Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-01-29 PZC MINUTES. ' I • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 29, 1974 I . CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Com- mission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members Present: Weist, Smith, Martin, Lentsch, Jorgenson, Brown, Anderson Supinger, Ex-officio Members Absent: Tanguma Also present: Assistant City Attorney Lee; Assistant Director for Planning Romans; Planning Assistant House. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of January 8, 1974, were to be considered for approval. Jorgenson moved: Smith seconded: The Minutes of January 8, 1974, be approved as written. The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment to I -1 and I-2 Zone Districts; proposed I-3 Zone District. CASE #40-73 Chairman Lentsch stated that a Public Hearing has been scheduled on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for this meeting. Martin moved: Brown seconded: The Public Hearing on amendment of the I-1 and I-2 Zone Districts and proposed I-3 Zone District be opened. The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger for a review of the proposed amendments . -1- • • • Mr. Supinger stated that he would review each zone district regulation separately. Mr. Supinger stated that the changes that have been proposed in the I-1 Zone District are basically "housekeeping" changes --wording clarification, etc. There are substantative changes proposed relative to screening pro- visions, and there are some restrictions on external effects of industrial uses, particularly noise, which were not included previously. Mr. Supinger noted that there is a City committee working on a noise abatement ordinance, but they have not con- cluded the project ; the staff has, therefore, included re- strictions they feel are reasonable in this Ordinance. It may be necessary at a later time, to amend this ordinance to what- ever restrictions are determined by the c ommittee. Mr. Anderson stated that he noted the noise restrictions were given in decibels;he suggested that a weighing factor will have to be stipulated also. The screening provisions were discussed. Mr. Anderson asked if there had been a change in the provisions for storage of flammable liquid. Mr. Supinger stated that there have been some modifications in this section, and the proposed modifications will conform to the provisions in Denver 's Zoning Ordinance. Upon questioning, Mr. Supinger stated that fuel for vehicles would have to be stored under- ground. Mr. Lentsch asked if buildings could be constructed right to the property line in an industrial district? Mr. Supinger stated that it would depend on whether it was abutting a residential district. He stated that a setback is provided when an industrial district abuts a residential district "because some of these uses could be very imposing on a residential district if they built right to the property line." Mr. Lentsch asked if possibly some provision should be made in the Ordinance on the location of trash storage; in the event the building is constructed right to the property line, they would have no place for trash cans etc. Mr. Lentsch stated that to store it inside the building would be a fire hazard. Mr. Supinger stated that if the trash were to be stored inside the building, they would have to meet Fire Code provisions for that use. Mrs. Romans stated that in an in- dustrial or commercial building, the loading docks have to be on the rear, and this would provide a setback area for storage or trash containers. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were any questions on the I-1 Zone regulations from the Commission or the audience? No one in- dicated they wished to ask any questions • -2- • • • Mr. Supinger then reviewed the proposed I -2 Zone regulations; he stated .that this district is a "step up in intensity". Mr. Supinger pointed out that screening provisions in the I-2 District have also been modified. Mr. Martin asked if the inclusion of "dump" as a conditional use was for a specific existing use? Mrs. Romans stated that restrictions governing conditional uses had previously been contained in the Supplementary Regulations; this change would bring it into the body of the ordinance. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were further questions on the part of the Commission or any questions from the audience on the I-2 Zone Regulations? There were no questions. Mr. Supinger discussed the I-3 Zone District, which is a new zone district proposed by the staff. This proposed district would include uses permitted in the l-1 Zone District, plus additional heavy industrial uses such as wrecking yards, junk yards, concrete batching plant, etc. Mr. Supinger noted that this proposed district has previously been reviewed with the Commission; the staff has since excluded permission of any use permitted in the I-2 District and substituted permitting any use permitted in the I-1 District, and have modified the screening requirements. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were any questions. Mr. Anderson noted that in "Limitations on External Effects of Uses", there is no mention of "dust"; he asked whether or not emission of dust beyond the boundary line should be prohibited. Mr. Supinger stated that restriction on the emission of dust can be added if the Commission so desires. It was determined that such restriction should be included in all industrial zone district regulations. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were any questions from the audience. Mr. Myrick stated that his clients have no objections to the screening provisions or other restrictions proposed in the I-3 Zone District; they seem reasonable. The one provision that does not meet his satisfaction is the fact that I-3 will not permit all uses in the I-2 Zone District, but rather those of the I-1 Zone District. Mr . Myrick stated that he realized and appreciated the fact that the I-3 Zone District was designed specifically to meet the needs of the property owners in the annexation area ; however, they now have I-2 zoning in the County; by restricting the property t o I-3 and I-1 zoning, the City is denying his clients full potential use of their land. Mr. Myrick stated that he did not understand why the City objects -3- • • • to the I-2 Industrial District; he pointed out that with the limited uses allowed in the I -1 Zone District and the restrictions placed on uses in both the I-2 and I-3 Zone District proposals the city is clearly getting away from undesirable uses that might be located in heavy industri al districts in other juris- dictions. Mr. Myrick stated that he didn't think it could be said that a good business cannot be located in a heavy industrial district. He pointed out that the Commission is considering an area of 160 acres +/-which abuts an I-2 area on the north. He stated that this would be an "ideal" area for the I-2 uses permitted in the I-3 Zone District. Mr. Myrick stated that his clients would not oppose the proposed 1-3 Zone District if the I-2 Zone uses were permitted r~ther than the 1-1 Zone uses. Mr. Martin asked if any of the property owners had plans to change their use to something permitted in the I-2 Zone Dis- trict but not in the I-1? Mr. Myrick stated not to his knowledge, but they would like the I-2 uses available in the event such change is made. Mr. Myrick stated that he realized ecology must be considered; however, he felt the staff and Commission had eliminated uses from the I-2 District that they didn ·t want or would be harmful to the ecology. Discussion followed. Mr. Anderson asked why inclusion of 1-1 in the I-3 Zone District was approved and the I-2 inclusion was not approved? Further discussion followed. Mr. Supinger noted that there was a study session of the Commission and property owners regarding the draft of the proposed zone district; it was the determination of the Commission at that time that the I-2 District would allow too wide a range of uses in that particular area. Therefore, the 1-1 uses were permitted in the proposed I-3 Zone District. Mr. Myrick again stated that he appreciated what the Commission had done to try to accommodate his clients; he stated that the function of the Planning Commission is to recommend good zoning 1 and he doesn't think that has really been considered. Mr. Myrick reiterated that the Commission and staff have eliminated some uses from the I-2 Zone District which might not be desirable in the area; he felt the uses which are still permitted in the I-2 Zone District could be good developments in the area; he pointed out that the area is near railroads and major highways. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger for his opinion on the 1-1 vs. I-2 uses included in the I-3 Zone District? Mr. Supinger stated that "in its present situation I don't think many big companies would be interested in going into the area." He pointed out that a lot would have to be done to provide the area with proper services. He stated that it would be easy -4- • • • to assemble large tracts of land if so desired. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the staff had recommended the entire area be zoned I-1 Light Industrial at the outset. Mr. Brown stated that he felt the Commission had put in a lot of time and study on the revision and drafting of the zone districts. Mr. Brown stated that he felt "we were fortunate to come up with the I-3 Zone", and stated that he was of the opinion City Council had "other plans" when the area was first considered for zoning. He stated that he would vote against the zone district if I-2 uses were permitted in the I-3 Zone District. He stated that he could not understand Mr. Myrick's arguments at this time. Mr. Lentsch asked why Mr . Brown would vote against inclusion of the I-2 uses. Mr. Brown stated that it would be more expense to the City than it is worth. Mr. Supinger stated that, from a property owner's standpoint, it would be most desirable to have the widest range of