Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-19 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Mason presiding. Members present: Garrett, Homer, Redpath, Weber, Welker, Douglas, Dummer, Mason Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: Tobin (with previous notice) Also present: Harold J. Stitt, Planning Community Coordinator Tricia Langon, Neighborhood/Environmental Technician Dan Brotzman, City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. October 22, 1996 Chairman Mason stated that the Minutes of October 22, 1996 were to be considered for ap- proval. Redpath moved: Douglas seconded: The Minutes of October 22, 1996 be considered as written. Mr. Mason asked if there were any corrections or amendments to be considered. None were offered, and the motion to approve was called. AYES: NAYS: Redpath, Welker, Douglas, Garrett, Mason None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Weber, Dummer Tobin The motion carried. III. CANFIELD SUBDIVISION South of West Union A venue, West of South Platte River Drive 1 CASE #SD-96-03 Mr. Mason stated that the issue before the Planning Commission is a Public Hearing on the preliminary plat for the Canfield Subdivision. Mr. Mason set forth parameters for conduct of the Hearing, and asked that staff present the case. Horner moved: Weber seconded: The Public Hearing be opened: AYES: NAYS: Redpath, Weber, Welker, Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tobin The motion carried. Ms. Tricia Langon, Neighborhood/Environmental Technician, was sworn in. Ms. Langon asked that the Commission accept the Subdivision Regulations, the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance, and the Staff Report for Case #SD-96-03 into the record for this case. Ms. Langon stated that an application was filed by Mr. Robert Herndon, acting as agent for Roy and Janet Canfield, requesting the division of their property into two lots. A letter of authorization for Mr. Herndon to file this application was included in the packet delivered to the Commission. Ms. Langon advised the Commission that, if the preliminary plat is approved following con- clusion of the Public Hearing, the applicant would like to request immediate consideration of the Final Plat this evening. Ms. Langon cited location of the subject property, approximately 600 feet south of West Union Avenue, adjoining Waste Management property on the east. The Englewood/Littleton bound- ary line is on the south end of the site. The subject site was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1959, and is zoned 1-1, Light Industrial. The total site size is 7.19 acres, and the proposed subdivision will divide the site into two lots. Lot 2 (1.93 acres) will be leased by Waste Man- agement of Colorado to facilitate expansion of their business. Lot 1 (5.26 acres) will be re- tained by the owner and present use as an equipment storage yard will continue. Neither water nor sewer are available to this area, and vehicular access is by means of a 16 foot easement extending south from West Union Avenue along the western boundary of the Canfield prop- erty. This "easement" access is shared by all property owners in this immediate area. The City has previously approached property owners in the area regarding improved vehicular ac- cess, and property owners have not been interested in dedicating right-of-way to provide a road system or utility easements. Ms. Langon noted general improvements and redevelopment occurring along South Santa Fe Drive, and commented that this activity may well generate development activity in the subject area south of West Union Avenue. Ms. Langon stated that, in the opinion of staff, the pro- posed Subdivision will benefit the surrounding area, and is a positive step in development po- tential of the area. 2 • • • • • •• Lot 2, which will be leased by Waste Management, will be completely "land-locked" by this subdivision, and the only access to this lot will be through the Waste Management development to the east. Ms. Langon cited conditions which staff suggests be imposed on the Subdivision, those conditions being: 1) No further development of Lot 1 may occur unless required public right-of-way and utility easements are dedicated to the City of Englewood. 2) Development of Lot 2 may not occur unless the development is in conjunction with the adjacent property to the east, or required public right-of-way and utility easements are dedicated to the City of Englewood. 3) In the event Lot 2 is developed in conjunction with adjacent property to the east, access to Lot 2 shall be provided only from the adjacent property to the east. Ms. Langon stated staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with the cited condi- tions, and is available to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Homer asked why the applicant has chosen to go through the Subdivision process, rather than just leasing a portion of the property to Waste Management. Ms. Langon stated that the Subdivision Regulations require a "subdivision" for any action that divides property, which a lease does; thus, the requirement of filing a subdivision plat. Mr . Welker noted that conditions proposed specify that public right-of-way will be needed be- fore further development can occur. Cannot the City require this right-of-way to be dedicated at this time; the improved access will be of benefit to the applicant, area property owners, and to the City. Ms. Langon stated that dedication of the right-of-way was taken into consideration by staff in analysis of the proposal. Mr. Simpson noted that the City has been working with Waste Management for some period of time to resolve expansion needs of that business. Waste Management has been able to negotiate a lease agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Canfield for the subject parcel of land; Mr. and Mrs. Canfield have been extremely reluctant to enter into any agreements with the City, or to cooperate with the City in any manner. The City has been trying to work with the applicant and the property owner to effect a legal subdivision to allow the expansion of Waste Management. The