Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-04-03 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 1043 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: March 20, 1968 SUBJECT: Advertising Signs on City Property. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that advertising signs of individual private businesses should not be allowed on City- owned property. 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 APRIL 3, 1968 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:15 P.M. by Chairman Woods. Members present: Lone; Parkinson; Touchton; Woods Romans, Ex-officio City Attorney Criswell Members absent: Carlson; Lentsch II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Woods stated that the Minutes of March 20, 1968 , were to be considered for approval. Parkinson moved ! Lone seconded: The Minutes of March 20, 1968, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. I I I. R. G. CUMMINGS Lots 5, 6, 7 & 8, Block 1, Bell Isle Gardens, 2nd Filing REZONING R-4 to I-1 CASE #12-68 Mr. Woods stated that an application had been filed by Mr. R. G. Cummings to rezone Lots 5 , 6, 7 , and 8, Block 1, Bell Isle Gardens, 2nd Filing, from R-4 (Residential-Professional) to I-1 (Light Industrial). The required fee has been paid. Mr. Woods pointed out that the next regular quarterly hearings would be scheduled for June 19th. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Cummings' property abuts a Heavy Industrial Zone District in Arapahoe County to the west, and a residential zone district in Arapahoe County on the north. The property to the south is in the City limits, and is zoned for light industry. The R-4 classification was given this property in the Ordinance and Map revision of 1963. The area has not developed as R-4 and the area to the south, which is industrial, is developing. It was pointed out that there are screening provisions written into the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance which would protect residential properties abutting any industrial . zoned land. Mrs. Romans commented that there have been numerous inqueries to the Planning Office con- cerning possible rezonings such as this in the past few weeks, and asked i f the Commission wanted to hear them on an individual basis, or if they would want to try to combine them into one hearing at the time of the ordinance and map revision as was done in 1963? Mr. Lone asked what time schedule had been set on the ordinance revision? Mr. Criswell stated that he would estimate it would take at least 90 days before anything could be presented f or Commission review; it would be longer be f ore the revised Ordinance could be presented to Council and finalized. Discussion f ollowed. Mr. Lone commented that a number of small problem areas might be solved were the map to be amended. Mr. Woods asked Mr. Cummings if there were a time limit involved in this rezoning? Mr. Cummings replied that there was none. Mr. Touchton asked if the fee would be waived on these "blanket" changes? Mrs. Romans stated that no fee had been charged in 1963, but that an expression from the Commission as to the procedure they would recommend be followed in this revision would be appreciated. It was generally agreed that upon specific application such as Mr. Cummings, that the usual fee would be assessed, and any unused portion of the fee would be refunded to the applicant. Page 1044 Lone moved: Parkinson seconded: The application filed by Mr. R. G. Cummings to rezone Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 1, Bell Isle Gardens, 2nd Filing, from R-4 (Residential-Professional) to I-1 (Light Industrial) be accepted; the date of Public Hearing to be at the time of the Zoning Ordinance and Map revision is heard, the exact date yet to be set. The motion carried unanimously. IV. WILBUR WRIGHT 3000 S. Bannock REZONING R-2-A to R-3-B Mr. Wilbur Wright was present for the discussion. CASE #13-68 Mr. Woods stated this matter concerned the property at 3000 South Bannock, where the Old North School is located. Mr. Wright stated this was correct, and that he has an option on the property from the School Board for a period of 6 months subject to the rezoning of the site to R-3-B. He stated he has not yet made application for the rezoning. He stated he did not feel that he could wait for the hearings on the entire ordinance and map, inasmuch as the six month period would expire in mid-September. He stated he knew that people in the area did not want a parking lot on this property, but thought that possibly there would not be that objection to apartment houses. He stated that he is interested in obtaining the R-3-B zoning for 14 lots. Discussion followed. Mr. Wright stated that if he could obtain an ex- tension from the School Board on the contract, he would prefer that the rezoning could be considered at the time of the map and ordinance ~evision. He asked if the Commission could indicate whether or not they feel the R-3-B zone classification is proper for this area? Mrs. Romans stated that a higher density has been discussed for this area, and recalled a meeting several weeks ago with a Mr. Jeff Bowen of T. W. Anderson Company, at which time he was interested in multiple family zoning at Dartmouth and Delaware. Further discussion followed. Mr. Lone asked if Mr. Wright would consider trying to obtain an