Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-22 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 22, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Ch~irman Martin at 8:05 p.m. Members present: Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Assistant City Attorney Lee; Assistant Director Romans, Associate Planner House II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Martin stated that Minutes of April 8, 1975, were to be considered for approval. Smith moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of April 8, 1975, be approved as written. AYES: Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None The motion carried. III. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Burt Toyota, Inc. CASE #12-75 Mr. Nate Burt, President of Burt Toyota, 5300 South Broadway, stated that he has requested a Subdivision Waiver; he proposes to construct an addition to the service and parts building of the Toyota establishment, which addition will extend into the property owned by Belokes Grastoke, Inc. Mr. Burt stated he has leased property from Belokes Grastoke for storage of cars for several years. Mr. Burt stated that he applied for a Building Permit to construct the addition to the service and parts building, and was advised that a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations would have to be approved before a Permit could issue. Mr. Martin stated that he is concerned, as is_ the staff, about the need for a total development plan for this area. Mr. Burt stated that it was not felt necessary for this case. Mr. Martin asked what the relationship between the Toyota dealer- ship and the Grastoke property is? Mr. Burt stated that Grastoke owns the land which he leases for the Toyota dealership. Grastoke is a partnership of Mr. Wm. Grant and Mr. Stokes, who own the -2- GEM property. This is designated as "Parcel C" on the Vicinity Map attached to the staff report. Parcels "A" and "B" are owned by Irving Pasternak. Mr. Burt stated that he has a long-term lease on this land. Mr. Smith stated that he was under the impression Mr. Martin's concern had been about the total site, and that Mr. Burt had answered in regard to the property he is personally concerned with. Mr. Martin agreed 'that he did refer to the total property. Mr. Burt stated that he understood from Mr. Grant that the GEM property is under option, and that the option will expire in September of this year. Mr. Parker pointed out that the service station, liquor store and car wash are to the south of the proposed addition, and he did not see that the proposed addition would hinder future development of the area. Discussion followed. Mr. Burt stated that he understood that any further development on the site will require the filing of a Subdivision Plat. Mr. Jones asked if the leases Mr. Burt has on the Pasternak property and on the Grastoke property were concurrent? Mr. Burt stated very nearly concurrent. Mr. Burt stated that the proposed structure will be of masonry construction. Mr. Brown stated that he was pleased to see the proposed ex- pansion; he stated he felt Mr. Burt has done a great job for the City and that the addition will be an asset to the City and to Mr. Burt's business. Mr. Smith asked if there would be some method of screening the wrecked automobiles from passers-by? Mr. Burt stated that the entrance to the proposed structure will be from the east, and there will be nothing to see from Broadway but the rear of the proposed building. Mr. Jones discussed access to the site from the east; he noted there is no access from that property on the east side of Big Dry Creek below the school unless one could cross Big Dry Creek. Mr. Supinger noted there is access along the north side of Big Dry Creek. Discussion followed. Mr. Martin asked if there is a possibility this right-of-way could be dedicated at some time in the future? Mr. Burt stated that he felt it could be. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Burt is still parking cars on any part of Parcel "C" as shown on the map? Mr. Burt stated yes, it is used as a new car storage lot. Mr. Martin asked if there is any way this can be screened? Mr. Burt stated this would be quite expensive, but the steel fence could be covered with cedar stakes or some similar method of screening. Mr. Burt noted that this is a considerable distance from Broadway. M~ Martin stated he was thinking more about traffic circulating about the GEM lot if this store should re-open. He asked if -2- GEM property. This is designated as "Parcel C" on the Vicinity Map attached to the staff report. Parcels "A" and "B" are owned by Irving Pasternak. Mr. Burt stated that he has a long-term lease on this land. Mr. Smith stated that he was under the impression Mr. Martin's concern had been about the total site, and that Mr. Burt had answered in regard to the property he is personally concerned with. Mr. Martin agreed 'that he did refer to the total property. Mr. Burt stated that he understood from Mr. Grant that the GEM property is under option, and that the option will expire in September of this year. Mr. Parker pointed out that the service station, liquor store and car wash are to