Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957-11-26 PZC MINUTESPAGE 238 ARAPAHOE COUNTY AREA: On Page 33 of the report , seven (7) major industrial areas are listed. No. 4 in the list is "South and southeast of Littleton". In referring to this site on the map we see that the present Ramo-Wooldridge area is marked for industrial use and the Ohio Oil Company area due west of Ramo-Wooldridge as industrial. However , the two areas are separated by open or agricultural land including a tract proposed for an executive airport site. The area surrounding the airport site to the north is presently being developed at a fast rate into residential use. It would seem lo g ical that if this area is to become one of the seven major industrial sites in the region as indicated in the study, that th e Ohio Oil Company area and the Ramo-Wooldridge area should join each other putting the present proposed airport site and surrounding vacant land to the south to industrial use. An alternate airport site may well be on the higher ground in the flood basin behing Cherry Creek Dam. Buildings such as the terminal, hangars, and control towers could be located on adjacent property not endangered by flooding with the runways in the basin itself. The chance of the runways being flooded would be somewhat remote and even if they were flooded temporarily , it would not affect them seriously . If for any reason the Cherry Creek Basin site would prove impractical, there is substantial vacant area due south of the presently proposed airport site in which the airport could be located without materially affecting its usefulness to the metropolitan area. At any rate it appears from actual usa g e and known plans of land owners and developers in the Ramo-Wooldridge and Ohio Oil Company area ~hat this area is destined to become a lar g e industrial ~rea and make development of the present airport site very unwise. FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION: JML /ij Joe M. Lacy/LR2 JOE M. LACY Planning Director City of Englewood * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ENGLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 26 , 1957 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones at 8:00 P. M. " Members Present: Barde, Braun , Jones, Romans, Rudd Members Absent: Guilford Other Officials Present: J. M. Lacy, Planning and Traffic Director W. J. Plank -9 45 Downing Street P. G. Lull -3870 South Fox Charles Heltman -3897 South Inca Rezoning Both sides 3700 and 3800 Blocks South Inca Hearing No. 103-D August 29, 1957 Sept. 12, 1957 October 3, 1957 October 17 , 1957 Mr. P. G. Lull and Mr. Charles Heltman appeared to determine progress made on subject re- zoning request. After recapping action to date and reviewing colored photographic slides of the area, it was agreed that interested parties preferred the requested R-2 Zoning rather than the su g gested M-1 and P Zones. (See Hearing 103-C , October 17 , 1957) . Rudd moved: Braun seconded: That the original request for rezoning of the subject area from R-1-D Zone · District to R-2-B Zone District be denied. Ayes: Barde, Braun, Jones, Romans , Rudd Nays: None Absent: Guilford Mrs. A. F. Bailey ~"5tr5-South Emerson Re-zoning Both sides South Emerson Street from 100 feet South of Hampden Avenue to Jefferson Avenue be- tween the Washington-Clarkson alley to the Emerson-Ogden alley. Hearing No. 64-A February 14, 1957 Mrs. A. F. Bailey appeared to renew a request originally made February 14, 1957 for re-zoning of the area surrounding 3565 South Emerson from R-1-D to R-2 Zoning. In discussion follow- ing, it was pointed out that her original request had been carefully studied with other similar requests in the area and that all had been denied as a result of Planning Consultant's recommendations. It was determined that the basic zoning factors in the case had not changed subsequent to the original request. Braun moved: Barde seconded: That the renewed request for rezoning of the above described area be denied. I I I I ., I Ovid M. Hepler 1125 Clinton Street Sub-division Approximately the North ! of 4100 Block between the Galapago- Huron alley and the City Ditch. PAGE 239 Hearing No. 118-E March 31, 1955 June 16, 1955 June 30, 1955 July 14, 1955 July 28, 1955 Mr. Hepler appeared to determine the possibility of subdividing the aboredescribed land which would require waiving of certain provisions of the Sub-division Regulations because of topographical difficulties. He was advised that the City's new Sub-division Regulations specify conditions under which a plan may be accepted and do provide for waivers of certain provisions under given circumstances. After further discussion, Mr. Hepler was advised to contact the City Planning office prior to drafting a preliminary plan of the a rea. Planning Commission City Planning Office Re-zoning Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Hearing No. 28-D May 3, 1956 May 17, 1956 May 31, 1956 November 14, 1957 The Planning Commission studied a justification of re-zoning fees presented by the Planning Director substantiating present zoning deposit. Other points contained in the Council- accepted proposal were discussed in light of decisions reached by the Planning Commi!Eion on November 14, 1957. Braun moved: Romans seconded: That the attached memorandum be transmitted to City Council. (See attached memorandum.) Ayes ~ Barde, Braun, Jones, Romans, Rudd Nays: None Absent: Guilford Planning Commission City Planning Office Amendment -Zoning Ordinance Allowing Swimming