Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-16 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Covens at 7:03 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Cuesta, Draper, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Cov- ens Merkel, Ex-officio None Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 2, 1993 Mr. Garrett noted that the Minutes of March 2 reflect that he was absent. Mr. Garrett stated that he did participate , via telephone from Washington D.C., in the discussion of "Conditional Use" issues and questioned that he should be designated as "absent" for the meeting. Discus- sion ensued. Mr. Merkel indicated that staff would clarify this issue. Mr. Covens stated that on Page 3, Line 5 of the first paragraph, he wanted the words "emergency ambulance" added so that the sentence reads: " ... that Englewood citizens receive free emergency ambulance transport to the hospital from an accident site or from their resi- dence; ... " Mr. Covens inquired if there were further corrections, additions, or deletions to be made to the Minutes. Tobin moved: Draper seconded: The Minutes of March 2 , 1993 be approved as amended on Page 3. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Draper, Dummer, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Cuesta, Covens None None Garrett The motion carried. Mr. Covens then inquired if there was any change in the order of the agenda. No suggestions for change were made, and Mr. Covens stated that the Commission would proceed with the scheduled Public Hearing. ID. NESS MANUFACTURING CASE #1-93 3300 Block of South Platte River Drive Mr. Covens asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Mason moved: Draper secpnded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-93 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick , Mason, Shoop , Tobin, Cuesta, Draper , Covens None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Planning Administrator Stitt was sworn in, and gave testimony regarding the proposed Subdi- vision Plat filed by Ness Manufacturing, Inc., John Ness, President. Mr. Stitt testified that in the early 1980's, the City had a procedure property owners could follow if they owned a par- cel that was not part of an approved subdivision , and if there was no public necessity which would require the filing of a formal "plat"; this procedure was called a "Subdivision Waiver". The Waiver process did not require the Public Hearing process, though it was reviewed by the Planning Commission, and was recorded in the County. However, the County experienced confusion on the "Waiver" process vs. the full-blown "subdivision", and the waivers were not always correctly reflected on the records. The City did repeal the provision for a "Subdivision Waiver", and all properties must now go through the full Subdivision process --presentation of the preliminary plat at Public Hearing, preparation of a final Plat, referral to City Council, recording with the County Clerk & Recorder prior to development of their property. This property was previously granted a "Subdivision Waiver" in 1985; however, no develop- ment has occurred on the site since the waiver was approved , Mr. Ness has acquired the property, and the development he has proposed does not comply with the layout of the River Drive Subdivision Waiver approved previously. Thus, the application was filed for the Sub- division by Mr. Ness. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed Subdivision was reviewed by the Technical Review Commit- tee on March 9, 1993. At that time, a requirement of the Fire Division was the installation of a fire hydrant approximately 15 feet south of the south line of _ Lot 1. Subsequent to this meeting and the writing of the staff report, an alternate solution has been determined. Mr. Ness wants to develop only a portion of the total property at the present time, and all depart- ments agreed that the 8" water line in South Platte River Drive could be extended to serve this site. The extension would be in the public right-of-way, and when the remainder of the 2 . • property develops, Mr. Ness will have to "loop" the water line to provide proper circulation. The location of the fire hydrant is no longer at issue. Mr. Covens asked for a written change on Page 4 regarding the fire hydrant resolution. Mr. Covens also asked if there was a "historical precedent that the Commission cannot revisit the Waiver". Mr. Stitt reiterated that the provision for Subdivision Waivers is no longer part of the Ordinance; therefore the Commission must consider the "Subdivision". Mr. Covens asked for an explanation of the requirement of the Building & Safety Division. Mr. Stitt stated that the Building Code requires a given distance between buildings on adjoin- ing lots; this requirement will assure that distance, and has in fact, been incorporated in the wording of the Notes contained on the Plat. Mr. Garrett asked for an explanation of some of the configurations on