HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-03-18 PZC MINUTES•
•
,
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 18, 1975
I . CALL TO ORDER.
The regular meeti ng of the City Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order by Chairman Martin at 8:00 P.M.
Members present: Jorgenson; Martin; Jones; Pierson; Parker;
Tanguma
Supinger, Ex-officio
Members absent: Wade; Smith; Brown
Also present: Assistant City Attorney Lee.
Mr. Martin noted that new seating arrangements for members of
the Commission had been devised in an effort to separate those
~o smoke from those who do not smoke; he stated if the s eating
arrangement should not be adhered to, the members of t he Com-
mission who smoke would refrain from doing so during the me e ting.
He noted that smoking can be rather intolerable to persons who
do not smoke and may be sensitive to smoke.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Mr. Martin stated that the Minutes of March 4, 1975, were to be
considered for approval.
Jorgenson moved:
Jones seconded: The Minutes of March 4, 1975, be approved as
written.
Mr. Parker questioned a statement on Page 5, #3, in the recom-
mendation to City Council regarding vacation of the alley in
Block 92, Sheridan Heights Subdivision, and vacation of West
Adriatic Avenue. It is noted in #3 that "No public interest
is to be served by retaining the rights-of-way o " Mr. Parker
questioned that this was so, and stated he felt the vote might
have been different if this statement was made. It was pointed
out to Mro Parker that when Mr. Brown made the motion of recom-
mendation, he referred to the staff report on Case #7-75, and
the reasons and conditions set forth therein. These reasons
and conditions were merely copied from the staff report, which
members of the Commission had received the Friday evening pre-
ceding the meeting and, presumably were familiar with. It was
noted that he and Mrs. Pierson had received the1r staff reports
the Monday preceding the meeting .
-2-
Mr. Parker then questioned P age 7 of the Minutes; Mr. Parker
stated he was under the impression th nt only motions and votes •
were recorded for the Minutes, and not comments also. If this
·is not the case, he noted that he had commented, regarding the
six month time limitation for bringing structures that have
been moved into compliance with the Code, that the limita tion be
stricken and wording inserted to issue a regular building permit
for the use and follow the procedure that is currently used re-
garding progress on a struc ture. This fact was not inclu ded in
the Minutes.
Mr. Su pinger noted that in working with Commissions over the
yea rs, one of the major problems has been the matter of Minutes.
Comm is sions have gone all the way from a transcript from tapes
to rec ording of only motions and votes . The particular style
o f Minutes for this Commission calls for a degree of "editorializing"
---noting comments that are felt to be most important and pe r t in
to the discussions at hand. Mr. Supinger stated he felt it would
be appropriate for th e Commission to determine what form t hey
want the Minutes to take; also, if there is some comment they
feel should be included in the transc ri ption, to make such
declaration at the meeting. Discuss ion followed.
The vote was called:
AYES: Tanguma; Pierson; Parker; Martin; Jorgenson; Jones
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Smith; Brown; Wade
The motion carried.
III. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE
Research & Development Laboratory
B-1 Zone District
CASE #8-75
Mr. Supinger stated the application by Mr. Forington, owner of
the property at 3422 South Bannock Street, is to permit as a
similar use a testing laboratory for research and developmen t.
This is a B-1 Zone District, which zone district does contain
the provision that the Commission may find a use similar to
permitted uses as cited on Page 70 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance, #107. Section 22.4-10 b (107) reads as follows:
"Any similar lawful use wh ich , in the opinion of the Commission
is not obje ctionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust ,
fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare or vibration or is no t
hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas
through danger of fire or exp l osion."
It was noted that Mr. Forington was present to answer questions
the members might have concerning his request.
Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Forington what ki nd o _
development he proposed to do if th~ r equest
arch an
. _,proved? •
•
-3-
Mr. Forington stated that he has received considerable publicity
on several projects he has worked on. Among the projects he
has developed are a device to improve the function of home
h~ating furnaces, and a water-injec t ion automobile which
ichieved 51.6 miles per gallon. Mr. Forington cited several
articles published in local newspapers concerning his work,
the latest was pu blished J anuary 5, 1975, in the Denver Post
concerning the de vice on home furnaces. Mr. Forington noted
that his automobile ran o n 20% water. Mr. Forington stated
he had adapted the water injection idea for automobiles from
the water injection system used on aircraft. Mr. Forington
no t ed that his automobile had 72% less carbon monoxide than
gasoline powered vehicles, with all the pollution control
devices installed; his ve h i c le did not do as well in the hydro-
carbon emission tests, although it was 10% less than the
vehicles with the air pollution devices. Mr. Forington sta te d
that through the proposed laboratory, he hopes to have
verification that t h e water injection system for automobiles
will work. He stated that there are several other persons who
want to go into business with him; one gentleman is studying
the use of old crankcase oil for heating purposes. Mr. Forington
stated that classes would be held in the building for persons
who want to learn basic tune-up procedures, and classes re-
garding progress in the avaiation and automotive areas.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Forington how long he has been engaged in
this type activity? Mr. Forington stated he has been in the
business all his life, more or less.
Mr. Forington noted that in Denver, there is a great amount of
carbon monoxide, which has a life-cycle of five years in some
cases.
Mr. Forington stated he has realized great benefits from the
water injection system in his automobile; Yellow Cab Company
has asked that units be installed in ten of their vehicles.
Mr. Forington stated that the water injection system prolongs
the engine of the automobile.
Mr. Parker asked if Mr. Forington felt the structure on the
property was large enough for his purposes. Mr. Forington
stated the structure was large enough.
Mrs. Pierson asked if the construction of the engines, etc.
would be done on this site? Mr. Forington stated that he
would be recreating them in a new environment. He noted that
he plans to cons tru c t s olar u nits f o r an experiment, and they
would pos sibly be mounted on the roof of the structure.
Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Forington would be working with
torches, etc.?
-4-
Mr. Forington stated that the portable equipment would be
attached to the car, and test driven on the highway; any
corrections needed would be made in the laboratory, and t h en
retested on the car.
Mr. Forington then discussed the heating device he has de veloped
and with which he has modified the furnace in his residenc e .
Mr. Forington s ta ted tha t it took him one day to make the
modifications to his furnace; all home-owners could gai n from
the improved efficiency in heating if this device were ap p roved.
Mrs . Pierson noted that Mr. Forington would be working on
projects with possible dangerous aspects; she stated that she
c a n find nothing in the definition of development and research
l a boratory that would restrict the site, if this request is
approved, to one specific type of work.
Mr. Martin stated that on reviewing the list of permitted us es
in the B-1 Zone Dis t rict , h e could find nothing similar to
the proposed use. The I-1, Light Industrial District, does,
however, permit laboratories, and he felt that perhaps this
use would better be located in an industrial district ra ther
than a business district. Mr. Martin noted there i s a p ossible
and probable degree of risk involved with the proposed use ,
and for that reason, he felt it might be better located in an
industrial area.
Mr. Forington stated there is more risk to the building and
surrounding areas with the present use of a restaurant than
there would be with his research and development laboratory.
Mrs. Pierson stated that someone else could use the property
as a research and development laboratory if the use were approved,
and Mr. Forington decided to sell the property, without any of
the assurances that Mr. Forington has given regarding the
danger element, or the type of research that would be carried
on.
Mr. Forington asked if the structure could be used as a c lass-
room? Mrs. Pierson stated she felt it would depend on what is
going on in the class room ; academic use is permitted in the
B-1 District.
Mr. Martin stated he felt there is a definite need for the
type of activity Mr. Forington is engaged in; he does feel
that the proposed location is poor.
Mrs. Pierson sta ted s h e agre e d that Mr. Forington should b e
encou r age d to consider a different location.
Mr. Tanguma noted that Mr. Forington had mentioned research on
crank-case oil drained from automobiles --h e n oted that
different compoun ds will have to be mixed t o clean the o i l
and this will be a danger.
•
•
-5-
Mr. Forington stated that the oil would be strained to clean
it; he noted that there are many homes in the area that are
heated with oil and this is approved. Mr. Tanguma noted that
the use of oil in heating the homes is under a controlled
condition. He stated that he stil l feels different compounds
will be mixed in working with the used oil, and this leads to
a dangerous situation.
Mrs. Pierson po inted out that there is a degree of uncertainty
in Mr. Forington's activities.