Pools Hearing No. 100-D October 31, 1957 Discussion was held on a detailed proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing swimming pools within the City in certain zones as determined previously by the Planning Commission on October 31, 1957. The proposed amendment was modified as shown on the attached sheets. Rudd moved: Braun seconded: That the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing swimming pools in certain zones, as presented by the Planning Director, be recommended to City Council, as corrected. (See attached memorandum.) Ayes: Barde, Braun, Jones, Romans, Rudd Nays: None Absent: Guilford , Planning Commission City Planning Office Report State Health Depattment Licensing Procedure The Planning Director reported that a telephone conversation with Mr. Buckles of the State Health Department on November 26, 1957, revealed that more strict licensing procedures will be followed by that department in licensing nursing homes in 1958. Under the new procedure, each municipal Fire Chief must certify each application as to com- pliance with local fire regulations. The Building Inspector must certify each application as to compliance with local zoning and building code regulations. License applications which are certified properly in 1958 will be renewed annually without further certification unless a municipality requests a certain license to be recertified. Former requirements calling for a certification by the Tri-County Health Department and for careful checking by State Health Officials of proposed remodeling • or building plans are still in effect. Mrs. Dorothy Romans Englewood School Board Mrs. Romans, speaking for the Englewood School Board, requested the Planning Commission's thoughts on the following subjects: 1. The possibility of annexing, to Knglewood, an area North of the Scenic View annexation bounded by Evans Avenue, South Pecos Street, South Zuni Street and Jewell Avenue. The Planning Commission members indicat e d that it was their feeling that the area would not make a wise annexation to the City due ~primarily to the problem of serving it with utilities, but that the City Council must make the final decision . 2. The possibility of Oxford Avenue, from Broadway West, becoming an arterial thoroughfare. The Planning Commission members felt that the present 100 feet right-of-way definitely marks the street as a future artery of some type which it is, in fact, today and that a school location on the street is now and would be undesirable. PAGE 240 3. The possibility of locating a new school administration building on the site of the old North School. The Planning Commission members indicated that they saw no reason for objection to the location, but felt .that use of present Hawthorne School for the administration buil:ld~ng might prove more advantageous because of it's central location. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P. M. Approved: TO: The City Council FROM: The Planning Commission MEMORANDUM John D. Curtice Recording Secretary DATE: November 26, 1957 SUBJECT: Rezoning Policies (No Council Action Necessary) On May 7, 1956, the City Council accepted a recommendation of the Planning Commission that policies and regulations concerned with rezoning requests be restudied and perhaps modified. Since that time certain policies have been evolved and put into effect by Council action upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. In order to round out the recommendation accepted by Council on May 7, 1956, the specific points in the recommendation were again scrutinized by the Planning Commission at it's November 14 and November 26, 1957, meetings. The result of this additional study based upon the experience of the Planning Commission during the past two years and other factors that are attached to this memorandum is as follows: SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ORIGINALLY ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL AND RETURNED TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DETAILED RECOMMENDATION: 1. Set definite requirements for a petition for re-zoning. 2. Provide for a more realistic fee for re-zoning procedures. 3. Establish a minimum size area eligible for re-zoning. 4. Arrange for publication of the Zoning Ordinance in pamphlet form. 5. Such pamphlet to be prefaced with proper excerpts from Colorado State Statutes setting out the duties and jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. DECISIONS REACHED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND HEREWITH REFERRED TO CITY COUNCIL: (Respectively) 1. That present petition requirements are adequate to facilitate initiation of re-zoning and yet indicate the desires of residents of an area that Planning Commission requires. 2. That the $25.00 deposit is well justified in light of actual costs of restudying even a minimum area re-zoning request, considering administrative time, materials and other factors entailed. (See attached memorandum on costs.) 3. That under Section 5 of Article II, the Planning Commission is bound to adopt reasonable rules for handling all planning matters and that a resolution passed by City Council on August 5,. 