Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-04 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 4, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. 5 G The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Ed McBrayer. Members present: Becker, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Carson Also present: Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Senior Planner Susan T. King II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of December 7, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Tanguma moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of December 7, 1982, be approved as written . AYES: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Senti, Becker ABSENT: Carson The motion carried. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of December 14, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Allen moved: Gilchrist seconded: The Minutes of December 14, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Becker, Gilchrist NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Senti, Barbre ABSENT: Carson The motion carried. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Marion Street Villas Arlan Payne 3500 Block South Marion CASE 1126-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Public Hearing on this Planned Development was continued from December 7th to this evening. The Planning Commiss ion approved the concept of the "limited living units" proposed by Mr. Payne at the meeting of December 7th, and Mr. Payne was to submit further in- -2- formation required for consideration of the final Development Plan which the Commission would consider at this time. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were any questions from Commission members at this time? Hearing no questions, Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff had anything to add? Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Payne, Mr. Ivey and Ms. Zarlengo have submitted the information required by staff; Mr. Diede, Director of Engineering Ser- vices, has reviewed and approved the drainage report. Mrs. Romans stated that everything appears to be in order on this application. Mr. Payne addressed the Commission and stated that the basic application was presented for consideration at the meeting of December 7th; the addi- tional information required at that time has been submitted to staff. Mr. McBrayer asked if any of the information presented at the first portion of the Hearing has changed? Mr. Payne stated that the basic information is unchanged; he indicated that a drainage area on the south end of the site has been increased in depth to allow for some ponding before discharge. Mr. Ivey noted that the size of the units were increased to a minimum of 527 square feet plus the balcony to meet minimum HUD standards on room sizes and storage area. Mr. Ivey stated that HUD has given approval to the plan which is before the Commission at this meeting. Mrs. Becker asked how many units and how many parking spaces were to be developed on the site? Mr. Payne stated there would be 16 units in two buildings, and a total of 32 off-street parking spaces. Mr. Stoel asked if a fence was proposed on the south end of the property to separate the site from the State Highway right-of-way? Mr. Ivey stated that no fence has been proposed; there will be a berm. Mr. Payne stated that the berm will be on the south boundary, and a six (6) foot fence will be on the north side of the site. Mr. Payne stated that wheel-stops would be needed in the parking area. Mr. McBrayer stated that he and Mr. Stoel were just wondering whether the State Highway Department would require fencing separating the two ownerships. Mr. Stoel asked when construction was proposed to start? Mr. Payne stated that they would hope to begin construction as soon as possible. He stated that they have talked to several lenders who are interested in making the loans, and they have also discussed the proposed development with several prospective purchasers, and could have letters of commitment on at least four of the units. Mr. Allen stated that he recalled discussion of traffic circulation at the meeting on December 7th; he asked if this matter has been resolved? Mr. Payne stated that access to the alley will be classed off from this pro- posed development; all traffic to and from the site would be on South Marion Street. Mr. Payne noted that this traffic circulation pattern was recom- mended by the staff. Mr. Payne pointed out that they will be providing 2:1 parking ratio, and that the parking stalls will be sufficiently large to park two vehicles or to accommodate storage and the parking of one vehicle. • Mr. Payne stated that on-street parking would not be used as "required" • parking. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposed Planned Development? No one was present to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. McBrayer then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposed • • -3- Planned Development? No one was present who spoke in opposition . Barbre moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #26-82 be closed. AYES: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Carson The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission on the matter of the Planned Development? Allen moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Marion Street Villas Planned Development as presented, and refer the matter to City Council. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Gilchrist, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Carson The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer noted that the Commission will be watching development of this Planned Development very closely to determine if this "limited living con- cept" will, in fact, work. IV. SOUTH SLOPE SUBDIVISION M.D. Properties, Ltd. CASE 1127-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Final Plat of the South Slope Subdivis ion was to have been before the Commission at this meeting; however, he has been informed that all necessary information is not available for consideration at this meeting, and the staff has suggested that the matter be carr ied over to January 18th. Mrs. Romans stated that the Engineering Department reviewed the proposed plat after the meeting of December 7th; several issues were raised that were of concern to them. These issues were discussed with the architect, but the property owner was not available, and the architect could not com- mit the owner on these matters. One of the issues of concern was assurance that the fire lane would be constructed. Mr. McBrayer stated that this matter would be placed on the agenda for January 18th; he asked that anyone who spoke on this matter at the time of the Public Hearing be notified of the January 18th date for considera- tion of the Final Plat. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has been in contact with Mr. Basher, adjoining property owner, who had spoken at the meeting of December 7th. V. TEPE SUBDIVISION WAIVER 1600 West Dartmouth Avenue CASE 1116-82 -4- Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood this is a request for clarification • of the intent of the Subdivision Waiver granted at the August 3, 1982, meeting. Was it the intent of the Comnission that the conditions imposed be met prior to transfer of title, prior to issuance of Building Permits, prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, or prior to the Subdivision Waiver becoming effective? Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma stated that in reviewing the Subdivision Waiver which was recorded, it is very clear that the waiver will not become effective until the conditions have been complied with. Mr. McBrayer agreed that this is what the recorded document indicates. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the intent was to protect the buyer, and that the conditions should be met before the property was transferred. Mr. Lou Tepe stated that he was the applicant for the Subdivision Waiver, and the intended owner of the west parcel of land involved in the Waiver. Mr. Tepe stated that prior to making applicat ion for the Waiver, he had met with staff members regarding the division of the property. The greatest concern was expressed by Director of Utilities Stu Fonda on the water and sewer lines within the Dartmouth Industrial Park, of which the subject parcel is a part. Mr. Fonda was concerned about the placement of the lines, about the size of the lines, and the condition and maintenance of the lines. Mr. Tepe stated that he understood Mr. Fonda hoped to use the proposed develop- ment of this site as a means to bring together Mr. Welbourne, developer of the Dartmouth Industrial Park, and the owners of the three structures fronting on West Dartmouth Avenue to determine who was to maintain the water and sewer lines within the Park. Mr. Tepe stated that he felt it was proper that an owners agreement be formed and determination be made on the maintenance of the lines. Mr. Tepe stated that the application for Subdivision Waiver was ~ made, and on August 3, 1982, the Planning Commission approved the Subdivision .., Waiver with seven conditions. Mr. Tepe cited a letter received from Mr. Harold Stitt, Planner I, dated August 5, 1982, which states that" ... the approval of this subdivision waiver carrie s with it the following conditions which must be met at the time the western parcel is developed." Mr. Tepe stated that there was no question in his mind that when the approval was given for the Subdivision Waiver, the conditions were to be met at the time the western parcel was developed --not before the Subdivision Waiver be- came final. Mr. Stoel inquired whether the property owners have been able to get to- gether? Mr. Tepe stated that Mr. Welbourne is not interested at this point, and that "people haven't been rushing to the table." Mr. Tepe stated that Mr. Welbourne owns the eastern building fronting on West Dartmouth Avenue, Frankel owns the central building, and Dartmouth Investment owns the western building; he has a contract for sale with Mr. Martin of Dartmouth Investment for purchase of the westernmost portion of the Dartmouth Investment owner- ship. Mr. McBrayer noted that it is clear the first six conditions have to be done before development, and that the seventh condition has to be done be- fore any development on the western parcel can tie into the sewer line. He stated that he felt it is clear that these must be done before any change in title and development; he stated that he did not see that there is a problem. Mr. Tepe pointed out that the explanation given in Mr. Stitt's letter differs from Paragraph #2 of the Subdivision Waiver Resolution form, ~ which clearly states that: "That the said waiver shall be subject to the following conditions and said waiver shall not become effective until said conditions are met. Should the said conditions contain requirements of • • -5- a continuing nature, this waiver shall cease its effectiveness at such t ime as the present owner, or any successor in title, fails to continue to comply with said conditions. The said conditions to which the aforesaid waiver is subject are as follows:" Mrs. Romans stated that it is correct that Paragraph 2 a s cited by Mr. Te pe is part of the standard form used for all Subdivision Waiver recordings; if there is a problem, it was in the letter sent to Mr. Tepe. Mrs. Roman s stated that in her opinion, the recorded document would have to be fo llowed. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tepe stated that he has a contract with Mr. Ma r tin of the Dartmouth In- dustrial Park to purchase the western parcel; the contract stipulates tha t the transfer of title will take place at such time as the property i s divided (the Subdivision Waiver is effective); but, the Subdivision Waiver will n ot become effective until the conditions are met. Mr. Tepe stated that he could not comply with the conditions until he gain s ownership of the p r operty. Mr. Tepe stated that he now occupies a structure a 1600 West Dartmouth Avenue as a tenant; he stated that he sold the property at 1600 West Dartmouth Avenue to the current owner with the understanding that the western p a rt of the site, approximately one acre, would be wi thhel d from the transaction for ownersh j p by Mr. Tepe. Mr. Stoel aEked if Mr. Tepe purchased to comply wj th the seven conditions? willing to comply with the conditions the property , would he be wil lin g Mr. Tepe stated that he would be prior to dev elopment of the si t e. Mr. Charles Martin stated that he is one of the owners in the Dartmouth Investment Company; he stated that there i s a contract for sale with Mr . Tepe which Eale would become effective as soon as he gets a Subdivision Waiver. He stated that he felt the first six cond i tions could be met within 30 dcys, and this would determine if the property could be developed; if it cannot be developed, he questioned wh y the Wa iver should be gran ted. Discussion Ensued. Mr. Martin then asked what is meant in Condition #6 by reference tc an "owners association within the Da r tmouth Industrial Park"? Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the intent wa s fo r the owners assoc i a tion to pertain to the properties fronting on We s t Dartmouth Avenue. Mr. Tepe emphasized that the only condition on the sale to Mr. Mart in with the retention of the western parcel, was that t h e l and be platted. Mr. Martin's contention is that he will transfer t i t l e of the western parcel to Mr. Tepe when the conditions are met. Mr. Allen stated that he felt the Commission was b eing placed in the position of being arbitrator; h e stated that the development of the parcel is based on the seven conditions being met, and what Mr. Tepe and Mr. Martin work out on the sale of the land is of no concern t o the Comm i ssion. Mr. Gi lchrist agreed. Di s cussion ensued. Mr. Tepe st a ted that it was never stated t hat the c on ditions had to be met prior to the Subdivision Waiver becomin g ef fe ctive ; he stated t hat Mr. Stitt's l etter of August 5th does corr ectly indicate the intent of the Commission's act i on on August 3rd that t he condi tion s had to be met prior to developme nt of the parcel. Mr . Tepe s t a t e d that he does not have a time- table for develo pment of the property, and emphasized that he is only the potential owner of the site. He stated that he need s the title to t he prop- erty to meet the condit i ons i mposed. -6- Mr. Gilchrist stated that at the meeting of August 3rd, he felt it was • made clear and agreed that no building permits would issue until the con- ditions were met; he stated that he is of the opinion that this matter is improperly before the Commission. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer sug- gested that the Commission should inform Mr. Tepe and Mr. Martin whether the conditions are to be met prior to the Subdivision Waiver becoming ef- fective, or prior to development. Mr. McBrayer suggested that he would suggest the first six conditions could be met before the Subdivision Waiver becomes effective, and that Condition #7 could be waived until development of the subject parcel. Mr. Tepe re-stated that he had worked closely with the staff on the preparation of the application and on the development of the conditions to give the City what their departments wanted; he stated that he was not told that the con- ditions would apply to the granting of the Waiver. Mrs. Becker asked if Paragraph #2 of the Waiver Resolution form had anything to do with a contract for sale? Mr. Holland stated that this paragraph had nothing to do with the transfer of title; however, it does state that the Subdivision Waiver will not become effective until the conditions are met. He stated that his interpretation of the Commission action was that the in- tent was to grant the Waiver, but not to allow development until the con- ditions were met. Mr. Holland stated that he felt the Commission could amend this Resolution to more clearly reflect their intent, and it would be filed as an amended Subdivision Waiver, with reference to the book and page assigned to the recorded document . Mr. Martin asked why the Commission would have granted a Subdivision Waiver if the property cannot be developed; he suggested that it cannot be deter- mined if the property can be developed until an attempt is made to meet the conditions. If the conditions cannot be met, and the property cannot be developed, he questioned why it should be separated from the major parcel. Mr. Martin reiterated the agreement is that Mr. Tepe will gain title to the parcel of land when the Subdivision Waiver is effective. Mr. Tepe reiterated his understanding that the Subdivision Waiver was granted, with the conditions to be met prior to or at the time of develop- ment of the parcel; he was willing to do everything to meet those conditions. He stated that the contract for sale was not contingent on the conditions, but upon the property being divided. He stated that the wording of the resolution has created problems in acquiring title to the property. Mr. Martin discussed an offer to purchase the land that someone has made; the individual stated that he would give a contract subject to the con- ditions being met; if the conditions cannot be met, the property would not be worth buying. Mr. Martin again estimated that the first six items could be met within 30 days, certainly within 90 days. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Holland suggested that when the applicants have presented their case, that the Commission could consider the matter among themselves. Messrs. Tepe and Martin indicated that their presentation was completed and stepped out of the room during deliberations by the Commission. Following the deliberations of the Commission in executive session, Messrs. Martin and Tepe were called back into the Council Chambers. • • • Becker moved: Stoel seconded: -7- The intent of the Planning Commission in granting the Sub- division Waiver, Resolution #2, Series of 1982, was that the Waiver would be effective at the time the document was recorded. Conditions imposed on the Waiver were to be met before improvement of the western property. The Commission will amend Resolution #2, Series of 1982, to reflect that the conditions must be met prior to improvement of th P property, and Condition #6 will be amended to state t ' at "an owners association be formed involving the owners of the three buildings within the Dartmouth Industrial P ~rk fronting on West Dartmouth Avenue for the purpose of maintenance of all sewer and water lines serving these buildings." AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: None ABSENT: Carson The motion carried. VI. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Mr. Holland reviewed the memorandum he had submitted to Commission member s at their meeting on December 14, 1982, pointing out that the first several sections of the memorandum are background information. Mr. Holland stated that he understood it has now been determined to refer to this proposed d is- trict as a "mixed-use development district". Mr. Holland then reviewed several issues that he felt were of major importance in considering an ord inanc e such as this, which issues included whether or not there were sufficient standards contained within the ordinance to give "certainty" to the ordinance; whether use restrictions contained in the ordinance are appropriate and in the public interest; and whether or not a design review committee should be making judgements on what buildings, designs and features would be ap - propriate in this zone district. Mr. Holland cited a recent court case involving the City of Thornton, and notedthat the proposed Englewood ordinance has more certain standards than contained in the Thornton Ordinance which was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. Mr. Holland discussed the matter of use restrictions with this zone dis- trict, emphasizing that the restrictions must be in the public interest and not for benefit of certain property owners. The matter of a Design Review Committee was discussed by Mr. Holland; several court cases were cited by Mr. Holland concerning use of archi- tectural/design review. Mr. Holland noted that one factor which is not discussed in his memorandum is the fact that the proposed ordinance, as drafted, does not include adult entertainment uses as a permitted use. Mr. Holland suggested that findin gs should be made as to whether or not there are other areas in the City whe re the adult uses are permitted, and whether these areas are suffic ient t o t ake care of the adult entertainment needs of the citizens of Englewood. Discussion ensued. -8- VII. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that a Public Hearing before City Council has been scheduled for January 10, 1 983, at 7:30 P. M. to consider adoption of the 1982 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes. Mrs. Romans stated that two major changes which are proposed relate to atriums and the sprinklering of buildings. The present UBC does not address atriums, which are now very popular in large hotels, and buildings over 75 feet in height are required to be spr i nklered. The proposed Code would require sprinkling of buildings of four stories or between 50 and 75 feet in height. Mr. McBrayer s tated that Littleton has adopted the '82 Codes, and Denve r has adapted the codes to their purposes. He discussed "accessory u se buildings", which may be used for the same purpose as the primary structure but may not have to be equipped to accommodate handicapped, etc. He asked if the Englewood code would contain a provision to allow such structures ? Mrs . Romans stated that she would discuss this matter with Chief Building Inspector Pittman. Mr. McBrayer stated that as he recalled, the provis ions in the Littleton Code have stipulations on the maximum distance between the accessory use building and the major building, and the major buildi ng must be open at the same time the acces s ory building is being used . IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer asked what happened on Case #28-82 regarding requiring pavi ng of the alley by the developer? Mrs. Romans stated that the matter wa s left up to the applicant to work out with t he Engineering Division. Mr. McBrayer asked the status of the Landscaping Ordinance ? Mr . Holland asked when the Commission wanted to c onsider this ordinance ? Mr . McBray er suggested that it b e on the agenda for t he meeting on January 18th . Mr. McBrayer stated that he wil l be attending a meeting on January 6th on the promot i onal brochure f o r the City . Mr. Allen suggested that p erhap s a Ci t y s now removal program shoul d b e di s - cussed. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is i n rece i pt of a letter from Mr. Gilchris t wherein Mr. Gilchrist has indicated he is not interested i n reappointment to the P l anni ng Commi ssion at t he exp irat i on o f hi s term on February 1, 1983. The Commission members expressed regret t h a t Mr. Gi lchrist wou l d n ot be able t o apply for reappointment. • Mr. Tanguma asked about the court cas e regarding the Adu l t Ce nter ? Mr . Holland stated that he understood the s ubpo e nas were quashed. The j udge ~ will review the matter under the Rule 106 Re v iew, which i s a review of the record to determine if the record will u phold the decision of the adm i n is t ra- tive body; no testimony i s taken under th is p rocedure. However , Mr. Hol l a nd . ' • -9- stated that he understood the Court did keep open the possibility that the 106 Review would not be sufficient to properly determine the case. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty ' Recording Secretary