Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-08-26 PZC MINUTESPage 794 VI. SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 Flood Junior High Vacation 3600 Block of Lincoln/Sherman alley CASE #4-64C Previous discussion and action taken by the Commission was reviewed. The Council had referred the proposed vacation of South Lincoln and the Linco ln/Sherman alley back to .the School Board for condemnation. After hav i ng reviewed an appraisal of possible damage to adjacent properties which was made for the Board by Watson Bowes, the Board has decided to request the vacation of that portion of the Lincoln/Sherman alley which is within the School District property and to propose the dedication of an access-way from the alley west to Lincoln through the north 25 feet of the School District property. This will not provide the integrated school site that had been planned by the Board, but it will make possible some use of the property. Mrs. Romans asked if the Commission felt the School Board should again present their case, or if the recommendation made previously could b e adopted in part. Discussion followed. It was suggested the School Board present their revised request to the Commission for their consideration and recommendation. VII. MRS, J, KEARNEY 3363 South Santa Fe CASE #20-64 The Planning Director read a memorandum from B. A. Wallace, Chief Building Inspector, in which he asked the Commission to c o nsider Mrs. Kearney's request for a Beauty Shop at 3363 South Santa Fe. This address is zoned I-1 , and beauty shops are not listed as a permitted use in this zone classification. Uses that are not mentioned in a zone di s trict are subject to Sectio n 2 2,5-19 of the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Or d inance, which reads: "Uses Not Mentioned. Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, a Building Permit may be issued for any lawful use not provided for in this Ordinance, when, in the opinion of the Commission s u ch · use is compatible with and not objectionable to nearby property by reason .of odor, dust, funes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare or vibration or is not hazardous to health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of fire or explosion." Discussion followed. It was the Commission's opinion that the use would be compatible with the present development of the adjoining properties. Parkinson moved: Whitcomb seconded: The request made by Mrs. John Kearney for a beauty shop at 3363 South Santa Fe, which area is zoned I-1, be approved in accordance wit h Section 22.5-19 of the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. ACCESSORY USES. The Planning Director discussed a letter fram Mr. Veasey, Aurora Planning Director, wherein a car wash establishment requesting gasoline pumps as an accessory use was discussed. The City of Aurora has adopted a Filling Station Ordinance which is similar to that of the City of Englewood, and Mrs. Romans asked which, in the opin.ion of the Commission, was the accessory use? Inasmuch as gasoline was being sold, did this constitute a filling station or gasoline service station? Would the "Filling Station Ordinance" be applicable in such instances? Discussion ensued. It was noted that sever.al Big Top establishments have installed self- service gasoline pumps. Mr. Rice suggested the Planning Director send a memorandum to the Chief Building Inspector stating that the Commission would regard any installation of ga soline pumps to be a "service station" use, and to be controlled as pe.r the restrictions set forth in the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as to zone district s , distance limitations, etc. IX. NEW ENGLEWOOD TRAFFIC PATTERNS CASE #C9 -64A The progress in developing adequate ingress to and egress from the proposed New Englewood Development was reviewed. A letter from the State Highway Department to City Manager Dia.l, dated August 14, 1964, was read to the Commission. Mrs. Romans also reviewe d a letter written to her by Mr. Vo n Frellick in regard to downtown traffic problems and possible solutions. Brief discussion followed. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 26 , 1964 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Carlson at 8:15 p.m. Members present : Whitcomb, Rice, Parkinson, Fullerton, Carlson Romans , Ex-officio Members absent: Touchton Also present: Planning Assistant Monson City Attorney Esch I I I I I I II. PLANNING COMMISSION South of Belleview, east and west of So. Broadway. ZONING R-3-A, R-3-B, B-2 Pa,ge 795 CASE #16-64B Chairman Carlson stated this zoning was on the recently annexed property to the south of Belleview Avenue, both east and west of South Broadway. Rice moved: Fullerton seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carlson asked the Planning Director for a report on the zoning of this area. Mrs. Romans stated that under the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, areas annexed to the City of Englewood are without zone classification. The Planning Commission has 120 days within which to initiate action to z o ne annexed areas, or a permit may be o btained by a property owner from the Building Inspector for any Permitted Use in any Zone District. Mrs. Romans pointed out that several meetings were held with the property owners of the newly annexed areas to discuss the zoning prior to the Hearing. In most cases, the City has tried to suggest comparable zoning to the classification that property held in the County. The City does not have a classification comparable to the Flood Plain or the Open Zone classifications. A portion of Mr. McSpadden's property was in the Flood Plain zone; this has been suggested as B-2 and R-3-B. Mr. Pasternak's property was in the Open Zone; this is suggested as R-3-A. Maps with the suggested zone classifications indicated on them were handed Commission members and the audience. Mr. Greenlee stated that if the B-2 zoning were to extend to their lot line , they wanted their property included in the B-2 Zone District. Mr. Mcspadden stated he wanted his entire property zoned for commercial usa g e. He stated he has never intended to have any residential use on his property. Mr. Walton 5155 South Elati -asked if the proposed R-3-B zoning extended directly to the Si g n al Hill Addition, which was annexed some years ago? Mrs. Romans stated t h at it did; that the property owners had been contacted and indicated their wish that the zoning remain the same as it had been in the Co unty. Maynard Jacobson 191 West Ra f ferty Gardens -stated he did not want a zoning next to his property that would permit a filling station or similar development. Mr. Walton asked what the zoning to the west o f the Signal Hill Addition was in Littleton? He pointed out that this area could be surrounded by multi-family developments. Mr. Hugh Fowler 5399 S. Clarkson -asked if the area indicated as R-3-A on the map has been annexed to Englewood , and if it was true that high-rise