the Plat. Mr. Stitt stated that some of the configurations indicate location of landscaping; other configurations indicate topographical features of the site. Mr. Garrett inquired why it is stipulated that Lot 1 and Lot 2 must remain under one owner- ship, and if this be the case, why divide the parcel into four lots rather than three. Mr. Stitt stated that parcels over one acre in size must have Planned Development approval; he pointed out to members of the Commission that the size of Lots 1, 3, and 4 are .99 acres in size. Mr. Ness has chosen the proposed division so that the time required for Planned Development ap- proval can be eliminated, and he can develop the property on a faster track. Mr. Covens inquired about the "D-Commercial" classification for property in Sheridan which abuts the site. Mr. Stitt stated that the D-Commercial most closely resembles the B-2 District in Englewood. The subject site owned by Mr. Ness is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. Mr. Stitt stated that it is not possible to place restriction on "use" of land by way of the Subdivision Plat. This addresses only the division of the land; the use of the property is determined by the zone classification. Mr. Stitt stated that property owners may be "encouraged" in ways to de- velop property that will be compatible with different zone classifications, this cannot be en- forced. Mr. Covens inquired if the house on the Sheridan property is occupied. Mr. Stitt stated that it is his understanding the house is occupied, but he does not know if it is legally non-conforming. Mr. Shoop asked if access to the subject site will be from South Platte River Drive. Mr. Stitt stated that it will be. Mr. Shoop asked about curb and gutter on the east side. Mr. Stitt stated that the right-of-way will be owned by the City, and the curb and gutter will be on the east side of that r.o. w. Mr. Stitt stated that there is no flood plain issue to be considered. The property is within the 500 year flood plain, and were a 100 year flood to occur, the property would have less than one foot of water on it. The property drains to the west into the South Platte River. 3 Ms. Tobin asked about street addresses for the parcels. Mr. Stitt stated that the property is undeveloped, and street addresses are not assigned until a building permit is applied for. He stated that the addresses would be between 3300 and 3398 South Platte River Drive. Mr. Stitt stated that issues such as setbacks , use restrictions, etc. are not germane to the request before the Commission: that being the division of the land. Mr. Stitt stated that there are zoning re- views that the applicant must go through in getting a building permit at which time it will be determined whether or not the proposed development complies with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mason asked if he understood correctly there would be no building on Lot 2. Mr. Stitt stated that Lot 1 will be developed with the structure, and Lot 2 will be used for parking area. Mr. Covens asked Mr. Ness to come forward and be sworn in. Mr. John Ness was sworn in, and testified that he is President of Ness Manufacturing, Inc. He stated that his company manufactures Air Force targets, and that he is being forced out of his Denver location by an Urban Renewal project. He stated that the proposed building will be approximately 17 ,250 square feet in size. Mr. Ness stated that he purchased this property in December, 1992. The area of Lot 2 will be used for parking for employees of his business. Mr. Covens inquired about development plans for Lots 3 and 4. Mr. Ness stated that he had no immediate development plans for that portion of the site. Ms. Cuesta asked for clarification of "Air Force Target". Mr. Ness stated that the targets are towed behind aircraft and used for target practice by other aircraft. Mr. Ness stated that he also deals with 10 foreign countries. Mr. Ness responded to further questions from Ms. Cuesta that he does use heavy equipment in the manufacture of the targets , and that most of the noise is contained within the building. Mr. Covens asked if Mr. Ness had other manufacturing plants or businesses wherein the City could assist him, and when did he plan to open the operation on South Platte River Drive. Mr. Ness stated that he hoped to begin operations in May, 1993. Mr. Mason inquired about the construction process of the targets, and what type of adhesive was used. Mr. Ness stated that the adhesive they use is water-based, and further described the manufacturing process for the targets. Mr. Gus Johnson, 3390 _South Platte River Drive, was sworn in. Mr. Johnson stated that he owns the property that is within Sheridan abutting Mr. Ness' s property. The property is ap- prox i mately 1.06 acres in size, and he cannot sell the property to someone who isn't in busi- ness, and cannot sell it for residential use because of the zoning. Mr. Johnson stated that he was under the impression the zoning