Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-03-31 PZC MINUTESPage 1236 Mr. Carlson noted that the meeting of March 31st would be a special meeting in lieu of the regular meeting April 7th. Mr. Carlson stated that he would be out of town on the 7th of April, and the Director . and a member of the Commission will be attending the American Society of Planning Officials conference in New York City. IV. MOBILE HOME PARK ORDINANCE. Mr. Carlson stated that discussion on this proposed Ordinance would be considered further at the special meeting. V. K. WAYNE NELSON 3035 S. Santa Fe Dr. MOBILE HOME PARK Oasis Mobile Home Park CASE #42-68 Mrs. Romans stated that a revised plan for the Oasis Mobile Home Park has been referred to the Planning Commission by Chief Building Inspector Brokate, which plan shows 28 spaces. The original plan approved by the Planning Commission on November 20, 1968, indicated 26 spaces, with a structure in the northeast corner of the property which had two dwelling units, and was to have been used for office purposes. This structure has been removed, and the two additional mobile home spaces are now in this area. A memorandum from Chief Building Inspector Brokate indicating that with the removal of the older frame dwelling, he has no objection to the addition of two mobile home spaces. Discussion followed. Woods moved: Lentsch seconded: The Planning Commission reconsider the plans for the Oasis Mobile Home Park, as revised and submitted by K. Wayne Nelson. The motion carried unanimously. Further brief discussion on the addition of the two mobile home spaces followed. Senti moved: Lentsch seconded: That the Building Department be notified that the Planning Commission has considered the revised plans for the Oasis Mobile Home Park and that they accept the revised plan, dated February 10, 1970, for the mobile home park at 3035 South Santa Fe Drive, which plan shows a total of 28 spaces for mobile homes, two additional spaces having been placed on ground made available because of the removal of a frame structure in the northeast corner of the property. The motion carried unanimously. VI. BOULDER PLANNING CONFERENCE. Mr. Carlson stated that the annual Conference for Planning Officials, sponsored by the University of Colorado, will be held March 19 and 20, 1970, at Boulder, Colorado. Mr. Carlson urged all members to attend if possible. Discussion followed. Mr. Senti stated that he would be attending the Conference on March 19th. Mr. Woods and Dr. Walsh indicated they would proqably attend that day, also. Mr. Lentsch and Mr. Carlson stated that they would attend the conference on March 20th. VII. HOUSING CONFERENCE. Mr. Carlson stated that there is a Housing Conference to be held at the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver March 23 and 24, 1970. Again, he urged all members to attend if possible. Mr. Senti indicated that he would attend, and Dr. Walsh sta~ed he would if at all possible. The Director stated that registrations would qe sent in for Mr. Senti, Dr. Walsh, Planning Assistant Wardlaw and herself. It was moved, seconded and carried to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ~NGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 31, 1970 The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Vice-Chairman Lentsch. Members Present: Woods; Walsh; Senti; Lone; Lentsch Romans, Ex-officio Members Absent: Carlson Also present: City Attorney Berardini I I I I I I Page 1237 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Lentsch stated that Minutes of March 17, 1970, were to be considered for approval. Woods moved: Senti seconded: The Minutes of March 17, 1970, be approved as written . The motion carried unanimously. III. K. WAYNE NELSON 1101 W. Dartmouth REZONING I-2 to I-1 CASE #3-70B 3 /17/70 2 / 3 /70 Mr. Lentsch noted that the public hearing on Mr. Nelson's rezoning request had been continued so that proponents and opponents alike could secure additional information. He noted that the matter must be removed from the table for further discussion. Woods moved: Senti seconded: The matter of the rezoning request filed by K. Wayne Nelson be raised from the table. