Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-18 PZC MINUTES'' I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 1983 CALL TO ORDER . The regular meeting of the City Planni ng and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman McBra y er. Me mbers present: Allen, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist , McBrayer, Stoel Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Barbre, Senti, Tanguma Also present: Harold Stitt, Planner I Assistant City Attorney David Menzies Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBray e r stated that Minutes of the meeting of January 4, 1983, were to be considered for approval. Becker moved: Gilchrist seconded: The Minutes of January 4, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: Becker, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Carson ABSENT: Barbre, Senti, Tanguma The motion carried. III. SOUTH SLOPE SUBDIVISION CASE #27-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Final Plat of the South Slope Subdivision was to be considered for approval. He stated that it is his understanding that points of concern that were raised at the Public Hearing on December 7th have been r esolved . He asked if the Commission members had any questions regarding the proposed Subdivision Plat, or whether the staff had further information to add? Mrs. Romans reported on a meeting between the property owner, Mr. Dushoff, his architect, Mr. Bill Belong, and City staff members Diede, Groditski, Romans, Stitt, King, and Assistant City Attorney Holland. Points of con- cern were discussed at this meeting, and property owner Dushoff agreed to meet the conditions proposed by the staff. Mrs. Romans asked Planner I Stitt to review t h e conditions suggested to be imposed on the approval of the Subdivision Plat. Mr. Stitt stated that the Subdivision will divide Block 15, Interurban Ad- dition, into two lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2; Lot 2 is presently developed with the South Slope Condominiums, and Lot 1, the northern lot, will be sold off. Prior to the meeting mentioned by Mrs. Romans, the staff had sent a memorandum to other departments asking for comments on the proposed Subdivision. City -2- Engineering Services Director Diede expressed concern that the completion of the Fire Lane was not guaranteed. The Fire Lane has also been moved further north away from Building 4A, and relocation of the Fire Hydrant meets with the approval of Fire Marshal Groditski. An escrow account will be established, to which the City will be a party, and this escrow account will be to assure completion of the fire lane. Mr. Stitt further discussed the fire lane/emergency access, noting that three parking spaces have been removed at the north end of the drive on the east side of the property to provide a tum-around. This will also provide access off of West Lehow Avenue to Lot 1. Chain barriers will be erected at both ends of the fire lane to prevent use and possible blockage of the fire lane by parked auto- mobiles. If the Fire Department needs to use the fire lane, the chain barriers will be cut. Mr. Stitt reviewed a meeting with Mr. Bill Basher, property owner immediately to the west of this development. One of Mr. Basher's concerns was a fence along the west property line, which has large rocks piled against the fence. Mr. Basher was concerned that children might be playing in this area and pull the rocks down, resulting in possible injury to the child. Mr. Belong, architect for Mr. Dushoff, has assured the staff and Mr. Basher that this will be taken care of. Another concern expressed by Mr. Basher was a matter of drainage; the initial grading was incorrectly done, and water occasionally drains onto the Basher property. This problem is also being worked on in an effort to solve it. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were any questions? Mr. Allen asked about the escrow account and the completion of the emergency access? Mr. Stitt stated that the funds for the escrow account would be held out from the proceeds from the sale of Lot l; $20,000 to $25,000 would be placed in this account to assure that the fire lane/emergency access would be completed. The City will be a party to this escrow account, so that if the construction on the fire lane is not completed within a reasonable time, the funds may be with- drawn by the City and the construction accomplished. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Belong had anything to add to the discussion? Mr. Belong stated that Mr. Stitt had made a very complete presentation, and he had nothing further to add. Mr. Allen asked how many units would be constructed on the site? Mr. Belong stated that Phase I, on Lot 2, presently contains 52 units; there are two buildings which have yet to be constructed, and he indicated this would add approximately 20 units. Lot 1 would be sold off, and he could not say at what density this lot is to be developed. Carson moved: Allen seconded: their approval. The Planning Commission approve the Final Plat of the South Slope Subdivison, and refer the Plat to the City Council for It is the understanding of the Commission that: 1. The asphalt drive on the east side of the project leading to the parking lots is to be paved to the northernmost lot. This drive will also pro- vide access to Lot 1 from West Lehow Avenue. 