Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-03-04 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1975 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 Martin. Members present: Parker; Pierson; Tanguma; Smith; Jorgenson; Jones; Wade; Brown; Martin Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: None Al so present: Assistant City Attorney Lee; Assistant Director Romans; Associate Planner House Mr. Martin welcomed new appointees Judith B. Pierson and Chalmerse Parker to the Commission. II. REORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION. Mr. Martin stated that ·a Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be chosen for the coming year. He asked Councilman Brown to assume the Chair. Mr. Brown asked for nominations for the position of Chairman. Lee Jones stated he would like to nominate Mr. Arthur Martin as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Jones noted the many projects that are underway at the current time, which have been begun during Mr. Martin's tenure as Chairman. Mrs. Wade seconded the nomination. Mr. Brown asked if there were other nominations? Jorgenson moved: Pierson seconded: The motion carried. The nominations be closed and Mr. Martin be elected Chairman by acclamation. Mr. Martin assumed the Chair, and called for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Jones stated he would like to nominate Mr. Ed Smith as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Jorgenson seconded the nomination. Mr. Brown nominated Mr. Tanguma for Vice-Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Smith seconded the nomination . Nominations were closed; Mr. Tanguma was elected Vice-Chairman of the Commission by secret ballot. -2-- Mr. Martin stated that he wished to publicly thank Mr. Lentsch • and Mr. Weist for having taken of their time to serve on the Commission; he stated that Englewood is a better City for their having participated. Mr. Martin read a letter of apprecia- tion to Mr. Weist and Mr. Lentsch from Mayor Pro Tern Mann. Parker moved: Jones seconded: A letter of appreciation, signed by Chairman Martin, be sent to Mr. Lentsch and Mr. Weist for their service on the Commission. AYES: Tanguma; Wade; Pierson; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Parker; Martin; Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. Martin stated the Commission has deferred setting study sessions on several items until such time as the membership had been determined. Mr. Martin stated he now hoped to get started on matters such as the Master Street Plan; he stated he felt the future of Englewood is tied to a more adequate street plan. Mr. Martin stated he felt considerable time would have to be devoted to consideration of the Master Street Plan; considerable time would also have to be concentrated on the recommendations of the Multi-Family Development Standards ~ Review Committee. Mr. Martin referred to the Mobile Home Park Ordinance, the Bicycle Trails System that have both been deferred. Mr. Martin stated he would like to have "neighbor- hood'' meetings --find out what the people want and what they don't want. Mr. Martin stated that he felt matters that are important to Englewood are low-income housing for the elderly; community center; traffic; and the revitalization of the downtown area. Mr. Smith stated that he felt more projects should be initiated at the Commission lev.el. Mr. Jones stated he felt the Commission should make an effort. individually and collectively, to view sites of cases which come before the Commission. Mr. Jones referred to a case coming before the Commission for Public Hearing on a Planned Development at the next meeting; this site is located at South Clarkson and U.S. 285; he stated that while the staff does provide plenty of information, he felt it was important for the Commission to view the site and consider the topography of the land, and also the traffic circulation in the immediate area. Mr. Martin stated that he has felt it was incumbent, when the • agenda for the next meeting is delivered to the members, that each member automatically make an effort to become familiar with the site under consideration. Discussion followed. Mr. -3- Brow n noted that t he Ci t y did not sell one of the buses to RTD, and that a n y time the Commission wanted to tour the City, or view a project in Boulder , for instance, arrangements could be made to use this bus. Mr. Brown stated this should not be used as a substitute for each Commission member viewing sites and becoming familiar with the City on their own. Mr. Martin stated tha t the Commission had taken tours of the City in the past, a nd f elt it would be beneficial to continue to do so. III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Mr. Martin noted that on Page 4, Item IV, first paragraph, last sentence, the word not should be inserted so that the sen tence would read: Mr-:-I:ee indicated he thought it would no t be proper to consider the house movers and construction people in one class for the matter of performance bonds, etc. Discussion followed . Smith moved: Jones seconded: The Mi nute s of February 19, 1975, be approved as amended. AYES: Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Martin NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pierson; Parker The motion carried. IV. STREET AND ALLEY VACATION Block 92, Sheridan Heights; Adriatic between South Tejon and South Raritan Streets. CASE #7-75 Mr. Supinger stated that Messrs. Ralph and John VanderHorst are owners of the property abutting both the alley and West Adriatic Avenue, and are the applicants for the vacation. Mr. Supinger noted that Mr. Ralph VanderHorst is present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Martin asked for stated a curb return between two streets. returns be installed definition of a curb return. Mr. Supinger is that semi-circular portion of curbing The intent of the requirement that curb is there would be no thru street. Mr. Tanguma asked what type of development is proposed for the area? Mr. Ralph VanderHorst stated that at this point, they don't have a definite plan for development of the property. Mr. VanderHorst noted that South Tejon is an industrial street; they have paid for the paving on South Tejon. They now estimate the c ost of paving West Warren will be approximately $24,000. West Adriatic is not maintained at this time. It is felt by he and John VanderHorst that by vacating the street, it would -4- make the property more favorabl e for development. Mr. VanderHor . stated there is a sewer line in the alley, for which they will give a 16 ft. easement if the alley is vacated. Mr. Jones stated he was concerned about traffic circulation in the area if West Adriatic were to be vacated. