Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-03-23 PZC MINUTESI I IX. Rose Leino Bell Realty Hawthorne School 4100 So. Bannock Page 545 Case No. 3-61A February 23, 1961 Mrs. Romans asked theCommission for their views on this problem in order that the School Board could decide what procedure to follow. She said that the School Board sold the building in good faith and she felt that every effort should be made to cooperate with them in order to get the building on the tax roll; and further more, if the building is left vacant it will quickly depreciate. The Commission discussed the application of both the T-zone and the non-conforming use section of the ordinance as they might apply to the Hawthorne site. Miles said the Council felt the owner of the property, the School Board, should make applica- tion for rezoning. Mrs. Romans said this would create a problem for the School Board which would be placed in the position of having to rezone any school property before they could sell it. Mr. Kelley stated that he did not feel that the owner could be denied the right to make some reasonable use of the building. Mrs. Romans added that the next quarterly hearings for rezonings will be in June, and Mrs. Leino is to become the owner of the property on April 1, 1961; therefore it does not seem practical for the School Board to make application for rezoning. The Commission ended the discussion with the following statement: "It is the intent of the Planning Commission to c ontinue trying to determine a way to extend the use of Hawthorne School as an office building." There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P. M. David F. Munns Respectfully submitted, Susie M. Schneider Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Minutes of March 23, 1961 Chairman Kelley called the meeting to order at 8:15 P. M. Members present: Romans, Miles, Rice, Hill, Kelley Munns, Ex-officio Members absent: Martin I. Minutes of March 9th meeting were approved as written. II. Dr. Robert Byall 3630 So. Sherman Rezoning 3630 So. Sherman Hearing No. 38-60E September 8, 1960 September 22, 1960 October 6, 1960 January 5, 1961 (Heariftg) March 9, 1961 After some discussion, it was noted that Dr. Byall can continue to use his property as a non-conforming use, but cannot enlarge the building. Rice moved: Miles seconded: That after due consideration the Byall property zoning request be denied for the following reasons: 1. An application for essentially the same thing has been denied previously and no conditions have been changed. 2. This would constitute "spot zoning" in violation of City Council instructions and Planning Commission policy. 3. The number of the people in opposition was substantial. 4. To re-zone would amount to an infringement of C-1 into residential. The motion carried unanimously. III. M-3 Ordinance and Rezoning. Mr. Bob Anderson, owner of a 40 acre tract of land adjoining the proposed M-3 zone, was present at the meeting. The Planning Director gave a brief history of the M-3 Ordinance and the proposed rezoning. Mr. Anderson said he believed the city would be limiting its tax base by zoning this for auto wrecking yards because the industrial ground next to it would not develop. He felt that many of the junk yards in the proposed M-3 zone were leased and maybe some leases would not be renewed . Page 546 The Planning Director said the auto wrecking yards would be required to fence their property with a 6 ft. solid fence. Also he pointed out the possibility of using a screening to make a nice industrial park of the 40 acre tract. Mr. Dick Andrews, Realtor, said that Mr. Anderson's tract of land has been for sale at a very reasonable price but when prospective buyers see the junk yards next to it, they are not interested. Mr. Anderson fe lt we should limit the M-3 zoning to the present yards and include no vacant land. He also felt that they should be checked as to whether they are auto wrecking yards or dumping grounds. Mr. Anderson stated that he was going to check with the owne rs of the proposed M-3 zone and sound out their fee lings on the matter. IV. Planning Office Zoning Ordinance Amendment "T" Zan e Case No. 7-61A March 9, 1961 The second draft of the proposed"T" Zone was given to the Commission. There were minor changes suggested in some of the wording. Mr. Hill asked how many areas are eligible for "T" Zones. He also inquired about whether or not we were opening residential areas for undesirable uses in the wrong places. He felt that the Planning Commission should have a hearing on each case. V. DEDA Case No. 5-61B February 23, 1961 March 9, 1961 The Planning Director said that DEDA plans to include parking structures in their first stage. VI. Senior Citizens Committee The Planning Director asked the Commission what their thoughts were on such a committee. (A standing group that would be advisory only but consulted on their ideas on problems of the community.) The Commission felt that it would be a good idea, but would have to be controlled or it could become very involved. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Susie M. Schneider Recordi ng Secretary, Pro-tern Approved: David F. Munns ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Minutes of April 6 , 1961 Chairman Kelley called the meeting to order at 8:10 P. M. Members Present: Hill, Martin, Miles, Rice, Kelley Munns, Ex-officio Members Absent: None I. The Minutes were approved with the following amendments and corrections: 1. An application f or essentially the same thing has been denied previously by Council and no conditions have been changed. 2. This would constitute "spot zoning" in violation of City Council instructions and Planning Commission policy. 3. The number of people in opposition was substantial. 4. The re-zone would amount t o an infringement of a C-L District into a residential District. II. Sidewalk Waiver for Riverside Industrial Park. The Planning Director said Mr. Adams had a problem with the 4' sidewalk requirement in his propo sed Industrial Park. Since he has agreed to a 20' planting strip along Federal Boulevard, it was felt by the Planning staff that the requirement for a sidewalk in this case might be waived. In order to make certain school children were not walking along the East side o f Federal Boulevard North of Union, the staff monitored the area. It was found that the two school districts in the area use bus facilities for the children and no children use that side o f the street. I I I 1 I I Page 547 The Planning staff recommended waiver of the sidewalk requirements along Federal Boulevard adjacent to the proposed Industrial tract by reason of Article IV -Section I Subdivision Regulations, which readfas follows: "Whenever the tract to be subdivided is of such unusual size or shape or is surrounded by such development or conditions that the strict application