the south of the proposed addition, and he did not see that the proposed addition would hinder future development of the area. Discussion followed. Mr. Burt stated that he understood that any further development on the site will require the filing of a Subdivision Plat. Mr. Jones asked if the leases Mr. Burt has on the Pasternak property and on the Grastoke property were concurrent? Mr. Burt stated very nearly concurrent. Mr. Burt stated that the proposed structure will be of masonry construction. Mr. Brown stated that he was please_d to see the proposed ex- pansion; he stated he felt Mr. Burt has done a great job for the City and that the addition will be an asset to the City and to Mr. Burt's business. Mr. Smith asked if there would be some method of screening the wrecked automobiles from passers-by? Mr. Burt stated that the entrance to the proposed structure will be from the east, and there will be nothing to see from Broadway but the rear of the proposed building. Mr. Jones discussed access to the site from the east; he noted there is no access from that property on the east side of Big Dry Creek below the school unless one could cross Big Dry Creek. Mr. Supinger noted there is access along the north side of Big Dry Creek. Discussion followed. Mr. Martin asked if there is a possibility this right-of-way could be dedicated at some time in the future? Mr. Burt stated that he felt it could be. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Burt is still parking cars on any part of Parcel "C" as shown on the map? Mr. Burt stated yes, it is used as a new car storage lot. Mr. Martin asked if there is any way this can be screened? Mr. Burt stated this would be quite expensive, but the steel fence could be covered with cedar stakes or some similar method of screening. Mr. Burt noted that this is a considerable distance from Broadway. M~ Martin stated he was thinking more about traffic circulating about the GEM lot if this store should re-open. He asked if -3- Mr. Burt could see his way clear to screen his area? Mr. Burt stated that he was parking new cars on Parcel "C" at the time GEM was still in operation, and he had received no objections to the operation. Mr. Burt stated that at some time in the future when they could afford such screening, they would not mind installing such screening. Brown moved: Jones seconded: a waiver to the #12-75, for the The City 1 Planning and Zoning Commission grant to Burt Toyota, Inc., 5300 South Broadway, Subdivision Regulations as set forth in Case following reasons: 1. No substantial benefit will be gained at this time by requiring a plat to be prepared, approved and recorded for the proposed division of the Grastoke property. 2. No easements or rights-of-way are needed by the City across the parcel being leased by Mr. Burt and divided from the Grastoke Parcel by this Subdivision Waiver to provide access or utility service. 3. The proposed development is permitted under the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and is not in con- flict with the Comprehensive Plan. This action is based on the following condition: The approval is granted upon the condition that no further division of the Belokes Grastoke, Inc. property .be made until and unless a Subdivision Plat is prepared and submitted for approval and recording of the following described property: Beginning 50 ft. east of the SW corner of the NE 1/4 of Section 15, thence N 89°40' E 1170.31 feet, thence N 0°20' W 314.2 feet, thence N 49°38'16" W 388.57 feet, thence N 70°07'47" W 239.32 feet, thence NW on curves 365.41 feet, thence S 89°40' W 361.19 feet to east line of South Broadway, thence south to point of beginning, 870 feet. AYES: Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Frank s. Clapp CASE #13-75 Mr. Supinger stated that the property is on the east side of Platte River Drive and south of West Dartmouth Avenue. There is a building on the south 1/2 of the subject property at the present time. The City purchased property owned by Mr. Clapp for the Bi-City Treatment Plant; this necessitated the purchase of the subject property by Mr. Clapp for his business. Mr. Clapp must obtain approval of a Subdivision Waiver to facilitate the construction of a building on the subject property. Mr. -4- Supinger noted that Mr. Clapp is not present, and he does not know if Mr. Clapp is in agreement with the staff report. Discussion followed. Mr. Jones stated that he would presume the City would have some obligation to help Mr. Clapp relocate. The matter of flood plain level was then discussed. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Clapp would have to meet the flood plain re- quirements, and he does believe that Mr. Clapp understands this. ' Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Clapp was agreeable to the easement for construction of the interceptor sewer. Mr. Supinger pointed out that Mr. Clapp was sent a copy of the staff report. He stated he doesn't believe it's necessary that Mr. Clapp agree to the easement before the Commission imposes it. Mrs. Wade asked what use abutted this property on the east? Mrs. Romans stated there is a mobile home park to the east. Jones moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission grant a Subdivision Waiver to Mr. Frank S. Clapp for property described as: That part of the E 1/2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 33, Township 4 Sou th, Range 68 West of the 6th P ·. M. , County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of the E 1/2 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 33, Township 4 South, Range 68 West, which point is 335.00 feet South of the Northeast cor-ner of said NW 1/4 SE 1/4; thence S 0° 00'00'' E along said East line, a distance of 144.20 feet; thence N 90°00'00" W a distance of 122.74 feet to the East right-of-way line of South Platte River Drive; thence northwesterly, along said East right-of-way line, along a curve to the left, having a radius of 771.67 feet, a central angle of 10°53'28" and whose chord bears N 10°05'07" W, an arc distance of 146.68 feet to a point 335.00 feet South of the Northeast corner of said NW 1/4 SE 1/4; thence N 90°00'00" E, a distance of 148.39 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.441 acres, more or less. This approval is granted for the following reasons: 1. No substantial benefits are to be gained by the City or by the public from requiring a Subdivision Plat to be prepared for the division of the tract. ) 2. The development of the south one-half of the site as a foundry, and the north one-half of this site for a pre- cast concrete business are permitted uses in the I-1, Industrial Zone District, in which District the subject property is located. 3. The Flood Plain Regulations will not be violated inasmuch as the floor level of the building to be erected on the property will be ~bove the Flood Plain level. 4. Traffic has access to the property from South Platte River Drive. -5- 5. Utilities will be available from South Platte River Drive; and is based on the following conditions as set forth in Case #13-75: 1. Mountain Bell Telephone Company requests a five (5) foot setback from the rear, or east property line, for the in- stallation and maintenance of their lines. ( 2. A 50 ft. temporary construction easement (50 ft. square area in the northwest corner of the property) is required for the Littleton Interceptor Sewer installation. Mr. Clapp is requested to leave this area unpaved for the present. The paving within the limits of this easement will be done after the construction of the Interceptor is completed by Littleton's contractor. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker Pierson, Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. V. SUBDIVISION WAIVER John J. Littlehorn CASE #14-75 Mrs. Romans noted that a waiver to the subdivision regulations had been gra~ed Mr. Littlehorn for his property west of Lipan and south of West Quincy Avenue, on February 19, 1975. At that time, Mr. Littlehorn was proposing the division of his property into six lots 50' x 125'; since that time, he has determined that to accommodate the houses he wants to move onto the property and provide the required off-street parking of two spaces per single-family unit, it would be necessary to turn the houses side-ways. Mr. Littlehorn had examined the possibility of running an alley on the west side of the lots to give access to the parking areas; however, FHA would not approve this idea. The alternative that Mr. Littlehorn, working with FHA, has devised is to amend the subdivision waiver to give him five lots with a lot frontage of 60 ft. and 100 ft. depth. This will still meet the minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. for an R-1-C District. This increases the size of the parcel to the west of the proposed five lots from 42 ft. width to 67 ft. width; this parcel will be left undeveloped for the present time. FHA has required a 6 ft. fence to be erected on the rear lot line of the lots, and the staff has included this as a requirement to be met. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Littlehorn does understand that the 1 ft. reservation on the west side of South Lipan Street will have to be removed. Mr. Brown stated that he had driven by the site earlier in the day; he asked if there is any way the property to the west of Mr. Littlehorn's property could be cleaned up? Discussion followed. -6- Tanguma moved: Brown seconded: The Planning Commission grant a Subdivision Waiver to Mr. John J. Littlehorn subject to the conditions set forth in Case #14-75: 1. It is recommended that the sixth, or west, parcel shall be kept free of debris and not used for the storage of materials. 