2. The north parking lot will be rough-graded and graveled with a layer of gravel for emergency access. ,'i J -3- 3. The concrete emergency access will be extended from its existing lo- cation on the west side of the project eastward along the north end of Lot 2 to the temporarily graveled parking lot. 4. Chain gates will be provided at the ends of the concrete emergency route to prohibit vehicular access. 5. A vehicular turnaround will be provided in the parking lot at the north end of the project. 6. The City will be named in the escrow document so that if the above items are not completed within a reasonable time, the City can withdraw the escrow fund to complete the emergency access route. AYES: Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma, Barbre The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Marion Street Villas Planned Development CASE 1126-82 Mr. McBrayer noted that the Findings of Fact on the proposed Marion Street Villas Planned Development were in the packet of information delivered to the Commission. He asked if there were any questions from the Commission on these Findings of Fact? Mr. Gilchrist questioned what was meant by the statement "These condominiums will provide needed housing in this area, being targeted to the first-time homeowner, for an income group which cannot afford conventional housing, thus helping to achieve one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Gilchrist asked if the term "conventional housing" was a "degree" question; does this refer to a $70,000 -$80,000 home? Mrs. Romans indicated she felt it referred to a single-family house. Mr. Stoel pointed out that the first time homeowner is an income group who cannot afford the conventional single- family home. Mr. McBrayer stated that a recently published survey indicates that the average price of housing in the Denver Metro area is from $88,000 to $93,000; the Marion Street Villas proposal made reference to a price ap- proximately half this amount, or in the mid $40,000 range. Allen moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on the Marion Street Villas Planned Development. AYES: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Carson, Becker ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma, Barbre The motion carried. * * * * * Mr. McBrayer suggested that the Commission relocate to the Community Room for an informal discussion on the next two topics on the agenda. * * * * * V. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Proposed Ordinance -4- CASE #19-82 Mr. David Menzies, Assistant City Attorney, stated that following his meeting with the Planning Commission on the Condominium Conversion Ordinance last fall, he has incorporated suggestions made at that meeting into this draft of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Menzies stated that he has worked very closely with Fire Marshal Groditski on the proposed ordinance, and that Fire Marshal Groditski feels this is a good ordinance. Mr. Menzies then reviewed changes that had been made in the areas of tenant protection, and the City assuming responsibility for inspection to determine Code compliance. Mr. Menzies emphasized that the City will not be guaranteeing condition or giving a warranty on the premises by doing the inspections. Mr. Menzies stated that there will be two facets the developer will have to work with: meeting requirements through the Community Development De- partment, and requirements of the Utilities Department. Mr. Menzies did not foresee any difficulty in this arrangement for the developer. Mr. Gilchrist questioned the meaning of Section 1 of the proposed ordinance, wherein it is stated that " ...•. shall convert any multi-unit dwelling ..... "; he asked if it would be possible to convert a single-unit dwelling to condo- minium purposes? Discussion ensued. It was pointed out that if a single- family structure was converted to a duplex, it could then be considered for condominium units; but it would no longer be a single-family structure. Mr. Menzies discussed the concern regarding the utility hookups; he under- stood that the Utilities Department would prefer individual hookups and lines for each unit. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel expressed disagreement on the matter of the utility hookups and lines to each unit. Ms. Becker cited a large single-family house in east Englewood, and questioned whether this house could be divided into smaller individual units. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the zone district is R-1-A, and would not allow multi-units in one structure. Mr. Gilchrist then questioned Section 8, Fire Protection. This section stated that the developer shall comply with but not be limited to, the following requirements. He stated that he felt this sentence is contradictory. Mrs. Romans stated that this section means that there may be other require- ments the developer would have to comply with that are not specifically set forth in the ordinance. Mr. Menzies agreed with Mrs. Romans' clarification. Mr. Stoel discussed Section 5, Warranty of Common Areas. He questioned that warranties should be given on common areas. Mr. McBrayer discussed a project he is involved with in Broomfield; he stated that they have determined on this project that common areas refer to swimming pool, tennis courts, and other recreational areas, but that laundry rooms and storage areas are not considered common