on his property was I-1, Light .Industrial, also. Mr. Johnson stated that his property is between the drive-in theater and Mr. Ness's property. Mr. Covens asked if there was any other residential use in the area. Mr. Johnson stated that Rob Roy lives to the north of Mr. Ness. Ms ·. Cuesta asked if people live in the trailer park. 4 Mr. Johnson stated that there are residents in the park. Mr. Johnson emphasized that he has no problem with the division of the land as proposed by Mr. Ness; he has spoken to Mr. Mas- sengale, the contractor for Mr. Ness, and has determined that there is no conflict. He stated that he will be happy to see the property developed; he has called the Englewood police on several occasions because of transients moving onto the property, and a dog problem. He re- iterated that he is in favor of the proposal; he would like to sell his property, but realtors have told him that his property has no value. Mr. Draper asked if Mr. Johnson has tried to get the property rezoned. Mr. Johnson stated that he didn't see how rezoning would be of assistance. He did speak with the former Sheri- dan Building Official. Mr. Johnson gave a history of the site, noting that it was owned by his parents since 1949; the area was previously open field, swamp, auto wrecking yards, etc. Mr. Covens asked if there were other comments from staff, or questions of staff or any of the witnesses. Tobin moved: Gerlick seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-93 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Cuesta, Draper, Dummer, Covens None None None The motion carried. The Commission discussed the proposed Subdivision. Mr. Covens inquired regarding streets into and within the area. Mr. Merkel stated that connection to Santa Fe would probably be discouraged, and pointed out that turning movements to and from Santa Fe are being re- stricted. He pointed out the proximity to major intersections of Dartmouth and U.S. 285. Mr. Stitt presented members with a revised Page 3/4 of the Staff Report ·for insertion into their notebooks. Mr. Shoop inquired about the surrounding zoning. Mr. Stitt stated that the property is zoned I-1 to the north in Englewood; and "D", Commercial, to the south in Sheridan. Both the Drive-in theater and Mr. Johnson's house have the "D" designation, which is compatible with the Englewood B-2 District. Mr. Mason recalled there was a methane problem in the area, and inquired whether it was on this property. Ms. Cuesta and Ms. Tobin both recalled that there was a methane problem fur- ther north. Mr. Covens asked when the final plat would be brought before the Commission. Mr. Stitt stated that if the Commission has no changes they want made to the Preliminary Plat, it should 5 be a short time for the final plat to be prepared. Mr. Covens asked if water lines would be shown on the final plat. Mr. Stitt stated that water lines are more pertinent to a "development plan", or building permit plan, than to a Subdivision, and would not be shown on the plat. Only an easement required for utilities would show on a Subdivision Plat. Ms. Cuesta asked how the targets are transported from the factory. Mr. Ness stated that 40 foot flatbed trucks are used for transporting the targets. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the area is zoned for industrial use, and the streets are designed to carry the weight of the large vehicles. Mr. Covens asked if, in approving the Subdivision Plat, Lots 3 and 4 would be "released" to be developed for whatever is permitted in the I-1 District. Mr. Stitt stated that is true, unless Lots 3 and 4 were to be developed as one "unit", in which case the Planned Development regulations would be applied, and the Commission would then consider the development. Gerlick moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of the Ness Manufacturing Subdivision, Case #1-93, with the Community Develop- ment recommendations. Mr. Merkel noted for the record that the Economic Development Division and Community Development staff in general have worked with Mr. Ness to encourage his relocation to Englewood. Mr. Covens again inquired on the timing of the submittal of the Final Plat, and the ultimate development of Lots 3 and 4. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the submittal of the Final Plat is up to the developer, and that the Commission will not review the development of Lots 3 and 4 un- less they are developed as a "unit. " The vote on the motion was called: AYES: NAYS: Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Tobin, Cuesta, Draper, Dummer, Garrett, Covens None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE General Amendments CASE #2-93 Mr. Covens stated that he wanted separate case numbers assigned to the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Covens stated that he wanted items cited in §I of the Staff Report, Accessory Buildings, assigned Case #2-93; he wanted §II, Home Occupa- tions assigned another case number, and that §III, the proposed ·revision of the definition of an 6 Adult Book Store put in abeyance; he stated that he was requested by City legal counsel that this issue not be pursued at this time. Discussion ensued. The section of the Staff Report pertaining to Home Occupations was as- signed Case #4-93, and the revised definition of Adult Bookstore will be assigned Case #5-93. (Secretary's Note: Case #3-93 was previously assigned to the Conditional Use request sub- mitted by Santa Fe Books & Videos.) Tobin moved: Gerlick seconded: Accessory Buildings and Permitted Accessory Uses be assigned Case #2- 93, Home Occupations be assigned Case #4-93 , and §III, Definition of Adult Bookstore, shall not be considered at this time. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mason, Shoop , Tobin, Cuesta, Draper, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Covens None None None The motion carried. Mr. Stitt recapped the discussion on Accessory Buildings and Accessory Uses from the meet- ing of February 23rd. He stated that following this initial discussion , he has reworded the section pertaining to garages and carports to state: No more than one of each of the following: Attached garage; detached garage, or carport. The maximum total floor area will remain at 1, 000 square feet, whether one structure or a combination thereof. Measurements of carports was discussed. Ms. Tobin inquired about the provision that if a garage or carport is converted to another use, an equivalent amount of off-street parking space shall be provided; she noted that she has no garage or carport , and is not required to provide off-street parking space. Why, then, should someone who converts a garage or carport be required to do so. Mr. Stitt stated that the re- quirements of the Ordinance changed a number of years ago, and every single-family home in Englewood is now required to provide two off-street parking spaces; if this space (garage or carport) were to be converted to living space, the owner is still required to provide two off- street parking spaces on his property. Mr. Stitt acknowledged that a lot of older homes do not have garages and/or carports, and do not meet the off-street parking requirement. The maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet for a garage, carport, or combination thereof, was discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that garages over 1,000 square feet are considered "commercial" garages, and must meet different building code standards. Ms. Cuesta pointed out that 1,000 square foot garages are larger than a lot of the houses in Englewood, and stated that there are several such structures in her neighborhood. Ms. Tobin 7 pointed out that many people ha.ve good sized workshops in their garages. Further discussion A ensued. WJ Mr. Gerlick suggested that the maximum for one structure (attached garage, detached garage, or carport) be 1,000 square feet; however, a combination thereof be allowed a maximum size of 1,200 square feet. Covens moved: Tobin seconded: The wording be: Maximum total floor area. The combined maximum total floor area of all garages and carports shall not exceed 1,200 square feet; except that no one garage or carport shall exceed 1, 000 square feet. Mr. Merkel pointed out that if someone wanted to exceed the 1,000 square foot limit, they do have the option of requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. He stated that he does question the wisdom of exceeding the 1,000 square foot limit, feeling that it would allow excessive size in such buildings. Ms. Cuesta commented that the 1,200 square foot limitation is addressing the "exception", not the "norm". Mr. Mason stated that he has a two-car garage with workspace in approximately 700 -750 square feet; he acknowledged that he can't do much work in his workshop when the vehicles are parked in the garage. Mr. Covens pointed out that the City has asked that property owners remove vehicles from the front and sides of their property --recreation, hobby vehicles, boats, trailers, etc.; these property owners must have a place to put them. He further suggested that people may free up more of their living area if storage items were transferred to a garage or carport. Further brief discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tobin, Garrett, Gerlick, Covens Shoop, Cuesta, Draper, Dummer, Mason None None The motion did not carry. The section on Garages and Carports was approved as written. The issue of Storage Sheds was then considered. The side yard setback was discussed. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the three foot setback becomes, in many cases, an area that is not well maintained, and that if the property owner wants to go to the expense of providing for the one- hour fire-wall, the shed may be at the property line. The maximum floor area of 150 square feet was approved. 