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff does not regard this as a major problem; he stated that it is felt it would be to the best interest of the City if this parcel of land could be developed as one over- all project rather than a conglomeration of small developments over a period of time. Mr. VanderHorst discussed the topography of the land; the land drains northerly. If the street were to be cut through and improved, there would be "embankments" along the street due to the topography; he stated he felt a better development could be realized by using the entire parcel and building to the continuous slope of the land. Mr. Jones asked if Mr. VanderHorst plans to ask for a change of zoning on the property abutting Evans Avenue, which is now B-2, Business? Mr. VanderHorst stated there are no plans for a zone change at this time. Mr. Jones asked Mr. VanderHorst "do you see the development of the property on Evans as being commercial?" Mr. VanderHorst stated they did not have any particular development visualized. Mr. Parker asked if there were any dedications between West Adriatic Avenue and West Warren Avenue to the south? Mr. VanderHorst stated there are none; he again noted there is a sewer line through the alley, and a water line in the alley. Easements would be provided for the maintenance of those lines. Mr. Supinger noted that these utility lines could be moved if it was determined to be advantageous for the overall develop- ment of the site. Mr. Jones stated he understood Denver is proposing a flood drainage way on the south side of Evans to the South Platte River; he stated he understood this was in the 1975 program. He noted that if the subject property were to be developed with industrial type use, it might require a different traffic plan than might be instituted with the drainage way. Mr. Jorgenson asked what the probable development might be? Mr. VanderHorst stated there are no plans, but development would probably be industrial warehousing. Mr. Parker noted that the site is a very large area not to have any ingress or egress for fire and police protection. Mr. Supinger noted that at such time as building plans are presented, there will be an opportunity for review of these .im. plans by the Fire and Police Departments. Mr. Supinger further ,_, noted that the requested vacation had been referred to both departments, and neither voiced an objection to vacation of the street and/or alley. Brie! discussion ensued. -5- Mr. Supinger asked Mr. VanderHorst if he had reviewed the staff report, and if he had any objections to the conditions for approval as suggested by the staff? Mr. vanderHorst stated he had no objection to the conditions as set forth in the staff report. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that, generally speaking, a la rge parcel o f land that is not cut up by streets is more marketable than pa rc els cut up by streets and alleys. Brown moved: Wade se c onde d: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the alley in Block 92, Sheridan Heig hts Subdivision be vacated; also, that West Adriatic Avenue between South Tejon Street and South Raritan Street be vacated for the following reasons: 1. The vacations of the subject 16 ft. alley and West Adriatic Avenue would not restrict traffic flow in this area. West Adriatic Avenue is not designated in the Master Street Plan. 2. The applicants own all of the adjoining land and the vacation of the 16. ft. alley and West Adriatic Avenue would enhance the development potential of the two block area, providing a large area, unbroken by public rights-of-way. 3. No public interest is to be served by retaining the rights-of-way. The recommendation for vacation is based on the following: 1. It is requested that the vacation of the alley be approved subject to the retention of a 16 ft. utility easement, in order to ensure access for proper maintenance of the sanitary sewer which is located within the alley. 2. The owner .should also be required to remove curb returns, etc. at South Tejon Street, replacing them with a standard curb, gutter and sidewalk section. AYES: Ma rtin; Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jorgenson NAYS: Parker; Jones ABSTAIN : Pierson The motion carried. Mr. Supinger informed Mr. VanderHorst of the favorable recom- mendation and that the Department would inform him as to when the matter would be placed on the Council agenda. V. PROPOSED ORDI NANCE ON MOVEMENT AND DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES. Mr. Martin stated he assumed members had had an opportunity to read through the proposed Ordinance. -6- In response to a question from Mr. Martin, Mr. Supinger stated he had not heard back from Mr. Curry, Pres i dent of the First National Bank, to whom he had sent a copy of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Supinger also noted that on Page 5 of the proposed ordinance, under Miscellaneous Requirements, Y2, it should be amerided to read .•••• 11 No Parking Signs along such rights-of-way at least 48 hours prior to .