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Romans reviewed the testimony and documents which had been presented at the meeting of March 17 , 1970, at which time the public hearing was initially opened. Mr. Lentsch , in opening the continued hearing, stated that the Commission was concerned with the proposed rezoning of the subject parcel and not with any specific use proposed to be made of the land. He asked that speakers, if possible , restrict their remarks to the merits or opposition to the requested rezoning. He asked the proponents of the rezoning request to continue their case. Mr. Nelson, applicant, having submitted an application with the signatures of the property owners, stated that he feels he has fulfilled the request of the Commission in obtaining the signature of the property owners on the rezoning application; he pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Chappell did have full knowledge o f the rezoning request from the beginning. Mr. Nelson noted that a small parcel of this property is zoned I-1, and "dovetails" with the property encompassed in the rezoning application. Mr. Nelson stated that he feels the rezoning of this property will bring some changes into the area which he hopes will be good; he stated that nothing h as been done with this property for a .number of years. He stated that he felt it would be a good move to rezone this property. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were any one else who wished to speak in favor of the rezoning? No one indicated a desire to speak for the rezoning. Mr. Lentsch asked that the opponents present their arguments. The notarized petition, signed by the f .ollowing persons, was again submitted: Floyd E. Fetterhoff, 3128 South Platte River Drive, Englewood. Glen L. Friend, 3130 Sou th Platte River Drive Ben Edgin, 1013-1015-1017-1019 West Dartmouth Kenneth Walter, 1023 W. Dartmouth Robert M. Roy, Jr., 3232 So. Platte River Drive, Englewood Angelo J. Conti, 1033 West Dartmouth, Englewood S. C. Hartman, 1033 West Dartmouth, Englewood John F. Patton, Mobility Unlimited, Inc., 1033 W. Dartmouth Ave. Mr. Hartman 1033 W. Dartmouth -asked what the purpose o f the rezoning request was? He stated that Mr. Nelson has stated in a public meeting that he has plans f or a mobile home park on the property, and if these plans and statements are not to be considered as part o f the entire case, why rezone the land from I-~ to I-1? He noted that almost any use permitted in I-1 could be done in I-2 with the exception of the mobile home park usage. Mr. Hartman stated that he was given verbal assurance when he built his industrial_building that there would be no extension o f the mobile home park usage in the area that the Dartmouth/Santa Fe Drive area is an industrial area and would be developed as such. He asked that clarification f or the rezoning request be made. Mr. Lone discussed the fact that the revision of the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is underway , and noted that this was necessitated in part by the new technologies and approacres to building that have been developed , and which have made the present Ordinance obsolete in some sections. Mr. Lone stated that any benefit to the property owners in the area f rom the change in zoning from I-2 to I-1 at the present time , would be that the I-1 Zone Classi- fication is more restrictive than the I-2. He pointed out that heavier industrial uses are permitted in the I-2 Zone District. Mr. Fetterho f f 3128 s. Platte River Dr. -stated he was interested in the area remaining in the heavy in- dustrial zoning; fearing that he would have to relocate , inasmuch as his business would probably not be permitted in the light in- dustrial classification. He stated that plans are on their drawing board to enlarge the scope Of their business, bringing in heavier equipment, etc. He stated that he desired the area to remain heavy industrial. Mr. Woods asked Mr. Fetterhof f how long his business had been established? Mr. Fetterhof f stated that he had been in business at this location approximately 1-1/2 years. He noted that the building had been used as a warehouse before he located his business there. He asked i f every time someone wanted a change of zoning to accommodate a new use, if the es- tablished uses were to be disregarded and thrown out? Page 123 8 Mr. Lone asked City Attorney Berardini on what basis the Commission is ~harged with determining whether or not the zoning of a property should be changed? Mr. Berardini stated there are two reasons which must be present before a change .in zoning is made: (1) it must be determined that there was improper zoning initially; and (2) it must be shown that changes have occurred in the area which warrant a change of zoning because the land can no longer be used for the "highest and best" use under the existing zoning.. The .proposed zoning must be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that when a change of zone is made, that a broad classification must be considered; the Commission must find, in this case, for ~nstance, that I-1 would be more compatible with the area than I-2 zoning. Mr. Conti 1033 W. Dartmouth -stated that it was his understanding that anything which can be built en I-1 land can also be built on I-2 zoned land with the exception of the mobile home park, and under these circumstances, the only reason for the request is to accommodate a mobile