Mr . Martin reiterated his concern that the location is improper.
Mr. Forington noted that he owns property in Denver, and that
he "will have to evict some low-income tenants in Denver" and
use some of that property for his laboratory. Mr. Forington
s ta ted that he had pride in trying to fix the Englewood p rop er ty
up, but will now put it up f or the worst use; he has no plans
to purchase any add i tional land in Englewood.
Mr. Supinger noted that he lived within the subject block, and
that he had not met Mr. Forington prior to this evening ; Mr.
Supinger noted that he had no involvement in preparation of
the staff report.
Mr. Jones stated that he had viewed the property; he feels it
is commendable that Mr. Forington is in the business he is in,
but he does not feel that the subject site is proper for the
laboratory. Mr. Jones noted that a similar request for use
of the old Police/Fire center had been denied; the request was
to use it by the Rolls Royce Club, and it was felt that this
particular use was not compatible with the permitted uses of
the B-1 Zone District.
Jones moved:
Parker seconded: The Planning Commission deny the request of
Mr. Bill Forington to find a Research and
Development Laboratory a use similar to permitted uses in the
B-1 Zone District for the followi ng reasons:
1. The proposed use is in conflict with the listed permitted
uses of the B-1 Zone District.
2 . Even considering §22.4-10 b (107), the proposed use would
not comply with the restrictions of the B-1 Zone District.
AYES: Pierson, Parker , Martin, Jorgenson, Jones, Tanguma
NAYS: Non e
ABSENT: Smith; Brown ; Wade
The motion carried •
-6-
Mr. Martin stated he hoped that Mr. Forington would not be
discouraged by this decision, and would continue his work,
but try to find another location for the laboratory. Mr.
Martin asked Mr. Forington what kind of reaction he got from
the staff of the Community Developme nt Department when he first
approached them about the proposal; he asked if Mr. Fori ng ton
felt he was encouraged by the staff?
Mr. Forington s tat ed he was told the area was already z oned
for auto tune-up work in conjunction with new car sales; he
stated he was under the impression there was a 99% chance it
would be approved unanimously from discussions with members
of the staff.
Mr. Martin stated he felt this was very unfortunate, as he
personally feels there was no possible way the request could
have been granted.
IV. MOVEMENT AND DEM OLITION OF STRUCTURES. CASE #2 -75C
Draft IV -Proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Supinger stated that Draft IV of the proposed ordi nance
concerning movement and demolition of structures has been
provided the Commission, and that copies of the proposed
ordinance, Draft IV, have been forwarded to City Council so
that they may become familiar with the proposal before the
Study Session scheduled for March 31st. Mr. Supinger noted
that a mailing list of the proposed ordinance has been in-
cluded for the information of the Commission.
Parker moved:
Tanguma seconded: That y6, Page 2, be changed, eliminating
the six-month time limitation, and requiring
compliance with the general rules applying to a building permit,
and that those same general procedures be followed.
Mr. Parker stated that his intent is that this be treated much
as a usual building permit is; that such permit may be extended
if due diligence is shown; he stated he does not consider it
any more of a hazard to have an unfinished moved house waiting
completion than to have an unfinished new construction.
Mr. Martin questioned the definition of "due diligence".
Mr. Lee stated that if the intent of Mr. Parker's motion is
to follow building permit procedures once the structure is
secured on the foundation, he would question whether the
requirement of a Performance and Completion Bond is necessary?
Mr. Lee stated he did not think such a Bond is required in
new construction. Mr. Lee stated it would be proper to require
such a Bond for the person who is actually moving the structure . •
-7-
Mrs. Pierson stated that th is matter was discussed at the last
meeting. She asked if th i s motion were to be passed, would
this allow the structure to not be firmly affixed to the
foundation? Mr. Martin stated he felt the problem would not
be the movement from one location to another and the placing
on a foundation; the problem is in getting the structure in a
livable condition in the six-month period.
Discussion foll ow ed. Mr. P arker asked the length of time a
b~ilding permit i s in effect ? Mr. Supinger stated six months.
Mr. Parker cited a developmen t at Girard and Sherman and traced
prog ress of this development; he noted that it could continue
2 0 y ears, but would still be legitimate inasmuch as some
pro gress continues. Mr. Pa r ker stated he felt the six month ·
limitation to bring a moved structure up to code is discriminatory.