apartments have been planned for that area? Mr. Fowler was told the area is inc1uded in the recent annexation, and that Mr. Pasternak, owner of the property, has indicated a desire to develop it with multi-family housing. Mr. M. Jacobson 191 West Rafferty Gardens -asked how the City could take any action on this area, inasmuch as a suit has been entered against the City of Englewood by the Littleton City Attorney on behalf of some of the property owners in the annexed area? It was stated that until such time as the Court states the annexation is invalid, the City will proce ed on the assumption the area is legally annexed. Mrs. Romans read the Pennitted Uses from the County Zoning Resolution for the Flood Plain Zone District and the Open Zone District, contrasting the Uses permitted therein with the Uses permitted in the proposed City zoning. Mr. Hugh Fowler 5399 S. Clarkson -asked what access was planned to Mr. Pasternak's property, which is pro- posed as R-3-A. He stated that Sherman Way could not be used for an access, inasmuch as it was dedicated for school access oµly. Mr. Fowler stated that he understood Mr. Pasternak planned an apartment complex of Mrs. Eugene Marlowe 500 apartments, which, he felt , would mean at least 500 additional children in the a r ea, resulting in over c rowding of the school. Mr. Fowler stated there would probably be 700 cars in an area to which there is no adequa t e access. He did not feel this would be good planning. 5300 Lauren Lane -stated she was interested in the zoning of the Mcspadden property. She stated she was not in favor of the R-3-B pro posed for a portion of this property, and stated she would like the Commission to consider zoning the entire parcel for B-2, Business. Mr . Dubois 430 Bellewood Drive -stated he had recently purchased property just east of the proposed R-3-A district; he did not feel the proposed R-3-A was a logical zoning for the area, and was opposed. Mr. Kelley 5145 S. Elati Drive -asked what the changes were along Belleview Avenue ea s t of the Signal Hill Addition, and how these changes would affect their residences? Mr. Carlson replied that in essence, the zoning was not changed. This is comparable to the zoning the area had when yet under the County's jurisdiction .. Page 796 Mr. Walton 5155 S. Elati -stated that, even though the area to the east of the Signal Hill Addition had been zoned for multi-family development in the County, it had not been developed, and he did not feel there was a need for additional multi-family zoning. He asked why the single-family zoning classification could not be extended to include the Miramonte Subdivision. Mr. Fowler stated that the Arapahoe County Commissioners have denied building permits for additional apartment houses south of Belleview Avenue. He felt this indicated that there were enough apartment developments in the area; however, he cited the Carmel Park Subdivision on the north of Belleview, zoned R-3-B, and stated that evidently Englewood felt there was a need for additional apartments, and that further multi-family develo pme nts along Belleview Avenue would be approved. Mr. Esch stated he did not feel a permit could be denied by law if the applicant came within the framework of the zoning regulations for the requested area. Mr. Loren Jacobson 396 West Rafferty Gardens -stated he wished to protest the zoning to B-2 of the areas to the north and east 0f Rafferty Gardens. He felt it would down-grade his property. Mr. Maynard Jacobson 191 West Rafferty Gardens -wished to object to Lots 14, 15, 16, and 17, Rafferty Gardens, being zoned B-2. Mr. Earl Barnes 235 West Rafferty Gardens -objected to the proposed B-2 zoning. He stated their area could become surrounded by business zoning. Mr. Jack Davison 3420 South Quay -stated he was owner of Lot 15, Interurban Addition, which fronts on L ehow Avenue. He stated there is a $1,200,000 condominium apartment complex planned for this area. He stated there will be a total of 60 units on the 4-1/2 acres of land. He does not want a commercial zoning across the street from his development, and objected to any zoning classification which would allow uses such as "dog kennels" this close to his apartment. Mr. Fullerton asked Mr. Fowler to explain more fully his statement that Sherman Way could not be used for access to Mr. Pasternak's property. Mr. Fowler stated the street was not dedicated for public use, b u t for school purpo ses and traffic only. This is the only access to the school property. He stated further than when the GEM Store was constructed, the State Highway Department suggested to Mr. Pasternak, then owner of the land, that an accelera- tion lane be constructed to accommodate the GEM traffic. It was not felt too wise to have heavy turning movements on the hill. This lane, to this date, has not been constructed, nor were other means of access to the GEM property provided. He felt it would be much the same situation in the R-3-A development in regard to the ne e ded access to the area. Mr. Carlson pointed out the restriction in the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which states: "No Bui l ding Permit shall be issued for a building or structure on a lot which does not abut upon a dedicated street or upon a dedicated portion of a partially dedicated street, when such street dedication is required by the Englewood Master Street Plan." It was explained that the Street Plan would be revised to include this area and adequate access would be re- quired. Mr. Walton stated he would like to go on record as requesting that Dr. Bashor's property, Miramonte Sub division, be zoned for single-family development. Mr. Walton stated he was speaking for the residents of the Signal Hill Addition. Rice moved: Parkinson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. A recess of the Commission was called by Chairman Carlson. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Rice suggested that the Planning Office contact Mr. Pasternak and request a definite plan of access to and from his property, and that it be available for study of the Commission at a future meeting. Discussion followed. Mr. Whitcomb commented that for the coming school year, children from the Centennial Acres area were to be bused to the Eugene Field School, adjacent to Mr. Pasternak's property, as it was the only school in the District able to accommodate them. Further discussion followed. Rice moved: Fullerton seconded: The matter be tabled for further study and consideration. The motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Traffic Report -~mall-Cooley and Associates. Mrs. Romans reported the Traffic Consultant had contacted the Planning Office and stated the Final Report would not be ready for submission to the Commission until September 9, 1964. IV. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission .. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried the meeting be adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary I I I