home park, and he, Mr. Conti, does not feel this is a valid reason· to change the zoning. Discussion followed. Mr. Hartman was asked how long they have had industrial uses in the a~ea, and he replied since 1960 or 1961. Further discussion followed. Mr. Lone stated that it seeme<l to him that the reason for z o ning and rezoning is to provide for the highest and best use of the land, and if the land i~ an area is being developed under the present zoning, then he does not feel that the City should consider rezoning it. Mr. Lone continued that unless there have been changes in the area that will not allow develop- ment under the present zoning, he does not feel that there is anything to consider. Mr. Nelson stated that· he has been observing the development of the area for 25 years, and he can see no real benefit of the I-2 zoning in this particular area. He stated that those who are interested in "heavy" industrial uses are moving out further, and that these small parcels have greater appeal to a light industrial development. Mr. Nelson stated that he is interested in the betterment of the City, and if the zoning is approv€d, he will follow through on the plans for the mobile home park that he has discussed previously. He reiterated that he cannot see in the near future many more l a rge heavy industrial uses going in in this area. He stated that nothing has been done there for a good number of years, and he felt that the rezo ning would bring about some good changes. Mr. Wa 1 ter·s 1023 W. Dartmouth -stated that Robinson Brick and Tile have built their industrial busines:; just to the west of the subject parcel within the last 10 years; he also pointed out that the City is building their new servicenter in the im- mediate area. He stated he was against the rezoning. He pointed out that the area has cleaned up considerably since it was inundated in the 1965 Floo d, and pointed out that in his opinion, it is no place for residential usage with the heavy equipment that is on the streets. Mr. Lentsch asked for a show of hands of those in favor of the request? Mr. Nelson stated that he had not done any "outside work to get people present in favor of the rezoning" to attend the meeting, but had he done so, he felt he could have gotten quite a "congregation". He didn't feel the issue concerned whether children were permitted in the mobile home park or not, and cited a mobile home park right around the corner from the property of Mr. Hartman and Mr. Conti which does permit children. He stated that in any. event, they were not the issue to him. Mr. Walters emphasized his previous statement that the land is being developed under the present I-2 Zone District. Mr. John Patton, Branch Manager·, Rocky Mountain Branch of Mobility Unlimited, which business is located at 1033 West Dartmouth Avenue, stated that their products act like "magnets" to children. Their business is the manufacture of "amphicat" and "amphikitty". He stated that· it is a necessity to keep the children off their property, because if a child was hurt the consequences could be drastic. -He stated that he was opposed to the rezoning, and would prefer that the area remain strictly industrial. Mr. Frank McCoy, Manager Oasis Mobile Home Park -stated that the property at 1033 West Dartmouth is enclosed by a fence; he also noted that the "amphicats" are tested on the Chappell property, which is not fenced. Mr. McCoy stated that he was aware of the great housing shortage, and he didn't see where children would be a problem if permitted in the mobile home park. Mr. Hartman noted that the fence around their property cost them $2,000 and was erected be- cause it was a necessity to keep the children away from the business. The fencing necessitated a revamping of the parking plans, and he stated that even after these precautions, they cannot keep the children out entirely. Mr. Hartman stated that the show development of the area can be blamed on the fact that this area is in a Flood Plain, and people are reluctant to invest in a use in such an area. He noted that with the construction of Chatfield Dam this will probably alleviate a lot of the danger of flooding, and that development would sp~ed up. He stated that he, for one, planned to build additional warehouses on his property when the dam was constructed, but if a mobile home park were to be permitted on the Chappell land, he would not do so. Mr. Lone stated that he felt the Commission wanted to determine if there have been changes in the area to warrant rezoning from I-2 to I-1; he stated that the Commission wants to find a valid reason for either approving the rezoning, or recommending against the request. Mr. Walters stated the land is being developed, an<l will be developed further when the Dam is constructed. Mr. Fetterhoff pointed out