uses possible. Mr. Supinger reiterated that under current situations he felt most of the area was undesirable for most kinds of industrial purposes except that area which fronts on Santa Fe. He stated that it was too easy to buy raw land where services such as water, sewer, streets, etc. are more easily available to the industrialist. He stated there wasn't one dedicated street in the entire area. Brown moved: Weist seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried. Discussion followed. Mr. Lee suggested that each zone district amendment be acted upon separately. Brown moved: Martin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend tp City Council that the I-1 Zone District, as pro- posed, be adopted. The motion carried. Weist moved: Brow n seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the proposed I-2 Zone District, as amended by the addition of the word "dust", be approved. The motion carried . -5- • • • Brown moved: Martin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the proposed I-3 Zone District, as amended by the addition of the word "dust", be approved. Mr. Anderson stated that he had not yet heard a "good argument" for inclusion of I-1 uses rather than I-2 uses in the I-3 ~one District. Discussion followed. Mr. Brown commented that he feels the change can be made in the future if it is determined that it needs to be made. Mr. Weist stated that from a practical standpoint, he felt the I-1 use inclusion was good planning and was proper. Mr. Weist stated that he felt the main objection to the I-2 use inclusion was the very heavy industrial nature of the uses. Mr. Anderson asked what kind of problems could arise if the Commission recommended the I-1 use inclusion in the I-3 Zone District, and at the hearing before City Council it was felt it should be changed. Should the matter come back before the Commission, or could City Council change it at the hearing? Mr. Lee stated that the City Council "is pretty much committed to voting on the recommendation of the Commission. If the changes the Council made were not substantative there wouldn't be any problem; but if you change I-1 to I-2, it would be a substantative change, and should come back to the Commission." Further discussion followed. Mr. Smith stated he felt the Commission had determined at the study session there was a need to exclude the heavy industrial use from an area that could improve the overall picture of Englewood; he stated he felt it was a unanimous feeling of the Commission that the I-2 use inclusion in the I-3 Zone District was not desirable. The motion carried. IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION Blocks 14, 15, 16, Evans Park Estates; Block 1, Southlawn Gardens Annex. CASE #3-74 Mrs. Romans stated that the area under consideration is in Northwest Englewood, which area was annexed to the City in 1957. The land was platted in 1939 and 1940. The blocks were very deep --295' and 296' on the subject blocks. Mrs. Romans stated that some property owners felt the extraordinary depth of the lots was a disadvantage, and worked toward getting dedications for streets through the center of the blocks. This -6- . • • • would give two building sites of a manageable size. The initial request for street right~o1-way was 60 ft., requiring a 30 ft. dedication from property owners on each side. How- ever, discussions between property owners and City officials resulted in the determination that a 50 ft. right-of-way as required in the Subdivision Regulations was sufficient for a local street; therefore, there is a 10' right-6f-way that should be vacated back to the property owners who have dedicated that right-of-way. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Mock, a property owner in one of the subject blocks, has asked that the Com- mission consider this matter now, and make a recommendation to vacate 5' back to property owners on each side of the pro- jected streets. Mr. Mock was in attendance and stated that some property owners had dedicated only 25' after it was determined several years ago by the staff that the 50 ft. right-if-way was sufficient. He stated that the requested vacation would make a uniform street width. ' Mrs. Romans noted that in some blocks, the City has a 40% or 50 % dedication; she questioned whether the Planning Commission and City Council feel the staff should take an active role in getting the streets opened up. Discussion followed . Brown moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that 5 ft. of the dedicated right-of-way in Blocks 14, 15, and 16, Evans Park Estates, and Block 1, Southlawn Gardens Annex, be vacated back to the property owners where such original dedication was 30 ft. for the following reasons : 1. The Subdivision Regulations at §12-3-40 establishes fifty (50) feet as the standard wiath for a local street. 2. That the Comprehensive Plan projects the development of that area to remain residential, not to exceed a medium density which under our present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would be no more than fourteen (14) units per acre. 3. The Master Street Plan does not project any of these avenues to be other than local streets. 