1957, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, sets forth minimum criteria for considerllibg amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Map. 4. The Planning Director reported that the amendment regarding the allowance of swimming & pools is now being drawn and that as soon as it is effective, the Zoning Ordinance 5. embodying all amendments to date will be published, including preface quoting the State Statutes on planning. The above information, as substantiated and illustrated by the attached memorandums and enclosures, constitute the present policies of the Planning Commission and "How they got that way." This material is being presented to Council primarily as information only, but subject to any Council action deemed necessary. FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION: REZONING POLICIES J. M. Lacy JOE M. LACY Planning Director The following resolution was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, August 5, 1957. RESOLUTION 1. In 1955, Englewood's Zoning Ordinance was approved by the City Council under due process by notification to the public and holding of public hearings. 2. Such ordinance was drawn on the basis of "percentages of square footage as related between one zoning area and another". 3. This percentage ratio was the result of a thorough study of land use by experts in the professional field of zoning. I I I I I I PAGE 241 4. On approval , This Zoning Ordinance became an integral part of Englewood's Master Plan as provided by Colorado Statutes. 5. The peopl e , through their elected councilmen, did approve this Zoning Ordinance for, among several purposes, "the most appropriate use of land throughout the city", and for said purposes to divide the city into zones of such number, shape , and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these zoning regulations. It is noted that the term "highest and best use" of small parcels of land is becoming more and more prominent as a basic reason appearing in re-zoning applications. Zoning for the "highest and best use of a small parcel of land" is considered to be "spot zoning". In no sense does the 1955 Zoning Ordinance provide for "spot zoning". "Spot zoning" is known to be the "cardinal" sin in zoning, and as such is the prime factor in the reduction of land values and -the neutralizing of zoning in general of any city . Council hereby endorses the followin g enumerated elements now considered as reasonable requirements for each re-zoning application by Englewood's Planning Commission. 1. Area : Must consist of . at least one city .block and be contiguous to like zoning classification. 2. Proof must be presented that there is a demand for and need of enlarging the existing zoning areas .. 3 . There must be compliance with all the other usual elements which the ordinance provides for as a part of every re-zoning study and action. EXCERPTS FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING REZONING 1 . Paragraph 2, Section 4, Article II. "2. Persons applying for Zoning Amendments shall deposit with application for amendment the sum of $25.00 to cover cost for processing said amdnement and such further sum as determined necessary for advertising costs." 2 . Article III. "ARTICLE III AMENDMENTS Section 1. REQUIREMENT FOR CHANGE. Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice justifies such action, and, after having been submitted for approval by the commission, the City Counc il may change the zone or the regulations established by this ordinance after public hearing has been held on the proposed change. Section 2. INITIATION OF CHANGE. A proposed change of zone ma y be submitted by the City Council, the City Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment or by a petition by one or more of the owners of property within the area proposed to be chan g ed. Section 3. CHANGING THE ORDINANCE. ~. Th e City Planning Commission shall meet to consider propesed changes or amend- ments to the zoning ordinance and. map at such times and µaces as established by rules and regulations of the commission. 2. The City Planning Commission may recommend approval or disapproval of a change either in whole or in part. Recommendations in conformity with such approved changes shall be presented to the City Council and an ordinance embodying such changes in whole or in part, may be adopted by the City Council after public hearing thereon. 3. In the event the City Planning Commission recommends against a change in the ordinance either in whole or in part a report thereon shall be made to the City Council. The applicant if dissatisfied with the recommendation and report of the commission, may appeal to the City Council and the City Council shall thereupon review the recommendation and report of the Planning Commission. On such appeal, if the City Council is in favor of the change , it may after public hearing make such change in said ordinance be a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of its entire membership . 4. In case of a protest against any changes in the ordinance or map signed by owners of 20% , or more of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or of those immediately adjacent in the rear thereof extending 100 feet therefrom, or of those directly opposite thereto, extending 100 feet from the street frontage of such opposite lots, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of 3 /4 of all the members of the City Council." ,r,· If ----~·-=~-------- MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Englewood Planning Commission FROM: Mr. Joe M. Lacy, Planning Director SUBJECT: Actual cost of administrative expense entailed by Rezoning Request of minimum area. PAGF 242 TECHNICAL MAN -HOURS CLERICAL ASSISTANT AT $3.00 EACH AT $1.40 PER HOUR ITEM No. Amount MATERIAL No. Amount Conducting Land Use Survey 3 $9.00 $ .50 NONE Procuring Colored Pho~ographs 2 $6.00 $3.15 NONE Determining Ratio of existing to requested usa ge ?2 $6.00 $ .30 NONE Analysis and Recommendation 2 $6.00 $1. 