Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959-02-19 PZC MINUTESPage 358 Planning meeting. The Planning Director stated that he would secure photographic slides illustrating various types of apartment houses in the Denver area possible on various front a ges. It was suggested that a general meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, City Attorney, Building Inspector, and City Manager be held at 3:00 P. M. on Wednesday, February 25th. The Planning Director was instructed to notify all parties concerned in writing and remind them by telephone prior to the February 25th meeting. There being no further business to come before the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P. M. Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary Approved J. M. Lacy ~~~~~~~~-"---- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: Subject: Recommendation: February 5, 1959 Old North School Property That the City suggest to the School Board that the pending sale of the subject area be reconsidered in light of the specific needs which the subject area could serve , and that an inspection by the Building Department and the Fire Department be made to determine the structural safety of the building for possible school room use. (See minutes for discussion culminating in above motion). RespectfuIJy submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCLL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: Subject: Recommendation: February 5, 1959 Gillpatrick Subdivision That the final plat of the Gillpatrick Subdivision b e approved subject to completion of recommendations made for tentative ap- proval of the preliminary plan. Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1959 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones at 8:00 P. M. Members Presmt: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Romans, Schmitt and Lacy, Ex-Officio Members Absent: None Visitors: Gail Mullis, Norman Granes -Littleton Planning Commission James Halley, Eugene Gillespie -Sheridan Planning Commission Planning Office City Master Plan Coordination Hearing No. 32-56-A May 17, 1958 (Also see Hearing No. 45-58-B Feb. 5.) Mr. Jones explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Englewood's tentative Master Plan boundaries with the Littleton and Sheridan Commissioners, and pointed out some of the factors of the Englewood Master Plan that will overlap. The Planning Director explained that the overlapping boundaries for Planning were simply to integrate existing plans in the overlap areas. Political jurisdiction is not considered since various cities cannot control the presentation of petitions to themselves for annexation. Howeve r , any and all cities who might logically have control of an abutting unincorporated area should have a plan for that area. I I I I I I Page 359 Mr. Jones and Mr. Braun discussed the effect of Federal work on the South Platte channel as it would affect both communities and arterial streets and truck routes between adjoining cities. Mr. Halley stated that a number of zoning problems are cropping up in Sheridan , and cooperation between Englewood and Sheridan where the area in question is on city borders is most desirable. Two specific examples of future coordination between Littleton and Englewood is the decision of connecting Windemere and South Pecos Streets by bridging Big Dry Creek and the possibility of continuing South Delaware Street across Belleview into Littleton in the future. As the meeting ended, all persons present agreed that the three communities would make every effort to continue cooperation and coordination in their mutual development. Kelley moved: Romans seconded: That the area included in the black line be considered as the general boundaries f or the City's Master Plan. (Boundaries are generally along Federal Boulevard,south to West Berry Street then along Prentiss Road and Big Dry Creek to South Clarkson Street, then north along Clarkson over to University and then along the Denver-Englewood border and Evans Avenue back to Federal. The area would include Centennial Acres, Centennial Race Track, Brookridge Height9, Cherry Hills Heights, and College View. This description os schematic only and the map should be consulted for the actual boundaries). Ayes: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Romans, Schmitt Nays: None Absent: None Plannin g Commission PlanningDirector General Zoning Amendments Hearing No. 3-59B January 22, 1959 February 5, 1959 (Also see Hearing No. 35-58-B. Nov. 20) The Planning Director showed photographic slides of existing new apartment buildings built on lots of fifty (50) foot frontage within the City and comparison pictures of tenement housing in Denver, illustrating the result of crowding in past years. The slides also illustrated the City's first apartment house in a R-3-A zone with seventy-five (75) foot frontage and compared it with new apartments in Denver on one hundred (100) foot frontage lots. The primary question raised by City Council members and Planning Commission members was why the R-3-A zone should be left at a seventy-five (75) foot frontage minimum while the R-3-B zone is increased from fifty (50) to one hundred (100) feet. The Planning Director ex- plained that the intent is to facilitate the larger apartment buildings in the zone des i Lne d f or the denser population development. The effect of increasing the frontage is to promote six large apartment b uildings for each side of a R-3-B zone block instead of twelve small and crowded apartment buildings. The change would actually make possible more apartment units in a given b lock and still leave land area available for {:Rrking in the rear and on the sides of the buildings without using front yards for parking requirements and would also increase the distance between the buildings. The effect of leaving the R-3-A zone at seventy-fi'\e (75) feet frontage with only a 35% lot coverage allowable is to require a smaller apartment building in this zone. The R-3-A zone is located as a buffer or "stepdown" zone between high density multiple-family R-3-B zone or commercial zone and single family areas. Principal permitted uses in the R-3-A zone are apartment houses of twelve or more units and single family houses. The intent is to provide a zone where apartment housing can be developed with minimum depreciating effect on a b utting single family uses in R-1 zones. In further di8cussion it was agreed that the present proposals for frontage increase from fifty (50) to one hundred (100) feet and side yard increase from five to ten feet in the R-3-B zone would be the most practical way of promoting sound apartment development within the City and still make that development economically feasible to the present land owner and the future developer. However, the fact that most R-3-B land is now used by marginal single family units will require the acquisition of two adjoining building sites rather than just one bef ore an apartment b uilding can be c onstructed. It was suggested that lot coverage percentages in the R-3-A zone might be changed to guarantee that only smaller apartment houses could be bu ilt in this "stepdown" zone. After discussion and computation of square footage and percentage ratios it was felt that the present 35% cover- age is adequate to control the size of buildings. Further computations and comparison s of FHA and loaning institution requirements for square foot a ge area indicated that the present 360' minimum floor area per unit in the R-3-B zone is far too low. It was pointed out that all new construction has been required to exceed this minimum substantially and it was agreed that the 450' minimum now used in the R-3-A zone hould also be applied to the R-3-B zone. The Plannin g Director was instructed to include the proper amendment to the General Zoning Amendment proposal to increase the minimum unit floor area in R-3-B zone from 360' to 450'. Page 360 Planning Of fice City Amendment to Uniform System of Subdivision Regulations Hearing No. 44-58A December 18, 1958 (Also see Hearing No. 40-58, Nov. 20, 1958.) The Planning Director presented a tentative amendment to the Subdivision Regulations Ordinance as instructed on December 18, 1958. Purpose of the amendment was to clarify just what land must be subdivided within the City. The amendment was presented as follows: Amend Ord 14, Series 1957 , "Subdivision Re gulations" by deleting Section 5, Article 1, and substituting therefor the following: "Section 5. CONFORMITY WITH REGULATION8 a. Subdivision Required The division of any land within the City of Englewood into two or more lots, tracts, sites or parcels, any one of which has an area of less than three acres, must be accomplished by the filing and acceptance of a plat as specified within this ordinance. b. Prerequisite to Sale and Deed No person, firm, c orporation or other entity shall selr;-exchange or offer for ·sale or pur- chase any parcel of land which is required to be subdivided under provisions of this ordinance nor shall any person, firm, corporation or other entity offer for recording any deed con- veying such a parcel of land or interest therein, unless he shall have made or caused to have made a plat thereof, which plat shall be recorded before or at the same time such sale, exchange, or purchase is effected and shall be in accordance with all of the requirements of this ordinance. c. Exception A parcel of land within the City of Englewood may be sold, exchanged or offered for sale or purchased, and a building permit issued for construction on same without fur- ther subdivision only if it complies with ALL of the following requirements: (1) Meets area, frontage and all other requirements of the zone district in which it is located. (2) No further dedication of public right-of-way or utility or drainage easements is required. (3) No special agreement such as