Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-10-09 PZC MINUTESPage 1096 RECOMMENDATION: Lone moved: Touchton seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that.the rezoning initiated by the Planning Commission for change of zoning.from.R-2-A and R-2-B (both two-family zone districts) to R-3-B (mult1-fam1ly residential) to R-3-B (multi-family residential) be approved for the following reasons: 1) 2)' 3) 4) There has been considerable interest shown in developments which this type of zoning would permit in this area; Assuming the Council will act favorably on the application of Wilbur Wright, there will be a large multi-family development taking place in this block; The area is close to public transportation and shopping facilities; There were sixteen residents of the area present at the Public Hearing in favor of the rezoning, and there were no opponents to the rezoning. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 9, 1968 The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Woods at 8:05 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Carlson; Lone; Parkinson; Woods Romans, Ex-officio Lentsch; Touchton City Attorney Criswell -- - --~ - - ----- --- - - - II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Woods stated that the Minutes of September 11, and September 18, 1968, were to be considered for approval. Parkinson moved: Carlson seconded: The Minutes of September 11, 1968, and September 18, 1968, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. -- --- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - -~ III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Beauty Shops in R-3 Zone Districts Mr. Touchton entered and took his place with the Commission. CASE #24-68A June 26, 1968 Mrs. Romans stated that in the present Zoning Ordinance, beauty shops, barber shops, beauticians and cosmetologists are specifically excluded from the home occupation listings in the resi- dential districts, and are permitted only in the business zones. There have been a number of requests for beauty shops in the home; one of the most recent by Mrs. Roback, who owns a home in a multi-family residential zone district at 3447 South Grant .. Mrs. Roback requested the Commission to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit beauty shops as a home occupation in a multi-family zone district. Mrs. Romans commented that possibly this would have merit in the multi-fami.ly zones, but she was not considering recommending that they be permitted in single-family zone districts. She pointed out that in the multi-family distr:icts , professional offices and other uses which generate considerable traffic are permitted, but retail is excluded. She also pointed out that restaurants have been considered accessory and conditional uses in conjunction with motels in an R-3-B zone district, and she felt that beauty shops and barber shops could be viewed in the same manner. ( Mrs. Roback stated that she had gotten her license this past summer, and if the restriction were changed, that the basement in her home would be remodeled into an area to accommodate this use. She stated that she had obtained the same license that people in Denver have, but ~hat Englewood, t~rough the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, will not allow beauty shops ~n a h~me .. The Cit~ of Denver, on the other hand, permits beauty shops as a home occupation in their single-family and multi-family zone districts. Mrs. Roback stated that her home is in close proximity to business zoning --across the alley to the west and to the south there is B-1 ~oning --and that she feels her request is reasonable. She stated that she I I I I I I Page 1097 had discussed the problem with Mrs. Romans, and was told that the Ordinance was under re- vision , with a possible completion date sometime after the first of the year. She stated that if the Ordinance would be amended to permit beauty shops as a home occupation in a multi-family zone district, that she would be willing to wait, but she would like to know if the Planning Commission members thought there would be a possibility of this amendment . Mrs. Romans stated that she had suggested Mrs. Roback attend the meeting to discuss this with the Commission; she stated that she felt it could possibly be included as a conditional use in a multi-famiy zone district. Mr. Criswell commented that he felt provisions for conditional uses should be clearly set forth in the ordinance; he also felt that in some instances the Board of Adjustment may grant authorization to a use not otherwise permitted in the Ordinance. Discussion on the restrictions to be met to obtain a variance followed. Mr. Criswell commented that he felt the City of Englewood had the "toughest" restrictions to be met to obtain a variance in the area. Mr. Carlson stated that if change is favored to permit the beauty shops in homes, that he felt the Ordinance would have to be changed, rather .than go the route of variances. Mr. Parkinson asked Mrs. Roback how much of an investment she would have in this shop? Mrs. Roback replied that if she could obtain good second-hand fixtures, there would be approximately $300 to $500 and maybe more. She pointed out that the State Board of Cosmetology would have to approve each and every shop, and that the shops are subject to frequent inspection without notice. She stated the operation would be quiet and clean, and there would not be much traffic --perhaps two or three ladies per day. The ordinance in general was discussed. Mr. Touchton commented that he felt the ordinance was being discriminatory in this par t icular field where the uses are specifically prohibited. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Roback thanked the members for their consideration of the problem. -.- IV. EASEMENT VACATION Tract A, Bellewood CASE #34-68 Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Gallagher had requested that the Commission consider vacating the easement on Tract A, Bellewood Subdivision, Arapahoe County, Colorado. She stated that the various utility companies and departments have been contacted, and that they have no objection to the vacation. Brief discussion f ollowed. Parkinson moved: Lone seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the easement on the south side of Tract A, Bellewood, be vacated, inasmuch as the utility companies and departments have stated that they have no need to maintain the easement and are willing to relinquish it with no reservations. The motion carried unanimously. V. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS. Mrs. Romans stated that each year, the various cities make recommendations to the County Commissioners on the highway projects they wish the State Highway Department to undertake within their jurisdiction in the following fiscal year. The County Commissioners in turn make recommendations to the State Highway Department for the entire county. Recommendations made last year were reviewed; the primary one for Arapahoe County was the Broadway-Highway 70 interchange. Mrs. Romans commented that she felt this project should be again recommended until it is completed. Mr. Parkinson questioned whether we should place emphasis on aid with intersections along Santa Fe (Dartmouth, Floyd, Union) in an effort to solve the immediate traffic problems, or to place the emphasis on the Columbine Freeway. Discussion followed about all of the inter- sections along Santa Fe , and particularly the intersection at Union and Tufts. Mr. Criswell stated that he did not feel that the problem in the attempted straightening of the Union Avenue crossing .a year or so ago was with the railroad companies, but rather with a repre- sentative of the PUC. Mr. Lone questioned whether the highway department would approve a 500 ft. intersection on an angle from Tufts to Union; he stated this would be following the same route the motorists now use, but it would be signalized and markings would be on the street. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated she had discussed that possibility with Mr. Merten when he was District 6 Engineer several years ago, and he had definitely discouraged that proposal, but had instead suggested that Union be extended straight across Santa Fe to Pecos. Since that time, considerable time and effort has been spen~ toward that end . Further discussion on the projects under consideration followed. Touchton moved: Carlson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following projects be listed as the City's request for State Hi g hway assistance: 1) The completion of the interchange at South ~roadway and Highway 70. 2) The improvement of the intersections at Dartmouth and Santa Fe; Floyd and Santa Fe; Union and Santa Fe ; and Clarkson and Highway 70. 3) 4) The addition of South Clarkson to the State Highway System from Highway 70 south to Littleton Boulevard; and the addition of West Quincy to the State Highway System west from Santa Fe to Irving. The continuation of the Columbine Freeway alignment study and the provision of funds for the acquisition of right-of-way. ' The motion carried unanimously. - -- - - -- --------- - ---- Page 1098 VI. SLIDE IN I-1 DISTRICT CASE #35-68 George Goorman Mrs. Romans stated that the Chief Building Inspector had referred Mr. Goorman to the Planning Commission for a decision on his request to install a "slide" on his property in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone District. This would be similar to the one that is installed on Wadsworth Boulevard in Denver. Mr. Carlson stated he did not see how the applicant could make this investment and expect a return when it will apparently only be temporary as Mr. Goorman has indicated when talking to the members of the Commission. The investment will be $50,000 to $75,000 for installation, with another $5,000 to $6,000 to move it when it becomes impractical at that location. Discussion followed; Mrs. Romans stated that the Chief Building Inspector had cited §22.5-19 of the Zoning Ordinance as his reason for referring the matter to the Commission. This section 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 such use is compatible with and not objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare or vibration or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of fire or ex- plosion." Mrs. Romans pointed out that "any use intended to provide amusement or entertainment on pay- ment of a fee or admission charge" is presently permitted in the B-1 (Business) District, and she questioned whether the matter should be before the Commission, but before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mr. Criswell agreed, and stated he felt this particular section did not mean that if a use is mentioned for one zone district that it can be