Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-08-25 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 863 V. GENERAL DISCUSSION. Mrs. Romans stated the next regular meeting would normally be August 18, 1965; however, a Public Hearing has been scheduled for August 25, 1965. It was not felt that a meeting on August 18, 1965, would be necessary with the present schedule. General discussions were held on the scheduled Public Hearing; the Charter committee, which was recently appointed by the City Council to consider revision of the Chater; the recommended removal of angle parking; and the implementation of the recommended one-way street pattern. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 25, 1965 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Woods, Touchton, Rice, Parkinson, Fullerton, Carlson Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: City Attorney Criswell; Planning Assistant Monson II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Touchton moved: Fullerton seconded: The Minutes of August 4, 1965, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. BEAU MONDE, INC. REZONING KLZ Site R-1-A to R-3-B Fullerton moved: CASE #12-65A June 28, 1965 Rice seconded: The Pub l ic Hearing on the rezoning of the KLZ Site from R-1-A to R-3-B be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Romans outlined the R-1-A and R-3-B zone districts for the benefit of the audience, covering permitted uses, accessory uses, and restrictions in both districts. The applica- tion, received July 28, 1965, requests "rezoning" from R-1-A to R-3-B; it was stated the R-1-A designation is by District Court Order, and is on appeal to the Colorado State Supreme Court. Supplementary Regulations in the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which cover the R-3-B District were cited by Mrs. Romans, among them the sections on Storm Drainage and off-street parking areas. Mrs. Romans stated that Public No tice had been given in the official City newspaper, the Englewood Herald, on August 9, 1965. The property was posted on August 9, 1965. Mr. W. J. Carney 2338 E. Floyd Place -asked if the R-3-B District would permit a motel? Mrs. Romans replied the R-3-B District includes motels as a permitted use. Mr. Carney then asked if a restaurant could be an accessory use to a motel, and if this restaurant would be issue d a liquor license? Mrs. Romans replied that a restaurant could be an accessory use to the motel. The Director then explained that the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is a "permissive" ordinance and that :it can be assumed that any use not specifically mentioned as permitted within a Zone District would be excluded from that Zone District; therefore, the matter of whether or not a liquor license could be issued would have to be decided by the Chief Building Inspector, who enforces the zoning Ordinance, and the City Council, which authorizes the issuance of liquor licenses? Mr. W. R. Ross 3120 S. Race St. -asked if the ordinance specifically permitted or prohibited a liquor license in R-3-B? City Attorney Criswell reiterated that there was no specific prohibition; the 1963 Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance is the type wherein a use is considered to be prohibited unless specifically mentioned in the Ordinance. He also pointed out that the Commission is an advisory body to the City Council, and does not have enforcement powers. It was further pointed out by Mr. Criswell and Mr. Carlson that the matter of issuance of a liquor license would be of Council determination, and is not a matter which comes before the Planning Com- mission. Page 864 M. M. Summers 3140 S. Delaware - Mr. Nachazel stated that in his opinion, a liquor license could be issued to a restaurant regardless of zone classification. 2061 E. Floyd Ave. -asked if filling stations could be an accessory use in this zone classification? Mrs. Romans replied they could not be an accessory use or a permitted use. Mr. Clarence Daane 2099 E. Floyd Place -asked if the R-3-B classification would require and/or permit the tearing down of existing homes to provide access to and from the proposed development? Mrs. Romans stated the dedication and/or vacation of streets was in no way contingent upon the zone classification. Mr. Criswell stated the zoning would have nothing to do with a street pattern. Mr. Daane stated he felt this proposed development would create a need for additional access, and was concerned. Mr. Dick Dittemore 2239 E. Floyd Place -stated he was legal counsel for Beau Monde, Inc. He gave a background for the case. Mr. Dittemore discussed the proposed multi-family develop- ment on the subject site; he also discussed a trip he had taken to view condominium developments in other states, notably Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. Dittemore stated the subject site was very adaptable to multi- residential use, and could not be considered for single-family develop- ment. Mr. Dittemore stated there were several points to be considered by the developer and citizens in this instance: 1. It is necessary to have a product that can be merchandised --it is necessary to have open space, etc. to make the "product" attractive to prospective purchasers. 2. The land must be fitted for development; he felt the subject site met all the require- ments for an R-3-B classification as set forth in the Ordinance. 3. The Economic Impact of the type of development upon the local government. Mr. Dittemore stated that in this instance, the cost would be very minor, and would bring people into the area to shop; the development would also aid the school tax situation. He stated that 2 /3 of the area laid within the Cherry Creek School District, Mr. Dittemore stated that studies have shown there are ,92 students per unit in such multi-residential com- plexes; however, he stated the residents in the proposed development would be retired or semi-retired people. 