Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-07 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. 5 A The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Becker Also present: Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland Senior Planner Susan T. King Planner I Harold Stitt Planner I Larry Yenglin II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of November 9, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Allen moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of November 9, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer welcomed members of the audience to the meeting. III. CONDITIONAL USE Mini-Golf Course 4860 South Acoma Street Mr. McBrayer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Barbre moved: CASE #25-82 Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #25-82 be opened. AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that the notice of this public hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on November 17, 1982. The case before the Com- mission is a request for approval of a miniature indoor golf course as a • -2- Conditional Use, said use to be located in a shoppette at South Acoma Street and West Chenango Avenue. Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of this hearing. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the course of action that may be followed by the Commission: approve the use, approve the use with conditions, or disapprove the request for Conditional Use. Mr. McBrayer asked that all those individuals wishing to address the Commission come to the podium to be sworn in, and give their name and ad- dress for the record. Mr. McBrayer noted that members of the Commission were in receipt of the staff report; he asked if any member of the Commission had any questions regarding the staff report? There were no questions of the staff. Mr. Wayne Johnson was sworn in, and presented the Certification of Posting for the record. Mr. Gilchrist stated that before the Hearing begins, he would . like to state that he has been involved in a legal matter with an attorney rep- resenting Mr. Smith, one of the applicants; this involved two separate cases, both of which have been settled by mutual release. Mr. Gilchrist stated that under these circumstances, he will continue to sit on the Com- mission during this hearing, and would participate in the voting. Mr. Irv Smith 15697 E. Monmouth Place -was sworn in, and stated that he is the applicant and one of the owners of the proposed business. Mr. McBrayer asked if the applicants/owners had anything further they wished to add to the staff report. Mr. Allen stated that he did not feel the request needed further explanation. Mr. Tanguma noted that the staff report has indicated no remodeling of the premises would be needed to accommodate the Conditional Use; he asked if this was correct? Mr. Smith stated that the building is capable of ac- commodating the proposed use with no structural remodeling; he stated that they have had the heating corrected, and the restrooms are being brought up to Code. Mr. Smith stated that whatever remodeling is necessary will be done. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Gilchrist for an explanation of the law suits he had been involved in with a representative for Mr. Smith? Mr. Gilchrist sum- marized the matter, and stated that neither case pertained to property in Englewood, or had anything to do with the City of Englewood. Mr. McBrayer asked the applicant if they would be willing to comply with the Fire and Building Codes? Mr. Smith stated that anything that is not in compliance would be brought into compliance. Mr. McBrayer questioned the hours of operation? Mr. Smith stated that the hours of operation of the proposed use would be from 3:00 P. M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays, and from 10:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekends. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding this matter? Mr. Larry Duran 4801 South Acoma Street -was sworn in, and stated that he is a resident manager of the Layton Gardens Apartments at the aforesaid address. Mr. Duran stated that he has a letter with signatures of residents of this complex in opposition to the proposed mini-golf course. -3- Mr. Duran cited problems that have been experienced in recent years with young people cruising Broadway, throwing bottles onto the lawns, vandalizing vehicles, and throwing eggs at the building. He stated that he felt this proposed use would encourage this type of individual and this type of be- haviour. Mr. Duran also pointed out the proximity of the use to the school. Mr. Duran asked how many of the existing businesses would have to move out of the shoppette to allow the proposed mini-golf course to locate there. Mr. Wayne Johnson stated that the northeast corner of the sh@ppette is vacant; this area has 3,245 sq. ft. of area; the approximate area needed for the proposed mini-golf course is between 2,500 and 2,750 sq. ft. of floor area. Mr. Duran then discussed parking .problems in the area, and asked if he could be guaranteed that patrons of this proposed use would not be parking on the lawn and in the parking lot for the Layton Gardens Apartments? He pointed out that the Layton Gardens Apartments has a lot of young children and the increase in traffic could be a safety hazard to the children. Mr. Duran stated that he did not feel the sign posting the property was very visible, and that there was confusion on this matter. Mr. McBrayer asked if the posting was proper? Ms. King stated that she had driven the area earlier on this date, and that the sign was visible for motorists in their vehicles, and was also visible from standing on the corner. Mr. McBrayer inquired as to the required height of the sign? Mrs. Romans cited the required dimensions of the sign, and noted that it is required to be installed four feet above ground. Discussion ensued. Ms. King stated that there is not four feet clearance, but that the sign is visible. Mr. Duran asked if there was a possibility of a video game arcade going into operation at this location? Mr. McBrayer noted that the applicant has indicated in the supporting evidence filed .with the application that they plan to have a maximum of three video games on the premises. Mr. George Duran 4801 South Acoma Street -was sworn in, and testified as to the manner in which the petition in opposition was circulated. Mr. Duran stated that there was 100% participation in the area in which the petition was circulated. Mr. Duran also expressed concern over in- creased traffic in the neighborhood. He stated that he understood that there was an ordinance recently enacted which would prohibit this use · closer than 1,000 feet to a school, and not within 500 feet of another such use. