Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-06-29 PZC MINUTESPage 570 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: June 22, 1961 SUBJECT: Denial of Simultaneous Annexation and Zoning RECOMMENDATION: That the request for simultaneous annexation and C-1 zone classification of the Kent School Land be denied. Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Dorothy J. Romans Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION .QR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: June 22, 1961 SUBJECT: Denial of M-3 Rezoning RECOMMENDATION: That the application for reconing be denied. Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Dorothy J. Romans Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Minutes of June 29, 1961 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P. M. Members present: Kelley, Hill, Miles, Rice Munns, Ex-officio Members absent: Martin, Pershing I. PARALLEL PARKING SAM LOVE Mr. Kelley presiding •. The Director presented a plan for a parallel parking lane requested by Mr. Sam Love at 2000 West Union. The plan is to be presented to the Board of Adjustment and requires no action by the Commission; however, the Commission members could see no problem with the plan as presented. II. MOBILE HOME PARK Mr. Rob Roy's proposed Mobile Home Park Development was discussed. Because there is no provision for Mobile Home Parks in the Englewood Zoning Ordinance, the discussion was academic and no action was taken. Commission members · felt there should be further consideration of the Mobile Home Park Ordinance when the revision of the zoning ordinance is under-taken. III. M-3 The following points were discussed in connection with the M-3 Ordinance, particularly as it applies to the Northwest Englewood area. 1. The biggest offender is smoke. 2. The next biggest offender --appearance. 3. An auto wrecking and Junk yard ordinance ought to control all such yards, regardless of their location. 4. Back-yard junk yards must be controlled and /or prevented. 5. The M-3 "permitted uses" are too few. 6. "Commercial Incinerators" need to be defined. 7. The "Supplemental regulations in M-2" is in error. 8. There should be a reasonable time limit after passage for compliance with the ordinance. 9. There is now no water for consumption or fire fighting. 10. There is no sewage in the area and rats exist around privies creating a health problem. 11. The B & 0 Tax should be levied against all of the auto wrecking and storage dealers. 12. 20 ft. solid gates should probably be required. 13. 1 sign of identification is necessary either on fence, wall, gate or pylon., 14. There should be no stacking of automobiles allowed. 15. Records should be made available upon request to the proper authorities. 16. How many cars make a wrecking yard? Three or more not carrying a current license plate. 17. "Scrap" or "junk" needs to be defined. ~ -- -- - ------ -- I I I I I I Page 571 IV. The Director presented a sketch of an area South of Belleview and East and West of Broadway under consideration by the Chamber of Commerce A\nnexation Committee, and a more detailed plan of a development within the area owned by Mr. Pasternak and Mr. Elenbogen. Richard Greene, Attorney for Messrs. Pasternak and Elenbogen has requested audience with the Commission at the July 6th meeting to further discuss the plan. It was the feeling of the Commission that until a formal request for annexation to the City had been made ~ and a public. hearing on the zoning had been held, they would be unable to consider the proposal. V. The Planning Director presented a preliminary report of the Master P l an or Guide for Growth for the City showing proposed and existing park and rec~eational sites, the proposed street pattern and zoning, and future City boundaries. Discussion followed. No action was taken on the plan at this time. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Dorothy J. Romans Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Minutes of July 20, 1961 The meeting was called to order at 8:05 P. M. Mr. Kelley presiding. Members present: Martin, Miles, Pershing, Rice, Kelley Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Hill I. Helen Reeme Case No. 45-60E November 22, 1960 January 5, 1961 January 26, 1961 February 9, 1961 February 16, 1961 Mrs. Romans presented the Commission members with a small land use map of the area under consideration for the T (Transitional) zone. The area is bounded on the north by West Layton, on the east by South Bannock, on the south by West Chenango, and on the west by Bannock-Cherokee alley. A history of the area was given briefly. A previous application for rezoning of the area from R-1-B to R-3-A wa s denied by the Commission. It was appealed to the City Council by Mrs. Reeme, and referred by the City Council back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the T zone classification rather than the R-3-A. Mr. Kelley declared the hearing officially open. Mrs. Romans reviewed the T zone for the benefit of the audience, stating it was a buffer zone between two incompatible zones; would permit any use in an R-1 or R-2 zone; professional office buildings, nursing homes and fraternal organizations. It was pointed out that screening was required of other than residential or park use, and would not allow buildings over one story in height. Mr. Richard Simon, counsel for Mrs. Reeme, stated that Mrs. Reeme had operated a rest home at 515 West Tufts for nine years. He further reviewed the former petition for R-3-A zoning, stating that at a public hearing before the City Council on March 6, 1961, twelve photos of the area under consideration were presented to the Council. The matter was tabled by the City Council until the Planning Commission could fully develop the T zone which they were working on at that time. Mr. Simon stated a new petition had been filed with the Planning Commissiou. He further stated that only three residents in the area had refused to sign the petition. A drawing of the proposed development was presented to the Commission. There were no opponents to the rezoning request present, and Mr. Kelley declared the heari n g closed. Rice moved: Martin seconded: That the rezoning of the area bounded on the north by West Layton, on the east by South Bannock, on the south by West Chenango and on the west by the Bannock-Cherokee alley from R-1-B to T (Transitional) be recommended to Council. The motion carried unanimously. II. Temple Rest Home Case No. 16-59 It was stated that the area bounded by East Girard on the north, South Lafayette on the east, the north line of the. C-2 zoning on East Hampden on the south, and by South Marion on the west was under consideration for rezoning from R-1-D to T zone ~ 1(