Mr. Lee stated that requiring a Bond for moving a structure
from one location t o another location is felt to be r e a s onable;
the matter of requiring a Bond and time limitation on completion
of the structure that has been moved vs. not requiring a bond
on a structure that is constructed on the site, and n o time
limitation, should be consi d ered. Mr. Lee pointed o u t th at a
building that is moved to a new location will, in all l ikelihood,
be a completed structure and have previously been hooked up to
all utilities; to require such a structure to be completed and
ready for occupancy in a reasonable time seems legitimate.
Discussion followed.
The vote on Mr. Parker's motion was called:
AYES: Parker; Tanguma
NAYS: Pierson; Martin; Jorgenson; Jones
ABSENT: Brown ; Wade; Smith
The motion failed.
Mr. Tanguma stated h e would like to discuss the definition of
"Necessary Construction"; h e would like the wording changed to
state that the structure shall b e permanently in place to assure
the general safety to the public, no materials or wastes shall
be left on the lot in such a manner that they may be transferred
off the lot by wind or other natural causes. Mr. Tanguma would
delete reference to electrical, plumbing and heating construction
required to bring the structure into compliance with the current
Building Code.
Mr . Supinge r stated t h at h i s understanding of Mr. Tanguma's
intent was to assure that the building will be attached to the
foundation; the ground will be leveled and cleared, and that
there will be no hazard to the public. Mr. Supinger stated
that he felt Mr. Tanguma's proposal would be a lessening of
the requirements to "get the job done"; it would permit a
structure to sit uncompleted indefinitely. Mr. Supinger noted
that no matter how wel l a b uil ding was secured --windows
boarde d up, etc. --to prev e nt vandalism, there will be problems;
-8-
the wording of the proposed ordinance is an at t empt t o p r ohibit
at least some of the opportunities for vandalism. ~
Mr. Tanguma noted that while most persons who move struc t ures
do so for profit, there is always t he individual who feels
that he can save money by moving the structure himself, a nd
doing the construction required himself, but because o f la c k
of funds would not be able to complete the job in the six month
time limitation. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the adm inistra-
tion presently had the power to work with that individual ••
Di s c ussion followed. Mr. Jorgenson asked if the value of the
bond could exceed the value of the structure to be moved?
Mr. Supinger stated that in some instances he felt the value
of the bond could exceed the value of the structure; there is
a provision in the proposed ordinance that will give the
Chief Building official the discretion to increase the bo nd,
if he feels it is warranted, also.
The matter of public hearings on the proposed ordinance was
considered. Mr. Supinger noted there was no requiremen t for
a Public Hearing before the Commission at all; howev er, the
staf f does recommend a Public Hearing before both the Planning
Commission and City Council.
V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Supinger reminded members of the Commission of the tour
to be conducted Saturday, March 29, 1975; the tour will leave
from City Hall at 8:00 A.M., and return at 12:00 Noon.
There is to be a joint meeting with City Council on March 31st,
at which time the Multi-Family Development Standards Review
Committee recommendations will be reviewed; it is also hoped
that there will be sufficient time to go through the proposed
Ordinance on Movement and Demolition of Structures.
VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
Mr. Parker discussed the vacation of dedicated streets and alleys.
He pointed out that the adjoi n ing property owners are the on l y
persons who benefit from the vacations. Mr. Parker stated he
had contacted several appraisers and discussed the vacation
of the alley in Block 92 of Sheridan Heights, and the vacation
of West Adria tic Avenue between South Tejon and South Ra r ita n
Streets. These appraisers gave him a range of figures pe r
square foot that this land would be worth; at $2/sq. f t., the
City has , effect i vely, given the property owner adjoi ni ng th e
alley in Block 92 and West Adriatic Avenue $92,000. Mr. Parker
stated that he would suggest that persons applying fo r vacation
of a street or alley must have an appraisal of the property,
and must pay into the City fund the appraised value of the
property that i s being vacated. The City could then use these ~
funds to purc h ase property that is needed for street rights-of-
way elsewh ere. Discussion ensued.
