Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-12-04 PZC MINUTESI I I I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 4, 1973 Page 1611 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lentsch at 8:03 P.M. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Tanguma; Weist; Lentsch; Jorgenson; Smith; Martin Sup~nger, Ex-officio Hennipg; Brown D. A. Romans, Assistant Director for Planning II. SANTA FE /UNION ANNEXATION AREA Proposed 1-1 Zoning CASE #37-73A Nov. 27, 1973 Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger for some background information on the matter before the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that the Public Hearing on the proposed zoning was held before the Planning Commission on November 27, 1973; the matter was tabled for further discussion to December 4th. Martin moved: Smith seconded: The motion carried. The matter of the proposed 1-1 zoning for the Santa Fe/Union Annexation Area be raised from the Table. Mr. Lentsch asked if Mr. Supinger had met with Mr. Lee and Mr. Myrick? Mr. Supinger stated that he had met with Mr. Lee. He did not meet with Mr. Myrick because as far as the staff was concerned they did not have any guidelines on what to discuss or negotiate. Mr. Supinger reminded the Commission that at the last meeting, Mrs. Henning stated that she would bring the matter up at the City Council meeting of December 3rd to determine the feeling of Council on the auto wrecking yards. Mr. Supinger stated. that he did not attend .the Council meeting, but understands that it was discussed. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Lee had looked into the interpretation of the 1-1 Zone .District, which the staff had interpreted as permitting various µses from the business districts, which interpretation was questioned by Mrs. Henning. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Lee was to be in attendance at the meeting, and he would defer discussion. of Mr. Lee's determination until Mr. Lee arrived. Mr. Martin stated that he did attend the Council meeting, and presented to City Council the situation as it exists; he related to them the matter discussed at the last C9mmission meeting relative to the auto wrecking yards. Mr. Martin stated that he felt it was important that the position of the Commission be defended before Council. Mr. Martin stated that he sug- gested to them, as had been discussed by the Commission, that a specjal zone district be established which would permit the auto wrecking yards and the sand and gravel operations. Mr. Martin stated that he explained to Council the options of amending the I-~ or I-2 Zone Districts, or designing a new district to accommodate the uses in existence. Mr. Martin stated that he personally felt that Council was receptive to the idea oj a new zone district. He stated that it was questioned whether or not a new zone district could be drafted and adopted within a 90 day time period. Mr. Martin stated that the City Attorney had indicated that there would be a 90 day moratorium after the annexation becomes final on December 8th in which neither the City or the property owners could apply for permits, issue permits, etc.; tpis would give time for the adoption of a new zone district. Mr. Martin stated that "nothing definitive was said one way or another." Mr. Lentsch asked if there had been any correspondence with the City Attorney. Mr. Supinger stated that he discussed with Mr. Lee the. problems of meeting with Mr. Myrick when there was no definitive action on the City's part to determine what they could or could not do; in other· words, whether the City Council was in fact interested in permitting auto wrecking yards as permitted uses in any district, because the last ind~cation the staff had the Council was not interested in permitting the auto wrecking yards. The staff felt they had nothing they could meet with Mr. Myrick about. Mr. Lentsch commented that if Council was so much in favor of permitting the auto wrecking yards in a new zone d~strict, they should have given some guidelines to the Commission in a written communication. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Berardini did have a meeting with Mr. Lee on the ~atter; he stated that he still feels the Council will go along with the new zone district. He stated that he thinks the Council is waiting for the Planning .Commission to make .a recommendation on the matter. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the only matter under consideration at the moment is the imposition of 1-1 zoning on the area. Mr. Martin asked if it would be pos~ible .to reject the 1-1 zoning and recommend establishment of another zone district? Discussion followed. Mr. Martin stated that there were questions on the proposal from the Councilmen, "but they were not hostile." Mr. Smith asked "did you get any feeling of how they would react if there w~s no zoning for an interim period?" Mr. Martin sta,ted he fe.l t Council would not object to no zoning for the 90 day period. Mr. Martin reiterated Mr. Berardini's opinion that there would be nothing either the City or the property owners could do in the area for the 90 day period until the zone district would be established. Discussiop fol~owed. Mr. Supinger discuss~d the steps to be followed in the adoption of a new zone district, and stated that it would require a minimum of three months if everything went according to schedule. Mr. Jorgenson asked what would happen if the Commission approved the 1-1 Zone District until such time as Page 1612 the new zone district would be adopted and imposed on the property at the initiation of the City? Mr. Martin stated that he didn't feel this procedure would be necessary according to the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Lentsch stated that he didn't feel it would be the proper way to proceed if the Commission is considering a special zone district. . . Mr. Supinger asked if the Commission felt I-3 zoning should be imposed on the entire territory of the annexation area that has been proposed for I-1 zoning? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has had contact with people living along West Tufts Avenue, who protest the imposition of industrial zoning on their property, and have requested single-family zoning. Mr. Lentsch stated that if the Commission rejected the I-1 zoning in total and started over again, possibly the I-3 zoning could be imposed on only the area west of Santa Fe Drive. A land use map of the subject area was displayed and explained by Mrs. Romans. Mr. Lentsch stated that he personally feels the Commission should reject the proposed I-1 zoning and start over and establish a new zone district; the City should try to take care of the people in the area. Weist moved: Martin seconded: The Planning Commission reject the proposed zoning of the area to I-1 as set forth in Staff Report #37-73, with a specific suggestion to City Council that they give direction to the staff to seek appropriate zoning in the area to specifically accommodate the existing uses. The vote was called; the motion carried. Mr. Supinger stated that because of the way the motion has been worded, he would question it would come up at the next Council meeting; he stated that he was not sure of the date of the next Council meeting, as it was possible there would not be a meeting on December 17th. Mr. Supinger stated that anyone who would like to be notified of the date it will be before Council would be notified if they would leave their name, address and phone number with the staff. Commission members asked that they be notified of the date it will go before City Council also. III. DIREC~OR'S · CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that he wanted to remind Planning Commission members of the Core Area meetings on December 12 and 13, 7:30 p.m. in the Community Room. The consultants will be present to present the Final Development Plan; hopefully, the Committee will make a recom- mendation to Council on December 13th. A meeting has been scheduled for 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on December 11th for a meeting with the Consultants to review where we are in the pro- gram and to discuss development strategy. This meeting will also be in the Community Room, and City Council, Board of Adjustment and Appeals-, Planning Commission and School Board members have been invited to attend. Mr. Lee entered the meeting, and action taken by the Commission was reviewed for him. Mr. Lee stated that he had complied with Mrs. Hennings' request to review the I-1 Zone District to determine if, indeed, retail uses permitted in the business zone districts were uses-by- right in the Industrial Zone District. Mr. Lee stated that concern was expressed about uses existing along South Santa Fe, and whether they would be made non-conforming in the proposed I-1 Zone District. Mr. Lee cited §22.4-13b(3) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which reads: "The sale at retail of hardware; any commodity manufactured, processed, fabricated or warehoused on the premises; equipment, supplies and materials (except commercial explosives) for agriculture, mining, industry, business, transportation, building and other construction." Mr. Lee stated that he feels this section is very unclear, as does City Attorney Berardini. Mr. Lee stated that he understood how the staff had interpreted it to include uses in the business zone districts, but stated that he feels the "sale at retail" seems very broad. He stated that he does not feel the staff interpretation to be compatible with the intent of the industrial area. Mr. Lee stated that this seemed to be "stretching a point" a little bit far, and-stated that if it was the desire of the Planning Commission or City Council that the section could be rewritten for clarification. Mr. Lentsch stated that possibly the new zone classification and clarification of this section could be handled at the same time. Mr. Martin suggested that possibly the motion could be amended to incorporate Mr. Lee's comments regarding §22.4-13b(3) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Martin moved: Smith seconded: The motion carried. The motion be amended to include a statement that §22.4-13b(3) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is to be clarified. IV. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Weist to report on activities of the School Board. Mr. Weist distr~buted copies of the 1973 Adopted Budget to members and staff. Mr. Weist discussed the financial status of the district, and stated that by 1979, there· will be no bonded indebtedness for the district to pay off. Mr. Weist discussed state laws pertaining to school financing, and noted changes in dependence on property taxes due to the adoption of new laws. Mr. Weist then discussed the major divisions of the budget, i.e., the general fund, bond redemption fund, and reserve fund. Mr. Weist stated that the general fund budget was $6,255,000 for 1972; $6,500,000 for 1973, and is projected to $6,800,000 for 1974. I I I I I I Page 1613 Mr. Weist stated that State funds for 1972 were $1,840,000; for 1973, $1,960,000 ; and for 1974, $2,131,000. The mill levy will drop from 58 in 1973 down to 45; Sheridan will experience a drop from 71 down to 36; Little t on will drop from 66 down to 39. Mr. Weist sta t ed that the 1961-1962 year was the peak enrollment period, with 7,325 students in the Englewood School System. The 1973-74 school year has an enrollment of 5,164. Mr. Weist commented that the system did not lose as many students as they had projected. There is an average class size of 21.8 students. Mr. Weist gave the following breakdowns per grade: Kindergarten First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth - 6 +10 -48 -45 -40 + 8 -28 -38 -50 +50 + 7 -16 +42 Mr. Weist noted that these figures included 50 students from the Cherry Creek District. Mr. Lentsch asked what school had experienced the biggest drop in enrollment? Mr. Weist stated that Lowell Elementary was down 61 students to a total of 234 students. Mr. Weist stated that the School Board is going to study Lowell School for a "middle school" concept. Mrs. Romans noted that when Lowell School was built it was with the thought that this area would not in the future demand an elementary school, because it was an older area. It was the thought that it could eventually become part of the high school campus. Mr. Weist stated that Superintendent Harper had mentioned the possibility that the vocational training might be worked into the Lowell complex. Mr. Weist stated that salaries, retirement and insurance benefits account for 85% of the general fund; he noted that "there isn't a lot of room for other fixed expenses." Mr. Weist noted that while there can be a drop in enrollments, there is not a corresponding drop in maintenance and other expenses; in fact, these expenses can rise. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Weist if he had any figures on the number of children per dwelling unit in Englewood vs. the number of children per dwelling unit in Littleton. Mr. Weist stated he did not have. Mr. Supinger stated that the Englewood ratio would be lower than in Littleton. Mr. Lentsch asked what an "ideal" ratio would be? Mr. Weist stated that he did not think there was an "ideal" on this matter. Mr. Weist cited a "building usage report" dated February 8, 1973, which sets forth uses of the school buildings during 1972. Mr. Weist reviewed all the different activities which were accommodated by the schools; the average was 11.7 activities per day last year. Mr. Weist stated that he felt this "refutes the statement that schools are used only part of the time." Mr. Weist noted that the Sinclair Junior High School media center is open one night per week for use by the general public; this media center has books from the Englewood Library; records, tapes, head phones, 8 mm cartridges, and assorted other equipment. Further discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch thanked Mr. Weist for his report. Mrs. Romans stated that she wished to extend the appreciation of the Community Development Department to the School District for the excellent cooperation we have had. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Weist if he had heard anything about the school districts being taken over by the local governments as opposed to being separate entities? Mr. Weist stated that there has been discussion about metro-wide school districts. Mr. Lentsch asked about meetings with Arapahoe County planners? Mr. Supinger stated that he had discussed this with Director Don Paul; it would probably be after the first of the year before a date is determined. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried; meeting adjourned at 9:20 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: December 4, 1973 SUBJECT: Santa Fe/Union Annexation Area -Zoning Pa g e 1614 RECOMMENDATION: Weist moved: Martin seconded: The Planning Commission reject the proposed zoning of the area to I-1 as set forth in Staff Report #37-73, with a specific suggestion to City Council that they give direction to the staff to seek appropriate zoning in the area to specifically accommodate the existing uses; further , that §22.4-13b(3) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be clarified. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I I