areas. Mr. Allen stated that he thought there was a State Law that would apply in this matter; he noted that when Cherokee Kivas was constructed, every purchaser was given a l/40th interest in the common areas with their purchase of a unit. Mr. Menzies further discussed his collaboration with Mr. Groditski, Mr. Pittman, and other staff members in drafting the ordinance on condominium conversion. He noted that Mr. Pittman had questioned the assumption of the inspection responsibility by the City. -5- Mr. Gilchrist asked how this condominium conversion ordinance would apply to the Kimberly Woods and Kimberly Village developments in northeast Englewood? Mrs. Romans stated that these two developments cannot meet the requirements of the Utilities Department, and could not convert to condominium units un- til they do so. Mrs. Romans then discussed the construction background of these two developments, noting that roadways and utility lines were privately owned, and not subject to City inspection at the time of construction. Mr. Carson asked how the Commission was to proceed on this proposed Ordinance? Mrs. Romans suggested that a date for a Public Hearing should be set. Mr. McBrayer suggested that in addition to the notice in the official City news- paper, the owners of apartment buildings in the City also receive notifica- tion of the public hearing, specifically those who have made inquiry regarding conversion to condominium units. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that owners of complexes in excess of 20 units receive specific notification. The public hearing date was set for February 23, 1983. Mr. Gilchrist complemented Mr. Menzies on the drafting of the proposed ordinance. VI. LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE CASE #8-82 Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed landscaping ordinance before the Com- mission is basically that developed by the ad hoc committee composed of Mr. Stoel and Mr. Gilchrist. Mr. McBrayer asked why the proposed Fine Arts Fund was not included in this draft of the ordinance. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that it appeared to him that the primary area where landscaping could be a problem would be the downtown commercial area where there is no room to provide landscaping. Mr. McBrayer commented that Mrs . Romans had mentioned the possibility of incorporating more flexibility into the landscaping provisions on the order of the Planned Development regulations. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that in some instances, perhaps the landscaping requirements should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If it is new construction, compliance could be expected, but it if is a remodeling project and it is physically impossible to provide the landscaping, perhaps it should be left to the discretion of the person reviewing the plans. Mr. Carson asked what would give the staff authority to require landscaping? Mrs. Romans stated that this is one of the reasons that the landscaping ordinance is being considered. Mr. Allen asked if a landscaping plan would have to be presented with the other building plans to get approval and a permit? Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt landscaping should be indicated on the building plans. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the requirement would be only to show landscaping, but not indicate what type of landscaping was proposed. Mrs. Romans stated that the type of landscaping would be requested to be shown, and that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be given until the landscaping is in- stalled. -6- Mr. Allen stated that he felt the maintenance of the landscaping is where there will be problems. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt there is a conflict between section c(l) which states "all open areas not covered by paving ..••• shall be land- scaped ..•.. " and the percentages of lot area required to be landscaped in the individual districts. Discussion ensued. Mr. Holland stated that he and Mrs. Romans had reviewed the draft of the ordinance, and it was their feeling that there should be further clarification on this provision. Mr. McBrayer stated that he questioned that paving should be included in the above-cited statement. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans suggested that possibly this entire provision should be eliminated. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he was not in favor of the landscaping ordinance at all, and commented that as long as paving was included in the cited state- ment, he didn't feel it could be enforced. He asked how the staff and com- mission could reconcile the philosophy between the right of the individual to develop his property and the right of the public to be protected against visual discord. How is a reasonable balance determined. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt this is taking property without due process. Mr. Holland stated that in many instances it is a legislative judgement on what is. an appropriate balance between two competing interests. Mr. Allen expressed concern that developments may be prevented and developers may be "landscaped out of business". He stated that he has seen abuse of such provisions in other cities, and that landscaping is a good tool to give a developer trouble. Mr. Holland stated that it would be up to the Commission to determine what policies on landscaping they want to recommend be instituted. Mr. Holland pointed out that most cities do have landscaping requirements. Mr. Stoel stated that he had reviewed the requirements of other cities such as Aurora and Lakewood, and felt that the proposal for Englewood is very limited compared to requirements in those municipalities. Mr. Stoel questioned the meaning of "freestanding building" as noted in provision a(2) on Page 1 of the proposed ordinance. Mr. McBrayer stated that this provision was meant to discourage a "bare" building. Mrs. Romans interpreted this provision to encourage good design on developments. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist suggested that "To discourage the freestanding building concept and" be eliminated. Mrs. Romans suggested that the word "demand" should also be eliminated, and replaced with "encourage". Further discussion ensued on the provision c(l) on Page 2. Mr. Holland stated that he and Mrs. Romans are working on definitions of words found in the proposed ordinance, such as "landscaping." Mr. Gilchrist stated that he "thinks this entire ordinance is a bureaucratic attempt by members of the Planning Commission, and maybe of City Council, that want to impose their aesthetic and artistic views on property owners." He questioned that the proposed ordinance, if enacted, would protect anybody other than "the eyesight of people on the Commission." He felt aesthetics were all a matter of personal view, and that this Ordinance would not be fair to property owners. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt if people really feel the proposal is unfair, it would be brought out at the Public Hearing. -7- Mr. Gilchrist disagreed that a public hearing would be a fair sample of public opinion, noting that very few people come forward and express their views. Mr. Stoel stated that if the citizens do not feel strongly enough to voice their opinions, then he feels as an appointed member of the Com- mission that he should do and recommend what he feels is best for the citizens of the community. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the Commission should look to the future and cited the fight for water rights in Englewood which occurred in the 1940's or 1950's. Mr. Gilchrist questioned the comparison of something as essential as water to the planting of trees and shrubs. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the analogy was still there, and the point was that citizens acting in the 1940's or 1950's did something for posterity, and he feels this Commission should also act for posterity. Mrs. Becker cited several reasons she feels planting trees and requiring landscaping are important, among them being air quality and absorption of water and lessening of runoff. She stated that she feels if property owners can be required to control something such as weeds on their property, the property owner can also be required to contribute to the well-being of the community. Mrs. Becker stated that she feels the Planning Commission has a responsibility to assure a better life for future generations. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he did not want anyone telling him where he can plant trees, and how many he can plant. Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels it is the responsibility of the Commission and Council to do whatever is necessary to make the city better for the future. Ms. Becker cited a business on East Hampden Avenue which was approved by the Commission during the past year; this property owner and businessman promised that landscaping would be planted; however, none has been planted to this point in time. There is no provision for the staff to require that this businessman/property owner comply with what he verbally stated he would do. Mr. Carson noted that this same businessman/property owner is parking "junky cars" in front, which he also said he would not do. Mr. Allen cited the elderly housing development of Orchard Place as a "pitiful example of landscaping." Mr. McBrayer also discussed his dis- satisfaction with the way the parking lots for Orchard Place and Malley Center were handled; he felt the Commission should have looked at the total parking area because even though there are two separate owners, it has the appearance of being "one" parking lot. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt landscaping provisions should be written for parking lots that do not require Commission approval, or those with less than 50 parking spaces. Mrs. Becker cited a parking area north of the Gothic Theater with possibly 25 spaces; there is no greenery or landscaping on this parking lot, and it is very unattractive. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he has heard discussion on the apparent inability of the staff to require the applicant to fulfill conditions that were imposed on matters that have been before the Commission. He stated that he thinks something should be done to make the applicant comply with the conditions prior to operating a business or being allowed to park cars on a lot. Mr. Holland suggested that a time element could be incorporated into the regula- tions and that by the expiration of that period, the conditions would have to be met. -8- Mrs. Becker stated that she wanted to see a written document which would set forth the standards that have to be met. She did not feel a matter such as landscaping should be left to the "whim" of the Commission, and if a written document is developed, then everyone would know what is expected right at the beginning. Discussion ensued. Mr. Holland noted that there should be clearer specifications on sizes of trees, bushes, etc. that would be required under the provisions of the Ordinance. Mr. Holland also noted that there are no requirements for landscaping in the single-family zone districts in the proposed ordinance; he noted that when Findings are made it will be necessary to justify why single-family zone districts are not included. Mr. Holland stated that there is also need for further definition of "living materials." Mr. Holland suggested that the regular penalty clause should also be in- cluded in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Holland asked if the Committee wanted to meet with him and the staff to work out the changes that have been discussed, or should he and Mrs. Romans proceed on their review. Mrs. Romans said that they would notify Mr. Stoel of the time and place of their discussion. Mr. McBrayer stated that at the Public Hearing, it will be necessary to have copies of the proposed ordinance available for interested people; he felt the Commission could make changes and suggestions at that point in time. He asked that the proposed ordinance be in the packet for the meeting on the 23rd of February. Difficulties in arousing interest of citizens to attend the public hearing were noted. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the citizens who would be most interested would be the businessmen and industrial property owners. He noted that the City presently has landscaping requirements in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 Districts, and the proposed ordinance does not apply to the R-1 Districts. Further discussion ensued. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council has extended an invitation to mem- bers of the Planning Commission to attend the meeting of February 7th, at 7:30 P. M., at which time the Commission will be formally thanked for their contribution of the cabinet for the Diamond Jubilee Quilt. The plaque ac- companying the cabinet will also be displayed at that time. Mrs. Romans stated that City Council received the recommendation of the Com- mission regarding the Marion Street Villas Planned Development. A Public Hearing on this matter has been scheduled before the City Council on February 28, 1983. Mrs. Romans reviewed the discussion that had occurred on this case before the City Council. . ' -9- The City Council did approve the 1982 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, and ·the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes on first reading. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is working with the City Attorney's staff on the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The tentative schedule is to present all of the amendments to the City Attorney's Office by March first; it is hoped that they can then be submitted to the Commission by April first. IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson expressed his appreciation for the card from the Commission members following his recent eye surgery. Mr. Gilchrist stated that this would be his last meeting as a member of the Commission, and thanked the other members of the Commission and the staff for their assistance to him as a member. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt the Department of Community Development has a good staff. He stated that he felt he had learned a lot during his tenure on the Commission, and again thanked everyone for their assistance. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone knew of persons wishing to serve on Boards or Commissions to have that individual contact the City Manager's Office. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 P. M. Geit'rude G. Welty~ Recording Secretary / -10- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: January 18, 1983 SUBJECT: South Slope Subdivision --Final Plat RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Final Plat of the South Slope Subdivision, and refer the Plat to the City Council for their approval. It is the understanding of the Commission that: 1. The asphalt drive on the east side of the project leading to the parking lots is to be paved to the northernmost lot. This drive will also pro- vide access to Lot 1 from West Lehow Avenue. 2. The north parking lot will be rough-graded and graveled with a layer of gravel for emergency access. 3. The concrete emergency access will be extended from its existing location on the west side of the project eastward along the north end of Lot 2 to the temporarily graveled parking lot. 4. Chain gates will be provided at the ends of the concrete emergency route to prohibit vehicular access. 5. A vehicular turnaround will be provided in the parking lot at the north end of the project. 