Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-02-21 PZC MINUTESI I I I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 21, 1973 Page 1541 The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lentsch at 8:00 P.M. Members Present: Tanguma; Stanley; Lentsch; Henning; Vobejda; Martin Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Weist; Ross; Brown Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Planning Assistant Young II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that the Minutes of February 6, 1973, were to be considered for approval. Vobejda moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of February 6, 1973, be approved as written. AYES: Lentsch; Martin; Stanley; Tanguma; Vobejda NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Henning ABSENT: Ross; Weist; Brown The motion carried. III. RONALD BRINKHOFF Portion of Plot 1 Rafferty Gardens Henning moved: ' REZONING B-2 to R-3-B Martin seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. AYES: Lentsch; Martin; Stanley; Tanguma; Vobejda; Henning NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross; Weist; Brown The motion carried. CASE #10-73 Mr. Supinger stated that Public Notice was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel and the property has been posted as required by Ordinance. Mr. Supinger stated that the subject property is south of the animal hospital and north of Big Dry Creek; it is adjacent to the property for which Mr. Brinkhoff had requested B-2 zoning in September of 1972, and which was denied by the Commission. Mr. Brinkhoff's present request is to extend the R-3-B zoning, which exists on Plot 2 and 3, Rafferty Gardens, to the portion of Plot 1 which is under his ownership. Mr. Lentsch asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Ronald Brinkhoff 16 Niblick Lane -stated that he was owner of the property encompassed in the application. Mr. Brinkhoff stated that he ~lso owned Plots 2 and 3, which are presently zoned R-3-B, Multi-family Residence, and proposed to construct a luxury apartment house on these plots if the zoning request is approved. Mr. Brinkhoff stated that he had previously requested rezoning of Plots 2 and 3 from the R-3-B to B-2; it was denied by the Planning Commission. Mr. Brinkhoff displayed a plot plan of the proposed apartment structure, a~d discussed the parking levels, landscaping, etc. with members. Mr. Brown entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Lentsch asked if ·there were any members of the audience present who wished to speak in opposition? No one spoke in opposition to the request. Mrs. Henning asked Mr. Brinkhoff if he planned to cover Big Dry Creek? Mr. Brinkhoff stated that he did not; the Creek will not be changed in any way. There will be landscaping on both sides of the Creek. Mr. Martin noted that attached to the staff report for Commission members is a letter from the City of Littleton, dated September 25, 1972, regarding flood potential of Big Dry Creek. Mr. Martin asked that it be noted that this letter has been considered as it applies to this request. Mr. Lentsch agreed that it should be so noted. Mr. Lentsch further noted that residents in Littleton living along Rafferty Lane had appeared at the previous hearing in September in opposition to that request; no one has appeared in opposition to this request. Mrs. Henning asked what restrictions of the Flood Plain District would apply on this property? Mrs. Romans stated that if the property were within the 100-year flood plain, they would have to build one (1) foot above that level; however, the City Engineer has determined that this property is above the 100-year flood level, and the restriction would not apply. Mr. Brinkhoff noted that this particular portion of Plot 1, Rafferty Gardens, has no direct access to a public street, and were Plots 2 and 3 to be developed separately, this portion of Plot 1 would be completely land-locked. Mrs. Henning asked if there would be any problems created by zoning this separate parcel inasmuch as it does not have public access. Mr. Supinger noted that the parcel could not be sold off without provision for adequate access to the parcel. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the Commission would have to determine whether access was adequate to this parcel were it to be sold. Page 1542 Henning moved: ) Vobejda seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Stanley; Tanguma; Vobejda; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross; Weist The motion carried. Vobejda moved: Martin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning re- quest filed by Mr. Ronald Brinkhoff to rezone a portion of Plot 1, Rafferty Gardens, from B-2 (Business) to R-3-B (Multi-family Residence), be approved for the following reasons: 1. It would appear that the Zone District boundary on the original zoning map was in error to the extent that it followed the Subdivision Lot line and lot line extended, rather than the centerline of Big Dry Creek, which would have been a more logical boundary between differing uses. 2. At the time that this area was originally zoned, all of the land now owned by Mr. Brinkhoff, as well as the land where the Animal Hospital is located, was under one ownership. When the north portion of Plot 1 was sold off, it left the south portion of that Plot, the subject property, with no access to a public street. This division of Plot 1, Rafferty Gardens, effected a change upon the subject property which could justify the reconsideration of the zoning. 