4. In previous discussions between former City Council members and staff and property owners in that area, it was agreed that a sixty (60) foot right-of-way would not be necessary to provide access to those properties in that single-family residential area, and there is no public purpose in retaining right-of-way to that width. -7- • • The motion ca r ried. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr . Supinge r notified the Commission of an R.T.D. meeting on January 31, 1974, at the Police/Fire Center. Mr. Supinger stated that officials of R.T.D. want to organize a citizens committee in planning the route for the rapid transit system, presently termed the "Broadway/Santa Fe Corridor". All members who were interested were invited to attend. VI . COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Lentsch asked about progress on joint meetings with other jurisdiction? It was noted that one reply has been received to date. Mr. Lentsch asked apout a tour of the City for new members of the Commission . Mr . Supinger stated that this has not been arranged, but will be. Mr. Martin asked about the status of the proposed Sign Code. Mr . Supinger stated that it had been transmitted to City Council, but because of the new council members elected last fall~ con- sideration was held off until these new members took office in January. He stated that consideration of the proposed Sign Code by Council will probably occur shortly. Mr . Br own stated that he had been contacted by some persons who had asked for info r mation on the Core Area Study; this information had not yet been mailed to them, and he asked why it had not been mailed? Mr. Supinge r stated that the staff had been g athering cost estimates, etc. for reprinting the last four memorandum reports; he sta t ed that he felt it would be difficult to justify reprinting more than the latest fou r r eports. Mr. Supirger stated that as soon as the materials are printed , they will be mailed to those requesting them . He stated that the next meeting of the Core Area Citizens' Committee will be February 21st. Further discussion on the Core Area Study ensued. Mr. Weist suggested a neighborhood meeting at Bishop Elementary School on this matter. The meeting adjourned at 9 :50 p.m. • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: January 29, 1974 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Brown moved: Martin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the I-1 Zone District, as pro- posed, be adopted. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission &u~l4~ Recording Secretary -9- • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE : January 29, 1974 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinanc e RECOMMENDATION: Weist moved: Brown seconded: The Planning Commission rec ommend to City Council the proposed I-2 Zone District, as amended by the addition of the word "dust", be approved. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission ~1ct~lt~-~~ Recording Secretary -10- • • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: January 29 , 1974 SUBJECT : Amendment of Comp r ehensive Zoning Or dinance RECOMMENDATION : Brown moved : Martin seconded: The Planning Commission r ecommend to City Counc i l the p r oposed I -3 Zone District, as amended by the addition of the word "dust", be approved. The motion ca rr ied. Respectfully submitted, By Or de r of the City Planning and Zoning Commission ~11 - • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CIT.Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: January 29, 1974 SUBJECT: Right-of-way Vacation : Blocks 14,15, and 16, Evans Park Estates, and Block 1, Southlawn Gardens Annex. RECOMMENDATION : Brown moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that 5 ft. of the dedicated right- of-way in Blocks 14, 15, and 16, Evans Park Estates, and Block 1, Southlawn Gardens Annex, be vacated back to the property owners where such o r iginal dedication was 30 ft. for the following reasons: 1. The Subdivision Regulations at §12-3-40 establishes fifty (50) feet as the standard width for a local street. 2. That the Comprehen sive Plan projects the development of that area to remain residential not to exceed a medium density which under our p r esent Comp r ehensive Zoning Or dinance would be no more than fou r teen (14) units per acre. 3. The Master Street Plan does not project any of these avenues to be other than local streets. 4. In previous discussions between former City Council members and staff and property owners in that area, it was agreed that a sixty (60) foot right -of-way would not be necessary to provide access to those prope r ties in that single-family residential area, and there is no public purpose in retaining right-of -way to that width. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ~~-4 etetruet:Wert? Recording Secretary -12-