extension from the School Board on the contract? Mr. Wright indicated he would talk to the School Board about an extension of time. No action was taken by the Commission. V. MRS. VIRGINIA MALLOY 3301 South Logan REZONING R-1-C to R-3-B CASE #10-68A March 20, 1968 Mrs. Malloy stated she was representing the property owner at 3301 South Logan. This is a three unit structure, which is located in an R-1-C Zone District. She stated that Mrs. Talbot had purchased the property in 1960 with the understanding that the rental units were approve~. Mrs. Talbot recently received an order from the Building Department to cease the use, and be- cause she is a widow and part of her livelihood comes from these rental units, it would create a great hardship on her were she to have to discontinue the use. She appeared before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on March 13, 1968, to request a variance to continue the use; at this date, a decision has not been made by the Board .. Mrs. Malloy asked if they should make application or rezoning now, or wait for the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals? Mr. Criswell stated that the Board is required to render a decision within 35 days. He stated that were a variance for that property to be given, the problem would be solved. If the variance is not given, an application could then be made to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the ownership is only 50 ft. frontage, and would, therefore, not have the required lot area for three units in an R-3-B zone district were it to be re- zoned. Also, off-street parking is required, at this time one space per unit. The Director stated she had viewed the property and in her opinion, it would be extremely difficult to meet this requirement also. No action was taken by the Commission. VI. MR. R. L. LUNDERS 3280 S. Clarkson REZONING R-1-C to R-3-B CASE #14-68 Mr. Lunders asked if any consideration had been given at a previous time to the 3200 block of South Clarkson for R-3-B zoning? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff and Commission have not considered the rezoning of that particular block. She outlined the area on a land use map. It is contiguous to R-3-B zoning to the south across Floyd Avenue; the north, east, and west, is R-1-C (single-family residential) zoning. Mr. Woods asked Mr.Lunders if he had discussed the matter with residents in the area. Mr. Lunders stated he had discussed the matter with most of the people in the block, and most of them seemed to be in favor of the rezoning. Mrs. Romans review~d the land use map, and stated that five ownerships do have 75 ft. frontage, and would, therefore, meet the lot area requirements of the R-3-B Zone District. The other parcels in the block have only a 50 ft. frontage. Mr. Lunders stated that he had thought of putting a "package" together for development, and not selling individual ownerships. Mrs. Romans stated she felt the entire City should be studied block by block, and then make a determination on whether or not redevelopment of an area was feasible at this time. Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Lone stated he felt there might be opposition to extending a "finger" of R-3-B zoning northward into an R-1-C area. No action was taken. VII. INCA-JASON ALLEY VACATION 3500 Block South CASE #29-67F March 20, 1968 Mr. Jerry Daniel, a member of Shivers and Banta Law Firm, was present for the discussion. Mr. Daniel reviewed the discussion at the last meeting. The property in the entire block is now owned by Goorman Investments. They are now requesting the vacation of the entire alley, with the exception of the north 15 feet. They would also request that an easement for the Public Service Company, the Telephone Company, and the City of Englewood be retained in the alley, to be vacated at such time as those utilities are relocated. Mr. Daniel stated that agreements have been reached with the utility companies and departments enabling I I I I I I Page 1045 the applicant to terminate the easements at a later time. Mr. Daniel stated that there is a man-hole located in the north 15 feet of the alley now proposed for vacation; there is also a telephone line that would be excessively expensive to move. Mr. Daniel stated that his client also has an agreement with the City to reroute the drainage on West Ithica at the alley and to pay for paving work resulting from this rerouting. Mr. Daniel then reviewed his contacts with the utilities companies, and stated they voiced no objections to the requested vacation. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Dobratz and Mr. Waggoner of the City personnel have indicated they would have no objections provided easements were g iven. The Fire and Police Departments said they had no objections on the prior request. Mr. Parkinson questioned whether or not an easement through the entire alley would give the same protection to the manhole and the telephone line as leaving the north 15 feet dedicated? Mr. Daniel stated there had been instances of a permit being issued for con- struction of a structure over an easement; an action which they hoped to avoid by proceeding as they had proposed. It was also requested in this manner for the ease of clarification cf title for the applicant. It was further clarified that the reason the request had been made excepting the north 15 feet of the alley was: 1) title simplicity for the applicant, and 2) the City is in need of the man-hole which exists in the alley. It was the opinion of the attorney that this manner of request was easier and accomplished the same thing as would a complete vacation and easement retainment. Mr. Touchton asked if there could be a limited amount of construction permitted over an easement? Mr. Criswell stated that in certain instances .this has been done. Parkinson moved: Touchton seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the alley in Block 6, Englewood, (Between Inca-Jason, Highway 70-Ithica) be vacated with the exception of the north 15 feet, and that an easement for utilities be retained in the portion to be vacated. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. NEW ENGLEWOOD ALLEY VACATION CASE #5-68C Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission had received a request from New Englewood, Ltd. at tbe February 7, 1968 meeting to vacate two alleys on the southwest portion of their property. The matter was tabled at the meeting of February 21, 1968 for further information on the re- conveyance by New Englewood, Ltd. to the City of the parking areas. Mr. Criswell discussed progress made thus far on negotiations concerning the reconveyance of the parking areas and the completion of the Floyd Avenue Agreement. Further discussion followed. Parkinson moved: Lone seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following alleys be vacated, all easements to be retained, inasmuch as the alleys no longer serve a useful purpose: 1. That certain alley or street, approximately 16 feet, more or less, in width, lying approximately 133 feet North of the intersection of the westerly line of South Jason Street and the northerly line of West Hampden Avenue and between the said westerly line of South Jason Street (as extended) and the easterly right-of-way line of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway company right-of-way. 2. That certain alley or street, approximately 16 feet, more or less, in width, lying between the northerly right-of-way line of West Hampden Avenue and the southerly boundary line of the alley or street boundary line of the alley or street described in the preceding paragraph, the easterly boundary line of which alley or street lies approximately 225 feet westerly of the westerly boundary line of South Jason Street. The motion carried unanimously. IX. OFF-STREET PARKING LOT APPROVAL CASE #12-67 Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Off-Street Parking plan, as submitted by New Englewood, Ltd., has yet to be approved by the City. She cited a letter written by Public Works Director Waggoner to City Attorney Criswell , under date of April 3, 1968, listing matters that must be changed before approval would be given by that Department. No action was taken. X. ASPO MEETING Mr. Woods reported that the ASPO Convention would be held in San Francisco this year from May 4, 1968 through May 9, 1968. Discussion followed. Although no one from the City at- tended the meeting in 1967, in previous years, the Director and the Chairman of the Commission have attended the convention, with perhaps one other member designated as an alternate in the event that the Chairman cannot attend. Parkinson moved: Lone seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that out-of-state travel and convention expenses be authorized for the Planning Director and a member of the Planning Commission to attend the American Society of Planning Officials convention in San Francisco, May 4th to May 9th. The motion carried unanimously. - - ------ - -- ----- --- - - Page 1046 XI. URBAN RENEWAL Mr. Parkinson discussed an article that had appeared in the Southland News Urban Renewal Program the City has discussed. Further discussion follwed. Mr. Lone asked that the various programs that are available to the City be sideration and study. in regard to the Mr. Parkinson m d presented for con~ XII. SHERIDAN MEETING. Mr. Parkinson asked if it would be the function of the Planning Commission to gather and present information to the City of Sheridan in the .matter of annexation benefits? Mr. Woods commented that he thought perhaps direction from City Council s~ould be received first. Mr. Touchton reviewed actions on the part of the City of Englewood at the time of the flood in 1965; he felt that steps were taken at that time to indicate our interest in . the event that Sheridan did want to annex to Englewood. Mrs. Romans discussed events leading up to the meeting in Sheridan, at which she was in attendance. She also discussed the meeting; she said that perhaps there were 200 people in attendance, and that they are simply attempting to gather the information as to the pros and cons of annexation to either Denver or Englewood. Discussion followed. Mr. Lone com- mented that he felt it was time that Englewood indicated that they were interested, and to become more "aggressive" in several matters. Mr. Touchton dtated that the possibility of annexation of Sheridan seemed favorable, and he also felt it was time to "get the ball rolling". Further discussion followed. The Commission members felt that perhaps City Council should indicate whether or not the City is interested in annexation of Sheridan. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: April 3, 1968 Vacation of Inca-Jason Alley between Highway 70 and Ithica Avenue The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that, as requested by Goorman Investments, the applicants, the alley in Block 6, Englewood, (the Inca-Jason alley between Highway 70 and Ithica Avenue) be vacated with the exception of the north 15 ft., and that easement for utilities be retained. 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: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: April 3, 1968 Alley Vacation as Requested by New Englewood, Ltd. The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following alleys be vacated as requested by New Englewood, Ltd., the applicant, all easements to be retained, inasmuch as the alleys no longer serve a useful purpose: 1. That certain alley or street, approximately 16 feet, more or less, in width, lying approximately 133 feet North of the intersection of the westerly line of South Jason Street and the northerly line of West Hampden Avenue and between the said westerly line of South Jason Street (as extended) and the easterly right-of-way line of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company right-of-way. 2. That certain alley or street, approximately 16 feet, more or less, in width, lying between the northerly right 7 of-way line of West Hampden Avenue and the southerly boundary line of the alley or street described in the preceding paragraph, the easterly boundary line of which alley er street lies approximately 225 feet westerly of the westerly boundary line of South Jason Street. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission: Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary ---- - --- -- -- - --- --- I I I I I I Page 1047 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 3, 1968 SUBJECT: Out-of-State Travel and Convention Attendance Expense Approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that out-of-state travel and convention attendance expenses be authorized for the Planning Director and a member of the Planning Commission to attend the ASPO Convention in San Francisco, May 4, 1968, to May 9, 1968. 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 APRIL 17, 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: Carlson; Lentsch; Parkinson; Touchton; Woods Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Lone II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Mr. Woods stated that the Minutes of April 3, 1968 , were to be considered for approval. Parkinson moved: Lentsch seconded: The Minutes of April 3, 1968, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. SAFEWAY STORES SIGN Sherman at Highway 70 CASE #ll-68A March 20, 1968 The Planning Commission received a request from the City Council at their March 20, 1968 meeting to consider a request from the Safeway Stores for permission to install an advertising sign on City-owned property on the northwest corner of South Sherman and Colorado Highway 70. After reviewing the location of other City-owned properties, primarily park sites, it was the opinion of the Commission that this could set a precedent if it were granted, and that signs advertising private businesses would not be desirable on sites such as this Street Department property or the City Parks. A recommendation to this effect was forwarded to the Council at that meeting. Mrs. Romans stated· that Assistant City Manager Mack has informed her that the City Council desires clarification of the memorandum forwarded to that body following the March 20th meeting. The memorandum read as follows: "The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that advertising signs of individual private businesses should not be allowed on City-owned property". She stated she felt this meant that the owner of an individual business could not place an advertising sign on property owned by the City directing people to that p~ivate business, but that this would not p ecessarily preclude the placing of signs by the Chamber of Commerce Merchants Association should the Council feel that such sign or signs would be of benefit to the community. Mr. Parkinson commented that he thought the recommendation was a good idea, but asked why it was before the Planning Commission in the first place? It was pointed out again that it had been referred to the Commission by the City Council . Mr. Criswell stated he felt the problem was in the wording, and pointed out that encroachment agreem.ents which have been approved are on "city-owned property" even if the encroachment is in the air-space. Mrs. Romans stated that the encroachments of this nature are considered by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and that 'each case has been considered separately, by both the Board and the City Council. Mr. Criswell stated that he thought the newly adopted Building Code gave authorization for such encroachments provided they met certain elevation standards, square footage, etc. Mr. Touchton pointed out that most encroachments such as this involve signs affixed to private property; he felt the intent of the motion was to prohibit the actual physical erection of advertising signs on City property. Further discussion followed. It was pointed out that Mr. Lone does have experience in sign installation, and that perhaps further discussion should be delayed until he can be present.