2. As recommended by FHA , there shall be a 6 ft. solid screen fence along the rear or west property lines of the single-family lots. 3. A one-foot reservation on the east side of the property will have to be cleared before Building Permits can be issued. The approval is granted for the following reasons: 1. The request for this amendment in no way alters the reasons for the approval of the original request for a Subdivision Waiver. a. The revised division of lots does not change t h e access from South Lipan Street and West Quincy Avenue for the necessary utilities. b. The planned single-family building sites are in an R-1-C, Single-family Residential Zone District, and will exceed the required 50 ft. frontage, and will have the required lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. c. The proposed division of theland and development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None The motion carried. VI. HALCYON HEIGHTS II Planned Development CASE #ll-75A April 8, 1975 Mr. Mart in stated that the Planning Commission had a study session fr om 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. earlier this evening to discuss the matter of HH II. The Commission directed the staff to draft conditions and findings, which the applicant will receive , and called a special meeting for April 30, 1975 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Martin stated he hoped the Cominission would be able to reach a decision at that meeting. -7- VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission has received three proposed plans for a master street plan in the Santa Fe/Union annexation area. Mrs. Romans stated that Proposal #3 is felt by Utilities Director Carroll and by Pub l ic Works Director Waggoner to provide adequate access and water service rights- of-way to the area. The Planning Division also approves this proposal; it provides for' fewer dead-end streets, and splits fewer ownerships. Mrs. Romans asked if the Commission wished t o advertise for Public Hearing to amend the Master Street Pl an to include one of the proposed area plans. Discussion fo llowed. It was the determination to advertise for Public Hearing on Proposal #3 on May 20th. Mr. Supinger stated that the ASPO Convention in Vancouver was a very good conference, and that he will be preparing a written report for the Commission and Council. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Martin stated that he was in receipt of two letters. The first, from Chairman Ruth Allen, Parks & Recreation Com- mission, is in regard to Bicycle Trails, and is as follows: "April 21, 1975 Mr. Arthur Martin, Jr., Chairman Englewood Planning & Zoning Commission 3400 South Ela ti Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mr. Martin: The Englewood Park & Recreation Commission discussed at some length the proposed bike trail system for Englewood at their last two meetings and have come to these conclusions. That the street commuter bike trail in Englewood would be very difficult to establish because the heavier traveled streets in the city would present great problems. Homeowners would be un- willing to give up parking in front of their homes until more success becomes apparent with established bike trails in Littleton and other cities. That a hike and bike trail along segments of the City Ditch, Little Dry Creek and the South Platte River would be feasible and probably be successful. Trails to the schools would also be successful and should be included in the study. -8- "That it is important that the Water and Sewer Board not allow further closures of the City Ditch because it will be very difficult for the city to purchase these easemehts and ditch right-of-ways if they choose to do so in the future. Please accept our apologies in taking so much time in getting this information to you. Sincerely, Ru th H. Allen, Chairman Eng lewood Parks & Recreation Commission" Mr. Jones asked if there might be problems in a change of u se on easements for water-ways that have been abandoned as water- ways such as converting the use to bicycle and pedestrian trails. Mr. Lee stated he would have to review the wording on the easements before he could say yes or no. Mr. Martin stated that the second communication is f r o m Mayor Taylor regarding the capital improvements program and the financing thereof. Mr. Martin stated, for the benefit of new members of the Commission, that the Commission must review each departmental budget request for capital improvement pro- jects and set a priority listing of those projects. ~ Mr. Supinger stated that with the approval of the Commission the staff would proceed on this matter and submit a schedule and information to the Commission shortly. Mr. Martin asked if there was any possibility the 1¢ sales tax would be discontinued? Mr. Jones stated that this 1¢ sales tax is due to expire in 1976, but it is his opinion that without that tax the City will not have any capital improvement program. Mr. Brown stated he would concur with Mr. Jones . Discussion followed. Mr. Jones stated he felt one of the reasons for the fall in Englewood sales taxes if the fact that "you can 't get here" and discussed the traffic situation in the City of Englewood. Mr. Jones stated that Englewood is feeling some of the impact of Southglenn Shopping Center in the reduction of sales t ax revenues. Mr. Supinger stated that it is still his con t ent i on that the City needs a plan; he feels we have gone too long without moving ahead with something. He stated he did not care about the kind o f Plan, but the City does need to "get off the dime" and solve traffic problems, solve parking problems, etc. Mr. Supinger stated that if the City does not have an over-all concept of where it wants to go, it will be in trouble. Mr. Supinger stated he felt the City should have had a Plan five years ago. He acknowledged