3. The land owned by the applicant is in two (2) Zone Districts: R-3-B, Multi-family Residence, and B-2, Business; in addition, it is divided by Big Dry Creek. The portion of the applicant's property to the north and west of Big Dry Creek which is zoned for business use, and which is the subject property, has no access and cannot by itself be used for business purposes, nor can it be effectively joined with that portion of the property south of Big Dry Creek which is zoned for business use. 4. The subject property would be more easily developed in conjunction with the portion of the applicant's land which adjoins it on the west and which is zoned R-3-B, Multi-family Residence. AYES: Martin; Stanley; Tanguma; Vobejda; Brown; Henning; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross; Weist The motion carried. IV. C. J. KUNZ, JR. 2700 S. Shoshone PARKING LOT APPROVAL CASE #12-73 Mr. Supinger stated that the proposed parking lot is on the east side of South Shoshone Street is just south of West Yale Avenue. This is an I-1, Light Industrial, Zone District. The pro- posed use is an office/warehouse, which is permitted in the I-1 District. The number of parking spaces required by the proposed use is 75; 112 spaces are being provided. The staff recommends approval of the plan. Mrs,. Henning asked if the lower level parking was under the building, and if the building was "raised"? Mr. Supinger stated that it is. Mr. Martin referred to the staff report, and the suggestion from the Police Department that the 12 spaces at the front of the building be eliminated because of a potential traffic hazard. Mr. Martin asked what kind of hazard would there be for traffic flow with people backing out of the parking spaces? Mr. Supinger stated that the staff does not approve of this type design for a parking lot; however, the standards do permit it at the present time. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff will, in the near future, propose to the Planning Commission an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to prohibit this type of parking lot design. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff not only considers this design a safety hazard, but it is unattractive to have parking along the front of the building. This particular parking lot design frequently results in the blocking of the sidewalk area by cars, and it is hazardous to back out into the street from the parking lot. Council has, in the past, felt this design was proper and approved curbing in the industrial area which lends itself to this type parking lot design. Discussion followed. Mrs. Vobejda asked if there was any reason the 12 spaces of concern to the Police Department could not be eliminated inasmuch as the plan does exceed the requirements. Mr. Supinger stated that he "would only say the regulations do permit it, and the Commission wouldn't be on very firm ground" in requesting the elimina- tion of those spaces. Further discussion ensued. Martin moved: Henning seconded: The off-street parking plan submitted by C. J. Kunz, Jr. for office-ware- house use at 2700 South Shoshone be approved for the following reasons: 1. The proposed plan meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as to the number of off-street parking spaces. 2. The use for which the parking is being provided is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The parking plan has been referred to all concerned departments and has been approved by these departments. AYES: NAYS: Stanley; Tanguma; Vobejda; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Martin None ABSENT: Ross; Weist The motion carried. - - -- ------ ---- ------------ --- -- I I I I I I \ Page 1543 V. EASEMENT VACATION ' Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, \ \ \ CASE #11-43 Pleasant View, Second Filing Mr. Supinger stated that this request is for the vacation of an eight foot easement along the northerly border of Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4, Pleasant View Subdivision, Second Filing. There is no apparent use of the subject easement that can be determined, and the residents are requesting the vacation of the easement in an attempt to partially clear. up a situation that exists in this area. There is a "no-man's land" of 12 feet in depth which lies between the north line of the Pleasant View Subdivision and the Englewood/Sheridan City limits. No owner of record has been found for this 12 feet. Some of the property owners have extended their fences the 12 feet and maintain the area as a part of their yard; others only make an attempt to keep the weeds down. Mr. Supinger noted that the suggested approval has been revised to exclude vacation on the east eight feet of Lots 1, Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4; the west eight feet of Lot 10, Blocks 1 and 2; and the west eight feet of Lot 9, Blocks 3 and 4. There is a utility easement which runs along the rear of the properties north and south. There are utility poles lo- cated in the north/south easement, and the Public Service Company has requested that the eight foot easement on the north not be vacated where it intersects with the 16 foot north- south easement. Mrs. Henning asked if there were any requirements on maintaining property within an easement? Mr. Supinger stated that he knew of none; no structures may be built within an easement. Mr. Brown asked if there were any residents in attendance on this matter? He stated he would like to hear some more reasons for the requested vacation. Mr. James Slewitzke 4 5 65 South Julian St. stated that his carport is built about 10" into the easement at the present time, and he wants to enlarge his carport. Mr. Slewitzke stated that the utility lines in Sheridan cannot be reached from this easement. Mr. Slewitzke stated that the residents whose prope~ty borders this ·easement are concerned; they are also concerned about the 12 feet between the north line of the Pleaseant View Subdivision and the City limits; this area collects trash and receives little maintenance. Mr. Brown asked "you feel if this is granted it will -help the home .owners in your area?" Mr. Slewitzke stated that it will help settle a question. The residents would like to find out where the 12 feet blongs. Discussion followed. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the eight foot (8') utility easement along the north lines of Block 1 thru 4, inclusive Pleasant View Subdivision, Second Filing, Arapahoe County, Colorado, be vacated, EXCEPT along the east eight feet (8') of Lots 1, Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the west eight feet (8') of Lot 10, Blocks 1 and 2, and the west eight feet (8') of Lot 9, Blocks 3 and 4, all in said Pleasant View Subdivision, Second Filing, Arapahoe County, Colorado; said vacation is recommended for the following reasons: 1. This eight (8) foot easement has existed since 1948 and has not been used for utilities or by the public for any purpose. 2. No public or private utility has expressed a need for this easement in the future. 3. No benefit will be gained by the public by retaining this easement. AYES: Tanguma; Vobejda; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Martin; Stanley NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist; Ross The motion carried. . ' Mrs. Henning stated that if she understood the staff report correctly, the City Attorney is of the opinion that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over the ·matter of quiet title to the 12 feet between the north line of the Subdivision and the City boundary? Mr. Supinger stated that it is the City Attorney's opinion that the City has no party to this matter. VI. P. ARTHUR TAGUE S. 163 ft. of Lots 6 thru 10 Block 14, Evans Park Estates I -- --- -- ---- -- - -I REZONING R-1-C to B-2 CASE #5-73B January 16, 1973 January 3, 1973 Mr. Supinger stated that this matter has been continued since January 3, 1973. He stated that he feels the Commission should consider the entire one-half block for rezoning rather than just the five lots included in the application. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it would be proper to deny this request, and the Commission initiate the rezoning of the entire south 163 feet of the block. Mr. Supinger stated that the counsel for the applicant is, at the present time, appearing before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on a request for late registration of a non-conforming use. Should the Board of Adjustment and Appeals act favorably upon the request, Mr. Criswell has indicated that he would withdraw the rezoning request. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. AYES: Vobejda; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Martin; Stanley; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist; Ross The motion carried. Page 1544 Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger reiterated that this matter has been continued for several weeks, and he does not feel anything will be accomplished by continuing it any longer. Mrs. Henning asked if there had been a formal request for further continuance? Mrs. Romans stated there had been through the Attorney to the Office. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were anyone present in favor of the rezoning? No one indicated they were in favor. Mr. Lentsch then asked if anyone were present in opposition? No one indicated they were opposed to the request. It was moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. The motion carried. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: In view of the fact that good planning principles would suggest it would be incorrect to consider only a small portion of the block for rezoning, the request for rezoning of Lots 6 thru 10, Block 14, Evans Park Estates, be denied. AYES: Henning; Brown; Vobejda; Tanguma; Stanley; Martin; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist; Ross The motion carried. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger stated that City Council had approved the Commission's request for attendance of two Commission members at the ASPO Conference in Los Angeles in April. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff would proceed to reserve rooms for two members at the Conference Hotel. Mr. Supinger stated & Research, Inc. of the total cost will will be March 1st. that the City Council did appro~e the contract with Environmental Planning San Francisco for the Core Area Study. This is a 13 month program, and approximately $155,000. The first meeting to discuss citizen participation The Commission will be kept informed on this matter. Mr. Supinger stated that the Denver Regional Council of Governments annual dinner meeting is March 21st; the price is $7.50 per person. The City will pay for the Commission member's attendance; those wishing to attend should contact the office to make reservations. Mr. Supinger stated that he wished to remind the Commission that the City Council, in November, 1972, requested a review of needs for additional street right-of-way in certain areas of the City. The Commission has not acted on this matter to this date. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it could be considered at a regular meeting if the agenda is light; it may be appropriate to schedule a study session with Mr. Waggoner ' on this matter prior to rendering a decision. Mr. Lentsch directe9 Mr. Supinger to schedule a study session with Mr. Waggoner for consideration of this matter. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch stated that he would like to obtain a copy of the Comprehensive Plan that Arvada has been working on. Mr. Brown asked if it was possible that any persons wanting to attend the Planning Commission meeting might have gotten in the Board of Adjustment meeting by mistake? Mr. Brown was assured that the Board Chairman was making announcements to direct persons to the proper meeting. Mr. Brown then asked that the Planning Commission make some determination this evening on attendance at the ASPO Conference. He stated that he could not go. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt it was good for Councilmembers to attend this Conference if they can; he stated that he would like to go, but would like to hear from other members. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would know in another week or so whether or not he could go. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to go; he felt it would be a good experience. Mrs. Vobejda stated that she could not go. Mrs. Henning stated that she would go if no one else could. Mr. Brown stated that City Council has decided to begin supper meetings with various boards and commissions; these would be catered into City Hall. It was decided to have the catered suppers rather than a "dinner" meeting in the interest of time. This will begin very soon, and will be scheduled for the first meeting of the month. Mr. Lentsch stated that he would like the Planning Commission to be placed on the schedule as soon as possible. Mr. Supinger stated that the Planning Commission had been scheduled for the fifth of March, but inasmuch as both Mr. Dial and Mayor Senti will be out of town at that time, it has been cancelled and will be rescheduled. Mr. Lentsch stated that he would also like to arrange meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission and other Boards and Commissions throughout the year. Mr. Brown asked about progress on the KLZ Site. Mr. Supinger stated that no additional per- mits over the 700+ have been issued; they are progressing as well as can be expected with the weather as it has been. Mr. Martin asked if they had a completion date? Mr. Supinger stated that he expected the first units to be opened by late fall; the total site is a three to five year program. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary - - --- - --- ------- - - ---- - I I I I I I Page 1545 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. l DATE: February 21, 1973 \ \ SUBJECT: Rezoning Request -Ronald Brinkhoff, Applicant RECOMMENDATION: Vobejda moved: Martin seconded: I The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning request filed by Mr. Ronald Brinkhoff to rezone a portion of Plot 1, Rafferty Gardens, from B-2 (Business) to R-3-B (Multi-family Residence), be approved for the following reasons: 1. It would appear that the Zone District boundary on the original zoning map was in error to the extent that it followed the Sub- division Lot Line and Lot line extended, rather than the center- line of Big Dry Creek, which would have been a more logical boundary between differing uses. 2. At the time that this area was originally zoned, all of the land now owned by Mr. Brinkhoff, as well as the land where the Animal Hospital is located, was under one ownership. When the north portion of Plot 1 was sold off, it left the south portion of that Plot, the subject property, with no access to a public street. This division of Plot 1, Rafferty Gardens, effected a change upon the subject property which could justify the reconsideration of the zoning. 3. The land owned by the applicant is in two (2) Zone Districts: R-3-B, Multi-family Residence, and B-2, Business; in addition, it is divided by Big Dry Creek. The portion of the applicant's property to the north and west of Big Dry Creek which is zoned for business use, and which is the subject property, has no access and cannot by itself be used for business purposes, nor can it be effectively joined with that portion of the property south of Big Dry Creek which is zoned for business use. 4. The subject property would be more easily developed in conjunction with the portion of the applicant's land which adjoins it on the west and which is zoned R-3-B, Multi-family residence. AYES: Martin; Stanley; Tanguma; Vobejda; Brown; Henning; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross; Weist The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. l l l l \ \ Gertrude G. -Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNIN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: February 21, 1973 SUBJECT: Easement Vacation -Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, Pleasant View Subdivision, Second Filing RECOMMENDATION: Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the eight foot (8') utility easement along the north lines of Block 1 thru 4, inclusive, Pleasant View Subdivision, Second Filing, Arapahoe County, Colorado, be vacated, EXCEPT along the east eight feet (8') of Lots 1, Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the west eight feet (8') of Lots 10, Blocks 1 and 2, and the west eight feet (8') of Lot 9, Blocks 3 and 4, all in said Pleasant View Subdivision,. Second Filing, Arapahoe County, Colorado; said vacation is recommended for the following reasons: 1. This eight (8) foot easement has existed since 1948 and has not been used for utilities or by the public for any purpose. 2. No public or private utility has expressed a need for this easement in the future. 3. No benefit will be gained by the public by retaining this easement. AYES: Tanguma; Vobejda; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Martin; Stanley NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist; Ross The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary l l \ \ I