of the provisions of this ordi- nance shall result in substantial hardships, the Planning Commission may vary or modify such requirements to the end that the subdivision may be developed consistent with public welfare and safety." Discussion followed. Miles moved: Hill seconded: That the Planning Commission waive the requirement for a sidewalk along Federal Boulevard adjacent to the Riverside Industrial Park as allowed by provision of Article IV -Section I Subdivision Regulations; and that Mr. Adams be required to set the screen planting along Federal back 4' from the curb to allow emergency space off of the roadway. The motion carried unanimously. III. Planning Office Zoning Ordinance Amendment "T" Zone Case No. 7-61B March 9, 1961 March 23, 1961 (Hearing) April 6, 1961 The Chairman inquired if the notice of the T-Zone has been properly published. The Planning Director replied in the affirmative. Rice moved: Miles seconded: That the hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Director said this zone is to separate incompatible zones, such as a Commercial or Industrial District next to a Residential District. The T-Zone would allow professional offices, rest homes, and etc. which could be only one story in height and would have rigid restrictions as to lot coverage and area. Mr. Clayton and Mr. Love, Board of Adjustment members, were present at the meeting. Mr. Clayton asked if this zone was going to have the desired effect of solving ~he three eminent problems of the City , namely: (1) Temple Rest Home (2) Hawthorne School (3) Reeme Resthome. The Chairman said the T-Zone was not designed to solve all problems. It was designed to act as a buffer zone between incompatible zones. The Planning Director said one of the areas which the staff had in mind was East and West of Broadway where commercial abuts residential. Mr . Miles asked what the plans were for operating under this ordinance. Would it be zoned all at once or gradually as various areas applied for the T-Zone? The Planning Director said that probably the process would be a gradual one. Mr. Rice said we should initiate the zone in some instances because there are areas that are becoming blighted and need new zoning. Mr. Joyce L . Williams 4845 So . Cherokee -said he was in favor of the T-Zone b ut he felt that in certain cases one block in length and 1 /2 block depth was too large an area. Mr. Hart :4861 So. Cherokee -asked if the Planning Commission didn't receive more requests for small areas than block areas. The Planning Director replied "yes" that naturally people are only interested in their own property which is usually 2 or 3 lots. Mr. Hart said if he were applying for rezoning he would apply for the highest zoning possible. Mr. Hill said maybe rest homes , a nd etc. should be conditional uses and the Commission should have a hearing on each case. The Planning Director explain ed there has to be a need shown and there are several factors to be considered. Miles moved: Rice seconded: That the heari n g be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Hill moved: Miles seconded: Tha t the T-Zone be referred back to the Planning Staff for revision in conformity with the recommendations and comments brought forth at the hearing . The motion carried unanimously. Page 548 IV. Annexation KLZ Land Case No. 8-6 1 The Chairman said the Commission had received three documents from City Council pertaining to the KLZ property. They were the petition for annexation from the Aladdin Broadcasting Corporation, the Traffic Engineering study for the proposed shopping center, Cinderella City, and the Combs Sales Potential report prepared for Time Inc. Rice moved: Martin seconded: That the Planning Commission receive the subject documents for study. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hill asked if they had presented any solution to the drainage problem. The Planning Director said that if the C-3 Ordinance governs, it calls for a drainage study and many other requirements as part of the Site Plan, and the drainage system must be ap- proved by the City Engineer before issuance of a building permit. There was discussion about referral of the proposed annexation to other Planning Commissions. The Planning Director stated that in accordance with the Colorado Statutes, Article 2, Chapter 106, Colorado Revised Statutes 1953, Amended 1959, this proposed annexation should be referred to ICRPC unless it were deemed by the Commission to be strictly a local -matter. Rice moved: Martin seconded: That the petition for annexation be referred to ICRPC as per Colorado Statutes. The motion carried unanimously. Miles moved: Rice seconded: That the Aladdin Broadcasting Corporation petition for annexation be properly posted, that notice be published, and that hearing be set for May 11, 1961. The motion carried unanimously. V. Annexation Area South of West Union Avenue and East of Decatur Street Case No. 9-61 The Chairman said the Commission had received a petition of annexation from the City Council. The Planning Director pointed out the area on the map. It comprises 30+ acres, and the land owners of 52% of the area have presented a petition for annexation to the Council. Martin moved: Rice seconded: That the Commission receive the annexation petition for the area south of West Union and East of Decatur Street and refer it to the staff for study. The motion carried unanimously. VI. Annexation Area West of Federal Boulevard and just south of Sheridan City Limits Ca se No. 10-61 The Chairman said the Commission had received a petition of annexation from City Council. The Planning Director showed the area on the map. This 60+ acre area is mostly residential and the land owners of approximately 70% of the area have presented a petition for annexation to the Council. Martin moved: Rice seconded: That the Commission receive the annexation petition for the area west of Federal Boulevard and just south of Sheridan City limits and refer it to the staff for study. The motion carried unanimously. VII. The Chairman read a copy of a letter from Mrs. Romans wherein she resign ed from the Planning Commissiom .. She had successfully competed for the position of Planning Assistant and had begun employment that day. VIII. The Planning Director said there would be a "catch-up" meeting for Associate Members of ICRPC and persons interested in Planning, at Pinehurst Country Club on April 11, 1961. All Planning Commission members were urged to attend. IX.The Planning Director described some problems which had arisen with the Hepler-Buckmaster development. At a meeting of concerned parties on the morning of Thursday, April 6, possible solutions were discussed. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Susie M. Schneider Recording Secretary, Pro-tern APPROVED: David F. Munns * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r I I