4. Mr. Dittemore discussed the fact that zoning is occasionally granted on the basis of architectural presentations. He stated he did not feel this basis gave "assurance" to the citizens in a given area, and in this particular instance would tend to eliminate the "competitive spirit" of the housing industry. 5. He stated that the reputation of the developer must be considered by the citizens; he felt the developer must be given some lee-way in the proposed multi-residential develop- ment and that Mr. Von Frellick would not do anything to damage his reputation as a developer. 6. Mr. Dittemore pointed out that the right to use property by an owner is a Constitutional right. Mr. Dittemore requested the Planning Commission to recommend the R-3-B zoning for the KLZ Site to the City Council. Mr. J. Lort 2449 S. Colorado Boulevard -stated he was an architect, and had worked in Colorado since 1948, and had worked in land planning since 1955, Mr. Lort stated that he felt every piece of property should be used to its ultimate capacity, and that the KLZ Site could be developed Mr. James H. Johnson very attractively in multi-residential classification. He urged the Commission to favorably recommend the R-3-B for the KLZ Site. 7675 W. 14th Avenue -stated he was an architect and has been in business in Colorado since 1951; he stated he had viewed the KLZ Site and feels it is a very adaptable location for quality condominium development. It would serve nicely, he felt, as a transition from the highway on the south to the single-family homes on the north. He felt, also, that there was a great need for condominium type development in the Cherry Hills area. He asked that the Commission recommend the R-3-B zoning to City Council. Mr. Skinner 5115 E. 17th Ave. Parkway -said he felt there was a definite trend toward urbanization on a national plane, and that at the present, 45% of all residential projects started are multi-family residential areas. He felt that within 10 years, 80 to 85% of all residential projects would be multi-family. Mr. Skinner stated he felt this subject site should and would be developed as a "prestige" multi-residential area. He urged the approval of the R-3-B zoning. Mr. Von Frellick stated they were attempting to accomplish a use for the land that would be compatible with the surrounding areas; he felt the proposed multi-residential development would be an asset not only to the subject area, but to the entire city. He stated that the only way he could be assured of the ultimate use of the land was to develop it himself; he pointed out the possibility of commercial zoning being imposed on the subject site, and commented that while he still felt the KLZ Site was the best location for a shopping center, he is committed to the New Englewood development on the City Park site, and two centers within such a short distance would not be to the best interests of the developer of either site. Mr. Von Frellick invited residents to inspect centers he has developed --Crossroads in I I I I -1 I Page 865 Boulder , and the Villa Italia in Denver. He stated that the sale of liquor is not allowed in any establishment in which he has an interest; he further stated that he would be willin to impose such a stipulation on the land by deed restriction. Mr. Von Frellick also in- dicated that restrictions would be imposed upon the land in the event some of the parcels are sold, which would provide for compatible uses, architecture, etc. Mr. Von Frellick stated the area would have to be developed with luxury type units , and that once the d e - velopment was accomplished, it would become an asset to the community. He requested the application for R-3-B zoning be recommended for approval to the City Council. Mr . Jack Bury 2108 E. Floyd Place -stated he had lived in the area for 10 years, and his property is 1 /2 block f rom the KLZ Site. Mr. Bury stated he felt the property as it exists is a public nuisance and nothing but a weed patch. He approved of the R-3-B zoning request, and urged its approval by the City. John Bilderbeck 3705 S. Bannock -asked about the proposed highway across the subject site which would tie into Floyd Avenue. Mr. Von Frellick stated it has been discussed; it would be a one-way traffic arterial crossing the site. Mrs . Betty Keena 3261 S. Humboldt -asked why the R-3-B was considered rather than the R-2-B district? Mrs. Romans stated the R-2-B would permit only a two-family development on 50 frontage, and would n t accommodate development of condominiums as is proposed. Also, this zone district is not developing within the city where it is now applied. Mr. Carney 2338 E. Floyd Place -asked how the property was zoned when purchased by Mr. Von Frellick? Mr. Von Frellick replied the property was under County government at that time, and was con- sidered to have a commercial usage inasmuch as the KLZ towers were located on the site. Mr. Roosevelt 39 Sunset Drive -asked how the property was presently zoned? Mr. Criswell, City Attorney, reviewed the history of the KLZ Site. Property, when annexed , was classified as "temporarily" R-1-A until and unless a different classification was im- posed on the property. The District Court has ruled the B-3 zoning as imposed on the property as improper; therefore, the property is "temporarily" classified as R-1-A by Court order until the Colorado Supreme Court issues a decision. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Susan Fonda 3500 S. Franklin -stated they purchased their property in 1950; at that time she con- tacted Mr. Terry, and was told the site was zoned R-1-A and would not be changed in the future. Mr. Kennedy 3225 S. Race -asked why a zone change was needed? He stated he did not feel the area had changed in the past 12 years, and did not warrant a change of zoning. Mr. Fulton 2191 E. Floyd Ave. -asked if there were any definite plans for the development of the area? Mr. Von Frellick stated that studies have been made of the area; there are no specific plans, but they have been negotiating with several multi-residential builders. He again stated he would impose the necessary control to ensure the development of the property into a fine residential area. Mr. Fullerton asked if he correctly understood that a Board of Architects from the area residents would be appointed to supervise the development? Mr. Von Frellick replied that it was his intention to have the development compatible with the area and to enhance the area and the entire city; this could be aided by the appointment of a board of architects. Mrs. Hartmuller 3201 S. Race -asked why the zone change request, if there were no specific plans for the development of the Site? Mr. Von Frellick commented it had been suggested that plans be drawn for the development prior to the request for a zone change; he stated he had done so once at a cost of $643,000 and would not do so again. A recess of the hearing was called at 9:50 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Carlson stated opponents would be heard at this time. Mr. Carney 2338 E. Floyd Place -stated he did not feel the presentation made by the proponents was relevant to the issue. He did not feel there had been any changes in the area to warrant a change of zoning. He felt the purpose of the Planning Commission was to encourage redevelopment of the older areas in the City, and to preserve and develop newer single-family areas. Mr. Blake Hiester 3600 S. Gilpin St. -stated he was Co-chairman of the Committee to preserve Zoning Integrity , and was speaking for a large number of people residing in Englewood and Cherry Hills Village. He stated he has had experience in condominium developments, and served on the committee charged with drafting the laws presently governing the condominium developments within the State of Colorado. He is also a legal representative of Hallcra f t , Inc., developers of condominium establishments. He felt this rezoning request is "speculative" rezoning, inasmuch as a definite plan has not been presented. He stated he personally would not oppose the R-3-B zoning if he felt Page 866 there was a definite plan for development o f the site which could be discussed. He commented that it was customary to have specific plans for an area, then attempt to obtain proper zoning and/or variances for the site. Mr. Hiester reiterated his statement this was "speculative 20ning" and as such, he would have to oppose it. Mr. Richard Eason 3220 s. High St. -cited requirements for change of zone classification as set forth in the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He felt none of these requirements were met in this application; that it was based on the desire of Mr. Von Frellick to eliminate possible "competition" with the New Englewood de- velopment on the KLZ Site, and to yield a reasonable return on his in- vestment in the land. He cited the decision of Judge Lee, and stated that no change in the area had been found which justified a change of zone classification. He felt the Commission would be in error if they based a decision on only the arguments presented by the proponents. Mr. Bilderbeck 3705 S. Bannock - Mr. Harold Feder 448 S. Pontiac Way - stated the Co mmiss i o n should look beyond the impact of the development on the City of Englewood, and the immediate future. He stated the pro- posed development would present access problems for a high-density area. He stated the changes made by the City must serve wider purposes and in- terests than that of one investor or developer. He felt the change is asked in terms of dollars and cents, and pointed out that he felt the Planning Commission is responsible to provide a future for young people; he did not feel a change such as this would aid in the provision of that future. stated he owned property in the subject area, and represented citizens residing within the area. He stated he was not protesting the zoning , that he felt a multiple unit development could be an asset. He was protesting the statement that the property has been properly posted for the required time, and presented photos he said were taken on the morning of August 11 , 1965, which photos, in his opinion, show posting signs installed on August 9, 1965, being replaced on the morning of August 11, 1965. Mr. Feder charged this constitutes a posting time of 14 days; not the 15 day minimum as required by the Ordinance. Mr. Feder suggested some things to be done which he felt would aid in the elimination of pro- test to the proposal. (1) the presentation of a plat or plan for the projected land use and development of the site; (2) record covenants restricting the use of the land for motel, commercial uses, and liquor outlets. Mr. Feder also s tated that he was told by the Planning Director the highway proposed to cross the KLZ Site was originally a proposal by Mr. Von Frellick, not by the City as had been implied. Mrs. Romans stated the signs were posted on August 9, 1965; changes were made in all but three of the fourteen signs on August 10 , 1965. The 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance re- quires "a sign" which is legible f rom the adjoining street right-of-way. Inasmuch as there were eleven signs correctly posted on August 10, 1965, it was felt the area was adequately posted. Mr. John Welles 3602 S. Gilpin -stated he would not oppose the R-3-B zoning if he knew it would be properly planned to be compatible with the area. He stated that if the area were to be developed to accommodate the maxinum on the minimum, there could feasibly be 5,000 apartment units on this