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that this use is not an arcade, and a recent ordinance which was enacted pertained to video arcades. Mr. Duran discussed 1 the problem the neighborhood experienced with the cruising and vandalism that occurred within the last couple of years. Mr. Duran stated that "this is the kind of thing we are inviting back by approving this kind of facility." Mr. Carson asked if the signatures on the petition are all from apartment complex residents? Mr. George Duran stated that he circulated the petition, and he circulated it only within the apartment complex. Mr. Tanguma asked if the applicants had a profile of the clientele such a business attracts? -4- Mr. Bob Blaschke 2240 Zang Street -was sworn in, and stated that he is a recreation major, and has worked with the correctional program for young people in Golden for several years. Mr. Blaschke stated that there is a varied clientele for an establishment such as this; there are quite a few young adults who frequent the establishment, but that it is primarily family and group oriented. Mr. Blaschke spoke to the problems raised by the Messrs. Duran, and stated that there must be a great deal of control exercised by the individual businesses; if unsavory clientele were dis- couraged he did not feel there would be problems of vandalism, etc. Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission could be assured that the hours of operation would remain substantially as they have been cited at tbis meeting? Mr. Blaschke stated that he has contacted some of the schools, and a special time may be scheduled for special education classes, but this would not be done on a regular basis. He noted that spe~ial times might also be scheduled for other special groups, but again, this would not be on a regular basis. Mr. Blaschke stated that he would not anticipate remaining open after 10:00 P.M. on weekdays. Mr. Smith addressed the Commission again, and stated that he has been a licensed real estate broker for 27 years, and that he has also managed up to 40 properties simultaneously; he has also managed apartment complexes with up to 149 units. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Johnson is also a real estate broker, and that he feels certain there will not be problems with bottles being thrown on to adjoining properties, or other acts of vandalism. Mr. Smith stated that there has been no problem of vandalism on other prop- erties that he has managed. Mr. Smith questioned that either of the Messrs. Duran had authority to represent the property owner at 4801 South Acoma Street. Mr. Larry Duran stated that he did, in fact, have such authorization. Mr. Ken Steffan was sworn in, and testified that he is one of the owners of the building at 4801 South Acoma Street, and that the Messrs. Duran do speak for the property owners. Mr. Allen asked if acts of vandalism and bottle throwing on lawns is still going on? Mr. Steffan stated that they have not experi~nced this recently; the streets are being patrolled better and there is less hot-rodding than there was two years ago. Mr. Johnson stated that he and Mr. Smith have a vested interest in the i r real estate, and do not want to see the property values and improvements disintegrate. Mr. Johnson stated that they have five tenants in the shoppette now, including a laundromat, meat market, and hair salon; all are reputable businesses. Mr. Johnson stated that no objection has been voiced by any of their tenants to the proposed mini-golf course. Mr. Stoel stated that there seemed to be great concern that this would attract youngsters; he asked if anything would be done to encourage the congregation of children to this establishment, such as the serving of food, etc. Mr. Johnson stated that soft drinks would be available on the premises. Mr. Carson made reference to a picture of a model mini-golf course, and asked how many people would be accommodated on the course at one time? Mr. Johnson stated that it is an 18-hole course; he anticipated maybe 20 to 25 people in the building at any one time. -5- Mr. Gilchrist asked if the failure to properly post the premises negate the entire application? Mr. Holland stated that he would think not, and cited a recent Colorado Supreme Court case regarding posting on a zoning change. Mr. Holland stated that he felt that the requirement on height of the sign was to assure visibility, and that Ms. King has stated that the sign was clearly visible. Mr. Gilchrist asked if it was possible to postpone this matter and have the applicant. repost the property in com- pliance with the ordinance, and how long would this require? Mr. Holland stated that property must be posted at least 15 days prior to the hearing; he estimated that the case could not be reheard before the first of January. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was sure the applicant was furnished with the proper posting information; he asked why the posting was not in compliance? Mr. Johnson stated that he had inquired of the secretary in the Community Development Department if it would be permissible to use the posts that were in place, which posts were for a standard real estate sign. From this conversation, he assumed that approval was given to use those posts, and that the signing would be adequate. Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist inquired as to what hardship might be experienced by the owners/operators if the decision was to be postponed until proper posting requirements were complied with? Mr. Johnson stated it would be an economic hardship for the manager they have engaged, Mr. Blaschke. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter could be heard before the Commission on January 4, 1983. Mr. Smith discussed the problems experienced with out of pocket cash flows on a business such as this, and noted that this building has been vacant for the last three months. He noted the improve- ments that have been made on the premises, such as new roofing, painting, etc. in preparation for this operation, all done with no money coming in. He stated that he wants to make the Commission aware of the severe economic burden they are under, and that the holiday season is a time when a lot of their profit is made. By having to repost the property, they will be prevented from being able to take advantage of the holiday customers. Further discussion on the posting of the property ensued. Mr. Gilchrist suggested that in spite of the hardship, he felt it would be better to correctly post the property and go through the procedure again. Mr. Smith stated that he is concerned with the great amount of unemployment, banks closing, businesses failing; he stated that he and his partners are asking fora chance to have a successful business. He pointed out that it has been stated that the sign as posted was visible. Mr. Smith stated .that they felt the proposed business would be of benefit to the area. Mr. Larry Duran stated that he felt school children would rather stop in to play mini-golf than continue home and do homework. He also noted that there is a fire station on South Acoma Street to the north of the subject site and again cautioned against increased traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Holland stated that once posting information is given to an applicant in the format that is acceptable, a telephone call to a staff member can- not really waive those posting requirements. Mr. Holland also noted that if the matter were to be challenged in court, the applicants would be held up longer than 30 days. Mr. Nathan Elinoff 5460 Vale Drive -was sworn in and stated that he is in favor of the proposed use, and felt strongly that kids need a place to go. He -6- stated that mini-golf is a good business, and stated that he could not understand why residents of the apartment complex would not want a family- oriented business located on the subject site. Mr. Carson stated that he had driven by the site, and that the sign was very visible. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt every applicant is given the same informa- tion regarding posting; he felt that if the sign was not in compliance by six or 10 inches, it might not be a big problem; however, this sign does not meet compliance by 3-1/2 feet, and he feels it would be irresponsible of the Commission to approve something like that. Mr. Senti noted that the sign was visible. Mr. Allen stated that he personally is in favor of the proposed business, but felt with the noncompliance on the posting that if the application were "approved, the City would be vulnerable and it would be advisable to have the property reposted in compliance with the requirements. Mr. Johnson read the following from the information sent him by the staff: "The Sign for the above notice must not be LESS THAN FOUR (4) Feet Wide and THREE (3) Feet High with Black Lettering NOT LESS THAN THREE (3) Inches High on a White Background. Sign must be on a Solid BAcking, Mounted on IT'S OWN POSTS at least FOUR (4) Feet above Ground Level and within Twenty (20) Feet of the Front Property Line with an unobstructed view from the street, and Weather Proofed. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in a delay of the Case. Sign MUST be removed within SEVEN (7) Days following the hearing." l Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Holland if he felt the wording in this information is confusing. Mr. Holland stated that he did not feel the wording is mis- leading. He felt that it was commonly understood that four feet above ground level would be four feet to the bottom of the sign. He stated that if some- one should challenge this matter, it would invalidate the action of the Planning Commission if the matter is approved this evening. Mr. Gilchrist asked if it would be possible to grant conditional approval provided posting in compliance with requirements is done for the required number of days? Mr. Holland stated that he did not believe this procedure was acceptable; before action could be tak~n, the proper posting must be done. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #25-82 be closed. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: Gilchrist ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the proposal is a good family-oriented busi- ness and he would like to vote for this at this meeting; he stated that he does not believe a business of this type would cause problems in a neighbor- hood. However, in view of the fact that the posting was not in compliance with the requirements, he stated that he would have to vote against approval until such time as proper posting is accomplished. Carson moved: Gilchrist seconded: -7- The Planning Commission disapprove the application for a Conditional Use at 4860 South Acoma Street un- til the property is posted in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt compliance with the posting requirements is a very serious part of the process, and felt it would be irresponsible of the Commission if this was approved without the proper posting. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mrs. Romans asked that Mr. Holland clarify the procedure that would have to be followed. Mr. Holland stated that the property will have to be re- posted the required number of days, and public notice will have to be pub- lished in the official City Newspaper. The matter can be heard on January 4, 1983, if the public notice is given on December 15th, and the property posted by December 17th. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that she did want the Planning Commission to note that the information sent to the applicants was accurate. IV. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE 1126-82 3500 Block South Marion Street Mr. McBrayer asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Carson moved: Gilchrist seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #26-82 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on November 17th. The application is for approval of a Planned Development in the 3500 block of South Marion Street. Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of the hearing. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission may approve or conditionally approve the Planned Development, or may disapprove the Planned Development and refer it back to the developer. He asked Commission members if there were any questions on the staff report? Mr. Tanguma asked what the staff recommendation is on this matter? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff did not make a recommendation. The Board of Adjustment did grant variances to Mr. Payne on numerous sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to facilitate construction of the "limited living units" which he has proposed. The staff regards Mr. Payne's pro- posal as a "pilot program" in Englewood. Mrs. Romans noted that copies of the elevations were handed to Commission members earlier in the meeting, and the application is on file for their review. -8- Mr. Arlan Payne 6120 West Vassar Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that he has been involved with this property for two years. He noted that a change in living styles has indicated there is a market for smaller living units that may be purchased as condominiums. He stated that his partners in this venture are Mr. Gary Ivey and Ms. Judy Zarlengo. Mr. Payne stated that they have been before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for variances on several matters pertaining to this property. Mr. Payne stated that this is a "mixed" area with single-family, two-family and several businesses within the immediate area. Mr. Payne asked if he could present copies of information to the Commission on the types of uses that are within the subject area for the record. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt if the information was not to be available to everyone, it might lead to problems. Mr. Holland stated that he felt this would depend on the information that Mr. Payne has. Mr. Payne stated that his information is a copy of the map that was included with the staff report, but indicated on this map is a list of the occupants and type of occupancy. Mr. Allen stated that he did not see what this information could add to the Hearing. Mr. Payne emphasized that this neighborhood is not a single-family com- munity; there are several businesses, including a doctors' clinic, a veterinary clinic, four or five homes that are owner-occupied, and a number of rental units. Mr. Payne stated that he also had photos of the neighborhood, and that he and his associates feel with this development that they would be helping to clean up the neighborhood. Mr. Payne in- troduced Mr .. Gary Ivey, who had worked on the marketing data for the de- velopment. Mr. Gary Ivey 187 County Road 65 Jefferson County -was sworn in, and testified that he had lived in Englewood for 21 years, and that in fact, he and Mr. Payne both grew up in Englewood. Mr. Ivey stated that he now has a marketing company. He stated that he and his associates have considered the proposed "limited living un,its" which they plan to construct; it is their feeling that what . was being constructed in this block was wrong for the neighborhood and com- munity. Mr. Ivey discussed the surveys which have been undertaken in re- searching the feasibility of their proposed development, such as salary surveys, profile of prospective purchasers, etc. Mr. Ivey stated that they had held a neighborhood meeting to present their plans to the residents of the area; 12 neighbors attended this meeting. Mr. Ivey stated that at the end of this meeting, it was their feeling that they had reached an under- standing with most of the neighbors who attended. Mr. Ivey stated that he had copies of letters from adjoining neighbors, and copies of a salary sur- vey from the Arapahoe County medical society if the Commission would like to view this information. Mr. Ivey then addressed the matter of density; he noted that the Planning Division normally views density as a number of "doors", but that density must be considered in the light of "people". He pointed out that while the number of "doors" will be increased over that allowed by the ordinance, the proposed units would not accommodate the number of people that could be accommodated under the existing zoning. Mr. Ivey further testified on the difference between what could be constructed under the zoning re- strictions as they exist, and what they propose to construct in the Planned Development with the variances as approved by the Board of Adjustment and -9- Appeals. Mr. Ivey stated that the proposal is for two eight-unit buildings, all units to have one bedroom, and a floor area of 493 sq. ft. This will be a total of 16 units, and would accommodate no more than 32 people figuring two persons to each unit. Mr. Ivey stated that they propose to construct a development that will have a diminished visual impact on the neighborhoood. He emphasized that the development as they have proposed it will have less people, fewer cars, more parking space, and more open space. Mr. Ivey discussed the staff report and the comments pertaining to increased traffic and problems that could be anticipated at the South Marion Street/U.S. 285 intersection. Mr. Ivey reiterated that their proposal will bring in fewer people than a single-family development or a development of duplexes. Mr. Ivey emphasized that there is a difference between "counting front doors" and "counting the number of bedrooms" in determining density. Mr. McBrayer asked what price range was proposed on these units? Mr. Ivey stated that they would like to offer the units for sale in the low $40's; they have talked to HUD regarding financing, and would like to get FIB-IA and FHLMC approval. HUD will require that they add another two (2) feet to the size of the living room to meet the minimum requirement of 270 sq. ft. living area. They do plan to do this. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood final plats and plans had to be sub- mitted on Planned Developments for consideration at the time of the hearing. Mrs. Romans stated that this is true; the applicant wanted to determine if this "concept" met with the approval of the Commission before a final Plat was prepared and a referral was made to City Council. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the Commission would have to review this matter after submittal of the final Planned Development Plat. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the use of the land has been approved; what the Commis.sion should consider at this hearing is the footprints of the buildings, the drainage, access, etc. Mr. Ivey emphasized that the use of the land will not be changed. Mr. Ivey also stated that he has been informed that HUD financing would be approved .if the additional two feet were added to the living room. Mr. Ivey stated that the units will not be subsidized by HUD, ,but could be sold under FHA or VA financing. Mr. Ivey stated that a pr~file on the average buyer of the units would be an approximate income of $21,600 and approximately 30+ years of age. They hope to bring the units in for sale at approximately $42,500. They propose to limit, by covenant, occupancy to nq more than two persons per unit. Mr. Ivey stated that inasmuch as they are, in essence, decreasing the actual permitted density, they do not regard the traffic flow at South Marion Street and U.S. 285 as a great problem. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the traffic flow is a problem, but agreed there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about it short of closing South Marion Street at that point. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the Com- mission should consider whether the proposed development and the type of buildings to be constructed will fit into the neighborhood, and how the structures will fit onto the land. Mr. Tanguma questioned use of the alley for access? Mr. Ivey stated that this development would not have access to the alley, and that a berm would be installed to preclude such access. Mr. Tanguma asked if South Marion Street were to be made one-way northbound, would this have an effect on the proposed development? Mr. Ivey stated that it would not. -10- In response to a question, Mr. Ivey stated that the drainage plan f or t he proposed development is not completed. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding this matter? Mr. Willis Resley 3540 South Marion Street -was sworn in. He asked if the purpose of t h e hearing at this time was to get the zoning c h a nged? Mr. McBrayer stated that a change of zone classification is not at issue ; the applicants are asking for approval of a Planned Development, which ap - proval would enable them to construct the units, but make use of flexi bility in not meeting setbacks, front yards, etc. Mr. Resley stated that he has lived in this general neighborhood s i nce 19 35 ; the area was not annexed to the City of Englewood until approximately 1 94 9 . There is commercial zoning and use along East Hampden Avenue, which wa s i n effect at that time. The remainder of the area was zoned R-1, Single-f am ily upon annexation to the City ; this zone classification has since been chan ged to an R-2, Medium-density district, but it is still residential, and has developed with single and two-family uses. Mr. Resley stated that he j u st · "can't see all those people living in two houses and all of them gettin g along." Mr. Resley stated that he