50 l! $2.10 TOTAL AMOUNTS $27.00 $5.45 $2.10 Totall ~ng all three major cost factors involved reveals that a grand total of $34.55 is necessary to properly evaluate even a minimum request for rezoning. This figure does not consider the number of hours required on the part of Planning Commission members to evaluate the finished report and to hear the requestor's presentation during lengthy Planning Commission meetings. In light of these factors, the $25 deposit as specified in the Zoning Ordinance at present seems very well justified. JML /ij J. M. Lacy JOE M. LACY Planning Director RBPDF~N~ION FOR REZONING City of Englewood, Colorado DATE APPLICANT: Name: Address: Telephone: ----------~------~ Relation to request: -----~-----------~ OWNER: Name: Address: Telephone: ------------------ For i y Use n y: Hearing Number St at eme n t of p-r~i-o_r_c_o_n~t-a-c~t-w~i~t~h- C it y Planning Department: Submitted herewith is a deposit of $25.00 as required in Paragraph 2, Section 4, Article II , of the Zoning Ordinance. It is understood that the $25.00 deposit is necessary to defray the administrative costs entailed by this request , and, therefore, will not be returned, and that additional fees may be required to cover the costs of advertising, if necessary. The undersigned certifies that he has received and read a statement of current City policies and applicable excerpts from City ordinances concerning rezoning. APPLICANT OWNER ------------(~M~u-s~t~b_e_s_i~g-n-e~d~by pe_r_s_o_n_p_a_y~i_n_g_d~e_p_o_s~i~t~)----------~ COMMON DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL TO BE REZONED: LEGAL TIEECRIPTION UF-PAR~EL TO-B~ REZONED:-- - - -- - -- --- - - - - - - ---- - - PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: ----------------~ ---------------- REASONS FOR REQUESTED CHANGE: (Attach additional sheet , if necessary) I I I I I I PAGE 243 MEMO TO: Members of Englewood Planning Commission SUBJECT: Swimming Pool Amendment to Zoning Ordinance FROM: Planning Director In accordance with the decision reached by the Planning Commission on October 31, 1957, and after consultation with the City Attorney and the City Building Inspector, the following is submitted as a tentative amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow swimming pools with- in the City: 1. Insert in Article I, Section 5, between paragraphs 71 and 72: "7la. Swimming Pools, Private: Any artificially constructed pool designed, used and maintained for swimming purposes by an individual for use by his household and guests and located on a lot as an accessory use to a residence. (See Supplementary Regulations)." "7lb. Swimming Pools, Semi-Private: Any body of water sufficiently deep for complete immersion of the body and used collectively by a number of persons for swimming or recreative bathing, together with the shores, buildings, equipment and appurtenances pertaining to such bathing places. All users of such pools must be guests of or bona fid~ members of a club, association or other such organization whose purpose is in whole or in part the ownership and operation of such swimming pool. (See Supplementary Regulations)." "7lc. Swimming Pools, Semi-Public: Any body of water sufficiently deep for complete immersion of the body and used collectively by a number of persons for swimming or recreative bathing, together with the shores, buildings, equipment and appurtenances pertaining to such bathing places. Use of such pools by any person ~·must be contingent upon their partaking of the primary service of the concern ownin g and operating such pool. (See Supplementary Regulations.)·~ "7ld. Swimming Pools, Public: Any body of water sufficiently deep for complete immersion of the body and used collectively by a number of persons for swimming or recreative bathing, together with the shores, buildings, equipment and appurtenances pertaining to such bathing places. Such pools must be open to the general public and operated as a business venture with admission to be granted upon payment of a specified fee." 2. Add to Article IV, Section 9, Paragraph 2: "(3) Swimming Pools, Semi-Private, Semi-Public and Public. Regulations)." (See S~pplementary 3. Add to Article IV, Section 10, Paragraph 1: 1 '(11) Swimming Pools, Semi-Private, Semi-Public and Public. Regulations)." (See Supp ~ementary 4. Add to Article VI: "18. Swimming Pools. (See definitions). JML /ij a. Building permits for specific types of swimming pools shall be issued in the various zone districts as follows: (1) Private pools shall be allowed in all Residential Districts only. (2) Semi-private pools shall be allowed in all Residential and Commercial districts onJ_y. (3) Semi-Public pools shall be allowed in the R-3 Residential district and both Commercial districts only. (4) Public Pools, privately owned, shall be allowed in both Commercial districts only. b. Publicly owned and operated swimming pools shall be allowed in all districts except industrial and parking districts. c. Indoor pools of a Semi-private or Semi-Public classification may be allowed in an industrial zone subject to specific permission from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. d. All swimming pools must comply in every respect with all existing City ordinances, regulations and policies governing swimming pools." J. M. Lacy JOE M. LACY Planning Director November 26, 1957 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *