Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-01-05 PZC MINUTESI I I I . CALL TO ORDER . CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 5, 1971 Page 1307 The regular meeting OJ the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carlson at 8:00 P.M. Members present: Walsh; Senti; Patrick; Mosbarger; Lentsch; Henning; Carlson Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Woods; Lone Also present: Assistant Planning Director Romans; Planning Assistant Wardlaw; City Attorney Berardini; Public Works Director Waggoner. ~ -- - - - - - - II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Carlson stated that the Minutes of December 8, 1970, were to be considered for approvaL Lentsch moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Minutes of December 8, 1970, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. COLLIER, ANDERSON, WRIGHT, SMEDLEY & TURRE Lots 17 -32, inclusive, Block 18, Englewood; All of Block 19, Englewood; Lots 1 -16, inclusive, Block 20, Englewood. CASE #26-70A December 8, 1970 Mr. Carlson stated that ·this rezoning request was tabled at the meeting of D3 cember 8, 1970, to allow further consideration by the Commission before rendering a decision. Henning moved: Walsh seconded: That Case #26-7 0 be raised from the Table. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lentsch asked if opponents and proponents had been notified that the matter would be considered at this meeting? Mr. Supinger stated that it was stated at the meeting of December 8, 1970, that the matter was to be considered at the regular meeting of January 5, 1971; no specific notice was mailed by the office to opponents and proponents. Dr. Walsh asked which properties were the two vacant sites referred to in the staff report? Mrs. Romans stated that property owned by Ms. Baird (Lots 31-32, Block 18) and property owned by R. W. Smedley, (Lots 31-32, Block 19) were vacant. Dr. Walsh then asked what significance the change of ownerships in this area in comparison to changes in ownership in similar areas, should have in the consideration by the Commission? Mr. Supinger stated that he didn't feel it was necessarily of "great" significance to the Commission in their deliberation. Dr. Walsh asked if apartment houses could be erected only in the R-3-B Zone District? Mr. Supinger replied that apartment houses are permitted in the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts. Mr.Lone entered and took his chair with the Commission. Dr. Walsh asked for a clarification of the permitted uses in an R-4 District? He asked when this 1 /2 block between the Fox-Galapago alley and South Galapago Street was zoned R-4, and why was it given the R-4 designation? Mrs. Rom ans stated that the R-4 Zone District is the "buffer" district, which will permit single and two-family residential uses, off-street parking lots, professional o ffice buildings, etc., but permits no retail uses. This buffer zone may be 1 /2 block in depth as contrasted to the usual depth considered as a minimum for other zone districts, which is one "city" block. Dr. Walsh asked how much of the area east of the Delaware /Elati alley that is zoned R-3-B is developed for apartment usage? Mr. Supinger stated that he didn't have the exact per- centage, but that he felt it was less than 50%; he noted that much of the area is devoted to single-family residential use. Dr. Walsh asked what the City Ordinance requires for minimum parking ratio? Mr. Supinger replied that the parking ratio is one space for each dwelling unit, as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Dr. Walsh asked if any comments had been received by the Planning Department by other City offices on the parking situation --whether it was inadequate, or whether parking in excess of that needed is being provided? Mr. Supinger stated that no comments had been made to him; he noted that the staff does not feel the parking required is adequate, nor is the parking that is being provided by a majority o f the developers . Mrs. Henning asked if there was a minimum parking ratio for single-family districts, as well as for apartment districts? Mr. Supinger replied that the 1:1 ratio applied to all dwelling units --single-family, two-family, and multi-family. Discussion followed. Lone moved: Henning seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning re- quest filed by Messrs. Collier, Anderson, Wright, Smedley and Turre for · a change of zone from R-1-C (Single-family Residential ) to R-3-B (Multi- family Residential) for the area bounded by the Delaware /Elati alley on the east, West Jefferson Avenue on the north; Fox /Galapago alley on the west, and .West Kenyon Avenue on the south, be approved .for the following reasons: Page 1308 1. The development of the Cinderella City complex has encouraged a "commercial" atmosphere in the areas adjacent, which satellite de- velopments create further changes in areas adjacent to their bounda ries. 2. The single family zoning in this particular situation. is an "en- clave" and the granting of the requested R-3-B Zone District will be an extension of the R-3-B zoning from the east. 3. West Kenyon Avenue is an arterial street, and will provide a logical boundary between the single family developments to the south and the heavier density residential and commercial developments north of Kenyon Avenue. 4. No resident of the subject area to be rezoned spoke in opposition io the requested rezoning at the Public Hearing. 5. Petitions received indicated one signature by a resident within the subject area to be rezoned · in opposition. The staff report and recommendations of the Planning Department staff are to be forwarded to Council for their information as a part of this recom- mendation. AYES: NAYS: Senti; Patrick; Mosbarger; Lone; Henning; Carlson Walsh; Lentsch The motion carried. IV. KEY SAVINGS & LOAN 3501 South Broadway ALLEY VACATION Broadway/Acoma Hampden to Dry Creek CASE #2-71 Mr. Supinger stated that Key Savings and Loan Association has purchased all the property fronting on Hampden Avenue between South Broadway and Little Dry Creek. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Stones, Vice-President of the Association, has stated that they will tear down the existing garage just west of the alley, but that the building on the west end of the property will remain. They would like to have the alley vacated and use the area for parking. Access to the parking lot would be moved further west than where the alley is at present. Mr. Supinger stated that all utilities departments and companies have been notified, and none have any objection to the vacation, provided an easement is retained for the full width of the alley for the existing utilities. Mrs. Henning asked how an easement for a pedestrian walk-way would be retained? Mr. Supinger stated that it would be accomplished by a legal instrument. He noted that the location of the walk-way is not firmly decided at this time; he stated that it might be in the same area as the utilities easement, but that it does not have to be in that same area. Mr. Supinger also noted that while he understood the receiption of the "pedestrian walk-way" idea was favorable by officials at the Key Savings Association, they have not made a committment for such walk-way at this time. ' Mr. Lone asked if it would be proper for the Commission to recommend vacation of the alley,. and that the easement for utilities be retained, and to state that the location of the pedestrian walkway easement will be established at the date of vacation. Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini commented that he felt there should be some firm recommendation on the location of the pedestrian walkway. Further discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that he understood Key Savings would like to have the alley vacated, if possible, without too much delay, thus . giving them time to get their parking layout drawn, etc. so that when the asphalt plants open in the spring, the work will be completed as soon as possible. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked how the proposed picnic area along Dry Creek would be reached by those wishing to use the facilities? Mr. Supinger stated that it would be reached by foot; no provision for vehicular access has been made because cost would be pro- hibitive. Mr. Supinger then pointed out that the staff report recommends that the Planning Commission approve .the parking lot layout, landscaping, etc. as a condition for the approval of the vacation .. Discussion followed. Mr. Lone stated that he felt it would be to the advantage of Key Savings if a recommenda- tion for vacation of the alley were made. He felt that if the Association knew that the City was in favor of the vacation they would proceed on their plans for the parking lot. Dr. Walsh agreed that it made sense to make the recommendation for vacation of the alley, and leave the details of the location of the walkway etc. up to the Planning Department and City Council. Lone moved: Walsh seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that at such time as details for utility easements, pedestrian walkway access to the park land to the south of Dry Creek, approval of the parking lot layout and landscaping plan can be accomplished, that the alley between Broadway/ Acoma and Hampden/Dry Creek be vacated. The motion carried unanimously. v. BURTKIN ASSOCIATES Subdivision Waiver - - - - - - - - -7 CASE #1-71 Mr. Supinger stated that the property for WQich the waiver is requested is on the west side of South Broadway and north of Big Dry Creek. The applicants requested a waiver to the Sub- division Regulations in 1969, which request was granted by the Commission. Conditions to that waiver were that no further division of the land would take place without approval of the Commission. Mr. Supinger st~ted that Mr. Burt and Mr. Arkin, dba Burtkin Associates, would now like to modify the plan submitted in 1969, by enlarging the site for a proposed restaurant and move the access road from a point just north of the restaurant to a point just north of the Creek. I I I I I I Page 1309 Mr. Harry Arkin displayed a copy of the plan approved in 1969 by the Commission , and a copy of the proposed modificstion. Mr. Arkin stated that they are moving the site for the restaurant next to the Kentucky Fried Chicken, and are moving the roadway to the south. Mr. Arkin stated that he has been told by Mr. Sagrillo , Assistant City Engineer , that the roadway next to the creek would be preferable to the previous propo$ed location , because it would tie into a roadway across Broadway to the east, and would form an intersection . Mr. Arkin reviewed the development of the area south of Belleview. He noted that this area was formerly a "dump"; the Commission asked if Mr. Burt would "fill" the property, and Mr. Burt has done so. The property has been filled and leveled , and compact~d where necessary. Mr. Arkin stated that he was informed at 4:30 this afternoon that the Planning Staff would recommend against the granting of the modified waiver because of concern voiced by the Fire Department and Public Works Department. Mr . Arkin was concerned that the Fire Department is asking that a fire plug be installed at the intersection of the proposed access road and Lehow Avenue; he stated he felt this would be for the protection of the veterinary clinic, and he did not feel that Burtkin Associates should be required to finance this particular installation. Mr. Arkin stated that Burtkin Associates has provided an 8 11 sewer line down West Lehow Avenue, which the veterinary clinic has tapped onto. Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Arkin if they proposed to finish the access road for the complete length from Broadway to Lehow, or if they would only partially improve the roadway? Mr. Arkin stated they planned at the moment to finish the road to the rear of the proposed restaurant property line with asphalt, curb and gutter. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning stated that she is concerned about this property; tha~ this proposal doesn't seem to be a logical development in her opinion. She noted that if Mr. Burt does acquire the McSpadden property, that it could change the entire concept for development that exists at the moment, and she stated she was reluctant to waive the regulations for this very reason. Mr. Burt stated that he didn't feel he and Mr. Arkin should be "blamed for what may or may not happen to the McSpadden property''; he pointed out that he has been trying to purchase the property for five years, that the property does pose problems, and he feels the problems "will be solved in time". Mr. Burt reviewed the progress in development of the area since he has been interested in the area; he stated that his developments are "bringing revenue into the City of Englewood", and he is trying in this request for a waiver to bring another business in which will make "some profit for the City". Mr. Burt noted that the drainage of this proposed development will have to be approved by Mr. Waggoner, Public Works Director. He stated that "when this development is built, it will be a wonderful asset to the City of Englewood." Mrs. Henning commented that the Planning Commission must look at tqe entire area whether it is owned by one person or not, and make a decision that is best for the area. Mr. Lone stated that he felt the relocation of the access road does further divide the parcel, and that the property could be developed as two separate parcels. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that it was NOT the suggestion of the staff that the access road be re- located. Mr. Carlson commented that he felt Mr. Lone's opinion that the relocation of the access road did cause further division of the parcel .was a . point well taken. Mr. Arkin commented that the original plat filed with the first waiver they had obtained indicated an access road , but did not have such road in a definite location shown on the map. He stated that he was aware that access will have to be provided to the rear parcel of land. Mrs. Henning asked .Mr. Waggoner what objections he had to the proposal? Mr. Waggoner stated that he was concerned about storm drainage. He pointed out that Big Dry Creek is not shown on the plat, and he is not sure the roadway can be placed as is shown on the plat without moving the Greek to the south. Mr. Waggoner stated that he also felt the access road tying into Lehow Avenue and Broadway should be dedicated to the City ; if it is open for public travel, it should be a public I,'oad •. He stated that if the roadway is not to be used for through traffic , it should be discouraged. Mr. Waggoner cited the roadways in Cinderella City as an~xample, and urged that further situations such as this be avoided if at all possible. Mrs. Henning asked what would be involved to get the roadway dedicated to the City? Mr. Berardini stated that it could be accomplished by (1) the filing of a subdivision plat which shows the roadway; (2) it may be grant~d to the City by deed or instrument; or (3) it may be implied, which is to say that with the use of this roadway by the public for a given length of time, it will become a public street by continued public use. Discussion followed. Mr. Burt stated that he would like to develop the interior parcel with a motor lodge, and he didn't feel the managers of the motor lodge would want through traffic in that area. He stated that he felt he would .discourage use of the roadway by through traffic to the point of policing it in some manner. Discussion followed. Mr. Lone reiterated that he felt this proposal was more than a modification of the original waiver; he felt it was a further division of the parcel of land, and that the request should be for approval of further division of the land rather than approval of a modification. Dr . Walsh commented that it appeared "like checker playing" to him; they want to move the access road south and enlarge the site for the proposed restaurant. Dr. Walsh asked if the proposal created more drainage problems than the original plan? Mr. Waggoner stated that if the Commission considered just the enlargement of the site for the restaurant, that it probably would not; but, if the relocation of the road were approved the drainage problem would , in all likelihood, be increased. Mr. Waggoner again stated that Big Dry Creek is not shown on the plan; he pointed out that he does not have a survey in his files which plots the location of the Creek. Mr. Arkin stated that the Creek did not cross any of this property. Mr. Waggoner also noted that there is a drainage easement along the west line of South Broadway, which is not shown on the plat. Mr. Burt stated that Burtkin Associates has ob- tained the easement from the Highway Department. Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini asked if the Commission would consider the matter further at a future date which would give him time to review the matter thoroughly with the staff , and with Mr . B~rt and Mr. Arkin? Mr. Arkin a sked that it not be tabled, and that a deqision be made at this meeting; he pointed out that a committment has been made to build the restaurant, and a time schedule that they have devised is very tight. Page 1310 Mr. Lone commented that if the matter were to be decided this evening, he felt he would ha\e to vote against the granting of the waiver as requested. He .stated that he would like clari- fication on some points of discussion, and an official opin~on from the City Attorney before the matter is decided. He commented that he could not be concerned about the tight time schedule the developers are facing, and pointed out that the City did not place the time schedule on them. Mr. Carlson stated that he felt if the Commission post.poned the discussion, that there had "better be a reason for it." Discussion followed. Henning moved: Lone seconded: The matter be tabled until the next regular meeting of January 19th for further consideration. AYES: Henning; Lone NAYS: Walsh, Senti, Patrick, Mosbarger, Lentsch, Carlson The motion failed. Walsh moved: Lentsch seconded: The modification of the Subdivision Waiver granted May 7, 1969, be accepted as requested by Burtkin Associates, and as shown on Survey #52744, revised 23, .December, 1970, and corrected by the Planning De- partment 19 January 1971, which correction shows "Parcel 1" in dark outline. Conditions which were placed upon the property at the time the -waiver was granted in May, 1969, will remain in force as a control on this property, such conditions being: 1. No further division of said realty, other than that shown on said attachment (without securing the further approval of the Commissio~ shall take place; and 2. That parcel designated on said plat as Parcel 1 shall be developed as a single site or development, so that the same shall have access from both Lehow Avenue and South Broadway Street. AYES: NAYS: Walsh, Senti, Patrick, Mosbarger, Lentsch, Carlson Lone, Henning Motion carried. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mrs. Henning commented that she didn't agree with the policy of granting waivers to the Sub- division Regulations, as the policy was explained by Mr. Carlson; and further, that policies such as this should not be stated in a public meeting. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt tt was the granting of waivers such as this one granted this evening that presented a great many serious problems to the City, and that the Commission should do all it can to eliminate the problems before they .arise. Dr. Walsh agreed that the Commission should be discreet in stating policies. Mr. Lone discussed the car wash which Mr. Burt has located on Lehow Avenue, just north of the property for which he was requesting the waiver to the Subdivision Regulations. This car wash has gas pumps, and there is a service station within the 500 foot distance that the City has placed between service station property lines •. Mr. Lone stated that he felt if the 500 foot limitation was proper, that it should be diligently adhered to and enforced. If the 500 foot limitation is not proper, then he felt it should .be removed ~rom the books. Mr. Lone noted that there have been a few instances, such as this, where the permits have been issued for the gas pumps, because the developer avows that they are an accessory use or conditional use to his business. But, Mr. Lone noted, there have also been several ap- plications denied by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and it is his contention that there should be a consistent enforcement of the rule, if it is to continue. Discussion followed. It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried; meeting ad- journed at 10:50 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: Lone moved: Henning seconded: January 5, 1971 Rezoning of Lots 17-32, inclusive, Block 18, Englewood All of Block 19, Englewood Lots 1-16, inclusive, Block 20, Englewood The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning re- quest filed by Messrs. Collier, Anderson, Wright, Smedley and Turre for a change of zone from R-1-C (Single-family Residential) to R-3-B (Multi- family Residential) for the area bounded by the Delaware /Elati alley on I I I I I I Page 1311 the east; West Jefferson on the north; Fox /Galapago alley on the west; and West Kenyon Avenue on the south, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The development of the Cinderella City complex has encouraged a "Commercial" atmosphere in the areas adjacent, which satellite developments create further changes in areas adjacent to their boundaries. 2. The single family zoning in this particular situation is an "enclave" and the granting of the requested R-3-B Zone District will be an ex- tension of the R-3-B zoning from the east. 3. West Kenyon Avenue is an arterial street, andwilL provide a logical boundary between the single family developments to the south and the heavier density residential and commercial developments north of Kenyon Avenue. 4. No resident of the subject area to be rezoned spoke in opposition to the requested rezoning at the public hearing. 5. Petitions received indicated one signature by a resident within the subject area to be rezoned in opposition. The staff report and recommendations of the Planning Department sta f f are to be forwarded to Council for their in f ormation as part of this recommendation. AYES: NAYS: Senti , Patrick, Mosbarger, Lone, Henning, Carlson Walsh, Lentsch The motion carried. Respect1ully submitted, 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: January 5, 1971 SUBJECT: Vacation of Broadway/Acoma alley between Hampden Avenue and Little Dry Creek. RECOMMENDATION: Lone moved: Walsh seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that at such time as details for utility easements, pedestrian walkway access to the park land to the south of Dry Creek, approval of the parking lot layout and landscaping plan can be accomplished, that the alley between Broadway / Acoma and Hampden/Dry Creek be vacated. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, 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 JANUARY 19, 1971 The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carlson at 8:05 P.M. Members Present: Woods; Patrick; Mosbarger; Lentsch; Henning; Carlson Supinger , Ex-officio Members Absent: Walsh; Senti; Lone Also Present: Assistant Director Romans; Planning Assistant Wardlaw; Messrs. Burt and Arkin. - - - --- - --- ------- - ---