well-water u sage or construction over a utility line or other agreement is necessary. (4) Leaves remaining adjacent land in such ar<:B a and layout that it too can be parceled into building sites which comply with zone district requirements. (5) No more than four (4) building sites can be situated within the tract from which the parcel to be used is allocated." The Planning Director explained that the area and size requirements in the amendment are the same as those now specified in the ordinance. The amendment simply rewords the intent of the ordinance which as now written is obscure. He explained that the paragraph on "exceptions" was necessary to allow a realistic provision allowing many present one and two- lot building sites within the City to be developed without the filing of a plat with its attendant expenses. Lots available in the Gumaars Subdivision were cited as examples. Mr. Braun questioned whether or not the exceptions allow a loophole for a subdivider who actually owns a large tract to develop only four sites at a time without subdividing. It was agreed that the amendment as written specifies that any vacant land regardless of owne r- ship is subject to development and must be considered as a portion of the tract or parcel possible for ultimate development. Braun moved: Hill seconded: That the amendment be forwarded to the City Attorney and the City Manager. Ayes: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Romans, Schmitt Nays: None Absent: None Planning Office City ICRPC Meeting Report The Planning Director reported on the February 17th meeting of ICRPC as foll ows : 1. Although only $18.00 was on hand as of January 1, 1959, in the ICRPC account, all counties have contributed as they agreed to bring the total as of February, 1959, to $8,400.00. 2. George Nez has accepted the position of Director of Inter-County Re gi onal Planning effective March 30 at a salary in the $12,000.00 bracket, the same as he received from the City and County of Denver. 3. The present planning contract with the Federal Government was amended to delete a study on "financial feasibility of providing repayment services on a regional basis". The study was deleted since the ICRPC staff does not now exist and only by dropping the study which was not a part of the original contract in the first place could the present planning contract be concluded. I I I I I I Page 361 4. The Articles of Association were amended to provide "the business of the commission shall be managed by an executive committee consisting of the commission's chairman and secretary and five other active members". This amendment resolves differences between county and municipal interests on control of the executive committee. 5. George Nez explained an outline for an overall study to forecase the metro- politan pattern for 1965-1980 and 2000 to guide zoning, water, sewer, and transportation development in the region. 6. Mayor Bradley of Aurora presented the Urban Mayors' and Managers' proposal for a "metropolitan cooperative commission" to be composed of 27 members. The twenty- seven would be comprised of: (a) Seven mayors appointed by the Urban Mayors' Group. (b) President of the Denver City Council. (c) One County Commissioner each from Arapahoe, Denve r, Adams, Jefferson and Douglas County. (d) Three labor representatives, one only from Denver, to be appointed by the Metropolitan Labor Organization. (e) Three business and industrial representatives, one only from Denver, to be appointed by the Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. (f) Religious representatives , one only from Denver, to be appointed by the Denver Area Council of Churches. (g) Three State representatives, one each from the Highway Com- mission, Planning Commission, and Health Department. (h) Three each from public and private utilities including mass transportation. Bradley stated that the proposal had been drawn by a group of Mayors as follows: (a) Stemmler, Cherry Hills (b) Scott, Englewood (c) Nicholson, Denver (d) Bradley, Aurora (e) Nelson, Westminster (f) Lyon, Mountain View (g) Gilbert, Arvada. The Commission would provide cooperation · in five major areas each of which would ultimately have a staff to work on a metropolitan level. The proposed areas are: (a) Heal th (b) Planning (c) Transportation (d) Inter-governmental relations {e) Safety (f) Recreation. Lacy suggested that "utilities" was conspicuous by its absence as an area of cooperation. Bradley said that the Mayors felt that there were not enough pending projects at the present time to justify the inclusion of utilities any more than including police and fire protection. Lacy disagrees. The proposal does not make any recommendation for financing such cooperative commission. 7. George Nez presented a summary of the changes in the Colorado Revised Statutes as f ollows: "1. Permits county planning commissioners to be compensated. 2. Permits municipalities to form regional planning commissions. 