Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-20 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 20, 1976 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Tanguma,· Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: D. Smith, E. Smith, Wade, Pierson Also present: Assistant City Attorney DeWitt Intern Alice Fessenden II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Tanguma stated that Minutes of June 29, 1976, and July 7, 1976, were to be considered for approval. Parker moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Minutes of June 29, 1976, and July 7, 1976, be approved as written. AYES: Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, D. Smith, E. Smith, Wade The motion carried. III. CONDITIONAL USE Day Care Center 2990 South Logan Street CASE #25-76 Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant is seeking approval of a day care center as a conditional use in the R-1-C Zone District. The proposed day care center would be at 2990 South Logan Street, immediately next to the Bates/Logan Park. Don Smith entered and took his place with the Commission. A map was displayed to the Commission showing that there are two homes on the south of the subject site, and three houses which front on South Pennsylvania immediately east across the alley. Mrs. Pierson entered and took her place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Commission is given the authority to approve Conditional Uses in an R-1-C Zone District. A Conditional Use is defined as a special use permitted in a zone district subject to specific approval of the City Planning a nd Zoning Commission. A Conditional Use does not have to be a pproved by City Council. -2- The applicant does not want to go into great detail on designing plans until it is determined whether or not a day care center would be approved as a Conditional Use at this address. Mrs. Romans stated that no specific plans are before the Commission at this time; however, the applicant must meet all requirements of the Fire Code and Building Code, and they will have to be licensed by the State of Colorado to operate as a day care center. The staff has recommended approval of the request, provided the applicant meets the following provisions: 1. The house must be brought up to standards acceptable to the State for licensing a Day Care Center. 2. The house must be improved to meet Fire Code regulations for a Day Care Center for 20 preschool children and the adults who would be in charge of the Play School. 3. The building must meet the code requirements for a 3C occupancy. A change of use from the existing residential use would require a revised floor plan with measurements and showing required exits to be approved by the Building Inspector. If the basement of this house is also to be used for the Play School there must be a second exit. 4. Provision for adequate parking and turn around space on the ~ subject site for cars delivering and picking up children from the alley entrance must be made. 5. The property must have a fenced play yard for the children. The house was built in 1953 as a single-family dwelling. The staff feels that a day care center is a very important use, and should be located in a residential area rather than in a com- mercial district. The applicants feel the location is ideal because of the proximity of the Bates/Logan Park. The staff feels the primary play yard must be on the subject site itself, however, and that the applicant may not rely on the Park to provide the primary play area. Specific changes to be made to the structure are not set forth because detailed plans are not available at this time. Mr. Jones asked the size of the subject lot? Mrs. Romans stated it appears to be 75' x 125 1 , Mr. Jones asked if the cul-de-sac, which is proposed by the staff to provide turn-around ability in the alley, would have to be dedicated to the City, or would there be sufficient space on private property to accomplish this maneuver? Mr. Saran, applicant, stated that the 125 ft. measurement of the lot east/west has an area where the fence is set in, which would be used for maneuvering in addition to the 16 ft. alley. This part of the property is being used in conjunction with the alley at this time. -3- Don Smith asked if any consideration was given to the flooding problem in this area? Mr. Smith noted that at times, the water can get hip-deep. Mr. Smith noted there is a grade difference into the 3100 block; the 2900 block is much lower than that of the surrounding area, and the water runs down the alley into the Park. People living on the corner have had to construct a block barricade on their property. Mrs. Pierson asked if the drainage problem was not corrected during the recent construction? Mrs. Romans stated that it was not; more work was to be done during the Bates/Logan Park expansion, and a detention pond was proposed for this area. The proposal to purchase the remaining homes in this area was dropped temporarily by the City Council. Mrs. Romans stated the matter of flooding is a matter the applicant will have to be aware of and provide for. Don Smith asked if he understood correctly the staff proposed that the alley be used for parking? Mrs. Romans pointed out that cars cannot stop on Logan, and therefore, it is proposed that the children be dropped off and picked up at the rear of the property. The alley would be used for the maneuvering area, and proper turning radius would have to be provided at the north end of the alley. Don Smith asked if the figures were available on the distance from the rear of the property to the rear of the structure? Mrs. Romans stated that it would appear approximately 2/3 of the lot would be available for parking, cars to turn around, and play area. Mr. J-0nes again asked if the cul-de-sac would have to be dedicated for public use? Mr. DeWitt