Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-10-20 PZC MINUTES\ ... . .. '\' . '~r I I I Page 1287 Mr. Carlson suggested that Mr. Supinger obtain a letter from .the City. Manager and City Council asking for the full complete minutes pf the Commission prior to approval and setting forth their reasons why they feel it is better to receive unapproved minutes. Mr. Supinger in- dicated he would discuss this point with Ci t y Manager Dial. Woods moved: Lentsch seconded: The meeting be adjourned . The motion carried; the meeting was declared adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1970 The Regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Kenneth Carlson. Members Present: Walsh; Senti; Patrick; Henning; Carlson Supinger, Ex-officio Members Absent: Woods; Mosbarger; Lone; Lentsch Also Present: Assistant Planning Director Romans Planning Assistant Wardlaw II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated that the Minutes of October 6, 1970, were to be considered for approval. Senti moved: Walsh seconded: The Minutes of October 6, 1970, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. MRS. HARRINGTON 1860 W. Dartmouth USE NOT MENTIONED Kennels in I-2 Zone CASE #21-70 Mr. Supinger stated the property is on West Dartmouth Avenue in an I-2 (Heavy Industrial) zone district. Mr. and Mrs. Harrington, who have an option to purchase thi& property, raise and show dogs. They want to relocate to an area where adequate space will be pro- vided for their dogs. Mr. Supinger pointed out that kennels are not specifically mentioned as a permitted use in the Zoning Ordinance, and this is the reason the request is before the Planning Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that it is his understanding the "kennels" will not be a commercial use, but is rather a "hobby" of the Harrington's, and that the dogs are pets of the family. He noted that Mrs. Harrington has indicated that some puppies may be sold, but they intend to provide for 10 dogs maximum, and the main interest will be in showing the dogs. Mr. Supinger noted that he felt the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area , which is industrial developed or vacant land. It was then noted that Mr . and Mrs. Harrington will reside on the property, which is .presently used residentially, and will construct the kennels with outside runs on the western portion of the property. Mrs. Henning noted that the staff report indicates that residential uses must cease in the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) zone district by 1977, according to the Zoning Ordinance. She asked if this would have any affect on the desirability of the property for the Harringtons? Mr. Supinger commented that the use as a residence would be required to cease in 1977 if it were "truly a non-conforming use"; he commented that he felt the primary use of the property would be considered the "kennels", and that the residential use would be . a "caretaker" sort of use, which is permitted. Mr. Supinger read the following letter which he had recei~ed from Mrs. Harrington at the beginning of the meeting: To Whom It May Concern "CONSOLIDATED SILVER CO. P. O. BOX 10282 University Park Sta. Denver, Colo. 80210 Phone 733-4284 October 20, 1970 This is to assert that Consolidated Silver Co. does, in fact, own the land directly adjoining that of the Rowans on the east . We understand h e has a tentative buyer for his remaining land, and that this tentative buyer iµtends to raise and breed show dogs. We have taken this under consideration and can think of no way that the kennel can cause any inconvenience to our firm. /S I Richard F. Negri Richard F. Negri Rli'N I "' 11 Page 1288 Discussion followed. Mrs. Gladys Nies stated she was the real estate agent selling the property; she noted that she herself has raised show dogs, and that this is a business and is listed as such by the Internal Revenue Department. She pointed out that show dogs can easily be sold for $500 to $1,000 per dog. She concurred that the residential use would be secondary to the primary use of the property as a kennel, and that the Harringtons would be "caretakers" of their kennels. Mrs. Henning noted that animal hospitals are a permitted use, and that she felt the kennels fell within the same general classification. She asked if there were a distinct differentiation between the two? Mr. Supinger stated that the animal hospital was for the care of sick animals, and not all hospitals have outside runs for the animals. Ke~nels are for the boarding of healthy animals, which animals need outside runs and sunlight. Discussion followed. Dr. Walsh asked why this proposed use needed the approval of the Planning Commission? Mr. Carlson stated that "kennels" are not a permitted use in the Zoning Ordinance, and under §22.5-19, Uses Not Mentioned, the Planning Commission may recommend that a building permit be issued when the Commission finds the proposed use is compatible with and not objectionable to nearby property, and that the use is not hazardous to the health and property of surrounding areas. Mr. Carlson asked how large the parcel of land the Harringtons want to purchase is? Mr. Supinger stated that the parcel was approximately 1 /2 acre. Mr. Carlson then asked what the time schedule to construct the kennel, etc. seemed to be? Mr. Harrington stated that they would have to first sell their present property, and that probably the kennel will be started within the next year. Further discussion followed. Walsh moved: Patrick seconded: The Planning Commission approve the request of Mr. and Mrs. Laddie Harrington to construct a kennel at 1860 West Dartmouth Avenue, as shown on plans submitted to the Planning Department October 15, 1970~ subject to the following provisions: 1) The construction of the kennel and the installation of the fence is to be carried out in accordance with the applicable City codes and ordinances. 2) The continued use of the residence is to be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Codes and Ordinances of the City of Englewood. 3) If construction of the kennel as proposed has not been commended within 12 months from the date of approval, the approval is to be null and void and the request referred back to the Planning Commission be- fore a building permit is issued for a kennel at the subject location, unless the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance have been amended to permit the use in the applicable zone district. Further discussion followed; it was pointed out to the applicants that the third provision of the motion approving their request requires that construction of the kennel must commence within 12 months of this date, or the approval is null and void. Upon the call of the roll: AYES: Walsh; Senti; Patrick; Henning; Carlson NAYS: None ABSENT: Woods; Mosbarger; Lone; Lentsch The motion carried. - -- - - - - -- -- - --- --- - - --- - --- - -- IV. SANTA FE DRIVE /UNION AVENUE ANNEXATION Zoning Designation CASE #20-70A 10/6 /70 Mr. Supinger noted that the staff report presented to the Commission is to inform members of the staff recommendation in regard zoning the newly annexed area. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the City is required to establish zoning for the area within 90 days after the effective date of the annexation, by provision of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965. Mr. Supinger noted that according to a schedule worked out by the staff, the zoning of the area must be final by February 18, 1971. The land use of the area was discussed; small maps of the sub- ject area with land use indicated thereon were reviewed by the Commission, as were maps with the existing county zoning designations shown, and with the proposed Englewood zoning designa- tion. It was noted that the area east of South Santa Fe Drive is residentially and industrially developed; the area west of South Santa Fe Drive has mixed use, but is primarily industrial. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the industrial zoning, as proposed, would fit the majority of the area quite well. He acknowledged the area east of South Santa Fe Drive that is resi- dentially developed might have concern about the industrial zone designation on their property, but he also pointed out that with the exception of homes which front on South Mariposa Drive, and one fronting on West rufts Avenue, this residential development is an older development, it is situated in a low area, is in very close proximity to the railroad, South Santa Fe Drive, etc., and is generally an "industrial" area. He also noted that there is industrial zoning and development to the south, west, and north of these residential properties. Mr. Supinger stated that signs for posting of the property have been prepared, which will post the area for I-1 (Light Industrial). The Commission may, however, recommend zone classifications for the area which are of less intensity than the light industrial dis- trict. The Commission may not recommend a more intense classification, such as I-2 (Heavy Industrial). When the property is posted for the hearing before the City Council each area which is proposed for a separate zone classification will need to be posted lndicating that particular zone district. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff will suggest I-1 zoning for the entire area, excepting the extreme southeast corner, which will be suggested as R-1 zoning. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked what "buffer" this would provide the homes on Mariposa Drive from the industrial development. Mr. Supinger stated that the eleva- tion .would provide the only buffer. Mr. Senti stated that the elevation would, in his opinion, provide an adequate buffer to the homes on Mariposa Drive. Mr. Supinger then pointed out fuat ......... ____ ,-.... " I I I I I I Page 1289 screening can be required on all new industrial uses; he further commented that screening cannot be required retroactively ori existing industrial uses. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning inquired as to whether the industrial zoning would increase the value of the resi- dential property in question? Mr. Senti staxed that it · could; he commented that he didn't feel the residential area should ever have been zoned for residential use , and that he failed to see whereby the industrial zoning could "hurt" them further. Mr. Pat r ick commented that the only "hurt" they could further experience would be if they wished to add a room to their "non-conforming" residential use, and the ordinance restricts such additions. Mr. Senti commented that even an addition to the horn£ would not add to the value of those residential uses. Further discussion followed. V. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. The recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Manager on the 1971 work program for the State Highway Department was discussed and contrasted to the Manager's recommendation to the County Commissioners for projects in Englewood and for the 1971 State Highway Depart- ment work program. It was noted that this recommendation from the City Manager basically ignored the study and recommendation of the Planning Commission;. the matter of whether recommendations are made to the City Council or to the administration was also discussed. Mrs. Henning suggested that possibly an actual statement of lines of communications to and from the Planning Commission, and the disposition. of recommendations and cases considered by the Commission could be set forth. Further discussion followed. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that City Manager Dial has mentioned the possibility o f a joint meeting of the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council in the near future relative to Architectural Review. No date, time, or location has been set for this meeting. The City Council has referred to the Planning Commission consideration of a "flood plain" zone designation . Mr. Supinger indicated that Mr. Dial stated he would submit a written referra,l to the Commission on this matter. _, - - VII. BOULDER PLANNING CONFERENCE. Members planning to attend the annual Planning Conference in Boulder on October 29 and 30, 1970, were given their · registration receipts. The City of Englewood will be represented at the Conference by Planning Director Supinger , Assistant Director Romans, and Commission members Henning, Carlson , Patrick, Walsh , and Woods. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 1970 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carlson at 8:00 P.M. Members present: Woods; Walsh ; Senti; Patrick; l\bsbarger; Lentsch; Henning; Carlson Members absent: Lone Also present: Planning Director Supinger; Assistant Planning Director Romans; Planning Assistant Wardlaw; City Attorney Berardini. Chairman Carlson announced fo ~ benefit of member of the audience that the public hearing scheduled for the zoning of the Santa Fe /Union Avenue annexation area will not be held .as per court action. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated that the Minutes of October 20, 1970, were to be considered for approval. Lentsch moved: Patrick seconded: The Minutes of October 20, 1970, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. ......--..........