6. The City will be named in the escrow document so that if the above items are not completed within a reasonable time, the City can withdraw the escrow fund to complete the emergency access route. AYES: Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma, Barbre The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary / ' . -11- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: January 18, 1983 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact --Marion Street Villas Planned Development ACTION: Allen moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on the Marion Street Villas Planned Development. AYES: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Carson, Becker ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma, Barbre The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. 7Gertrude G. Welt y Recording Secretary I '-; \.;/. FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ARLEN B. PAYNE, CASE NO. 26-82, FOR APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.4A ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, SAID SECTION BEING ENTITLED "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT". ) ) ) ) A Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 26-82 on December 7, 1982, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall. The fol- lowing members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Messrs. Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma. Absent: Mrs. Becker. The Hearing was continued to January 4, 1983. The members of the City Planning· and Zoning Corrnnission convened on that date in the City Council Chambers, with the following members present: Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Gilchrist, Mr. McBrayer, Mr. Senti, Mr. Stoel, and Mr. Tanguma. Absent: Mr. Carson. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That Public Notice of a Public Hearing which was held on December 7, 1982, was duly given by publishing the same in the Englewood Sentinel, the official City newspaper, on November 17, 1982. 2. That the property was properly posted for 15 days beginning no later than November 19, 1982. 3. That the application is concerned with an area on the west side of the 3500 Block of South Marion Street, described as Lots 3 -9, Marion Street Villas, a resubdivision of portions of Blocks 1 and 2, Yeagers Sub- division of Block 4, Verona Place, together with a portion of the vacated right-of-way for South Marion Street. 4. That the area with which the application is concerned is to be developed by Arlan B. Payne, 6120 West Vassar Way, Denver, Colorado 80211, and owned by Marion Street Venture, Dr. Wells Harvey, president, 3535 South -2- Lafayette, Englewood, Colorado 80ll0. 5. That the application for approval of a Development Plan for the property described as Lots 3 -9, Marion Street Villas, was filed with the Department of Community Development on the 26th day of October, 1982. 6. That the objective of Arlan B. Payne in filing an application for the approval of a Planned Development is to construct two eight-unit condominiums which will be situated on the site in such a way to maximize the open space on the property. 7. That each of the 16 units will be approximately 527 square feet in floor area, and will be one-bedroom units . 8. That 32 off-street parking spaces are shown on the Development Plan which was considered at the Public Hearing on December 7, 1982, and complies with Section 22.5-5a(l0) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 9. That all of the information required for a Planned Development as required by Section 22.4A-4a of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance has peen supplied. 10. That a written statement and all other pertinent information was submitted with and attached to the application as required in Section 22.4A-4b of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Englewood, Colorado, setting forth that: a. The objectives of the proposed Planned Development is to pro- vide housing for that segment of the market that because of price, use, size, or design criteria, have been excluded from the housing market near the Swedish-Craig Hospital complex. Each one-bedroom condominium will have approximately 527 square feet of living area with an eight foot by thirteen foot (8' x 13') deck and there will be landscaped open space in front of and between the buildings. b. A site plan and elevations are provided which give a graphic interpretation of the aforementioned objectives. c. Construction will begin within 30 days of a building permit, with an estimated 75 days to complete the project. 11. That both pre-application and post-application conferences were held between representatives of the applicant and staff members of the several departments of the City of Englewood to consider the preliminary plans submitted with the application. As a result of those conferences, revisions were made to the preliminary plans, which revisions are reflected on the final Development Plan submitted at the January 4, 1983, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 12. That the City Engineer of the City of Englewood, has approved the drainage plan and the curb, gutters, sidewalks and driveway surfacing as shown on the Final Development Plan. 13. That private utilities and water and sewer service are available to serve the proposed number of condominiums. -3- 14. That the applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment and e Appeals to request variances from the requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as to density, building height, property and setback dimension, floor area and open space, and the request was approved by the Board, which took the position that this development was a pilot pro- ject which would provide much needed housing for the City of Englewood, provide for owner-occupied units, and be in a price range affordable to many younger couples and singles who cannot qualify for conventional housing. 