site. He would not be in favor of such development, and asked that the Commission approve zoning only if the pro- posed development would be compatible with the surrounding areas . Mr. M. M. Summers 3140 S. Delaware - Mr. Martin Deuth 2201 East Floyd - Mr. Fulton stated he felt the zoning ordinance requirements meant just what they state; that if zoning is granted, the developer can claim every benefit of that zone district. He asked what status the R-3-B District would be, if granted, if the Supreme Court decision grants B-3 zoning to the KLZ Site? Mr. Summers stated he felt the City should take steps to develop areas such as the subject site into single-family residential. He pointed out there are very few areas remaining for such development , and certainly a very few of the areas that could be developed for residential purposes with $25 ,000 to $35,000 homes. He stated he felt the highest and best use of this property would be in single-family homes. summarized the requirements and restrictions of the R-3-B district ; he stated there could be approximately 30 apartment units per acre, with approximately 3-1/2 persons per unit. Mr. Deuth presented two tablets which had been circulated among the audience indicating signatures of those opposed to the R-3-B Zone classification, and those in favor of the proposed c la ssification. 3191 E. Floyd Ave . -felt the applicant had not shown a reason to change the zone classifica- tion from R-1-A to R-3-B. Mr. Von Frellick stated he would establish recorded restrictions on the land, and would be willing to have a board of three architects appointed to review the devel opment of the site. He suggested that one architect be appointed by the City, one appointed by the citizens of the area, and one appointed by Von Frellick Associates. He felt this would aid in assurance that the area would be developed in high-quality residential use. Discussion followed. Mr. Hiester asked if Mr. Von Frellick would be willing to discuss development of the area with the citizens living in the surroundin g area? He pointed out the Commission would not be bound by any agreement which might be reached between the oppo nents and Mr. Von Frellick; he stated it might be an opportunity for the residents and Mr. Von Frellick to discuss the proposed development and possibly come to an agreement. Further discussion ensued. I I I I I I Page 867 Touchton moved: The Hearing be continued at the next regular meeting on September 8, 1965. There was no second to the motion; the motion was declared dead. Rice moved: Parkinson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: Woods, Rice, Parkinson, Fullerton, Carlson Touchton The motion carried. Fullerton moved: Rice seconded: The matter be tabled for fu r ther study and consideration. The motion carried unanimously. V. FUTURE MEETINGS. Mrs. Romans discussed a meeting to be held August 31, 1965, at 7:00 p.m, at the Inter-County Regional Planning Commission offices, 2475 West 26th Avenue. This meeting is to review the redevelopment of the Platte River Flood Plain area. She urged all members of the Commission who could to attend this meeting. Discussion ensued. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was declared adjourned at 12 midnight. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SESSION September 8, 1965 The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Woods , Touchton, Rice, Fullerton, Carlson, Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Parkinson Also present: City Attorney Criswell II. BEAU MONDE, INC. KLZ Site REZONING R-1-A to R-3-B CASE #12-65B August 25, 1965 July 28, 1965 Mrs. Romans stated that notice of postponement of the regular meeting from September 8 , 1965 , to September 15, 1965, had been given twice in the Englewood Herald. Mrs. Romans said she had talked to Mr. Davis of Von Frellick Associates about the meeting between Mr. Von Frellick's Company and representatives from the Northeast Englewood Citizens' Committee and the Committee to Preserve Zoning Integrity, which was discussed by those per- sons the night of the Public Hearing on the requested rezoning of the KLZ Site. Mr. Davis told her that Mr. Dittemore and Mr. Hiester would discuss the agreement further on September 9, 1965, following which they would meet with Messrs. Feder, Deuth, and other residents and property owners in the area, and that any agreement which is reached by the interested parties will be presented to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Romans stated she has told Mr. Davis that the Commission and the Council would not be bound by any agreement that might be reached; however, they would certainly take such an agreement into consideration. She stated she had discussed the City's request to consider the possiblity of making Highway 70 and Floyd Avenue a one-way cuplet with Mr. Merten of the State Highway Department. Mr. Merten has indicated it could be as much as another month before a recommendation is made by the Highway Department. Mr. Parkinson entered and took his place on the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated the tape recording of the Public Hearing was available if members wished to hear any portion of the Hearing. The Director reported she had been reviewing information on the subject site, which has been in the City files since 1961. The land was used semi-agriculturally prior to its use for the radio transmitting towers. This radio tower use would be permitted as a "special exception" use in the present Arapahoe County "Open Zone District", and therefore, could be presumed to have been non-conforming under a residential district zoning. Development of the surrounding area was reviewed; Hampden Avenue is now State Highway #70, and projected as a freeway. This six-lane highway has been developed on the south boundary of the subject