. ' .. V. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #16-83 Funtastic Amusement Center in Cinderella City Chairman Senti stated that the Findings of Fact for the Conditional Use f or an indoor amusement center in Cinderella City were to be consider e d for approval. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #16-83 be approved as writt e n. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Barb.re ABSENT: Becker ' ,, The motion carried. • VI. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION CASE //19-82 Mrs. Romans reviewed discussions on the condominium conversion ordinance which the Commission has had in the past. She noted that there was con- siderable discussion on whether units to be converted to condominium pur- poses would have to brought up to present code or meet the code require- ments in existence at the time of the initial construction. It was det e r- mined in the course of these discussions, that life-safety requirements should be written into the ordinance, and that units to be converted to condominium purposes be required to meet the life-safety provisions. Fire Marshal Groditski and Chief Building Inspector .Pittman worked together to devise life-safety requirements they felt were minimal for condominium units. These requirements were considered b.y the Commission previously, and the staff has incorporated them into the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance that was previously recommended to the City Council. Mrs. Romans noted that other than th.e insertion of the life-safety provisions, and inclusion of administrative procedures, there have been no substantive changes made in the proposed Ordinance as recommended by the Commission. Mrs. Romans briefly reviewed the proposed condominium conversion regul a- tions, noting that provision is also stat d in the regulations that t h e applicant may appeal to the Board of Adju s t me nt and Appeals if the a ppl ica- tion for conversion is denied by t he Di rect or of Commun i ty De v elop ment . Th .e matter of the fee to be charged had a l so been a matter of discussion by the Commission and by the City Council; this proposed ordinance sug- gests that a fee of $50 per unit be charged applicants wanting to convert units for condominium purposes. t • I • • -3- Mrs. Romans further noted that the draft of the provisions before the Commission indicates both (multi-unit dwelling) (an apartment complex) in the text, and that she would suggest that the draft reconuµended to City Council state only "multi-unit dwelling". Mr. Senti asked if members of the Commission had any questions on the pro- posed ordinance. Mr. Tanguma asked what was meant by Type III, IV, and V buildings. Mrs. Romans stated that these are defined in the Building Code. Mr. Tanguma suggested that the Building Code should be referenced in this section. Mr. McBrayer stated that any builder would know what is meant by Type III, IV, and V buildings. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt there should be some reference so that individuals who are not familiar with Building Codes could have some knowledge where to look for the information. Dis- cussion ensued. It was suggested that the statement "as defined in the Uniform Building Code" be included on Page 5, (b) and (c) • Mr. Tanguma questioned Page 6, (d)(l), and suggested that the word "by" or "of" be inserted. Mr. Stoel reviewed questions that he had on the proposed regulations, and cited Page 2, c(3). He stated that he has difficulty understanding this section; it appears that the letter from the licensed engineer or architect certifying that the building MEETS the life-safety requirements must be presented before an application can be made to determine whether the building can be converted to condominium units. He questioned that this was the intent of the Commission as detennined in the previous discussions. Mr. McBrayer agreed that the architect or engineer was to certify that the building CAN be brought up to code and meet the life-safety requirements. Mrs. Becker entered the meeting and took her place with the Commission at 7:20 P. M. Mr. Stoel stated that he didn't feel an applicant should have to go to the expense of ensuring the building does meet the life-safety require- ments prior to making application if that application is ultimately denied. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel emphasized that it did not seem proper to him that an applicant should be required to spend m~ney to meet life- safety requirements if they cannot convert the units to condominiums. Mrs. Romans stated that it is common practice for applicants to have a pre- application conference with staff members, and that the requirements could be discussed at that time. Mrs. Becker suggested that this statement be reworded to indicate that the letter from the architect or engineer should state that the building does meet or can be improved to meet the life-safety requirements. Mr. Stoel then discussed concerns he had with the provision on Page 3, re- quiring an option to purchase being given a tenant, said option to purchase being at the fair market value and the need to execute· a purchase contract within 90 days of receipt of notice. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the statement that the unit be offered "at fair market value" would result in the city setting the sale price for the units; he noted that most owners usually offer units to tenants at "below" fair market value. Mrs. Romans stated that this provision is as it was worded in the draft prepared by -4- Assistant City Attorney Menzies, and is not a change in the proposed ordinance. I Mr. Stoel also registered objection to the time element of 90 days, noting that a tenant is to receive 120 days notice to vacate the unit if he does not purchase, and questioned why the 90-day restriction was written in for the execution of a real estate sales contract. Mrs. Romans stated that the property owners would be given some protection by this provision, in addi- tion to the tenant protection; this would allow the property owner to begin showing the unit for sale to other than tenants after the 90-day period. Mr. Stoel stated that the only thing the owner has to give the tenant is a 120-day notice to vacate and an option to purchase; the rest of the pro- visions of this section should be by agreement between the tenant and the property owner. Mr. Stoel stated that he would suggest that "d(3)" be eliminated altogether. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt th.e property owner should have some protection also, and that the 90-day limitation on purchase would provide the property owner with a time after that expiration to show the units to someone else. Mr. Stoel and Mr. McBrayer both indicated that they did not believe it is the City's b.usiness or concern how long an option to purchase is between a buyer and a seller, nor is the selling price the concern of the City. Mr. Allen stated that he is of the opinion the 120-day notice to vacate is all that is necessary. Mr. Venard stated that he felt the Commission had to consider the intent back of the requirement; the 120-day notice is some protection to the current tenant, and the fair market value would also give protection against being priced out of purchasing. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that on most conversions, the tenants have been offered the units at lower than fair market value because the property owner does not have to "rehab" the unit; the units are offered to the tenants at a reduced sales rate and with a good financing package. Mr. Stoel reiterated that he is in favor of eliminating this provision altogether. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt there should be some statement regarding option to purchase, or "first right of refusal". Mr. McBrayer spoke against the "first right of refusal" statement, and stated that he is of the opinion that it is a detriment to the sale of property. Mr. Tanguma noted that this provision is under a subsection on "tenant protection", and he felt that some statement regarding option to purchase should he included. Discussion ensued. Becker moved: Tanguma seconded: Page 3, d(3), be worded: An option to purchase the condominium. The remainder of the statement shall be eliminated. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer suggested that provision "c(3)" be reworded to state that a licensed "structural" engineer shall certify that the building can meet the life-safety requirements. • • ' • • -5- Mr. Stoel asked what the parking ratio is as written in Ordinance #26, Series of 1963. Mrs. Romans stated that the ratio is 1-1/2 space per unit for one and two bedroom units; two to oU'e on three bedroom units. The required parking may also be provided within 400 feet of the subject site; it does not have to be on the site. Mrs. Becker asked for clarification on construction and location of fire escapes. She also asked for clarification of the term "fire resistive construction", whether this meant there would be no smoke and fumes from the fire, or whether there would be no fire --the material would not burn. Mr. Stoel stated that the fire resistive construction referred to the sheet rock and the fire rating given it; this provision did not apply to carpeting, wall covering, etc. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that Page 2, "c(3)" be reworded to state: A letter signed by a licensed structural engineer or licensed architect certifying that the building to be converted meets the life-safety requirements set forth in §22.4Eg, OR CERTIFIES THAT THE BUILDING CAN BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE AND IDENTIFIES T~OSE MODIFICATIONS THAT MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO COMPLY" shall be submitted. It was the consensus of the Connnission that this statement would meet their intent • Mr. Stoel suggested that "c(4)" on Page 2 be eliminated. This was approved by .the Commission. Mr. Venard questioned whether Page 8, 4th line in the second paragraph should oe "roofs" rather than "rooms" with a 4:12 slope. It was agreed that this should be roofs. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The staff be directed to make the corrections as approved by the Commission at this meeting, and refer the Condominium Conversion Regulations to the City Council. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker~ Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE • There was no one from the City Attorney's office present. -6- IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans announced there will be a Town Meeting at 7:30 P •. M. on . Tuesday, August 9, 1983 in the Community Room for the presentation and update on the downtown redevelopment. This presentation and update will be given by Brady Enterprises and Perez Associates; members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Urban Renewal Authority, Housing Authority, and other boards and commissions have been mailed invitations. The meeting is open to the .general public. Mrs. Romans stated that every year, the Commission reviews departmental requests for capital improvement projects and makes their recommendation to the City Manager. This year, however, all available funds have been committed to the improvement of Little Dry Creek and the Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan and .other continuing projects, and with the limited finances available, it seemed a waste of effort to go through the exercise of de- veloping the requests, considering the requested projects, and recommending them to the City Manager. She stated that this has been discussed with Community Development Director Powers, and it was suggested that perhaps the Commission would want to send a letter to the City Manager stating that the available funds are committed to the Little Dry Creek/Downtown Redevelop- ment projects, and that the Commission will not be submitting additional Capital Improvement program requests for this .year. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: A letter be sent to City Manager McCown stating that inasmuch as the available public improvement funding is committed to on-going projects and the Little Dry Creek/Downtown Redevelopment projects, the Commission will not be submitting further Capital Improvement Project requests this y~ar. · AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Allen stated that he has prepared the first report on the matter of City trash pickup. Mr. Allen stated that he has surveyed some other municipalities on their practices, and presented copies .of this informa- tion to members of the Commission. Mr. Allen stated· that of the three cities cited which do provide their own trash collection, the fees are collected with the water bill, and all municipalities own their own trucks. Longmont owns the landfill; other municipalities do not own the landfill, and must pay access fees to the landfill. Mr, Allen stated that the fees paid by the residents of these cities are less than the fees paid by ' • residents of Englewood for private collection, averaging about $5 per • month. The City of Longmont realizes approximately $200,000 from the trash collection program to devote to other programs·. Mrs. Becker stated that on a recent trip through the southwest, she noticed several very small cities were providing their own trash pickup service. ' • • -7- Mr. Stoel asked what Mr. Allen's reason was for suggesting that the City assume the responsibility for trash pickup rather than having private haulers continue to do it. Mr. Allen stated that there are a number of people that do not contract for trash pickup; they dump their trash in other people's containers, or the litter goes all over the City. Mr. Allen cited problems that he has experienced with his trash contained at his business in the 3400 block of South Sherman Street. Mr. Tanguma asked if Denver provided trash pickup. Mr. Allen stated that Denver does provide trash pickup; however, Denver was very reluctant to divulge information on their program. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not feel that citizens should expect govern- ment to do everything for them, and that private industry should take care of a lot of things such as trash collection. The more government is re- quired to do, the more it costs. Mr. Senti stated that Columbine provides trash pickup, and it is paid with the taxes; the trash pickup is put out to bid to the various companies, with the City responsible for payment to the trash company itself. Mr. Allen stated that he felt municipal trash collection could result in a savings for the Englewood resident, noting that the three major trash collection companies operating in the Englewood area charge an average of $7/month for residential pickup . Mrs. Becker stated that Englewood calls itself a "full-service" City, and she felt that provision of trash pickup is part of the "full-service" that citizens should be provided. Mrs. Becker discussed the possibility of incinerating the trash and con- verting to methane gas; she discussed a similar procedure that National Jewish has undertaken to incinerate their trash, convert to methane gas and provide their own power. Mrs. Becker stated that if this can be done, it could result in considerable savings energy-wise, and be a means of destroying the waste other than by landfill. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel commented on the difficulty of finding places for landfill opera- tions. If it is possible for the City to give some thought to recycling the trash and generating power, he felt it should be considered. Mr. Allen pointed out factors that may affect the ultimate cost to the individual citizen, such as availability of landfill, charge for access to the landfill, length of haul, whether the municipality owns the trash trucks or leases them, whether it is contracted out to trash collection companies on a bid basis. Mr. Allen also brought up the matter of containers; will the City provide the containers, will they provide the first container and subsequent containers to be provided by the individual. If the latter is the case, the same people who do not participate in the private trash collection probably won't be able to afford to purchase the containers • Discussion ensued. Mr. Carson suggested that the Commission should have another study session on this matter, and then send it to City Council. Mr. Tanguma suggested that the Commission could forward Mr. Allen's in- formation to the City Council now, with the recommendation that they con- sider instituting a study on incineration of trash and conversion to methane power for public facilities. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: -8- The Planning Commission transmit the information on municipal trash collection which has been gathered by Mr. George Allen, to the City Council for their informa- tion, and recommend that the City Council institute a feasibility study on incineration of trash and conversion to methane gas power for public facilities. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that she will be presenting more slides of her trip to Seattle for the APA Conference in the future. The Commission picnic/pot luck at Mrs. Becker's home was set for the last Sunday in August, August 28th. Mrs. Becker further discussed her recent trip through the southwestern part of the United States, and discussed the "planning" and lack thereof that is evident in driving through Moab, Utah. Mr. McBrayer asked that City departments be notified that his address is now #1 Cottonwood Way. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P. M. - ' • •