Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-09 PZC MINUTES• • I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 9, 1982 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel Members absent: Also present: Romans, Acting Ex-officio Tanguma Assistant City Attorney David Menzies Fire Marshal Walt Groditski Senior Planner Susan King Planning Intern Jeri Linder II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that Minutes of September 28, 1982, and October 5, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of September 28, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma ABSTAIN: Gilchrist, Allen The motion carried. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Minutes of October 5, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma ABSTAIN: Senti, Barbre The motion carried. III. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE Case /fl9-82 Mrs. Romans reviewed the interest in the development of an ordinance on condominium conversions, noting that this was one of the goals set forth by the Planning Commission for 1982. It was noted that background infor- mation on condominium conversion was given to the Commission some time ago. Mr. David Menzies, an Assistant City Attorney in the City Attorney's Office, has been assigned to work on the drafting of an ordinance on condominium conversions; a copy of Mr. Menzies's first draft of the ordinance has been sent to the Commission, and will be discussed at this meeting. Mrs. Romans -2- stated that Mr. Menzies has met with the staff, and that he has attempted • to take into account comments made by the Connnission in previous discussions on condominium conversions. Mr. Menzies noted that with the exception of the State law requiring 90 day notice to tenants, there are no significant ordinances governing the con- version to condominium units. He stated that in drafting the proposed ordinance, he has tried to take a moderate approach and emphasized that this is a first draft which may be added to, or deletions may be made, He stated that he worked closely with Gary Pittman, Stu Fonda, and Walt Groditski to try to incorporate the necessary criteria as far as building provisions, utility requirements, and fire prevention were concerned. He discussed further research that he had done on this matter, including the National Condominium Act. Mr. Menzies stated that the draft ordinance he has prepared is to serve as a guideline for developers and landowners wishing to convert to condominium units. He noted that there were many aspects that had to be considered: the developer, the land owner, the tenant, and the prospective purchaser, as well as the general overall welfare of the City. Mr. McBrayer asked for an explanation as to why an apartment building may be acceptable for occupancy by renters, but if it is to be converted to condominium ownership, it must meet new codes; what is the rationale of this difference? Mr. Menzies stated that he felt property owners were more involved with the property than a tenant --a property owner would want to know that the unit was structurally sound, and if everything was in good working order. An owner or buyer who is putting money down on a unit would have more of a "vested interest" than a present tenant of the unit. Mr. Menzies noted that through the condominium conversion ordinance, there may be an opportunity to correct some matters that may be unsafe in a building. Upon a question on the definition of the age of the tenant, Mr. Menzies stated that this definition is that used by HUD. Mrs. Becker asked what difference there would be in construction requirements if an apartment house and a condominium unit were to be constructed today? Chief Groditski stated there would be no difference if the units were to be constructed today. He pointed out that a lot of the older buildings in Englewood were built under the 1955 Denver Building Code, and are less than optimum safety-wise. Mrs. Becker asked if there was anything that could be done to bring unsafe buildings up to code if they do not convert to condo- miniums? Mr. Groditski stated only if the property owner decides to do some remodeling. Mr. Groditski stated that while a building may have some "flaws" if it is an old building, it may have been constructed to meet the codes in effect at that time; the present code will not allow the city to require it to be changed if it was legal at the time of construction. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Menzies noted that essentially, the developer will have two applications working at the same time to convert to condominium units: One application would be before the Community Development Department, and the second ap- plication would be through the Utilities Department for water and sewer service. Mr. Menzies also noted that while this proposed ordinance does give the tenant some protection in requiring the 90 day notice, it does not provide for relocation payments to the tenants. • I ' • ' -3- Mr. Allen stated that he felt the notice to tenants should be the same, regardless of whether or not they are elderly or Qandicapped. Mr. McBrayer and Mrs. Becker disagreed, indicating they felt the elderly or handicapped person might need more time than younger, physically/mentally capable tenants. Mr. Gilchrist asked who would make the determination as to whether an individual was handicapped; would this be by medical verification? Mrs. Becker suggested that qualifications for SSI assistance be used to determine handicapped individuals. She stated that she felt a handicapped tenant should be able to provide proof of their handicap. Discussion ensued. It was determined that in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance, §§(d), (e), and (f), which sections address special protection for the elderly and handi- capped, be eliminated, and that §§ (c) be amended to require 120 day notice to all tenants. Mr. Menzies then addressed Section 5, Physical Elements Report. He noted that this is only a "disclosure" statement and would not be a basis for refusal or acceptance of any application. Mr. Allen stated that the requirement that this report be made by a certified engineering firm is of concern to him, noting that opinions rendered by the engineering firms may or may not accurately reflect the actual condition of the premises. Discussion ensued. Mr. Groditski suggested that inasmuch as the condominium conversion is not something that is going to happen with great frequency, that the City Building Inspectors might be assigned responsi- bility for determining the condition of the physical elements. Discussion en- sued. Mr. Groditski pointed out problems that could arise from a private en- gineering firm certifying to compliance with City Codes; something could be approved by the private engineering firm that would not be acceptable to a City Inspector. Further discussion ensued. It was suggested that the appli- cation fee might be increased to $500, and if the conversion of the structure to condominium units is approved and the land owner follows through on the conversion, that $250 of this application fee could apply toward building permit fees. Mr. Gilchrist asked how often apartment buildings are inspected by the City. Mr. Groditski stated that the Fire Department will inspect the common areas once each year; he emphasized that this is not the individual apartment, but the common areas such as furnace room, laundry room, etc. Discussion ensued. Mr. Groditski noted that if the City would assume the responsibility for inspections on condominium conversions, each individual unit would have to be inspected as well as the common areas. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the Commission should get back to the goal of the proposed ordinance. He stated that he felt the goal was two-fold: 1. To protect the public. 