stated it would depend on the solution to be used for the vehicles using the alley; if they park in the private property and back out into the alley, it might not have to be dedicated, but he would want to see the specific plans prior to stating it would not need to be dedicated. If plans show there would be a need for a cul-de~sac, he would then think there might be need for a dedication, but again, he could not determine that now. Mr. Saran, applicant, stated that he concurred with the Planning Division on all points of modification to the structure, play area, etc; all these requirements would be met. He stated he felt the matter of parking and the turn-around were getting very complicated; he again noted there is a fence on the back of the property which is set in at least 16 ft. from the property line; this, in addition to the 16 ft. alley, would give a total of 32 ft. for maneuvering and turning around. Mr. Smith noted that the fence would have to be set in to accommodate maneuverability. Mr. Saran stated there would be one person living in the house, and it was unlikely they would care for the 20 children initially proposed; it was much more reasonable to plan to care for 12 - -4- 15 children, with possibly two adults to care for the children. Mr. Saran stated that he didn't think the square foo t age re- quirements would allow more than 13 or 14 children ; the law will permit one person to care for 13 or 14 children. They will meet the Codes as required by the City and will have to be licensed by the State. There is a parking space on the property, with the entrance from South Logan Street, which would accommodate the resident's vehicle. Mr. Jones interposed that parking is restricted on the east side of South Logan in this block. Mr. Saran stated there is a carport attached to the side of the house, which has an entrance off of South Logan Street, and it might be possible to park two other vehicles in the drive. Mr. Williams stated he felt there were too many "ifs" and "conditions" on this matter at this time. He stated that he did not think the matter of parking was the ultimate question before the Commission. Mr. Williams stated that he feels the applicant should come back to the Commission with mor e specific plans to be discussed; at this time, it is only a "guessing game". Mr. Williams stated that he felt the primary issue is that the house doesn't meet the requirements at this time, and that it must be brought up to Code prior to operating a day care center there. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Saran if it would be possible for him to come up with some sort of plan for the Commission to go on, as they have nothing now. Mr. Saran asked if Mr. Williams wanted a plan indicating re- quirements under which the State would approve it; or if it must show requirements for the City to approve it. Mr. Williams asked for a concrete plan of the proposal. Mr. Tanguma stated that he understood the applicant was trying to determine if he could, in fact, have a day care center at this location prior to expending funds for detailed plans; how- ever, Mr. Tanguma stated that he, too, would like to see some firm plan. Mr. Saran stated that if the Conditional Use is not approved, he will have no reason to purchase the property. It is necessary to determine that the day care center can in fact be at this location before drawing detailed plans. Mr. Williams reiterated that "ifs" leave a lot to be desired, and that he could not go along with something like what was presented this evening. Don Smith stated that he is not concerned about compliance with local and state codes if approval is granted; he is concerned about parking for employees and residents, and about pick-up and drop-off points for the children. He noted that a play area will have to be provided, and that there is danger of flooding in the back yard where the play area would be. -5- Mr. Jorgenson asked how much space there would be for play ground if the rear of the yard was to have a cul-de-sac or parking area? Also, is the house large enough to accommodate 13 or 14 children during inclement weather. Mr. Saran stated that the State has square footage requirements for each child that must be met. Mrs. Pierson asked if it would be possible to grant approval of the Conditional Use contingent upon the applicant meeting all the requirements set forth? Mrs. Romans stated that an Occupancy Permit would not be issued until all the requirements were met. The parking area would have to meet the standards set forth by the Public Works Department. Mrs. Romans stated she felt it should be made clear to the applicant there is a drainage problem on the site. Mr. Saran stated that the property may be under water when it rains; however, the property slopes upward to the house, and the house is not in any danger. Don Smith stated that the house at 2990 South Logan Street has not been flooded as far as he knows; however, the alley and back yard do flood. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would like to come up with some way to grant preliminary approval if all conditions are met, but he does want to see a plan for safe-guarding the children during periods of flooding. Don Williams moved: The Commission grant preliminary approval for the Day Care Center; the applicant must meet all the requirements set forth in the staff report, and must come up with concrete plans for the day care center. There was no second to the motion. Pierson moved: The Commission accept and adopt the recommenda- tion of the Department of Community Development, approving the Conditional Use of a day care center at 2990 South Logan Street. This motion was also declared dead for lack of second. Don Smith moved: Jones seconded: That action on the matter be postponed until July 27, 1976, and that the applicant be re- quested to provide further information per- taining to: a. The matter of drainage and flooding; b. Parking for parents delivering and picking-up children; c. The measurements of the house, back yard, play area, and parking area. -6- Discussion ensued. Mr. Saran stated that he felt his option on the property could be extended --it would necessitate the • changing of the contract. If the property did flood, they would have to evacuate the children from the front of the property. Further discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt stated that he felt it would be primarily an on-site parking problem that must be solved by the applicant; minimum off-street parking requirements are set forth in the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, and the applicant will have to meet these requirements. Mr. DeWitt pointed out that if the property .is in a flood plain, there are limited uses that are permitted in a flood plain, namely recreational uses, or the parking of moveable vehicles. The vote was called: AYES: Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: E. Smith, Wade The motion carried. Discussion followed. Mr. Saran was asked to provide the additional information requested by the Commission. IV. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH Parking Lot Approval CASE #27-76 Mrs. Romans noted that after the staff report on the parking lot had been written, which report was based in part on the vacation of a portion of the Broadway/Lincoln alley in the 3100 block south, the application for vacation of the alley was withdrawn. Mrs. Romans stated that the Church proposes to construct two new buildings and raze the existing structure. Parking areas are proposed on the existing site, on property east of the alley on South Lincoln Street, and the Church has an agreement with Drs. Wenzel and Dart for joint use of the parking across South Broadway on the northwest corner of the Broadway/Eastman intersection. One of the new buildings is proposed to be con- structed on the east side of the alley and the other building will be on the west side of the alley. The existing building will be demolished in two phases. The request is to approve the proposed parking plan, so the Church could be assured of these plans prior to expending funds for detailed building plans. Mrs. Romans stated that the original plan to vacate the south portion of the alley, was withdrawn by the Church, apparently because the expense of relocating the existing utility lines was considerable, and the Church did not feel there were in a position to go to this expense. -7- The p a rking areas will accommodate in e xcess o f 150 cars. The Co mprehensive Zoning Ordinance does provide for joint use of parking areas as is proposed on the site on the northwest corner o f the Broadway/Eastman intersection, and the agreement must be recorded in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's Office. A site for "over-flow" parking has also been proposed on the west side of Broadway, just north of Dartmouth; the Church has also presented a letter agreement for the joint use of this parking area. · Mrs. Romans stated that the parking plan, as proposed, does meet the standards set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Both streets and the alley will be used to give access to the parking lots. There is no drainage problem in the area, and the proposal meets all requirements of the ordinances. The design of the two proposed buildings will follow approval of the parking plan, and new construction and razing of the existing building will be done in phases. Mr. Jones asked how many parking stalls would be required to meet the requirements for a building such as this? Mrs. Romans stated that 125 parking spaces are necessary for the auditorium; there are additional spaces for the teaching staff provided, as well as parking over and above that required. The topography of the area was discussed. there is a considerable change of grade in asked if the parking area would be fenced? there .will be grading and fill done on the Mr. Parker noted this area, and Mrs. Romans noted site. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was any way landscaping could be required on parking lots? Mrs. Romans noted there was nothing in the Ordinance to require landscaping except at those points at which the parking lot abuts a residential district. Mrs. Pierson stated that there has been discussion about providing greater setbacks along South Broadway to facilitate the planned widening of the street and the installation of the median strips. She stated that she felt this much land devoted to parking was very "harsh" with no landscaping to soften the effect. Mrs. Pierson pointed out the discussions and concern that have been expressed recently on the need to provide beautification along South Broadway. Mrs. Pierson noted that the preliminary plans seem to indicate the building will be constructed right to the property line; she suggested that if the building were set back it might soften the impact on the neighbors, and might also make for a more inviting building. Dr. Smith, pastor of the First Baptist Church, stated that be- tween the sidewalk and the street, there is a strip of greenery that could be developed with trees and shrubs in addition to g·ass; there is some greenery there now. -8- Mrs. Pierson asked if the Commission could require that a strip of greenery be planted around the perimeter of the parking lot? Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission could. Dr. Smith noted that one of his neighbors is a used car lot, and that he doubted they would be interested in a planting strip adjacent to their use. Mr. Jones noted that plans have been approved by the Commission for the improvement and widening of Broadway from Floyd north to Yale Avenue; if the widening and improvement does occur, most of the un-used portion of the area between the sidewalk and the street will be used for street purposes. Mr. Jones noted that this area is really right-of-way available for street widening, and could not be relied upon to provide landscaping for the parking lot. Mr. Jones asked if some of the trees and shrubbery would be provided on private property, or would it all be on public property? Mrs. Romans stated there are only a couple of small areas on the parking plan that could accommodate landscaping; there is also one small area adjacent to the Church that could be landscaped. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans noted that building plans will not come before the Commission. All building plans will have to meet the Fire Code, the Building Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances. Don Smith moved: Parker seconded: The proposed parking lot for the First Baptist Church of Englewood be approved as presented. Mr. Jones stated that he would hope some effort would be made to provide some greenery on the site; he noted that the City does have plans for improvement of Broadway, and stated "we don't want another asphalt jungle," Dr. Smith noted that it may be possible, because of the design of the building --Southern Colonial --to provide landscaping and greenery. He noted it might be possible to provide a strip of greenery down the center where parking stalls meet. Dr. Smith assured the Commission that every effort would be made to make their development as attractive as possible. Mrs. Pierson stated that she wanted to reemphasize the plans to widen Broadway, and that the building might be sitting right on the street if setbacks are not provided. Dr. Smith stated that probably 95% of the congregation will enter the Church from the parking lot rather than from the Broadway frontage, and the Southern Colonial architecture would provide a "porch" effect on the sidewalk frontage. The vote was called: AYES: Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: E. Smith, Wade The motion carried. • -9- VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Co urt determinations regarding restrictions municipalities c a n place on churches were discussed, and it was pointed out t hat there must be close cooperation between the City and the Church in matters such as this. One decision reported in the ZONING DIGEST, found that a city cannot require a church to meet the setback requirements. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt it was important the property owners along Broadway know if the City ~s serious about the widening and improvement of South Broadway. Mrs. Romans noted that copies of the Auto Wrecking/Junk Yard Ordinance were included in the information sent the Commission. Over the past year or so, there have been several contacts from property owners who want to construct a building from which they may sell auto parts and supplies and/or office space. There is some question in the mind of the staff whe t her or not putting up a garage building for selling purposes is a n "ex- tension" of the use, or whether an "extension" of the use applies to the expansion of the use on to additional land which would be devoted to auto wrecking or junk yard use. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt it might be helpful to the Commission to invite some of the property owners in to discuss their problems in trying to work under the Ordinance. Mrs. Romans suggested possibly the meeting of August 3rd could be devoted to discussion with the Auto Wrecking/Junk Yard owners. Mr. Tanguma stated he felt it would be a good idea to invite these people in for an informal discussion. Mr. Jones stated that at the time the auto wrecking yards were permitted to continue operation as a non-conforming use, it was the hope that these businesses would move to other areas, and would be located on land that is not considered "prime" property. Mr. Jones stated that he felt the question is whether the auto wrecking/junk yards should be considered permanent "fixtures" and allowed to up-grade their property, or whether the City should continue to deny expansion in the hope they will be re- located. Mr. Jones stated that he felt this land is too valu ab le for long-term use by the auto wrecking yards. Mr. Jones noted there is a great demand for space in the auto wrecking/junk yard business, and they should be located near a compactor or in- cinerator. Mr. Jones stated that to encourage these property owners to continue to expand their operations is, he felt, poor use of the property; he acknowledged t hat we cannot deny people the right to use their property, and that if the owner wanted to put a building on an adjacent piece of property, it could not be denied. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans pointed out there is a new recycling operation in Denver in this vicinity, and that it seems to be a "going operation". Further discuss i o n ensued . Mrs. Romans stated that a paper on Zoning, Planning and the Master Street Plan had also been included in information given the Commissio n; she felt this might be informational when con- s idering t he Comprehensive Plan. -10- Mrs .. Romans noted there is a Public Hearing on zoning of the recently annexed property at Stanford and Windermere scheduled for July 27, 1976, at 7:00 p.m. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE The proposed use of 2990 South Logan Street as a day care center was further discussed. Mr. Parker stated that he felt the applicants were being deluded if they think this is the proper location for a day care center, and discussed some of the problems of the site, and of the structure itself. Turning problems for parents using the alley were further discussed. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P. M. ertrude Recording S •