•... " Mr. Supinger stated it has been suggested that the proposed Ordinance be discussed at a study session with City Council on March 31st. Mr. Martin inquired if the License Fee is required in additi on to the Permit Fee? Mr. Supinger stated that it is. Page 2 , §6, was discussed. Mr. Martin noted it does not state who is responsible for the Bond in the first paragraph of §6. Mr. Supinger said this would be added. Mr. Supinger stated that as far as the staff can determine, the proposed regulations a re new in the Denver area; the present regulations of most municipalities are related primar ily t o traffic . Mr. Parker asked if the purpose of the permit fees, etc. is t o pay for the salaries for overtime, etc . that might be required? Mr. Supinger stated yes, that he feels that such projects as house moving should pay for themselves. Mr. Jones noted that most of the moves are made in the early morning hours in minimum traffic. These moves do require a considerable effort ~ on the part of the Police and Traffic Departments. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Supinger if he had checked with other municipalities to see what they do regarding the house movers; he stated he is concerned that the ordinance will keep these businessmen out of the City of Englewood. Mr. Supinger stated that he has checked with other municipalities, and this concept does seem to be a new area; however, he does feel it has merit and is worth-while. Mr. Supinger stated that the proposed regulations will result in additional costs to the house mover, but he does not fee l the additional costs are so great that they will be burdensome. The staff has notified all the house move rs in the metropolitan area, and have received only two replies. Mr. Supinger stated he would strongly recommend a Public Hearing before Planning Commission and before City Coun cil. Mrs. Pierson asked the cost of the bond to the house mover? Mr. Supinger stated that this is determined on a percentage basis, and on the track record of the moving company. Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Jones stated that he did not feel the conditions outlined were burdensome at this point; he did sugge st possibly the staff could get some "ball park figures" on the costs that might be involved. Mr. Supinger stated that the agents he had discussed the insurance rates with indicated the y could not give figures --it depends on the specific comp any and their record. Further discussion followed. -7- Mr. Martin asked about prov i sion #7 on Page 2? Mr. Supinger stated the cash bond is required to cover such items as damaged street signs, etc. Discussion followed. Mr. Jones suggested that it might be termed a "deposit" rather than a "cash bond". It was determined that this provision should be reworded to use the context of "deposit" rather than cash bond. Mr. Martin mad e reference to Page 3, §2, and asked how much time can elapse before the building must be placed on the new foundation at the site to which it is moved? Mr. Supinger sta ted the restriction is 48 hours from foundation-to-foundation. Th e owne r . is given six (6) months to do the necessary construction t o bring the structure up to building code standards. Mr . Tanguma stated that he felt the six month time limit would place a hardship on many persons who wanted to do the necessary work themselves. Discussion followed. Mrs. Pierson asked if the normal operation isn't placing burdens on the individual for the benefit of the city? Mr. Martin stated that he felt an e xtension of time could be allowed if the situation did arise. Discussion followed. Further discussion on this provision ensued. Mrs. Wade stated she felt the requirement of bringing the building up to code was a safety provision. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that the building could not be occupied until it does meet the building codes. Mr. Smith asked the maximum time a building permit is in effect. Mr. Supinger stated ·that a building permit is in effect for a six month period --however, if some phase of the construction is begun, the effect of the permit would continue. It would expire at the end of the six month period of nothing had been begun on the project during that time. Mr. Tanguma asked if an extension could be granted to the individual with no additional cost? Mr. Supinger stated there would not be additional cost for the permit extension; there might be a fee for extension of the Performance Bond. Further discussion followed. Mr. Martin stated he felt one should look at the total picture --is this proposed ordinance for the benefit of one person, or the total city? Mr. Tanguma stated he felt one could consider the total picture only to a certain point. Mr. Martin stated this is where the exception or time extension could be considered --when that certain point has been reached. Mr. Smith pointed out that there aren't going to be too many persons financially able to buy the structure, have it moved, and then have it brought up to code. Mr .. Smith stated that it would not be economically feasible for an individual to undertake such a project; in most cases, it is an investor who is involved. Further dis- cussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated he would recommend that some time limit be set forth in the ordinance; the authority to grant an extension does exist. Brief discussion ensued. -8- Pierson moved: Smith seconded: The Commission accept §6 of Requirement for Moving Permit, as written. ~- AYES: NAYS: Martin; Smith; Wade; Pierson ; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson Parker; Tanguma The motion carried . Mr. Martin referred to Page 6, §6, and to Page 8, §6. Mr. Sup inger stated that Page 6, §6 refers to a building that is to be mov ed ; Page 8, §6 refers to a structure that is to be demo lished. The provision on Page 