that it will take a lot of ~ sale s effor t t o p u t a Plan a cross, but that it has to be done. ~ • -9- Mr. Tanguma stated that he agreed with Mr. Supinger; Englewood needs a long range Plan. He stated that some o f th e problems we have that started a year and one-half ago is that developers went to Littleton, and people who drove through Englewood on their way to Denver don't do it, and don't stop in Englewood. Mr. Tanguma stated that a Plan is essential and we have to get started. Mr. Jones sta ted that the (City is in a position where we have to handle a lot of "cross" traffic. We need some means to handle the traffic volume on U.S. 285. Mr. Jones noted that t he Commission had discussed up-dating the Master Street Plan s ome time ago. Mr. Jones stated that discussions had also c entered around acquiring the right-of-way that might be needed on some streets; this woul d have to be a part of the Capital Im provement Program. Mr. Jones stated that the Commission and Council need to know what street widths need to be for pur oses of setting aside funds to acquire the right-of-way. Mr. Supinger discussed the manner in which other mu n icipalities handle current planning projects vs. long range planning projects. Mr. Supinger pointed out that Tucson, Arizona, fo r ins tance, has abolished the Planning Commission and has crea ted an informal Planning Committee; they handle the long range planning matters. Current planning matters are handled by a Hearing Commissioner. Mr. Supinger stated that the Englewood Planning Commission is faced with a lot of work; there will be need for many special meetings to meet the work load. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff is willing to work with the Commission whenever the Commission so desires. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Supinger's opinion on informal committees formed to address special items, such as the Multi-Family Development Standards Review Committee. Mr. Supinger stated that the time element has to be considered; if the dead-lines are to be met, he did not see how the committees could be help- ful, inasmuch as this route is usually rather lengthy. Mr. Jones stated that the alternative, then, would be whether the Council is willing to provide a consulting service. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was any reason the entire Com- mission has to hear current planning matters; could the Commission split into groups and part of the Commission concentrate on current matters, and part concentrate on long range matters. Discussion follo.ved. Mr. Jones noted this would require amend- ments of the Code and City Charter. Mr. Supinger stated that several codes would have to be amended, and this would be a t ime-consuming process in itself. Assistant City Attorney Lee pointed out that the Commission acts as a quasi-judicial body, and citizens have a right to have their requests heard by the entire Commission. Discussion ensued. Mr. Parker stated that he felt persons expect to be able to talk to the total Planning Commission. -1 0- Mr . Supinger noted that on the Master Street Plan, the a d di tional information on street widths, etc. has been submitted to the Commission some time ago; the staff is ready to meet with t he Commission at whatever time the Commission so desires; h owever, a n adequate plan will not be devised in any given number of mee tings; it is going to take a considerable am ount of time. Mrs. Wade suggested that the Commission make a listing of items pending and determine priorities, and work on that priority until it is solved, and so on through the list. Mr. Martin suggested setting the third Tuesday of every month aside to work on such matters. Mr. Jones stated that t h i s would not accomplish anything soon enough, and suggested meet i ng o n Saturdays. Mrs. Wade asked about setting aside the Sa turd ays in May to devote to discussion and consideration of the Ma s t er Street Plan. Discussion followed. Mr. Martin suggested t hat study sessions be set at 8:30 a.m. May 10, May 17, May 24, and May 31 until noon or after for the Commission to devote to the Master Street Plan. Mr. Brown pointed out that the Councjl sets aside every Monda y evening for consideratio n of City bllsiness, whether there is a formal Council meeting or not. He suggested that possibly the Planning Commission would want to do the same on Tuesday evenings. Discussion followed. Mr. Tanguma suggested that time be taken at this meeting to set priorities. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Martin sug gested t9 that possibly on May 10th the Commission could look at the Master Street Plan for the Northwest quadrant of the City. Mr. Tanguma stated that you cannot plan streets in quadrants. Mrs. Wade asked if Mr. Tanguma was suggesting the Commissi o n look at arterials, collectors etc. as a whole? Mr. Jones suggested that the Commission look at the Master Street Plan as it exists and to go from there. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff would have a synopsis of the Master Street Plan available for the meeting on May 10th. Brief discussion ensued . The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m . •