put in another district upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, but rather for uses that are not mentioned anywhere in the Ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated she felt the present Zoning Ordinance is efficient in this area, in that uses that are permitted in the business zones should auto- matically be ]ermitted in the light industrial zone. Discussion followed. Mr. Parkinson commented that zoning should be done so that the use will not hurt the surrounding area, and so that the use will not be hurt by the surrounding area. Mr. Lone stated he had felt the duty of the Planning Commission was to develop a zoning ordinance to protect the City and its people, and that the duty of the Board of Adjustment was to "rip it up for good cause." Lone moved: Parkinson seconded: The Planning Director be instructed to communicate to the Chief Building Inspector that the Planning Commission has considered the request by Mr. Goorman, and do not feel that it is within their jurisdiction; however, the Commission is in favor of seeing the "slide" located in the industrial area rather than in the business area. The motion carried unanimously. VII. KENT VILLAGE Vince Rieger ZONING R-3-B CASE #36-68 Mrs. Romans stated that the petition for annexation has been accepted by City Council, and that the land must be zoned by the City within ninety days from the date the annexation is final. She stated that she had written to Mr. Rieger and asked that he get in touch with the Planning Department to discuss the matter of zoning th~ property; he called, and she ha::l mentioned that the zone classification his development would most nearly meet is the R-3-B (Multi-family) Zone District. He had indicated that this would meet with his approval, and that he plans to have obtained all his building permits from Arapahoe County before the annexation is final. Discussion followed; Mr. Criswell stated that the Statute states that zoning proceedings may be started before the annexation is final, but the final action on the zoning must not be taken before that time. Parkinson moved: Touchton seconded: The Planning Commission commence action to zone the Kent Village to R-3-B, a multi-family residential zone district, subject to the passage of the ordinance annexing the area on final reading, and that the property be posted and public notice be given in the official newspaper of the City for a public hearing date of November 20, 1968. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Mrs. Romans discussed the Comprehensive Plan and Planned Unit Development studies that were given the Commission members several weeks ago. She stated that the City is required to adopt a guide for growth by State Statute, and that this Plan that has been prepared is a guide for ihe growth of the City of Englewood. She stated that considerable time had been spent by the staff in preparing this document in a form that would be attractive to the readers, but at the same time informative and factual. Mr. Criswell commented that he liked the format that had been used by the staff, and that the section on land use is particularly good, and would be most helpful in future zoning cases. Further discussion followed. No action was taken on the matter. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary ------ - -- -- - -- - - -- - -- I I I I I I Page 1099 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: October 9, 1968 SUBJECT: Easement Vacation -Tract A, Bellewood Subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Parkinson moved : Lone seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the easement on the south side of Tract A , Bellewood, be vacated, inasmuch as the utility companies and departments have stated that they have no need to maintain the easement .and are willing to relinquish it with no reservations. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: October 9, 1968 SUBJECT: Projects for Aid from State Highway Department RECOMMENDATION: Touchton moved: Carlson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following projects be listed as the City's request for State Highway assistance: 1) The completion of the interchange at South Broadway and Highway 70; 2) The improvement of the intersections at Dartmouth and Santa Fe; Floyd and Santa Fe; Union and Santa Fe; and Clarkson and Highway 70; 3) The addition of South Clarkson to the State Highway System from Highway 70 south to Littleton Boulevard; and the addition of West Quincy to the State Highway System west from Santa Fe to Irving; 4) The continuation of the Columbine Freeway. alignment study, and the provision of funds for the acquisition of right-of-way. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 16, 1968 The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Woods at 7:50 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Carlson; Lentsch; Lone; Parkin~on; Touchton; Woods ; Romans, Ex-officio None Mr. Woods welcomed our guests and asked that they be introduced. Mr. Kelley, Chairman of the Denver Planning Board, introduced Board members Milstein, Davis, Hook, Moor, Mcintosh, and Denver Planning staff members Giltner, Grove, and Damerau. Also introduced were Mr. Ed Haase , District 6 Engineer, State Highway Department; 4nd Messrs. Gingery, Kellogg, Beardsley and Morey, from the firms of Harmon, O'Donnel and Heninger, and Meurer, Serafini and Meurer.