felt the "single-family attached" uni t s functioned all right, but expressed doubt that the proposed developmen t wo u ld fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Resley also pointed out the shortage o f on - street parking for the residents of the block at the present time ~ Mr . Resley stated that Mr. Payne was given variances to construct duplex e s on his property; one duplex was constructed and plans for development chan ged. Mr. Resley stated that he felt the proposed structures would not be compatible with what is developed i n the neighborhood. Mr. Stoel asked if the neighbors realized that the occupants of the p ropo s e d units would be the owners of those units? Mr. Resley stated that he un d e r- stood this. Mr.McBrayer pointed out that there would be fewer bedrooms in the propo sed development than could be expected in a typical single or two-fami l y d evelop- ment; therefore, the overall density to be expected from the development would not be as great as could be expected from a typical single or two-fami l y de- velopment. Mr. J. W. Crane 1236 East Hampden -was sworn in and stated that he owns property at 3 502 South Marion Street and 1236 East Hampden Avenue . Mr. Crane stated that unless South Marion Street was closed at U. s. 28 5 , he felt that someone would be injured at this intersection, and any increased traffic in this block would compound that problem. He stated that he did not see how 16 units could be situat.ed on this particular site withou t a lot of vehicles having to park on the street; there would not be s uffic ient space for off-street parking. Mr. Crane urged the Commission to be prudent in their consideration of the reque st; he stated that he would guarantee that the construction of 1 6 unit s on this site isn't the answer to the use of the land. Mr. Crane stated that he felt the community had no obj ection to the duplex that was constructed b y Mr. Payne. Mr. Allen pointed out that the property is zoned to allow greater den sity than is proposed by the applicant. Mr. Crane s tated that he would rather see larger units constructed, but not so many. Mr. Allen p ointed out that -11- Mr. Payne and his associates would be building for less people· than the zoning would allow. Discussion ensued. Mr. Crane stated that he does not feel the proposal is the best solution for the people in that neighborhood. Mr. Anthony Monte 3527 South Marion Street -was sworn in, and testified that he had grown up in this neighborhood. He stated that much of the discussion seems to have centered on the 16 bedrooms vs. 36 bedrooms that could be allowed under the current regulations. Mr. Monte stated that this is a "kid neighborhood"; he cited residents who have children, and former residents whose children are now living in the block. Mr. Monte emphasized that this is a "family" neighborhood, and he wants to retain that character in the neighborhood. He stated that the residents of the duplexes have children. Mr. Monte stated that he did not feel that it is a matter of the "number of people" so much as it is a matter that this is a "family neighbor- hood", and he does not want to see 16 units constructed for adults with no provisions for family units. Mr. Monte pointed out that construction of family units would be of assistance in the matter of school population. Mr. Allen asked if he understood Mr. Monte's argument that he is objecting because the units are not large enough to acconnnodate children. Mr. Monte stated that he felt whatever is constructed on this site should be large enough to accommodate families with children. Mr. Monte reiterated that this is a family oriented neighborhood. He stated that he does not want to see an "adult community" moving into this neighborhood. Mr. Tanguma stated that with all the discussion on the dangerous intersection of South Marion Street and U.S. 285, he felt that an adult community might be better in this location than families with small children. Mr. Tanguma also expressed surprise that the residents seemed to prefer a higher density that could be developed under the present standards to the restricted den- sity proposed by Mr. Payne. Mr. Monte discussed Mr. Payne's proposed com- plex, and his research done to support the development of this complex. Mr. Monte stated that if the intent is to target the meqical field -- nurses, etc. --he felt that only the top 10% of the nursing field would qualify financially for one of the units, and questioned how many of these people would be willing to pay more than $50,000 for a one-bedroom condominium unit of 493 square feet. Dr. Cowan was sworn in, and testified that he is affiliated with the medical clinic in this neighborhood. He testified that he has taken special notice of the parking problems in this neighborhood, and questioned how the neigh~ borhood could handle additional on-street parking which the proposed develop- ment seems to entail. He questioned how motorists could get onto or off of U. S. 285 in the evening rush hour. He stated that on his end of the block, he would have no objection to the proposal, but stated that he felt the im- pact on the total neighborhood must be considered. Mr. Ivey addressed the Commission, noting that with the exception of Mr. Monte, those who addressed the Commission did not attend the meeting that he and Mr. Payne had scheduled in the neighborhood. Mr. Ivey stated that there will be 19 on-site parking spaces, and he felt there would be some children in the development. He felt that some of the units would be pur- chased by single parents. Mr. Ivey stated that he and his associates feel that the units are well designed and energy efficient. Mr. Ivey then dis- cussed the issue of "land use". He referred to the studies that have been done, and it is their feeling that the proposal is right for the buying -12- public, and for this neighborhood. Mr. Ivey stated that this concept is not a "pilot program" except in Englewood; it has been done in other com- munities very successfully. Mr. Gilchrist asked what has been done by the Public Works Department/Traffic division to attempt to alleviate the traffic problems at U.S. 285 and South Marion Street? Mrs. Romans stated that the only traffic regulatory device is a stop sign. Mrs. Romans stated that the designation of South Marion Street as a one-way street or the restriction of turning movements at this intersection could be considered in the future if the Traffic Engineer were to -determine it necessary. Mr. Gordon Weiss 3535 South Marion -was sworn in and testified that he is very much opposed to the proposed development. Mr. Weiss discussed the traffic and parking situations in this block, noting that his guests have an extremely difficult time finding a place to park. Mr. Weiss noted that if the alley is eliminated, this would also cause problems for people on South Downing Street who have access to the alley. Mr. McBrayer stated that the applicant did not say the alley would be eliminated; only that access from his particular site to the alley would be eliminated. Dis- cussion ensued. Attorney Holland pointed out that within 60 days of the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation to City Council on approval or disapproval of the application. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma asked when this area was zoned for R-2 development? stated that it has been zoned for R-2 since 1963, at least. Mr. stated that there was R-2 zoning and development in this block in Mr. Monte agreed with Mr. Resley. Mr. Carson moved: The Public Hearing on Case #26-82 be closed. Mrs. Romans Resley 1953. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt it would be wrong to close the Public Hearing, but to continue this matter for consideration of the final Develop- ment Plan. Mr. Holland stated that the Commission could continue the Hearing to a date in the future. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would suggest the Com- mission consider approval of the general concept of the proposal at this time, and require the applicant .to appear before the Commission with the Fin~l Plat of the Planned Development. Discussion ensued. Mr. Holland stated that he understood Mr. McBrayer's .intent to be approval of the "concept", but not approval of the Planned Development at this xime. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that there is no drainage plan on file, no floor plans, etc. which are as a rule viewed by the Commission before the Planned Development is approved, and he felt that the Commission was being asked at this point to approve a "concept". Allen moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the concept of the "Limited Living Units" proposed by Mr. Arlan Payne; final plans and specifications on the proposed Planned Development are to be submitted for consideration on January 4, 1983. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt he understood the feelings of the people in this neighborhood, but that he felt the proposed development would lower -13- the actual people density and there would be less traffic resulting from the proposed development. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer called a recess of the Commission at 9:15 P. M. The meeting reconvened with the following members present: Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen; Barbre. Absent were: Becker, Senti, Tanguma. V. SOUTH SLOPE SUBDIVISION M. D. Properties, Ltd. Allen moved: CASE #27-82 Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2 7-82 be opened. AYES: Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma, Becker The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting and took his place with the Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that notice of this Public Hearing was by .certified mail to adjoining property owners. He asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of this Hearing. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Hearing is on a Preliminary Subdivision Plat; if approved, the Final Plat would be presented for review by the Commission and referral to the City Council. 'Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff make a presentation on this matter. Mr. Harold Stitt was sworn in, and testified that the property is located on West Lehow Avenue, and was approved for development under the South Slope Condominium approval. The proposal is to resubdivide Block 15, of Inter- urban Addition, into two lots, Lot 1 being that portion on the north which is as yet undeveloped, and Lot 2 being that area which has been developed with condominiums by MD Properties, Ltd. Mr. Stitt stated that the present property owner does not feel it is feasible to develop Lot 1 at this time, and there is a buyer interested in this portion of the site for possible development in conjunction with other property that he owns along Belleview Avenue. Mr. Stitt discussed the existing development in the South Slope Condominium development; six buildings have been constructed, with an additional two buildings proposed for construction. Mr. Stitt then dis- cussed the comments from other departments regarding this proposed resub- di vision. The Utilities Department will require an easement for water and sewer service on Lot 1 before development on that Lot can occur. The Fire Department will also require the relocation of the fire hydrant from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Mr. Stitt stated that there are existing easements on Lot 1, which easements the applicant would like to have vacated. Easements would be provided along the northern property line of Lot 2 to facilitate ex- tension of utilities into Lot 1. -14- Discussion ensued. Mr. Carson questioned the relocation of the fire hydrant. Mr. Stitt stated that this is being required by the Fire Department. Mr. Bill Belong was sworn in. He testified that he is addressing the Com- mission on behalf of Mr. Mark Dushoff of M.D. Properties, Ltd., owners of the subject site. Mr. Belong stated that the proposal is to divide the ownership into two lots, with the possible sale of Lot 1. Mr. Belong stated that it does not appear feasible at this point in time to develop Lot 1, but that Lot 2 has and is being developed. There is another developer who has expressed interest in purchasing Lot 1 if this resubdivision of Block 15 is approved. Mr. Belong was asked if the conditions suggested by the staff would meet with the approval of the applicant? Mr. Belong stated that they have no problem with the requirement of easements for utility service for Lot l; nor do they have any problem with the relocation of the fire hydrant from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Mr. Belong stated that regarding the Fire Lane on the north side of Building 4A in the existing development, he has not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Engineering Services Depart- ment. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that she understood the reason for this condition is that there must be sufficient clearance from a building for the snorkel to operate. Mr. Belong stated that he would work with Engineering Services to resolve the matter of the fire lane. Mr. William Bashor 5250 South Miramonte Drive -was sworn in. He stated that he understood the hearing is on a preliminary plat for the subdivision? Mr. McBrayer stated that the Hearing is to "redefine the subdivision". Mr. Bashor asked if it would be final after approval this evening? He noted that he had received notice of the meeting by Certified Mail, but that he has not had an opportunity to review the proposed Plan. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Final Plat will have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Belong when they would have the final plat to the Commission. Mr. Belong stated that they would hope to have it completed as soon as possible. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Public Hearing on the matter is this evening, and that any changes that are suggested as a result of this Hearing tonight will be incorporated in the Final Plat. Mr. Belong stated that he felt one of the concerns Mr. Bashor has is that of drainage running down the fire lane and draining onto his property .. He said that the fire lane for Lot 2 will now be shortened, and he felt this might be of assistance in alleviating the problem. Mr. Belong noted that the de- veloper of Lot 1 will have to retain the drainage water from that Lot on site. Mr. Belong indicated that he would be willing to work with Mr. Bashor in reaching a solution to this drainage problem. Mr. Belong stated that in dividing the site, they have retained the parking ratio per building that was approved in the Planned Development. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Bashor if Mr. Belong's explanation on the fire lane and drainage answered his questions. Mr. Bashor stated that it did in part, but that he would want to review the staff report before he made that deter- mination finally. -15- Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #27-82 be closed. AYES: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Becker The motion carried. Allen moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of the South Slopes Subdivision, a resubdivision of Block 15, Interurban Addition, with the following conditions: 1. The issues raised by Engineering Services pertaining to the Fire Lane on the north side of Building 4A be resolved to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 2. At such time that Lot 1 is developed, or a Planned Development is granted, utility easements be created and recorded that meet with the approval of the Director of Utilities. 3. Relocation of the existing fire hydrant from Lot 1 to Lot 2. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Becker The motion carried. VI. CONDITIONAL USE 3315 South Broadway Allen moved: CASE #29-82 Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #29-82 be opened. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Becker The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that notice of the Hearing appeared in the Englewood Sentinel on November 17, 1982. He asked that the staff report be part of the record of this Hearing. Mr. McBrayer then asked if any member of the Commission had questions on the staff report. Mr. McBrayer then asked that the applicant present his case. Mr. Nathan Elinoff 5460 Vale Drive -having previously been sworn in, testified that he is the applicant for an indoor children's amusement park at 3315 South Broadway. Mr. Elinoff testified that this proposed use is a family- oriented business, and described the play equipment that will be installed. -16- Mr. Elinoff stated that the purpose of this equipment is to provide safe, physical exercise for children two years through eleven years of age. Mr. Elinoff emphasized there will be no video games in conjunction with this use. Adults must be present with children, and the ratio would be no more than six children to one adult. This is not a place where children could be dropped off and picked up later; an adult must accompany the children in the amusement park. Mr. Elinoff stated that there is some equipment which handicapped children could use, and that they could go on all of the rides except those which are peddle-operated. He stated that he, himself, has been in business was 15 years of age, and that his background is in business. He stated that it is the aim of himself, his partner, and his backers to have an establishment providing a safe, clean place for young children. Mr. Elinoff discussed the building at 3315 South Broadway, noting there are four levels in the building. There will be one manager for each level in the building. He stated that they will be installing fire sprinklers in the building, which will cost $60,00o+, and the bathrooms will be remodeled. Mr. Elinoff stated that the hours proposed are 11:00 A. M. through 9:00 P.M.; there is a lease on the parking lot which would go with the building, and he is guaranteed ample parking for the business. Mr. Elinoff estimated 25 full- time jobs resulting from this ousiness. Mr. Elinoff stated that children over five years of age may be dropped off without adult accompaniment. He stated that he has discussed the proposal with several of the Broadway busi- nessmen, and they are in favor of his operation. Mr. McBrayer discussed his concern with a comment from the Fire Department that "exiting may be inadequate"; he asked whether the exiting was inadequate or was it adequate? Mrs. Romans stated that until actual application for remodeling permits are submitted, the Fire Department cannot determine whether the exiting is adequate. The business will have to meet the applicable codes. Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist asked if the building was air conditioned. Mr. Elinoff stated that it is swamp cooled, and they were putting in the sprinkler system for fire protection. Mr. Gilchrist asked if teenagers would be permitted on the premises. Mr. Elinof f stated that if they were accompanying a younger brother or sister they would be permitted; he stated that teens causing problems would not be tolerated. Mr. Gilchrist asked if soft drinks and snacks would be served. Mr. Elinoff stated that there will be a concession stand and a toy shop. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt this was a great idea, and he supported the proposed use. There were no other persons present who wished to address the Commission relative to this matter. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #29-82 be closed. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Senti The motion carried. -17- Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Indoor Amusement Park for children at 3315 South Broadway as a Conditional Use, with the following conditions: 1. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the building will need to conform to present Building and Fire Codes. AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Becker, Senti The motion carried. VII. ENGLEWOOD EXECUTIVE CENTER Off-Street Parking Lot CASE #28-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the request before the Commission is for approval of an off-street parking lot, a modification of a plan previously approved by the Commission in May, 1982. Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission had any comments or questions on the staff report. Mr. Gilchrist stated that at the time of the previous consideration by the Commission, he had disqualified himself because of his association with partners of Mr. Mcilvaine's; however, he noted that this application appears to be filed by Mr. Mcilvaine alone, and in light of this, he would continue to sit on the Commission, and to vote on this matter. Mr. Mcilvaine stated that as of January 18, 1983, he will be the sole owner of this project, as he is in the process of purchasing the shares owned by the Messrs. Collier. Mr. Mcilvaine handed to Commission members copies of a letter from him , which letter is as follows: "December 7, 1982 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION -CITY OF ENGLEWOOD I would like to respectfully request that the following questions be answered with reference to items Page 3 -Subject: Comments from other departments Item number three, Engineering Services with reference to Englewood Executive Center paving the alley to the west of Parcel II. 1. We would like to have a list of similar type situations. A. We would like to have the location, the property owners name who bore this expense and the date the work was completed. B. We would like to know if this is standard procedure. C. Our attorneys would like to have copies of ordinances, laws or ,other· legal documents that gives the Engineering Dept. the authority which forces us to pay for the paving of this alley which is not our property. ENGLEWOOD EXECUTIVE CENTER W. R. Mcilvaine Pres.ident" -18- Mr. McBrayer stated that the Connnission had discussed this matter on a previous occasion. Mr. Allen stated that inasmuch as he has been faced with such a requirement on development he has done in Englewood, h~ would abstain from voting because he felt he would be prejudiced. Mr. Gilchrist questioned that the questions contained in Mr. Mcllvaine's letter were properly directed to the Connnission; he felt they should be directed to the Engineering Department staff. Discussion ensued. Mr. Mcllvaine stated that if they can be shown the authority requiring the paving of the alley, and they are required to accomplish the paving, they will do so. He pointed out that he has built in 12 major cities, and has not had to deal with this requirement before, and he wants clarification on whether the authority does exist to require him to do the paving. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that normally when public prop- erty is paved, it is included in a Paving District and public hearings are held giving adjoining property owners an opportunity to express their opinions in favor or in opposition of such paving; he noted that this is not the case in this instance. Mr. Holland cited §22.5-3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, relating to surfacing of areas subject to wheeled traffic. He stated that he felt there is authority to direct the paving of the alley. Mr. Mcllvaine pointed out that this requirement, if enforced, would put him in the position of paying for the paving of the entire alley; the Elks Lodge adjoins the alley to the west, and they use the alley also. Mr. Mcllvaine emphasized that he wants c l arification on authority to require him to do this paving, and asked that he be given a letter from the City Attorney or someone citing that authority. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the Connnission consider the parking plan appli- cation as it stands, and leave the matter of paving the alley open to be worked out with the City Engineering Services Department. Mr. Holland stated that he understood the applicant to want approval of the parking layout, and that he is saying he will pave the alley if the authority exists to require him to do so. Gilchrist moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Connnission approve the parking lot layout for the Englewood Executive Center at 3677 South Huron Street with the following conditions: 1. The Jason/Inca alley between West Jefferson Avenue and West Kenyon Avenue be paved to City specifications, if there is authority for this requirement. 2. Unused curb cuts must be closed. 3. Any broken sidewalks, curbs and gutter must be re- paired or replaced. 4. Ten more bike storage spaces should be provided for a total of 18-bike spaces. 5. Off-street loading for Building No. 1 should .be designated. -19- AYES: Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Allen ABSENT: Becker, Senti The motion carried. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Connnission under Public Forum. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans reminded Commission members of the presentation by Brady Enter- prises on their Downtown Redevelopment proposal, which was scheduled for December 9th at 5:00 P. M. in the City Council Chambers. The Mayor's Christmas Party is scheduled for Friday, December 10th, at 6:30 P. M. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the next regular meeting of the Commission would be on December 22, a Wednesday; this is because the City Council meeting will be on Tuesday, December 21st. The only matter on the agenda would be consideration of the Downtown Development District. It was noted that it is frequently difficult for members to attend meetings that close to the Christmas Holidays, and the possibility of meeting on December 14th was considered. Mr. Holland stated that he has been reviewing the proposed district, and could not state for certain that he would have the proposed regulations ready for review by the Commission. Mr. Holland briefly pointed out some of the issues that have to be considered in developing the district regulations. It was the consensus that the Commission would meet on December 14th. X. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Stoel stated that he wanted to wish Commission members and staff members Merry Christmas. Mr. McBrayer asked the date of the Court hearing on the Adult Book Store case? Mr. Holland stated that December 20th they will hear the motion to suppress, and the actual court date is in January some time. Mr. McBrayer asked the status of the landscaping ordinance? Mrs. Romans stated that it is also being reviewed by the City Attorney's Office; it will probably be before the Commission sometime in January, but at this time, the emphasis is on the Downtown Development District. The staff is also working with the City Forester to develop a brochure on landscaping, and Mr. Stitt is putting together a visual presentation to be used at public meetings. Mr. McBrayer asked the status on the Promotional Brochure for the city? Mrs. Romans stated that Mrs, Dorothy Dalquist, Public Reiations employee with the City, is working on the brochure, and cited progress that has been made on this matter. -20- Mr. McBrayer stated that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is meeting on December 8th, at which time there is a request for a variance from the Sign Code. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would attend this meeting, and stated any member of the Conunission who wished to attend was welcome to do so. Mr. McBrayer stated that he is in receipt of a letter from Assistant City Manager Vargas relative to the budget for the Planning Conunission for 1983. Mr. McBrayer stated that he didn't know what the Conunission budget for 1982 is. Mrs. Romans stated that the 1983 Budget is very much the same as the 1982 Budget; it will cover monthly expenses paid to Conunission members, over time for the secretary, and will allow for one out-of-state trip by one Commission member. Mrs. Romans expressed her appreciation for the attendance of Ms. King, Mr. Stitt and Mr. Yenglin at this meeting. She noted that staff memhers are assigned to work with applicants on a "buddy" system, and they wanted to follow the case to which they were assigned through the Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P. M. ....____ ertrude Welty Recording Secret