access to Lot 2 can be achieved through Waste Management development to the east. Mr. Stitt and Mr. Simpson were sworn in. Mr. Stitt stated that the Comprehensive Street Plan identifies areas where additional right-of-way is needed. The typical right-of-way for indus- trial streets is 60 feet. This area does need additional right-of-way; however the future street patterns have not been determined in this area. Inasmuch as this is the case, it seemed inadvis- able to require dedications with no definite street pattern determined. Mr. Stitt noted that the 16 foot easement may or may not be in the location where future right-of-way is needed. Mr. Redpath asked if Waste Management has means of accessing Lot 2; Mr. Stitt stated that access to Lot 2 will be through the existing Waste Management development to the east. Mr. Redpath asked about access to the buildings shown on the north end of Lot 2. Ms. Langon stated that it is her understanding these buildings have been or will be removed. 3 Mr. Welker asked about requiring dedication of right-of-way along the common line separating Lot 1 from Lot 2; could this be a stipulation imposed on the plat. • Mr. Redpath asked if the City of Littleton had been consulted. Ms. Langon responded af- firmatively, noting that Littleton has requested a 10 foot fence across the south boundary of Lots 1and2. Mr. Mason asked the current usage of the property. Ms. Langon stated that the property is used for storage of industrial equipment. Mr. Robert Herndon was sworn in, and testified he is acting as agent for Mr. and Mrs . Can- field on this issue. Waste Management abuts immediately to the east of the Canfield property, and for a small distance along the northern line of the Canfield site. The proposed subdivision will allow Waste Management to lease Lot 2 to facilitate their expansion plans , which include construction of a building to house their compaction operation. By moving the compaction op- eration indoors it will reduce air-borne dust and dirt particles , and reduce the number of vehi- cles involved in the removal of waste . This building will not have water or sewer service and will be used only to house the compaction machinery. Mr. Herndon noted that the conditions cited as conditions for approval of the Preliminary Plat have been incorporated on the Final Plat documents. He does ask, as agent/applicant, that both the Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat be approved at this meeting. The Final Plat and supporting documents have been submitted to staff, along with a drainage report which has • been accepted by the City Engineering staff. Mr. Herndon reiterated that the proposal is to divide Canfield 's property into two lots . The applicant is prepared to install a fence along the southern boundary of Lot 2 , and between Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Herndon stated that he is willing to commit to a 10 foot high fence. Mr. Redpath asked if the Commission is considering the Preliminary Plat , or the Final Plat. Ms. Langon stated that the Public Hearing is on the Preliminary Plat; the Final Plat, as pre- pared and presented to staff, has no significant differences from the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Stitt discussed the process of subdivision plat consideration, noting that the Public Hearing is re- quired on the Preliminary Plat. If the Commission finds that the Preliminary Plat is in order , they may consider and approve the Final Plat at the same meeting. Unless the Commission has changes they want to impose , the applicant is prepared to present the Final Plat for considera- tion this evening. Mr. Welker asked if conditions can be imposed on the Final Plat. Mr . Simpson stated that conditions may be imposed on either the Preliminary Plat or on the Final Plat . The Commis- sion may also ask that the Final Plat be brought back for their review prior to their approval , if this is their choice. Mr . Douglas noted that a statement had been made that Waste Management wants to construct a building ; will this be on Lot 2? Mr. Herndon stated that the building will cross the property 4 • line between Lot 2 and the existing Waste Management property; letters of agreement from • both property owners regarding this structure have been worked out. • • Mr . Horner asked the terms of the lease . Mr. Herndon stated that Waste Management has a 20-year lease . Mr. Horner asked why Waste Management didn 't purchase the Lot, rather than a 20-year lease. Mr. Herndon stated that Waste Management would like to purchase the Lot, but Mr. Canfield does not want to sell. Mr . Dummer asked if a building is built on leased land, does the building then become the property of the property owner? Mr. Herndon stated that this would not be the case. Mr. Douglas asked for clarification of Condition #2. Mr. Herndon stated that Waste Manage- ment will have to develop Lot 2. Mr. Welker asked why Mr. Canfield does not want to dedicate right-of-way . Mr. Herndon stated that he understands that there had been an "adversarial relationship" between the City and Mr . Canfield for a number of years. Mr. Welker reiterated his belief that Mr. Canfield would benefit from dedication of right-of-way now, and that the City should take steps to en- sure this right-of-way. Mr . Redpath asked if the City Attorney had any objections to the Subdivision. Mr. Brotzman stated he had no objections . Garrett moved: Douglas seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #SD-96-03 be closed. AYES: NAYS : Weber, Welker, Douglas, Dummer , Garrett, Horner, Redpath , Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Tobin The motion carried. Mr. Mason stated that the Chair would entertain a motion, in the affirmative , regarding the proposed Canfield Subdivision. Garrett moved: Redpath seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of Canfield Sub- division, Case #SD-96-03 , with the following conditions: 1) No further development of Lot 1 may occur unless required pub- lic right-of-way and utility easements are dedicated to the City of Englewood. 