Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-08-05 PZC MINUTESPage 1270 I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 5, 1970 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carlson at 8:10 P.M. Members present: Woods; Walsh; Senti; Patrick; Mosbarger; Carlson Members absent: Lone; Lentsch; Henning II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated that Minutes of July 21, 1970, were to be considered for approval. Woods moved: Senti seconded: The Minutes of July 21, 1970 be approved as written. Dr. Walsh stated that page 7 of the July 21st Minutes lists reasons for the denial of the rezoning application filed by Mr. Summers. Dr. Walsh stated that he was of the impression that a fifth reason had been given, that being the applicant had failed to present evidence that the present zoning was in error. He asked if the Minutes should be amended to in- corporate this reason into the motion of denial? Discussion followed. Dr. Walsh pointed out that the application encompassed an area from the centerline of South Jason Street to the industrial zoning west of South Lipan Street, not just the one vacant lot which Mr. summers had purchased, and he did not feel that Mr. Summers had shown the zoning of this entire area to be improper. Mr. Woods stated he would amend his motion to approve the Minutes of July 21, 1970, as amended, adding to page 7 of said Minutes a fifth reason for the denail of the rezoning request, said reason being that the original zoning for the area was not shown to be in error. Mr . Senti stated that as second to the motion he would agree to the amendment. Upon the call of the vote, the motion carried unanimously. III. ELKS LODGE 3690 S. Jason Mr. Carlson asked the staff to review the request of the Elks Lodge. CASE #16-70A July 21, 1970 Mrs. Romans, Assistant Planning Director, presented three documents to the Commission for their information: a memorandum from W. F. Brokate, Chief Building Inspector, dated July 29, 1970; a letter to the Planning Commission from the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 2122, dated August 3, 1970; and a copy of an agreement between Mr. George Goorman and the Elks Lodge by which agreement the Lodge is granted the use of the parking on property owned by Mr. Goorman at 3701 South Jason Street. A land-use map of the immediate area was also given to the members. Mrs. Romans stated that the Elks Lodge had applied for a building permit to add storage area to the existing building. Mrs. Romans noted that there was not sufficient parking for the Lodge as it exists today, inasmuch as the require- ments for an assembly hall would be a minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. of parking, and the Lodge had provided only 5,125 sq. ft. for parking. Mrs. Romans noted that the area the Lodge has arranged with Mr. Goorman to use for parking will provide an additional 7,200 sq. ft., which will slightly exceed the required minimum parking requirements for the Lodge. Mrs. Romans also noted that the Zoning Ordinance provides that parking provided by a particular use may be used by a second use, provided there is no conflict in such joint use, and also provided the Commission approves an agreement setting forth such joint use, and the agree- ment is recorded. Mrs. Romans noted thatCityAttorney Berardini has reviewed the agree- ment which has been presented by the Elks Lodge, and that he had no changes to suggest in the agreement. Mrs. Romans cited the provision in the agreement that Mr. Goorman may, on 30 days notice, terminate and cancel the agreement. The Elks Lodge will also be given the right of first refusal should Mr. Goorman plan to sell this property. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter before the Commission is consideration of the agreement between the Lodge and Mr. Goorman for joint use of a parking area. Mr. Carlson stated that he didn't feel the City could make the parking restrictions retro- active, and thereby make the Lodge provide parking to meet the requirements of the present building. He stated that he felt the matter of additional parking was brought about by the requested addition to the building, which, according to the memorandum from Mr. Brokate, is illegal in. the I-1 Zone District. Mr. Carlson asked why the Commission is considering the parking matter if the addition to the building could not be approved. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance will allow expansion of uses to provide parking. She emphasized that the request before the Commission is to approve expansion of the parking area, and to approve the location of the parking on another site. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that City Attorney Berardini has said that the acceptance of the agreement on parking does not in any commit the City to approve the addition to the building. Further discussion followed. Mr. Woods commented that it would seem to him that the matter of "illegal" or "non-conforming" was a "matter of the opinion"; that when the building was initially built it was apparently the opinion of the Building Inspector that it was per- mitted in that zone district. Mr. Carlson discussed the provision in the agreement be- tween the ~odge and Mr. Goorman whereby Mr. Goorman has the right to terminate the agreement upon 30 days notice. Mr. Carlson stated that he wasn't too happy about that provision and noted that the letter to the Commission from the Lodge indicates that they "will take ~11 steps necessary to maintain adequate parking at all times." Mr. Carlson stated that he felt this might be construed to bind the Lodge unnecessarily. Discussion followed. Senti moved: Patrick seconded: The Planning Commission approve the agreement betwee~ the Elks Lodge No. 2122 and Mr. George Goorman for joint use of parking at 3701 South Jason Street . I I I I I I Page 1271 Further discussion of the agreement followed. Members of the Elks Lodge who were present for the discussion stated that the Lodge was in need of additional parking space, a~d that it would be to their advantage to have the additional space. Mr. Najim, member of the Lodge, noted that they really need the approval o_f the parking agreement before they can get approval of the building permit appli.cation. ,Furthe,r discussion followed. Upon the call of the roll, the motion carried unanimously. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- IV. BELL COURT CONDITIONAL USE 2935 s. Santa Fe Drive Mobile Home Park CASE #14-70A July 21, 1970 Mr. Carlson stated that Mr. and Mrs. Barth, owners of Bell Court, are asking permission to place ten (10) mobile home spaces on the rear of their property. It was noted that Mr. Proctor, representing Mr. and Mrs. Barth,. was not present at this time, and it was asked that the matter be delayed to see if Mr. Proctor would arrive later. V. EDWARD ELECTRIC COMPANY Subdivision Waiver CASE #17-70 Mr. Carlson asked the staff to discuss the request. Assistant Planning Director Romans stated that Messrs. Silverman and Butz dba Edward Electric Company, had applied for a building permit on a parcel of land that is unsub- divided . This land is situated on the northeast corner of West Yale Avenue and South Raritan Street, extended. The City has asked that a Quit Claim Deed be prepared giving the City the east 30 ft. of South Raritan Street. This will extend South Raritan Street through to Harvard Avenue. Inasmuch as this is the only right-of-way ,that is needed from this property, it was suggested to the applicants that upon r.eceipt of the Quit Claim Deed, the staff would recommend to the Planning Commission that a Subdivision Waiver be granted. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicants had indicated a willingness to file a subdivision plat before any further development of the land takes place if the waiver is granted on this application. Mrs. Romans noted that the Assistant City Engineer has questioned the survey presented by Edward Electric; their survey shows they would dedicate 29.01 ft. for Raritan rather than the 30 ft. Discussion f ollowed. Mr. Berenbaum, attorney for Edward Electric, stated that they had gotten the information on the .99 ft. overlap from Transamerica Title and engaged Prouty Brothers to conduct another survey. The new survey agrees with informa·tion from Transamerica Title Company. Mr. Berenbaum stated they just wanted the need to be correct, and id didn't matter whether they deeded 29.01 ft. or 30 ft. to the City. Mr. Berenbaum stated that Edward Electric will de- velop "Parcel B" for their use; they hope to develop "Parcel A" with one use , but will dis- cuss the matter again with the Commission at the time of development. Mr. Carlson questioned the division of the parcels as proposed on the survey. Mr. Berenbaum stated that they (have] been so divided to give "Parcel A" access from South Raritan Street. Further discussion followed. Woods moved: Senti seconded: The Planning Commission adopt Resolution #2, 1970, approving the application by Edward Electric Company for waiver to the Subdivision Regulations conditioned upon: 1. That a .Quit Claim Deed be given to the City for the west 30 ft. of the original tract of land. 2. That there be no fu r ther division, as defined in §21.3-5d of the Subdivision Regulations, of Parcel A or Parcel B unless a subdivision plat therefore is approved and recorded. 3. That the applicants pay the recording fee. The motion carried unanimously. VI. GO-CART TRACK CASE #18-70 Centennial Acres Sho pping Center Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant has withdrawn his request, and will not be present for . discussion on this matter. Mr. Carlson stated that this request might be reac~ivated, and questioned whether there . was sufficient parking in the Centennial Shopping Center to use part of it for this use? He also noted· that. the go-cart track would attract patrons in addition to those that would be at the shopping center, and they would need more parking spaces. Mrs. Romans noted that the City has no building plans for this Shopping Center, as it was developed while still in unincorporated territory. She also noted that this land is unsubdivided, and be- fore additional buildings are erected or leases for part of the land are signed, tha t a plat should be filed, or a waiver obtained. She stated that she had contacted Mr. Loren Clarida, owner of the shopping center, and he stated he knew nothing of the proposed go- cart track, and asked that the Commission not consider the matter until a request came from him as owner. He further stated, said Mrs. Romans, that he would use no portion of his land as a go-cart track. V-I I. POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Mr. Carlson stated that the application by the City of Englewood for Federal funds to purchase two