Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-08-18 PZC MINUTESI 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 Page 1274 in this area. Mr. Carlson stated that he felt this was a good point, and pointed out that there is only 30 ft. +/-between this Jefferson Avenue /Broadway intersection and .the new off-ramp/Broadway intersection. Discussion followed. Mr. Senti commented that he felt the Council was interested in the Commission recommendation on the problem, but that this recom- mendation did not necessarily mean Council would adopt whatever plan was recommended. Further discussion followed. Mr. Woods noted that there weren't too many residential properties which would be affected by the plans, but he did feel that the City should contact the State Highway Department and obtain information on their plans in this area. He further stated that be didn't feel the Commission needed to hold a Public Hearing on the matter. Mr. Supinger stated that if the Commission proceeded on the informal discussion basis, he was concerned about getting the opinions of the area property owners. He stated that this was the main stipulation as explained to him; there was to be property owner "in-put" prior to the decision by the Commission. Mr. Senti stated that be felt the Council thought the Planning Department would contact the resident property owners just to get their feeling on the matter; he noted that there would be only six or so properties that would be affected. Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Senti if he felt it was necessary to have a Public Hearing on the matter? Mr. Senti replied he did not. Mr. Supinger asked if, after a recommendation by the Planning Commission for .a proposal that did not involve vacation of the street, who would hold the public bearing? Mr. Berardini stated that he did not believe the matter required a public hearing. Discussion followed. Dr. Walsh questioned the rationale of vacation; he questioned what would happen if the street were vacated, and in a few years it was determined that a street would be needed here. Further discussion followed. Mr. Berardini pointed out that the street would not be vacated until and unless it had been determined that it was no longer needed for traffic circulation. Mrs. Henning suggested that the Planning Director be instructed to write the property owne1 affected by the proposals and asked for comments on the proposals. She asked .if the matter could then be considered further at the next meeting and a decision rendered at that time? Discussion followed. Dr. Walsh asked if it would be a good idea to notify the businessmen on Broadway in downtown Englewood know of the impending discussion; be commented that be bas heard comments from some of the businessmen about the traffic situation and be felt that this intersection does have some bearing on the business community in Englewood. Mr. Patrick agreed that the businessmen would be interested and stated that he knew Mr. Lentsch, who could not attend the meeting tonight, was interested in the matter. Mr. Woods commented that if the businessmen were notified in the 3300 and 3400 blocks of South Broadway, that the people should be notified who live an equal distance in all directions of the intersection should be notified. He commented that he felt the residents of the immed:ia te area bad much more interest in the matter and would be much more affected by a decision than the downtown businessmen. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Henning suggested sending letters to property owners and businessmen in an area between Kenyon Avenue and Hampden Avenue, Broadway and Bannock. This suggestion was approved by the Commission and the Planning Director was so instructed. - - --- ----- ---- - - - - - - --- - -- IV. BELL COURT 2935 S. Santa Fe Dr. CASE #14-70A August 5, 1970 July 21, 1970 Chairman Carlson stated that this matter bad been tabled at the previous meeting and would have to be raised from the table for discussion. It was moved and seconded that the matter be raised from the Table. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Carlson asked the Staff to review the request. Mrs. Romans, Assistant Planning Director, stated the application was for permission to install ten mobile home spaces on the rear of the property at 2935 South Santa Fe Drive. There are .presently 14 motel units on the property, which units will remain whether or not the mobile home spaces are approved The property is zoned I-1 (Light Industry), which Zone District permits motels and mobile home parks as "Conditional Uses" upon approval by the Planning Commission. The mobile home parks must conform to the Mobile Home Park Regulations. Mrs. Romans indicated the subject property on an aerial photo and on the land use map of the area. Mrs. Romans then reviewed the discussions on the request which ensued when Mr. and Mrs. Barth met with the Commission on July 21, 1970 and on August 5, 1970. Mr. Proctor also met with the Commission on July 21st; he iw sorking for the Barth's on the proposal, and bas drawn the preliminary plans for the proposed mobile home spaces. Mrs. Romans also discussed the moratorium which the Commission enacted on consideration of mobile home parks. The City Attorney bad indicated to Chairman Carlson at the meeting on August 5th that he did not feel the moratorium would be applicable in this particular case, inasmuch as the zoning is proper for the mobile home parks, and the approval is solely on the merits of the "Conditional Use." A check-list for Mobile Home Parks bad earlier been given members of the Commission, and Mrs. Romans noted that the plans for the proposed mobile home park which she bad available for her study did not meet the requirements of the Mobile Home Parks Ordinance, as indicated by the check-list. She noted that Mr. Proctor and Mr. and Mrs. Barth were in attendance, and that new plans may be available for further consideration. Mr. Proctor stated that be bad been under the impression that a general approval of the plan was obtained first, and then detailed plans were submitted. He ~tated that he does have plans for the mobile home park that will satisfy the requirements of the Mobile Home Parks Ordinance and also bas some alternatives in these plans. Mr. Carlson stated that if Mr. Proctor b~d plans that were pertinent to the discussion, the Commission would be interested in viewing them. A pencil-sketch of the proposed mobile home park was displayed. Mr. Proctor stated that he bas