that this area is not too far east of the Engl~ood Industrial Park, which is rapidly developing. He stated that an addition was made recently to the Stainless Steel business, which is to the north of this area. He felt that the area is developing under the present zoning. I I I I I I Page 1239 Mr. Woods commented that the majority of the uses just mentioned would comply with the I-1 restrictions, and didn't need I-2 zoning. . Mr. Fetterhoff stated that he felt any man in business for himself wants to see his business grow; he noted that he personally did. He stated that if this area were to be zoned I-1 he would be reluctant to increase his inventory because he couldn't expand his business. He has approximately 1 /2 acre now. He stated he didn't care what the proposed use for the property Mr. Nelson is concerned with is, he is opposed to the rezoning. He stated that tre City needs more big industries. He stated that he has long-range plans for a dye-cast shop and a foundry, but wouldn't develop these if the rezoning were granted. Mrs. Romans explained the ideas presently being considered in the revision of the zoning ordinance, whereby uses would pe controlled by "performance standards" rather than being specifically itemized as they are now. Without intending to be specific, the Director ex- plained that generally the performance standards would provide that pollution of air and water would not be permitted, excessive vibration and noise would be restricted, as would odors, gasses, etc. She asked Mr. Fetterhoff what such a revision would do to his business? Mr. Fetterhoff stated that it would be "devastating" if it were to be approved. He pointed out that there is vibration with any use; he also asked who would pay for the cos~ of bringing up to standard the uses to comply with such an Ordinance? He stated that such an Ordinance would "wipe his business out". Mrs. Romans referred to the present external limita t ions on I-2 Industrial uses, which reads: §22.4-14h Limitations on external effects of uses·. Every use shall be made to comply with the following limitations: (1) Every use shall be so operated that the volume of sound inherently and re- currently generated is not unreasonably loud at any point of any boundary line of the lot on which the use is located. (2) Every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inher~ntly and recurrently generated is not perceptible at any point of any boundary line of the lot on which the use is located. (3) Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit an obnoxious or dangerous degree of heat, glare, odor, radiation , fumes, gas or smoke beyond any boundary line of the lot on which the use is located. (4) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a lot in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the lot by natural causes or forces. (5) All materials or wastes which might cause fumes or dust or which constitute a fire hazard or which may be edible by or otherwise attract rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors only in closed containers. Mrs. Romans noted that if there is a conflict with existing uses and the Ordinance, possibly these s h ould be checked into. Mr. Fetterhoff noted that his business is ''harassed'' by the occupants of the trailer courts who claim that the bu~iness makes "too much noise"; however, Mr. Fetterhoff stated that the Building Department has inspected his use and found it to be in compliance with the Ordinance. Mr. Fet t erhoff stated that he was opposed to the rezoning. Further discussion followed. Mr. Walters stated he didn't feel there was any shortage of I-1 zon i ng, but that we do need to keep the I-2 zoning that we have. Mr. Walters asked why Mr. Nelson didn't purchase land that was zoned I-1? Dr. Walsh asked Mr. Nelson if he felt the original zoning imposed on this property was in error? Mr. Nelson replied that he didn't want to get involved in that matter. He stated he did feel that a second look should be taken at it now. He pointed out that tha tima when the area was more undeveloped, there was more enhancement for I-2 uses, but now that the area is developing he feels these heavy industrial uses will move further out where there is room for expansion. Mr. Lentsch again asked for a show of hands of those persons in favor of the request. Four persons indicated they favored the rezoning request. Mr. Lentsch asked for persons in opposition to the request to raise their hands. Five persons indicated ~hey were opposed to the rezoning request. Lone moved: Walsh seconded: The public hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Lone moved: Woods seconded: The matter be tabled for further consideration. AYES: NAYS: Woods; Senti; Lone ; Lent~ch Walsh The motion carried. ' Mr. Lentsch stated that the Commission wanted time to consider the material presented at this hearing, and that in all likelihood, a decision would not evening. He informed the audience that they were welcome to remain if they IV. BOULDER CONFERENCE. and testimony be made this so wished. Mr. Lentsch and Mr .. senti reviewed the Planning Conference which was held recently at Boulder Colorado. Mr .. Senti stated that he felt it was enlightning, and stated that one point that ' was stressed was that communication between the City Council and Planning Commission must be maintained. He commented that he didn't feel we had that particular problem inasmuch as we do have two councilmen serving on the Commission. ' Page 1240 Mr. Lentsch stated that a review of the proceedings of the previous day was given the day he attended. He stated that he too felt that the matter of communication between city, county, and state planning agencies was stressed. He s~ated that he also understood that we must have "local" planning, or the federal government will take over that function. The im-. portance of involving citizens in the planning program was discussed, and he stated that it was mentioned that the planning program must be "sold" to the people, and not forced on them. Further discussion followed. Lone moved: Walsh seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried; the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:05 P.M. Gertrude G. Welt~ Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *· * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1970 I. CALL TO ORDE R . The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chair- man Carlson at 8:05 P.M. Members Present: Woods; Walsh; Senti; Lone; Lentsch; Carlson Romans, Ex-officio Members Absent: None Also Present: City Attorney Berardini - -- -- -- - - ---- --- --- - - - - II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated that the Minutes of March 31, 1970, were to be considered for approval. Lentsch moved: Senti seconded: The Minutes of March 31, 1970, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. REX T. GARRETT 1451 W. Tufts REZONING R-1-C to I-1 CASE #7-70A March 3, 1970 Mr. Carlson staten that this rezoning had been initiated by the City Planning and Zoning Com- mission. Mr. Rex Garrett is owner of ~he property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue, which property is presently zoned R-1-C (Single-family Residential). The proposed zoning is I-1 (Light In- dustry). Woods moved: Lentsch seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Romans indicated the subject property on the zoning map in the Council Chambers. She stated that the public notice was published in the Englewood Herald April 2, 1970, and that the property was posted on April 3, 1970. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the area adjoins R-3 (Single-family residential) zoning to the west. in Arapahoe County; I-1 (Light Industrial) zoning to the north in the City of Englewood; R-1-A (Single-family Residential) zoning to the east in the City of Englewood, and single-family residential zoning abuts the property to the south in Arapahoe County. Both heavy and light industrial districts are within close proximity to the south and west. Mrs. Romans reviewed the restrictions of the I-1 (Light Industrial) district and noted that mobile home parks are a "Conditional Use" in this zone district. Until 1963, mobile home parks were not provided for in the Zoning Ordinance, and any mobile home parks in the City of Englewood were in a non-conforming status. Some owners of existing mobile home parks along South Santa Fe Drive had indicated a desire to clean their property up, but could not do so under the restrictions existing at that time. Therefore, when the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted, mobile home parks were made a "Conditional Use" in the Light Industrial Zone District in order that, were plans to improve existing parks presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission could consider the plans and approve the redevelopment if the plans conformed to the Mobile Home Park Ordinance, and if the park would be compatible with the ~evelopment of the area. Several mobile home park owners have ·taken advantage of the new regulation and have improved their property. Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Garrett to present his case. Mr. Garrett stated that he has discussed the matter with City Attorney Berardini, and is under the impression that new procedures are under consideration wherein mobile home parks would have a specific zone classification and would not have an I-1 designation as they do · at this time. Mr. Garrett asked the Commission to withdraw the request to change the zoning from R-1-C (Single-family Residential) to I-1 (Light Industrial). I I I