buses will be considered by the Policy Advisory Committee at their next meeting, August 13th. Page 1272 IV. BELL COURT 2935 S. Santa Fe Drive CASE #14-70A July 21, 1970 Mr. Proctor, representing Mr. and Mrs. Barth, owners, was not in attendance. Mrs. Romans reviewed the discussion of the request from July 21, 1970, when Mr. Proctor and Mr. and Mrs. Barth had met with the Commission. Preliminary plans of the proposal were displayed for the Commission. Mr. Carlson discussed the "moratorium" passed by the Commission on consideration of mobile home parks, and reasons leading up to the moratorium. He stated that he had discussed the moratorium with City Attorney Berardini, who is of the opinion that it does not apply to this particular request, inasmuch as the zoning is proper and the request is for approval of a conditional use. The moratorium would apply in instances where "rezoning" had to be accomplished before mobile home parks could be considered as "conditional uses". Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Barth what the size of the property in question is? Mr. Barth replied that they owned almost one acre. Mr. Carlson noted that the matter had aiso been carried over from the meeting of July 21 to enable Commission members to view the premises. Dr. Walsh stated that he did view the premises, and he does not feel that the proposed layout, as shown to the Commission, is drawn to fit the parcel of land. He noted that the southern portion of the parcel is quite "constricted" in fact, and that the preliminary plan does not take this fact into consideration in the location of the mobile home spaces and maneuvering area. Discussion followed. Mr. Carlson asked where the tenants in the motel units would park their automobiles? Mr. Carlson stated that he also noted there were some junk cars on the premises. Mrs. Barth replied that there were "carport" areas between the motel units, and that tenants could park there. She also noted that one of the tenant has junk cars, which he is stripping and building one good car from the two junk cars. Mrs. Romans asked if there would be any grassed area and any recreation area for children? Mrs. Barth indicated there would be a "small area" that would be grassed. Mr. Carlson asked if the mobile homes would be parked on ribbons or slabs? Mrs. Barth replied that she didn't know; she stated that Mr. Proctor had mentioned "siding" around the trailers, but she didn't know what they would be parked on. Mr. Patrick asked if the mobile homes would be owned individually by the tenants, or if Mr. and Mrs. Barth were planning to own the trailers and rent them out? Mrs. Barth replied that they would like to own the mobile homes. Mrs. Romans pointed out that in the proposed mobile home park ordinance the density is limited to a maximum of eight spaces per acre; on this particular parcel of land, which is slightly less than one acre, we are talking about 10 mobile home spaces, plus 14 motel units. She also pointed out that the west portion of this parcel is in the Flood Plain, and that motel units had been flooded in the 1965 Flood. She stated that this was of great concern to her. Mrs. Barth stated that the structures on this site are "on the ground" and that she under- stood the motel units which were flooded had only about one foot of water in them. Further discussion of the plan ensued. It was noted that there was no access indicated to one mobile home space, and the access to a second space was debatable. It was suggested that a refined plan be submitted to the Commission for consideration, which plan must show the outline of lot lines, parking spaces must be identified, access to each mobile home space must be indicated, dimensions of overall parcel and each space must be shown, and the parking area for motel unit tenants must be shown. Walsh moved: Woods seconded: The matter be tabled for further consideration. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Romans stated that she was concerned about the plan, and asked if encouragement should be given to the applicants if members of the Commission are of the opinion that the plan is not feasible. Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini entered the meeting at 10 P.M. Dr. Walsh asked if the applicants could be contacted and informed that while the Commission wants to review a plan with the needed information on it, this would in no way commit the Commission or the City to approve the plan. Further discussion followed. It was pointed out that this area is in the Flood Plain, and that the sewage treatment plant is in near proximity to this site. Further discussion followed. Mr. Carlson suggested that the Planning Director contact Mr. and Mrs. Barth and notify them of the discussion that has ensued after they left the meeting, and emphasize to Mr. and Mrs. Barth that the discussion the Commission had with them didn't indicate approval of the pro- posal. Mr. Supinger indicated that he was concerned about contacting the applicants if they have gotten the impression that the Commission was in favor of the proposal. He pointed out that the matter had been tabled while Mr. and Mrs. Barth were in attendance. Mr. Carlson commented that the plan presented really had nothing to do with whether or not the Commission felt the mobile home park was the proper use in that location. Further discussion followed. Mr. Supinger was directed to contact the applicants and relay to them the feeling of the Com- mission in regard to the mobile home park in an industrial area, flood plain and in such close proximity to the sewage plant. ' --- - ----- - ---- - - - - --- VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Jefferson Avenue /U.S. 285 Off-ramp CASE #19-70 Mr. Supinger stated that the matter of traffic circulation on Jefferson Avenue between Broadwa~ and the U.S. 285 off-ramp would be considered at the next meeting of the Commission. Mr. Sup1nger stated that suggestions have been submitted by the Director of Public Works, and the matter was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council. Discussion followe;l. I I I I I I Page 1273 The meeting of July 28th, at which time the Capital Improvements Program was .considered, was reviewed. Mr. Senti stated that City Council is planning a study session on the Capital Improvement priority list submitted by the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M . Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *·* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEW(X)D PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 18, 1970 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8 :10 P.M . by Chairma n Carlson. Members present: Woods; Walsh ; Senti ; Patrick; Mosbarger; Henning i Carlson Members absent: Lone; Lentsch Also present: J. Supinger, Ex-officio; D. A. Romans,·Assistant Planning Director; B. Berardini, City Attorney. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated that Minutes of the meetings of July 28, 1970, and August 5 , 1970, were to be considered for approval. Woods moved: Senti seconded: The Minutes of July 28, 1970, and August 5, 1970, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously . III. 000 WEST JEFFERSON AVENUE Jefferson Avenue at U.S. #285/Broadway Off-ramp CASE #19-70A August 5, 1970 Chairman Carlson asked Mr. Supinger, Planning Director, to discuss this matter. Mr. Supinger stated that the Public Works Director anticipates traffic problems at the Jefferson-Broadway-U.S. 285 off-ramp following construction of the ramp. The Public Works Director submitted three proposals for the consideration of the City Manager and City Council; City Council then referred the matter to the Planning Commission for a recommenda- tion on these proposals, and any other proposals that might be drafted for the intersection. Mr. Supinger noted that there has been one additional proposal added to the three drafted by the Public Works Director. Mr. Supinger stated he understood the Council wanted property owner 11 in-put" obtained by the Commission prior to their recommendation to Council. Mr. Supinger discussed the possibility of a formal public hearing , or an informal hearing on the matter. Mr. Carlson stated that he was not in favor of a public hearing unless it is necessary. He commented that if proposals #1, or #4 were used, which indicate that a portion of the street would be vacated , he felt a public hearing would be warranted; however, proposals #2 and #3, which are directional changes in traffic flow , he did not feel warranted a public hearing. Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini commented that it would seem to him that if access were denied the property owners should be heard. He stated that if access is denied by the vaca- tion of the street, a public hearing will have to be held. Mr. Berardini commented that ·pa"- haps a formal public hearing is advisable on all proposals. Mr. Carlson stated that he could not believe that a public hearing would be held on four different proposals; he then asked if the purpose of the hearing would be to decide on one plan? Mr. Berardini commented tha t the Public Works Department has recommended the #3 proposal , but that i~ was the feeling of the City Council that all three proposals, plus any others that might be suggested, should be submitted to the Commission. Mrs. Romans questioned the practice of holding public hearings by the Planning Commission on establishment of traf f ic patterns; she stated that she understood this was the responsibility of the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Berardini agreed, but stated that he could see no harm in the Commission holding a public hearing. He stated that he ~new of no legal requirement which would make a hearing before the Commission mandatory. Mrs. Romans commented that if the Commission feels a plan which would call for vacation of part or all of the street, she felt the Public Hearing would be needed, but if the plan recom- mended by the Commission were only a change in direction of traffic flow, she did not feel the hearing would be justified. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked who would have ownership or control of vacated land? Mr. Carlson stated that the vacated land would revert to property owners on either side of the street. Mrs. Henning then questioned how access would be denied to property owners by the proposed plans? Mr. Carlson discussed the plans as they would affect adjoining property owne,rs, Dr. Mezen's office in particular. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning questioned the advantage of a one-way street pattern for only one block. Mrs. Romans commented that she felt the point of beginning should be a contact with the State Highway Department to determine what they will allow in the way of traffic circulation