8 Mr. Shoop asked whether the issue of "doors" on sheds should be addressed. Mr. Stitt stated that he would prefer that it not be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. If someone wants to increase the size of a shed, they may appeal to the Board of Adjustment. This section was approved as written. The Recreational Accessory Structures section was considered. Mr. Stitt stated that the total floor area for a recreational structure is 200 square feet, and the maximum height was in- creased to 12 feet. A definition of "recreational accessory structures" will be written prior to consideration at a Public Hearing. Mr. Stitt suggested that the . definition should be "generic", rather than specific, and that the wording "shall include but not be limited to ... " be employed. The issue of tree houses was briefly discussed. Mr. Stitt reiterated concerns voiced on Febru- ary 23 regarding liability; tree houses will not be addressed as a "recreational" accessory structure, nor will children's play apparatus. Further discussion ensued. Height limitations were discussed, and Mr. Merkel stated that Risk Management agencies are recommending that nothing higher than eight feet in playground equipment be placed in public parks . Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed amendments will be discussed with other departments; there may be modifications suggested by other staff members which will be included in the final draft to be considered at the Public Hearing. Mr. Covens suggested that the amendments in Case #2-93 be finalized and a date for public hearing be scheduled. He pointed out that on April 6, there will be a presentation to the Planning Commission on improvements on U.S. 285 from Broadway east. Mr. Covens asked if the Commission wanted to consider Case #4-93 at this time. Mr. Draper suggested that #4-93 be considered on April 6. This was the consensus of the Commission. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Merkel stated that he and Mr. Covens had attended a meeting in the Library Conference Room earlier in the evening on U.S. 285 improvements, and that the City's Public Works De- partment had requested an opportunity to address this issue at an April meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.. · Mr. Merkel stated that -City Council has asked that the Commission review the Master Street Plan inclusion of some streets in Northwest Englewood; this will probably be scheduled for April 20. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. 9 Mr. Covens asked for a synopsis on the Santa Fe Books & Videos store. Mr. Merkel stated that the owner of the property chose to file suit against the City and is alleging the Conditional Use requirement is an infringement on their right of free speech. They have asked for a pre- liminary injunction, a permanent injunction, declaratory relief, and attorney fees, and are contesting not only the Conditional Use provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, but also the licensing provisions for such businesses. The City is proceeding on enforcement procedures, and the site has been issued a notice of violation. Mr. Garrett asked if the establishment was still open. Mr .. Merkel stated that it is open and operating 24 hours per day. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt stated that the establishment was is- sued a sales tax license; when the application was made, it was for "Santa Fe Books & Vid- eos"; nothing was indicated on the application that it was an "adult" establishment. , Mr. Covens stated that he had discussed with staff the possibility of scheduling a tour of the City; he recalled previous tours of neighborhoods, the waste water treatment plant, parks, etc. He asked if there would be an interest on the part of other Commission members in such a tour were one to be scheduled on a Saturday morning. Commission members all indicated an inter- est in a tour. Mr. Gerlick suggested that one of the items to be included on the tour are some of the houses that have been rehabilitated. Mr. Merkel stated that he had thought the Project BUILD houses would be good to include. Other suggestions included the northwest Engle- wood area, and a delineation of the boundaries between Englewood/Sheridan/Littleton. Mr. Covens briefly updated Commissioners on the Tri-Cities Group activities on the Santa Fe corridor. He noted that the preliminary cost breakdown is $370 ,000 for Englewood; $190,000 for Sheridan, and $250,000 for Littleton. Discussion ensued. Mr. Shoop raised the issue of seminars sponsored by the Denver Regional Council of Gov- ernments; the cost is $89 per person, and the date is March 27. Mr. Merkel suggested that if members are interested in attending, to let staff know so that reservations may be made. Mr. Garrett reminded Mr. Merkel that he had indicated a presentation on the "role of the Planning Commissioner". Mr. Merkel stated that this will be scheduled. There being nothing further brought before the Commission, the meeting was declared ad- journed. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre 10