2) Development of Lot 2 may not occur unless the development is in conjunction with the adjacent property to the east or required 5 3) public right-of-way and utility easements are dedicated to the City of Englewood. In the event Lot 2 is developed in conjunction with adjacent prop- erty to the east, access to Lot 2 shall be provided only from the adjacent property to the east. Mr. Welker discussed his concern regarding need for right-of-way. Mr. Homer concurred with concerns voiced by Mr. Welker , and asked what will happen at the end of the 20 year lease if the property is not acquired by Waste Management , or not released. Lot 2 will be a totally landlocked property . Mr . Mason suggested that the property owners at that time will have to resubdivide and provide access. Further discussion ensued . Mr. Welker reiterated his opinion the City needs to "push harder " to acquire the right-of-way. Mr. Mason pointed out that Mr. Stitt had testified that the locations for needed right-of-way have not been determined. Mr. Mason asked about blockage of the easement. Mr . Brotzman stated blocking a non- dedicated easement wouldn 't make any difference . Mr. Stitt pointed out this easement pro- vides access not only to the Canfield property , but to properties north and west of the Canfield site . These property owners seem to be united in their desire to retain the "rural atmosphere " of the area , do not want dedicated right-of-way extending through the area , do not want ease- ments for water and sewer lines, and are generally pretty uncooperative with any and all efforts extended by the City . Mr. Stitt discussed provision of water service to the area , noting that the Utilities Department will not extend a dead-end line to provide service; the line must be • "looped ". • Mr. Welker asked if prohibition of further development prevent the owners from bring in more temporary trailers , etc. Mr. Stitt stated that bringing in more trailers for use as temporary of- fices , etc. would "trigger " the need for dedication of public right-of-way . Brief discussion en- sued . Mr. Welker stated that he is still concerned about the fencing between Lots 1 and 2. Additional discussion ensued. Garrett moved: Welker seconded : That Note #6 on the Preliminary Plat, and Condition #3 in the staff re- port , be reworded to state: "In the event Lot 2 is developed in conjunction with adjacent property to the east , ACCESS SHALL BE ELIMINATED BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 2, AND access to Lot 2 shall be provided only from the adjacent property to the east." Brief discussion ensued. The vote on the motion to amend was called : AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Welker , Douglas, Dummer , Homer, Redpath, Weber , Mason Garrett None Tobin 6 • • • • The motion carried . Mr. Mason then called for the vote on approval of the Preliminary Plat, as amended: AYES: NAYS : Weber , Welker, Douglas, Dummer , Garrett, Homer, Redpath, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tobin The motion carried. Mr. Mason asked the pleasure of the Commission regarding the Final Plat for the Canfield Subdivision. Homer moved: Dummer/Garrett seconded: The Final Plat of the Canfield Subdivision be approved, with the incorporation of the amendments as noted for the Preliminary Plat. AYES: NAYS: Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Homer, Redpath, Weber, Welker, Mason None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: Tobin The motion carried. IV. THE ENGLEWOOD MERIDIAN Findings of Fact CASE #PUD-96-02 Chairman Mason stated that the Findings of Fact on the PUD for Englewood Meridian were to be considered. Welker moved: Garrett seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #PUD-96-02 be approved as written. AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Welker, Garrett, Douglas, Redpath, Mason None Weber, Dummer, Homer Tobin The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM . No one was present to address the Commission. 7 VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson reported that the City Council approved the development standards for large format retail on a vote of 6: 1 at their meeting on November 18. City Council also approved the amendments regarding day-care by a vote of 7:0; this will allow home day-care in the R-1- A District as a Conditional Use. Those home day-care providers presently operating in the R- 1-A District have a two~year "grandfather period", during which time they must obtain Condi- tional Use approval. If Conditional Use approval is not obtained within this two-year period, code enforcement proceedings will be instituted. All new home day-care applicants will have to go through the Conditional Use proceedings prior to beginning business. Mr. Horner asked if guidelines for Conditional Use considerations will be developed. Mr. Simpson agreed that such guidelines could be helpful, and he will attempt to get such drafted in the near future. Mr. Simpson updated Commission members on revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance, and displayed some of the voluminous material which staff has written, is editing, re- vising, and formatting prior to submission to the Commission. Mr. Garrett asked if the Com- mission will have study sessions to review this material. Mr. Simpson suggested there will be several study sessions prior to scheduling Hearings. Mr. Simpson reported on the status of the mall redevelopment. Staff is waiting to hear from Miller/Kitchell on a date for submission of the PUD application. Mr. Simpson also reported on the South Broadway Plan progress. A report is anticipated in the near future, and will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Simpson reminded members of the Board/Commission Holiday Dinner scheduled for De- cember 19th. The dinner will be at the Englewood Golf Course clubhouse. Members were asked to make reservations with the Secretary. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. There was nothing brought up for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned. a:rtrude G:WeitY: Recording Secre ry \\NB D\GROUP\BOARDS\PLANCOMM\MINUTES 96\PCMl l-96A.DOC 8 • • •