6 would prohibit stripping, salv aging and/or sales of parts or materials; the provision o n Page 8 wou l d allow stripping and salvaging, but would pro- hibit the sales of parts or materials on the premises. Mr. Martin asked wh o would be required to post the Bond as set forth on Page 7, §4? Mr. Supinger stated the person who is doing the demolition wou l d be required to post the bond. Mr. Tanguma asked why it should be stated in the proposed Ordinance that written proof shall be presented to the City of Englewood that a permit has been issued by another municipality to which a structure may be moved, or through which a structure may be moved. Mr. Supinger stated to ensure that a structure headed from Denver to Littleton, for instance, ~ will not be moved to the Littleton boundary and be stopped ~ because no permit has been issued for such move by Littleton. It was noted that this has happened in the past. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger stated the staff has been notified that a study session with City Council and the Multi-Family Development Standards Review Committee has been set for March 31st, at 7:30 p .m. in the Community Room. Mr. Supinger stated the staff needs to know how many persons will attend this study session. All nine members of the Planning Commission in- dicated they would attend. Mr. Supinger stated that the Commission meeting of May 6th conflicts with the City Annual Awards Banquet. It was deter- mined to set the meeting for May 13th rather than May 6th. Mr. Supinger stated the staff has learned that the Colorado Occupational Safety and Health association will, as of June 1st, prohibit the use of the 55 gallon garbage drums. He stated the staff will attempt to get additional information on this matter as soon as possible. • -9- VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Martin noted that a decision on the person to attend the ASPO Conference in Vancouver, B. C., should be made at thE meeting. Mrs. Wade, Messrs. Jorgenson, Martin, and Tanguma all indicated an interest in attending the Conference. Ballotting was held; Mrs. Wade was chosen to attend the ASPO Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Council of Governments dinner meeting will be held March 19th at the Adams County Fairgrounds in Henderson. It was noted that the City will pay the cost of the Commission member's a ttendance; the member may take a guest at their own expense. Mr . Martin asked that each member give a brief synopsis of t h eir background for the benefi~ of the other members. Mr. Martin stated he is employed by the Denver Water Board, and is beginning his third year as a member of the Englewood Planning Commission. Mr. Jones stated that he is retired from Public Service Company; he previously served on the Planning Commission from 1948 to 1955 ; he served on the Inter-County Regional Planning Commission, which is now known as the Denver Regional Council of Governments; he is currently a member of the Englewood City Council; was a member of the Multi-family Development Standards Review Com- mittee, and is serving on the Senior Citizen Advisory Committee. Mr. Jorgenson stated that he is retired from Sterns-Rogers, and is serving his first term on the Planning Commission. Mr. Supinger noted that Mr. Jorgenson was instrumental in the provision of the Senior Surrey to the City of Englewood by the Elks Club. Mrs. Wade stated she is serving her first term on the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith stated he is an electrical engineer with Crest Engineering. He is serving his first full term on the Planning Commission. Mr. Tanguma stated that he is a design draftsman and is attempting to start his own company; he is a representative to the Council of Governments and is serving his first term on the Planning Commission. Mrs. Pierson stated that she is an attorney with Decker and Mille r , and a housewife. Mr. Parker stated that he is a hairdresser, and a real estate investor; he has served on the City Council four terms . Mr. Brown stated that he is a member of the City Council, and is a t eacher in the Denver School system. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. /le~.~~ -10- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOO D CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 4, 1975 SUBJECT: Vacation of Alley in Block 92, Sheridan Heights; Vaca tion of We st Adriatic Avenue between South Tejon St reet and South Raritan Street. RE COMM ENDATION: Brown moved: Wad e seconded: The Planning Commission may recommend to City Council the alley in Block 92, Sheridan Heights Subd i vision be vacated; als o, that West Adriatic Avenue between South Tejon Street and South Raritan Street be vacated for the f ollowing reasons: 1. The vacations of the subj e ct 16 ft. alley and West Adriatic Avenue would no t restrict traffic flow in this area. West Adriatic Avenue is not designated in the Master Street Plan. 2. The applicants own all of the adjoining land and the vacation of the 16 ft. alley and West Adriatic Avenue would enhance the development potential of the two block area, providing a large area, unbroken by public rights-of-way. 3. No public interest is to be served by retaining the rights-of-way. The recommendation for vacation is based on the following: 1. It is requested that the vacation of the alley be approved subject to the retention of a 16 ft. utility easement, in order to ensure access for proper maintenance of the sanitary sewer which is located within the alley. 2. The owner should also be required to remove curb returns, etc. at South Tejon Street, replacing them with a standard curb, gutter and sidewalk section. AYES : Martin ; Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jorgenson NAYS : Parker; Jones ABSTAIN: Pierson The mo t i on carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning ' a nd Zoning Commission.