•
-9-
Mr. Lee stated t h is would b e contrary to the general 'rule of
law, whereby the City holds the land dedicated for streets and
alleys in trust to be used for those purposes; the City cannot
sell these lands that it holds in trust.
Mr. Supinger stated he understood past practice had been if
the City paid for the right-of-way, it could be offered for
sale at such time as it was no longer needed; if the land was
dedicated free of charge, it must be vacated back to the ad-
joining property owners.
Mr. Lee emphasized tha~ the City must use and maintain land
dedicated for right-of-way for public travel; when the use and
need ceases it may be vacated, and the law says it reverts to
the adjoining property owners. The law does not require the
adjoining property owners to pay for the land being vacated.
Mr. Jones noted that in connection with the matter of vacation
of Block 92, Sheridan Heights, and of West Adriatic Avenue, he
wanted it noted that he opposed the vacation based on the lack
of circulation in the area. Mr. Jones noted the industrial
and commercial nature of th e immeo i ate area, and stated that
he felt the distance from Evans d own to Balt i c was too far
not to have a street that could be improved through t h i s area
to provide access. Discussion followed. Mr. Martin asked if
there would be a chance the recommendation on vacation could
be reconsidered by the Commission? Mr. Supinger stated that
a person votin g on the prevailing side would have to move for
reconsideration. Discussion followed.
Jorgenson moved:
Martin seconded: The Planning Commission reconsider Case
#7-75, requested vacation of the alley in
Block 92, Sheridan Heights, and the vacation of West Adriatic
Avenue between South Tejon Street and South Raritan Street.
It is felt this matter requires further study before it is
referred to City Council.
AYES: Parker; Martin; Jor g enson; Jones; Tanguma; Pierson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Brown; Wade ; Smith
The motion carried.
Mr o Pierson asked if
street were vacated?
of Englewood does not
taxes --the majority
the value of property was increased if a
Mr. Supinger pointed out that the City
realize that much revenue from property
comes from sales tax.
The Director was asked to send a letter to Mr: VanderHorst
notifying him of the reconsideration of his request by the
Planning Commission .
-10-
Mr. Tanguma stated that he noted a change in seating 'Of the
Commission members, and stated that he had difficulty in
hearing. Mr. Martin stated that the change had been in an
effort to segregate the persons who smoke from those who do
not smoke, but he has determined tha t no Commission member
shall smoke during the meeting. It was requested that this
might also extend to staff members.
Brian Fiedler
Applewood --asked to address the Commission. Mr. Fiedler
stated that he is the person Mr. Forington
referred to who is attempting to convert used crankcase oil
to heating fuel. Mr. Fiedler asked what liability the Commission
would have if the approved a "variance" such as the research
laboratory, and someone did detonate a bomb, as was mentioned
as a possibility. What liability would there be?
Mrs. Pierson stated that is a legal matter that should be
considered by legal counsel.
Mr. Supinger suggested that Mr. Fiedler might call his office
or submit a listing of his questjons ; the department would
make every effort to see that the questions were ans were d.
Mr. Fiedler stated he wanted to know how great a risk there is
to the Planning Commission?
Mr. Parker stated that the Commission followed the Zoning
Ordinance in reaching the decision regarding the research
laboratory.
Mr. Fiedler asked if members of the Commission were familiar
with the construction and appliances that are in City Hall?
Mr. Fiedler noted there was enough stored energy in the
basement of City Hall "to put this building on the other
side of Santa Fe o"
Mr. Martin cautioned against conf using the Building Code
with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; he noted that the
permitted uses in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance were the
basis of the Commission decision regarding Mr. Forington's
proposal.
Mr. Tanguma pointed out that the "stored energy" referred to
by Mr. Fiedler is also in a controlled situation; the furnaces
are subject to periodic inspection. Mr. Tanguma stated that
he felt Mr. Fiedler was insinuating that the conditions they
would be working under in the proposed research and development
laboratory would be similar to those that exist in City Hall,
and he questioned this fact. Mr. Fiedler stated they would
be "more or less" similar. Mr. Tanguma stated again that the
appliances and stored energy contained in City Hall are under •
controlled circumstances; there is no testing being done, as
would be the case in the research laboratory.
-11-
• The meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M •