Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-23 PZC MINUTES' CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Senti at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma, Becker Also present: Susan King, Senior Planner Jeri Linder, Planning Technician David Menzies, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Senti stated that the Minutes of February 8, 1983, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of February 8, 1983, be approved as written. AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Stoel ABSENT: Tanguma, Becker The motion carried. III. SPENCER'S LANDING Planned Development Carson moved: CASE #3-93 Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-83 be opened. AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Senti asked that the applicant present his case. Mr. Jerry Holzman was sworn in, and testified that he is president of Nob Hill Corporation, a company which has been building condominiums in Denver for about 14 years. Mr. Holzman stated that they consider their develop- ments to be quality, affordable housing. Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7:05 P. M. and took his chair with the Commission. -2- Mr. Holzman stated that he and other members affiliated with the proposed development have been working closely with the Planning staff, and have made changes to accommodate requirements cited by the staff. Mr . Holzman stated that if members of the Commission had any questions, he would at- tempt to answer them. Mr. Carson noted that on Federal Boulevard in Denver, there is a Nob Hill development; he asked if the proposed Spencer's Landing would be the same type of housing? Mr. Holzman stated that it would be. Mr. Venard noted that the off-street parking spaces indicated on the plans show a 50/50 split in spaces for compact vehicles and for full-size vehicles . He asked if it had been the experience of the developers that there is indeed a 50/50 ratio in the two sizes of vehicles for the residents of the develop - ments? Mr. Holzman stated that in the last three to five years, the number of compact cars has increased; they proposed the 50/50 ratio because the Planning staff felt that less than this ratio would not be acceptable. Mr. Holzman stated that they have experienced greater number of compact vehicles than standard size vehicles in some of their developments. He noted that they had done two projects in this same price range before beginning Spencer's Landing and the units have been sold prior to construction . Mr. Senti asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Carson asked if Mr. Holzman had read the staff report, and if he did agree with recommendations from the Engineering Services and Fire Depart- ments? Mr. Holzman stated that most of these recommendations had been dis- cussed with the Planning Staff, and that they as developers do agree to all recommendations with the exception of the installation of a four foot side- walk along South Decatur Street. Mr. Holzman pointed out that within a 2-1/2 mile radius of this property there are no sidewalks, and also pointed out the limited foot traffic in this area. He noted that the sidewalk, if in- stalled, would go no place, and there would be no continuity of this side- walk in the near future. Mr. Holzman stated that they have attempted to survey people who use Centennial Park to determine whether they drive or walk to get to the park, and the results indicate that persons using that park use vehicles to get there --they do not walk. Mr. Holzman pointed out that the people who would live in the proposed condominium complex would be the only ones who would walk, and it is the feeling of the developer that the recommendation to install sidewalk would be standard in a city if the sidewalk "came from some place and went to some place." Mr. Holzman asked that the Commission delete this recommendation when they render their decision. Mr. Holzman stated that the developers had proposed landscaping in the development, and would prefer to see additional landscaping along the perimeter of the property rather than the four foot sidewalk. Mr. Allen asked if Mr . Holzman did not feel it would be beneficial to resi- dents of the proposed complex to have the sidewalk installed? Mr. Holzman stated that there will be sidewalks within the complex itself, but they had not proposed sidewalks along the perimeter of the property. Mr. Holzman reiterated that the landscaping plan could be expanded if the sidewalk re- quirement were to be deleted. He further stated that the developers do concur with the remainder of the staff recommendations. Mr. Tanguma asked whether there would be a sprinkling system proposed? Mr. Holzman stated that a sprinkling system would be in conjunction with the landscaping. ( .. • -3- Mr. Senti asked for the staff report. Ms. Susan King was sworn in, and testified that she is the Senior Planner in the Department of Community Development. The question before the Com- mission is a proposed Planned Development community to be developed by Nob Hill Corporation, of which Mr. Jerry Holzman is president. Ms. King stated that the questions before the Commission for their consideration are the matter of land use, the location of structures, landscaping, parking, lighting, and points of access to the property. The Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or refer the plan back to the applicant for revisions. Ms. King pointed out the location of the property on a map screened for viewing, noting that the property is north of West Union Avenue, east of South Federal Boulevard, and across South Decatur Street from Centennial Park. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residence. The property to the north, west and east is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, and a portion of this area is developed. Directly east of the site, in Centennial Park, there are ball diamonds, and the lake and other recreational amenities. The property to the south of the subject site is zoned R-1-C, and there are two residences in this area. Ms. King then gave the background of this property, which was formerly owned by Mr. George Adams. The site was annexed in 1960, and was zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence upon annexa- tion. In 1961, the site was zoned to M-1, Light Industrial. The property was subdivided in 1962, at which time the matter of sidewalk installation was considered. Inasmuch as there wasn't much development in the area at that time, the Commission waived the installation of sidewalks until future development occurred. In 1963, the Zoning Ordinance was revised, and the M-1 Light Industrial designation was changed to I-1, Light Industrial. In 1971, a rezoning application was considered, and the property was zoned to R-3-A, Multi-family Residence; the site has remained vacant to this point in time. Ms. King stated that the application for Spencer's Landing Planned Develop- ment was referred to other departments, and the comments of the other de- partments are summarized in the Staff Report. Ms. King noted that on the matter of drainage report, this has been submitted to the Director of Engi- neering Services; some drainage would be retained on-site, and the remainder may be diverted into Centennial Lake. It is felt that the four-foot side- walk along South Decatur Street is necessary, and is something that can be required in the consideration of a Planned Development. Submission of an Engineering Report on the water lines would be required before Building Per- mits could issue. Ms. King stated that the staff is of the opinion that the proposed develop- ment is in accord with the use permitted in the R-3 Zone District, and noted that the proposed density is lower than what is permitted under the R-3 Zone District regulations. Off-street parking requirements have been met. Ms. King stated that it is normal procedure to allow a 50/50 ratio of compact car and standard-size vehicle spaces, but the spaces must be appropriately signed; the developer has indicated that the parking spaces would be signed to indicate compact or standard size vehicle parking. The parking area will be lighted, and is located along the rear of the development, and would be screened by a six-foot cedar fence. Traffic areas would be screened from the single-family homes along the south of the proposed development. It is the opinion of the staff that the landscaping plan has been well thought out. The developers will provide off-street bicycle parking, and the trash collection areas will be screened from view. -4- The staff does reconnnend approval of the proposed Planned Development with the following recommendations: 1. A four-foot (4') sidewalk which is attached behind the curb needs to be included in the plan before it is referred to the City Council. 2. Technical data needs to be submitted to the Fire Marshal to show that the required 4,000 gpm will be supplied. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following information must be provided: 1. An engineer's report containing calculations supporting the ability of the proposed 6" water main in South Decatur Street to supply 4,000 gpm for fire flow purposes. Mr. Allen questioned the control of runoff from the development. Ms. King pointed out that there is a "swale" along South Decatur Street, which empties into Centennial Lake; drainage from the site will be allowed into the lake, with some on-site retention of drainage. Mr. Stoel asked along what area the sidewalk was proposed? Ms. King stated that the boundary of the subject site abutting South Decatur Street would be required to be sidewalked. Mr. Tanguma asked if sidewalks were installed along Union Avenue between Federal and Decatur? Ms. King stated that she could not answer this. Mr. Senti asked if there were further questions from the Commission? He then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the proposed development? No one spoke in favor. Mr. Senti then asked if any member of the audience would like to speak in opposition to the proposed development? No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Stoel asked Mr. Allen, as a developer, what he felt about the require- ment to install sidewalk? Mr. Allen stated that it is an imposition to put them in where there are not other sidewalks; but it does improve the area, and this would be setting a precedent for future development. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-83 be closed. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mr. Senti asked the pleasure of the Commission? McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of Spencer's Landing Planned Development with the following conditions: 1. A four-foot (4') sidewalk which is attached behind the curb shall be included in the Plan. r • • -5- 2. Technical data shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal to show that the required 4,000 gpm will be supplied. The following information must be provided before Building Permits are issued: 1. An engineer's report containing calculations supporting the ability of the proposed 6" water main in South Decatur Street to supply 4,000 gpm for fire flow purposes. AYES: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. IV. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE CASE #19-82 Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #19-82 be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mr. David Menzies, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance has been discussed with the Commission members on at least two previous occasions. Mr. Menzies outlined the pro- visions of the ordinance which deal with tenant protection, buyer protection, and safety protection. Mr. Menzies stated that the Ordinance will give a developer guidelines to follow in determining whether or not an apartment development can be converted to condominium purposes. Mr. Menzies noted that there is an application fee of $500, of which $250 may be refunded if the application for conversion is rejected. Tenants must be given notice of intent to convert to condominium, and tenants will have the first right of refusal to purchase a unit at fair market value for 90 days; all tenants would have 120 days or length of lease, whichever is longer, to vacate the premises if they do not purchase the unit. Mr. Menzies noted that all pur- chases would have a warranty of the common areas. The parking ordinances and code compliance with existing city plumbing, mechanical, building, electrical, and fire code at time of application must be assured. The housing code in effect at the time the structure was built must be complied with. Mr. Menzies stated that on fire protection, the requirements of the Fire Department would have to be met. The City will assume responsibility of making the inspections on the property, but will not be guaranteeing the condition of the premises. The proposed ordinance also contains provisions for conversion to office and warehouse condominiums, also . Mr. Menzies noted that an application would have to be filed with two de- partments; the Community Development Department, and with the Utilities Department. Mr. Menzies stated that the proposed ordinance is a very moderate to protect the developers, tenants, and the purchasers of units. if members of the Commission had any questions? approach He asked -6- Mr. Tanguma expressed concern on the statement contained in §4(b): The tenant must execute a real estate sales contract as buyer within the ninety- day per i od. He questioned why inclusion of this statement was necessary? He stated that he felt the "City could be dictating to the developer." Mr. Menzies stated that this would apply to tenants who wanted to purchase a unit; they would have to execute a sales contract within that 90 day period wherein they have the first right of refusal. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not feel there was any reason that a tenant "must" execute a sales contract, nor was there any reason that a developer must be restricted to a certain amount of time. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that as he understood the provision, the 90 days is the least time that the tenant would have to exercise the first right of refusal. Mr. Allen stated that this point has been discussed before, and he feels it is entirely reasonable. He pointed out that the developer would be required to give the tena nt three months to determine whether he wants to buy the unit or to relocate. Mr. Tanguma asked what if a developer wants to give a tenant longer than 90 day s to execute a sales contract? He also asked why the city would want to get into a position of setting a time limitation. He stated that he feels it is up to the developer to set a time limitation, not up to the City. Mr. Senti pointed out that the provision applies to a "minimum of 90 days." Mr. Menzies pointed out that this provision gives the tenant an exclusive option to purchase for 90 day s; that the developer cannot offer the unit to anyone else for purchase during that 90 days. There must be some time limit when the developer would be able to sell the unit on the open market. Discussion ensued. Mr. Menzies suggested that perhaps the sentence could be reworded to state that "if the tenants want to buy the unit, a sales contract must be executed within 90 day s." Further discussion ensued. Mr. Barbre stated that he felt there was no problem with the existing wording of the section . Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt there was no problem with the section, either. Mr. Allen stated that he feels it is written the way it should be; he pointed out that this is forcing a developer to give a ten- ant three months to make up their mind whether they want to purchase a unit, and the provision would also force the tenant to make up their mind within that 90 days whether they want to purchase, and to act to secure that purchase . Ms. Powers suggested that perhaps the sentence could be worded to state that "the tenant, if choosing to buy, must execute a real estate contract within the 90-day period unles s extended b y the developer." Mr. Menzies stated that this sentence would be reworded. Mr. Tanguma suggested that §5 be worded to state that a warranty deed be given on "all connnon areas", rather than "which include but are not limited to the following." It was pointed out to Mr. Tanguma that this section has also been discussed at length previously , and this wording was felt to be proper. Mr. Menzies stated that he would recommend that the wording on this section remain as it is in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Allen stated that his question would be why a developer would have to give a warranty to the purchaser in the first place. • • • -7- Mr. Senti asked if there were further questions from the Commission. He then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the proposed ordinance, or in opposition to the proposed ordinance? No member of the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #19-82 be closed. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to City Council, as amended in §4(b): " ... The ten- ant WHO CHOOSES TO EXERCISE OPTION must execute a real estate sales contract as buyer within the ninety-day period." AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. Senti asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission? No member of the audience addressed the Commission. VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. It was noted that Assistant City Attorney Menzies had already left the meeting. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers noted that a public hearing has been scheduled for March 22 to consider the Business-Downtown Development Zone District, which is an amend- ment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. A second hearing has been scheduled that evening to rezone part of the B-1 Business District to the B-DD District, which is an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Map. Signs are being posted throughout the subject area giving notice of the Public Hearing, and public notice of the hearings will be in the Englewood Sentinel on Wednesday, March 2. Ms. Powers gave an update on the redevelopment project, noting that a de- velopers contract with Brady Enterprises is being negotiated at the present time. The Urban Renewal Authority has purchased properties at 3767 South Clarkson Street and 3787 South Clarkson Street to facilitate the Little Dry Creek Flood Control Project, and negotiations for purchase of 3601 South Logan Street are in process. Design guidelines for South Broadway have been -8- presented to the DBA and EDDA. The City did receive $630,000 in CDBG funds from the Federal Government; part of this funding will be used to pay for architects to do the actual design drawings. Lending institutions are being contacted to attempt to obtain a pool of money at a lower interest rate for Broadway businessmen who wish to borrow to improve their buildings. Mr. Stoel asked if a theme had been developed for the South Broadway improve- ments? Ms. Powers stated that very general standards have been applied to each building facade in the design guidelines; if a businessman wants to take part in the lower-interest loans for improvement, they would be expected to comply with these guidelines. Ms. Powers noted that all the details of this proposal have not been worked out yet. Mr. Allen asked the status of the law suits on the parking lot assessments for the parking lot developed by EDDA? Ms. Powers stated that it is still in court. Mr. Tanguma questioned the status of the promotional brochure for Englewood? Ms. Powers stated that Public Relations Specialist Dorothy Dalquist has been devot ing her time to preparation of the annual report; the project has not been forgotten, and will be completed in the near future. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Community Development Department staff had taken care of Commission matters very ably during Ms. Powers absence, but that it was nice to welcome Ms. Powers back. Mr. Senti stated that it is a pleasure to have Ms. Powers back. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Stoel asked the status of the Marion Street Villas Planned Development . Ms. Powers stated that City Council will consider this matter at a public hearing on February 28, 1983. Mr. Stoel asked if it was common practice for the City Council to hold a public hearing on Planned Developments? Ms. Powers stated that a public hearing may be held at the discretion of the City Council. Mr. Senti stated that he would like to point out that the Commission has a wonderful staff to work with. Mr. Senti stated that written reports are submitted to the Commission for their perusal, but at times, it appears that questions to the staff on those reports are "almost belittling". Mr. Senti urged the members of the Commission to consider this, and attempt to "not be petty." Mr. Senti stated that he and Mrs. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development, have discussed several things to make Commission meetings run more smoothly and efficiently, and these changes will be instituted in the near future. Mr. Senti reiterated that he ap- preciates the staff efforts very much. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P. M. Welty ording Secretary ' • • • -9- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: February 23, 1983 Spencer's Landing Planned Development The Planning Commission recommend approval of Spencer's Landing Planned Development with the following conditions: 1. A four-foot (4') sidewalk which is attached behind the curb shall be included in the plan. 2. Technical data shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal to show that the required 4,000 gpm will be supplied. The following information must be provided before Building Permits are issued: 1. An engineer's report containing calculations supporting the ability of the proposed 6" water main in South Decatur Street to supply 4,000 gpm for fire flow purposes. AYES: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission -10- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: February 23, 1983 Condominium Conversion Ordinance The Planning Commission recommend the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to City Council, as amended in §4(b): " ... The ten- ant WHO CHOOSES TO EXERCISE OPTION must execute a real estate sales contract as buyer within the ninety-day period." AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ---) ~cr~u~~~e~·....u~W~e~l~t~y~=::....1--~..,t::....~~--"e:L::..__~L...~~~~ cording Secretary • •