15. There were five persons present who spoke against the proposed development: Mr. Willis Resley, Mr. J. W. Crane, Mr. Anthony Monte, Dr. Cowen, and Mr. Gordon Weiss, stating that the parking and density pra- posed would not be compatible with this neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS The City Planning and Zoning Commission therefore concludes: 1. That the application for a Planned Development submitted by Arlan B. Payne for property identified as Lots 3 -9, Marion Street Villas, a resubdivision of portions of Blocks 1 and 2, Yeagers Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place, being a pilot housing program within the City, should be approved and referred to the City Council. 2. That the Planned Development submitted by Arlan B. Payne has been ~ deemed compatible with the adjacent area by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals,..., Case No. 17-82, and will have no adverse effect on the adjacent properties, when compared with traditional development, in relation to traffic circulation, building height or bulk, lack of screening or or intrusion of privacy, and, for these same reasons, the Planning and Zoning Commission agrees that this development will be an asset to the City and this area. 3. Usable open space and landscaped areas have been incorporated into the overall design and is sufficient to serve the number of units being con- structed and will be accessible to all of the occupants of the dwelling units. 4. The amount of off-street parking to be provided complies with the requirements of Section 22.5-5a(l0) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Englewood, Colorado. 5. Within the Planned Development, consideration has been given to the location, design, and height of the buildings to assure privacy and a pleasant environment. 6. The proposed Planned Development has access to a public street, South Marion Street, and the internal driveways are accessible to emergency vehicles. 7. Access is provided from the apartment units to open space between the buildings without conflict with vehicular traffic. 8. These condominiums will provide needed housing in this area, being targeted to the first-time homeowner, and for an income group which cannot afford conventional housing, thus helping to achieve one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. -4- For each of the above reasons, the application of Arlan B. Payne, Case No. 26-82, was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and referred to the City Council of the City of Engleood, Colorado, for its consideration. DECISION WHEREAS, Arlan B. Payne has filed an application as set forth in Section 22.4A-4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, requesting the City Planning and Zoning Commission to consider a Planned Development, and WHEREAS, Marion Street Ventures, Dr. Wells Harvey, President, is the owner of all of Lots 3 -9, Marion Street Villas, a resubdivision of portions of Blocks 1 and 2, Yeagers Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place, together with a portion of the vacated right-of-way for South Marion Street; and WHEREAS, Arlan Payne has an option to purchase the aforesaid property and proposes to construct the subject development; and WHEREAS, the area with which the application is concerned is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, a variance has been approved by the City of Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Case No. 17-82, as to the development density, building height, property and setback dimensions, floor area and open space requirements, as proposed by Arlan B. Payne; and WHEREAS, a Planned Development is required to be submitted, approved and recorded before a permit can be issued to construct four or more attached dwelling units, and the flexibility of design and diversification in the location of structures and accessory uses on the site can best be achieved through the application of a Planned Development District; and WHEREAS, Arlan B. Payne has filed the necessary plans and written state- ments as required under Section 22.4A-4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Englewood, Colorado, and the matter came to be heard before this Commission on December 7, 1982, on which date the matter was continued until January 4, 1983; NOW, THEREFORE, after due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, the evidence presented by other persons in attendance at said hearing and after study of all exhibits offered, including a staff report prepared for Case No. 26-82, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that this Comission adopt the foregoing Findings and Conclusions as its decision upon said application. Upon a vote on a motion to approve the Planned Development made by Mr. Allen, and seconded by Mr. Stoel, at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on January 4, 1983. -5- Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Senti, Mr. Stoel, ~ Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Gilchrist, Mr. McBrayer. No members voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Carson was absent. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Edwin E. McBrayer, Jr. Chairman I I