2. To help the developer or owner who wants to convert units to condominiums. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt the proposed ordinance would give the de- veloper some guidelines. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the major goal is to protect the public, and cited inexperienced buyers who might purchase a unit that is substandard not knowing any better. Further discussion ensued. It was the consenqus that Section 5, a section which would require a Physical Elements Report, should be eliminated from the proposed ordinance. -4- Mr. Gilchrist asked the difference between a private home owner with a • tenant selling and an apartment comple~ owner selling each unit. He questioned that there was a difference. Mrs. Romans cited an apartment development in Englewood which might convert to condominiums; the streets in this complex are privately owned, as are the water and sewer lines, and neither the streets nor the utilities were installed to City specifications. Whenever a repair is made to the water service in one unit, for example, the water for the en- tire complex must be turned off. Mrs. Romans stated that discussions with the Utilities Department has resulted in the determination that the City cannot accept maintenance responsibility of those private utility lines in that complex. If those individual units were to be sold, they would have to be brought up to Code, and there is nothing enacted in the City at this point that would enable the staff to require compliance with the Codes. Wording changes were suggested in other sections of the ordinance, eliminating reference to certified engineering reports, and substituting City staff to do the inspections and assure compliance with the applicable Codes. Mr. Carson questioned whether a condominium conversion would be considered as a public building or as a private residence? He noted that there is a difference in the electrical code requirements between these two classifica- tions. Mr. Groditski stated that he felt an apartment house conversion to condominiums would be classified as a private residence. Mr. Barbre asked if a purchase of a condominium unit would be given a copy of the warranty of the common areas as indicated in the ordinance? Mr. Groditski stated that he felt they should be aware of problems that may exist, but didn't know whether it was necessary that they have a copy of the warranty. Further discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were any questions in Section 10, conversion of office and warehouse buildings to condominiums. Mrs. Romans cited instances of inquiries regarding the possibility of converting large of- fice or warehouse buildings into individual condominium office units. Again, the matter of utility service is of great concern. Mr. Gilchrist suggested that there were several areas wherein wording should be the same, and suggested that the wording be: "The developer shall provide the Community Development staff evidence of compliance with all applicable City ordinances, including, but not limited to the following:". Mr. Stoel questioned Section 7, and what the reference to Ordinance #26 of 1963 was citing? Mrs. Romans stated that this was referring to the parking standards which are set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Dis- cussion ensu~d. Mr. McBrayer asked what route would be followed by a de- veloper appealing a decision denying the right to convert to condominiums? Mrs. Romans stated that the appeals would be to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mr. McBrayer expressed his concern regarding the application of the off-street parking standards as they exist in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance when these standards may not have been in effect at the time the structure was built. He did not feel it was right to deny the right to convert because of a lack of parking space. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen • stated that he felt the parking requirement was like anything else; if the structure did not meet the requirements, there would have to be an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Stoel cautioned against Mr. McBrayer's sug- gestion to allow "discretionary decisions" to be made by the staff; he felt this could lead to more problems. Mrs. Becker stated that she is of the I • • -5- opinion there should be specific parking requirements that the condominium units have to meet. Mr. Gilchrist asked what effect on the tax revenue to the City conversion of apartment units to condominium units would have? Mrs. Romans stated that the property tax assessments are low, and that it probably would not have a significant effect; however, each unit would be assessed vs. assess- ment of one apartment building. Further discussion on the parking requirements ensued. Mr. Barbre noted that if apartment units are allowed to convert without meeting the require- ments such as pqrking, why bother with the ordinance on condominium con- versions? Mr. McBrayer suggested that Section 7 regarding parking be eliminated. Upon a show of hands, it was the consensus that Section 7 should remain in the Ordinance on Condominium Conversions. Section 9, Fire Protection, was considered. to a "certified private engineering report", the Fire Department personnel would hqve the compliance. It was pointed out that reference should be eliminated, and that responsibility to determine Hearing Procedures, Section 11, of the proposed ordinance were briefly dis- cussed. Section 12, Additional Requirements, was then considered. Mrs. Becker asked if the staff knew how many units in the City could be converted to condominium units? Mrs. Romans stated that she would estimate that most of the units could be converted. She pointed out that 95 % of the apartment units in Englewood were built before 1972. Further brief discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer thanked Mr. Menzies for his attendance and discussion of the proposed ordinance. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. McBrayer and Mr. Tanguma will attend the City Council Study Session on November 15th, at 6:30 P.M. to discuss the proposed brochure on "Promote Englewood". Mrs. Romans stated that the next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for November 16th, at which time Assistant City Attorney Tom Holland is schedule to attend to discuss the Downtown Development District, and the Landscape Ordinance. However, Mr. Holland has indicated that he is not sure the information will be available at that time. Commission mem- bers will be notified later as to whether or not there will be a meeting on November 16th. Mrs. Romans discussed the agenda for the meeting of December 7th, at which time four public hearings are scheduled in addition to one or two other cases. -6- VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Stoel asked if there had been any input from the downtown committee on the landscaping ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that she has heard nothing from the committee since the Commission's presentation. Mr. McBrayer asked what had been done about inviting the businessmen and property owners on Broadway to a meeting to discuss the Downtown Develop- ment District? Mrs. Romans stated that this is in abeyance until the in- formation is available from the City Attorney's Office. Mrs. Becker stated that she would be in Kansas City on December 7th, and would not be at the Commission meeting. Mr. McBrayer reported on a recent trip he made to Atlanta, Ga., and noted that many of the smaller communities in this area have a mall section in their downtown area. He also commented on the landscaping that is provided in these communities. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. ertrude Welty Recording Secretary ' • •