3. Permits each participating county or municipality to have one voting representative (mandatory). 4. Deletes the requirement that planning commissicrers not hold official position. 5. Adds provision that plans for non-participating counties and municipalities do not become official unless adopted by those governments. 6. Provides that consultation between a county and municipality is not waived by the establishment of a regional planning commission (re sub-divisions). 7. Provides for additions to the membership of a regional planning commission. 8. Provides for withdrawal only after membership for 3 years, and requires 90 days notice for such withdrawal. Failure to withdraw constitutes a waiver of the right to withdraw for another 3 years. 9. Provide s for a division of responsibilities between regional and local planning commission~, where both exist in the same area. Authorizes regional planning commission· to work for local planning commission, and vice-versa. Permits local planning commissions to prepare regional plans when the regional planning commission can not do so in time. 10. Requires referral of plans or proposals affecting regional plans to the regional planning commission for advice. Most zoning proposals and smaller subdivisions would be exempted." Page 362 Planning Office City Planning Conference The Planning Director reported that the National Planning Conference of the American Society of Planning Officials is scheduled for May 10 -14 in Minneapolis. The Planning budget does not provide funds to send the Planning Director to this conference and therefore the Planning Director does not intent to be present. Mr. Braun stated that he had requested an estimate of costs from the Planning Director to send all members of the Planning Commission by automobile to the conference. The estimate of cost indicates that a round trip travel cost for each of two cars at $85.00 and total expenses per person of $160.00 each for a total of $1,290.00 if all Planning Commissioners and the Planning Director could make the trip. The Planning Director stated that it was his opinion that although the conference would be excellent background and technical training for all Planning Commission members, it would seem odd that the City could suddenly allocate $1,290.00 for such conference when only $5,000.00 was felt justified for the entire first year of the Master Plan work. A poll of the members indicated the Planning Director and all except Mr. Kelley and Mr. Jones said they would be able to attend if the money were forth~oming. Mr. Jones and Mr. Kelley said they may be able to attend, but would have to confirm their decision later. There being no further business to come before the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P. M. Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary Approved J. M. Lacy ~~~~~~~~--'~~~~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING March 5, 1959 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones at 8:10 P. M. Members Present: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Romans, Schmitt, and Lacy, Ex-Officio Members Absent: None Walter M. Boggs 4301 S. Bannock Subdivision West Side of South Half 4600 Block South Galapago Hearing No. 8-59 The Planning Director presented a preliminary design for a four-lot subdivision in the sub- ject area. He stated that the drawing had been submitted to the Utilities Department and Public Works Department and had been approved by both. He stated that Mr. Boggs, real estate agent who was submitting the preliminary design, had asked that the frontage of the four lots be apportioned at 78' for three lots and 81.3' for the corner lot instead of as shown on the presented drawing. Hill moved: Schmitt seconded: That the preliminary design of the subdivision be appr01ed if all sub- division regulations are observed. Ayes: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Romans, Schmitt Nays: None Absent: None Planning Office City Amendments to Zoning and Traffic Ordinances Hearing No. 35-58 August 20, 1958 November 6, 1958 November 20, 1958 December 18, 1958 The Planning Director stated that the City Attorney, Building Inspector, City Manager, and Police Chief had studied a tentative amendment to abate traffic visibility hazards at inter- sections. He said the amendment is now being redrafted for additional study by the City Attorney before being presented to the City Council. Planning Office City Amendment to Uniform System of Subdivision Regulations Hearing No. 44-58A (Also See Hearing No. 40-58, Nov. 20, 1958). December 18, 1958 The Planning Director stated that the tentative amendment as referred to the City Manager and City Attorney by the Planning ~nd Zoning Commission had been modified slightly by the City Manager and approved in substance by the City Attorney. A redraft of the proposal will be available for Planning Commission reconsideration at the next meeting. I I I