not gone into details on the lighting and water and sewe~ lines on this plan. He stated that be didn't feel the matter of access to a particular mobile home space could be considered u,ntil you really talked about a particular mobile bom.e. _Mr. Proctor stated that if the State ~igbway Department did not take more of the property, and if the mobile home park proposal is approved, it is planned by the Barths that the remaining I I I I I I Page 1275 motel units will be removed. Mr. Proctor then discussed the Flood Plain designation and its affect on this property. Mr. Proctor stated that the units that were flooded on the rear of the property were slightly below grade. He stated that no units on the front of the property were flooded. He stated that he felt the trailers would be high enough that they will not flood. Dr. Walsh asked if the mill levy for school purposes would be applicable to these units if approved, and they are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Barth as proposed? Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini stated that the land was taxable. Mrs. Romans noted that the school would probably get a small amount from the registration fee tax as they do from the tax on automobiles, but she was not aware of any further tax monies available to the school district on mobile homes. Mr. Proctor stated that he thought the legislation had been enacted which would tax mobile homes in proportion to their value, as is done on other improvements. Further dis- cussion followed. Dr. Walsh asked how many units were occupied of the existing motel units, and asked if it included the unit on the rear of the property which is proposed to be re- moved? Mr. Proctor said that 14 units were occupied, and that it did not include the unit at the rear. Dr. Walsh asked the meaning of "conditional use", and asked to what extent the Commission is bound to honor requests for conditional uses. Mr. Berardini quoted from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which reads: §22.4-13 h. Conditional Uses. Provided the public interest is fully protected and the following uses are approved by the Commission: (1) Mobile home parks; provided the plans conform in all respects to the Mobile Home Parks Regulations of the City of Englewood; (2) Motel or motor court. Mr. Berardini noted that the Mobile Home Parks Ordinance sets forth specific standards which the proposed mobile home park must meet to be considered by the Commission as a Conditional Use. Mr. Berardini then stated that the approval of a conditional use was a discretionary matter, and that various factors would enter into the Commission's consideration; in this particular case, he felt the Flood Plain designation should very definitely be considered. Dr. Walsh asked if he understood correctly that the plan for conditional uses must be in detail when presented for consideration, and that in this particular case the Mobile Home Parks Regulations must be met precisely for this request to be considered as a conditional use? Mr. Berardini stated this was correct. Mr. Proctor stated that he ±elt this would place a burden on the property owner to go to a great deal of expense before a project could be considered for approval by the Commission. He asked if plans could not be approved sub- ject to compliance with the Mobile Home Parks Regulations thereby possibly saving some ex- pense to property owners? Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked if the present mobile home parks ordinance contained any restriction on the number of units per acre? Mrs. Romans replied that it did not; it did require that each mobile home space have 25 ft. frontage, and that there be 10 ft. between each mobile home on the sides, but it does not limit the number of units per acre. The staff report on the request by Mr. and Mrs. Barth was discussed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance definition of mobile home, which is: "Any vehicle used, or so constructed as to permit its being used as a conveyance upon the public streets or highways and duly licensable as such and c o nstructed in such a manner as will permit occupancy thereof as a dwelling or sleeping place for one (1) or more persons", and the definition of dwelling, which reads: "A building or portion thereof, used exclusively for residential occupancy; including one-family, two-family and multi-family dwellings. The word "dwelling" shall not include tents, trailer coaches or mobile homes, and trail.er coach or mobile home parks,'' seems to indicate that the mobile home parks and. travel trailer parks are regarded as "transient occupancy" uses and not permanent occupancy uses which she under- stood Mr. and Mrs. Barth to be considering. Mrs. Romans then cited the fact that the property is in very close proximity to the Englewood Sewage Disposal Plant, and the staff does not feel that the area lends itself to "permanent occupancy" use. Mr. Proctor pointed out that the present motel units on the property are rented on a weekly or monthly basis; that there is little transient movement in the. clientele, and stated that he did not feel the transient vs. permanent occupancy matter was a strong argument against the proposed mobile home park. He pointed out that he felt the mobile homes would be much more desirable than the existing motel. units. Mrs. Henning stated that she understood that it was dif±icult for an applicant to provide detailed information with no assurance of appro~al, but if she read the ordinance correctly, she did not feel the Commission could consider this conditional use unless it conforms to the Mobile Home Parks Regulations; she then pointed out that a new plan was submitted this evening which the staff has not had the opportunity to review for conformance to the Regul&- tions. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked what was considered to be "public interest?" Mr. Berardini stated that he felt health, safety, welfare and morals would have to be con- sidered "public interest"; he stated that he felt the matter of the flood plain, the traffic situation on Santa Fe Drive, the compatibility of the use in that area, noise, odors from the sewage plant, all these matters would be considered in deciding in the "public interest". Mr. Proctor commented that he felt there was no problem in "public interest" in regard to the sewage disposal plant, as he was. under the impression there would be a "metropolitan sewage" program in a few years. He noted there are other mobile home parks and motel units in the area, the people living there have been there for some time, and he doesn't feel the situation is bad for the health of these people. Mr. Carlson asked Mrs. Romans . to discuss the flood plain designation on this property, as lE felt this was of great significance. Mrs. Romans stated that the Standard Project Flood line established by the Army Corps of Engineers is immediately west of this property; however, the actual 1965 Flood line did encompass the rear portion of this property, and units situated in this portion were flooded. Mr. Proctor commented that there "wasn't that much water in. the uni ts"; he noted that the units were situated right on the ground level, and that he thought you actually stepped down into those units. Mr. Carlson noted that until Chatfield and Mount Carbon dams are both constructed, this area is subject to flooding, and that Bear Creek is very prone to flooding. Mr. Proctor questioned that the Bear CFeek would flood sufficiently to cause the Platte River to rise and flood this property. Mr. Carlson pointed out that Bear Creek had flooded more ~ften than the other creeks in this general area, and that the Commission does have to consider that factor when studying the merits of particular uses in the flood plain area. The development plans of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and of SPARC were briefly discussed. Page 1276 The proposed mobile home park ordinance was briefly discussed for the benefit of the new members of the Commission; this ordinance would place mobile home parks in a residential zone classi- fication rather than a light-industrial classification. The proposed ordinance would also limit the number of mobile home units to eight per acre. Mrs. Henning questioned the matter of the mobile home parks in light of residential /industrial compatibility, and asked if the proposed ordinance indicates they are not compatible and it js the feeling of the staff and commission that they are not compatible and thus the proposed ordinance, why do we consider that they might be compatible now? S~e questioned whether the request could be denied on the grounds that the uses are not compatible? Mr. Carlson stata:l that he didn't feel that this could be the only reason for denial of the request. Mr. Berardini stated that if it is felt the proposed use is not compatible with the existing area , it could be denied, but could not be denied on an ordinance that is proposed but not fina 1. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the staff report reflects the environmental problems that exist in the area, and also reflects the probability that the use will be more than. a "transient" occupancy type use, and that the Staff is saying that it is not in the public interest, in their opinion, to locate a mobile home park in such close proximity to the sewage disposal plant, in an industrial area , close to the railroad tracks, and in an area that is subject to flooding. This opinion stands whether or not the mobile home standards can be met with compliance. Mr. Supinger pointed out that persons looking for a "house" would certainly not be likely to select this site for their home, and further stated that residents of mobile home parks may stay an indefinite length of time in a mobile home park. Discussion followed. Woods moved: Henning seconded: The request for 10 mobile home spaces at 2935 South Santa Fe Drive be denied, the request not being in the public interest for the following reasons: 1. The area was flooded in the 1965 Flood. 2. The property is exposed to future flooding until the Chatfield and Mount Carbon Dams are built. 3. The property is very close proximity to the sewage disposal plant. 4. The property has industrial uses to the north and west, and Santa Fe Drive adjoins the property on the east. AYES: Woods ; Walsh; Senti; Mosbarger ; Henning; Carlson NAYS: Patrick The motion carried. The applicants were informed that the matter could be appealed to the Board o f Adjustment and Appeals. Mr. Berardini stated that the Council would also hear citizens who wished to appear before them. Mr. Berardini stated that the Board of Adjustment had jurisdiction to hear appeals from any decision o f the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE A. Orientation of Members. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it would be advantageous to the newer members of the com- mission particularly to instigate an orientation program. He felt it might be wise to have a seminar which would set forth the relation of the City Council, the Board o f Adjustment and Appeals and the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. Mr. Carlson stated that he felt the suggestion had considerable merit. Mr. Supinger further stated that the idea had begun with the revision of the Rules and Procedure Manual o f the Commission, and he has dis- cussed the idea with the City Manager. The possibility of the Council, Commission and Board of Adjustment getting together as soon as possible, maybe sometime in September, was considered. It was the feeling of the Commission that the suggestion should be followed, and directed. Mr . Supinger to proceed with the plans for the orientation, etc. B. Preliminary Plans. Mr. Supinger discussed what he felt preliminary plans presented for consideration by the Planning Department and Planning Commission should contain. He suggested that a policy relative to contents and standards for plans be drafted, and if approved by the Commission, this could be obtained by applicants at the Planning Office. Mr. Supinger indicated that he felt this would be one method of obtaining adequate information at the beginning when considering a case. Mr. Carlson discussed the experiences of the Planning Commission in regard to the presentation of plans; he commented that he felt Ft. Collins' decision that the finished product must "look something like the plan" was probably a pretty good require- ment. He pointed out that plans have been presented to this Commission , and approved by the Commission, and the finished project has had no resemblance whatever to the plan approved by the Commission. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger questioned how a Plan could be deter- mined to meet standards of certain ordinances if they were not drawn to scale, to f it the property, etc? Discussion followed. Dr. Walsh moved: Mosbarger seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried; the meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I I