Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-07-27 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 27, 1976 Special Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:~0 p.m. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, E. Smith, Tanguma Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Wade, Williams, Jones Also present: Assistant City Attorney DeWitt Intern Alice Fessenden II. ZONING DESIGNATION Stanford/Windermere Annexation: I-1, Light Industrial. Don Smith moved: CASE #24-76 Ed Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #24-76 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, E. Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Wade, Williams, Jones The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma outlined procedure for the Public Hearing, and asked that Mrs. Romans make the staff presentation. Mrs. Romans stated that the area under consideration is on the southeast corner of the Stanford Avenue/South Windermere Street intersection, and indicated the area on a map before the Com- mission and the audience. The area was annexed to the City by Ordinance No. 36, series of 1976. The legal notice of the public hearing did appear in the official City newspaper, and the property was posted by the City for the required number of days. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires that any land annexed to the City must be zoned by the City within 120 days of approval of the annexation. The zoning of the area to the north of West Stanford Avenue, which land is within the City of Englewood, is I-1, Light Industrial. The land to the south of the subject site, which is in Arapahoe County, is I-2, Heavy Industrial, which zoning was previously applied to the subject site when it was under the County jurisdiction; to the east of the subject site, the land is zoned R-3, Residential, in the County. -2- The subject site was part of the Santa Fe/Union Annexation action, which was contested in Court, and dropped by the City. During the time the land was in the City, it was designated as I-1, Light Industrial. During the time the property was in the City, permits were issued for a warehouse to be constructed on the 11 Vette Property" east of the subject site, and a ware- house was constructed on property immediately south of the subject site, which property was owned by a Mr. Noyes. Mrs. Romans reviewed uses permitted in the I-2 Zone District, Arapahoe County, which zone designation was previously imposed on the subject site. Mrs. Romans then reviewed the permitted uses in the City of Englewood I-1 Zone District, which district is proposed for the subject site. Mrs. Romans noted that the 1-1 Zone District is more restrictive than the County 1-2 Zone District, and that the City 1-1 Zone District has external limitations which are imposed on any development in the I-1 Zone District. These external limitations pertain to the volume of sound, the matter of vibration perceptible beyond the property line, outdoor storage of materials, etc. All the developments in the 1-1 Zone District will have to meet the restrictions of the Building Code and the Fire Code, as well as those restrictions imposed by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tanguma asked if development of the subject site would be through the Planned Development process, and if the Commission would review the proposal? Mrs. Romans noted that the developer of the site could request PD approval, but the site does not have to be developed under the PD restrictions. Mr. Tanguma asked if there were any proponents who wished to speak? No one indicated they wanted to speak in favor of the proposed 1-1 Zoning. Mr. Tanguma then asked if there were opponents who wished to speak? No one spoke in opposition. Don Smith moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #24-76 be closed. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, NAYS: None ABSENT: Wade, Williams, Jones The motion carried. Discussion ensued. • • -3- Don Smith moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described area situated on the southeast corner of the Stanford Avenue/South Winderm~re Street intersection, be designated as I-1, Light Industrial: A tract of land lying par.tty in the·· SW 1/4 NE 1/4~ ~nd partly in the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ·of Section 9., TSS, 'R68W of the 6th P .M.; County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado,· said Tract being the two parcel .s (combined) described · in Book 686 at page 44 together with that part of the 40 foot wide South Windermere Street lying adjacent to and West of said Tract as describe d i n Book 692 at page .121 a 11 of the Arapahoe County Records, which Tract 1s more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point.which is the inter- section of the East line of the right-of-way of the Denver and Santa Fe Rail- road, also known as the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa . Fe Railway, which line is also the West line of South Windermere Street as described in Book 692 at page 121 of the Arapahoe County Records, with the North line of th e SE 1/4 NW 1/4: of Section 9. ·T5S, R68W; thence Easterly. along the North line of the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 of said Section 9, a distance of 40.81 feet :to the NW corner of the two parcels (combined) described in Book 686 at page 44 of the Arapahoe County Records;' thence '(along the boundary of the two parcel .s (combined). described fn said Book 686 ·~t page ··44 the following courses and distances) continuing along the last d~scribed course, a distance of 75.51 feet .to the NE corner of said SE 1/4 NW 1/4; ·thence, on an angle to the left of 0°5'10", along the North line of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4 of said Section 9, a distance of 330.00 feet; thence, on an angle to the right of 90°0'0", a distance of 220.90 feet; thence, on an angle to the right of 90°0'0", a distance of 195.32 feet; t hence on an angle to the ·left of 90°0 1 011 1 a distance of 220.90 feet; thence on an angle to the right· of 90°0 1 011 , a distance of 300.14 feet to the SW corner of the two parcels (combfoed) described in said·Book 686 at page 44; thence, departing from the boundary of two parcels (combined), contfnufng along the last described course, a distance of 40.82 feet to the East line of said Denver and Santa Fe Railroad which line is also the West line of South Windermere Street as described fn said Book 692 a t page 121; thence on an angle to the right of 101°30'19" along said East line of the Denver and Santa Fe Railroad and along said West line of Sout h Windermere Street, a distance of 451.03 feet to the point of beginning conta i n- ing 3.9928 acres more or less. The Commission's recommendation is made for the following reasons: 1. The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, is an extension of the I-1 Zone Classification which has been applied to lands within the City of Englewood, which lan ds are adjacen t to the subject area on the north, and will assure that any new development within the subject area wi ll be compatible. 2. The proposed I-1 Zone District will conform with the Generalized Land Use Plan for that area as set forth in the Ci ty's .Comprehensive Plan, and the Regional Land Use Pla n as developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. -4- 3. The land has previously been zoned for Industrial use by Arapahoe County. AYES: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Jones, Wade The motion carried. III. CONDITIONAL USE Day Care Center 2990 South Logan Street CASE #25-76A July 20, 1976 Mrs. Romans reviewed information that was presented to the Department by the applicant since the previous meeting. She noted that the Commission had asked at the last meeting that additional information be presented on several points, namely parking provision, flooding information, the area of the house and the area in the yard that would be devoted to play area for the children. The questions on drainage were referred to Public Works Director Waggoner, who has indicated in his memorandum the storm drainage system is being installed in Bates Avenue, and a detention pond will be developed in the Bates/Logan Park. The combination of these two measures will diminish the flooding possibilities of the properties in this area. The City does not have the 100- year storm elevations for other than major drainage ways such as Big and Little Dry Creeks, and the South Platte River, and if the Commission wanted to see these elevations for any particular piece of property, it would be the responsibility of the applicant to provide that information. The applicant, Mr. Saran, has submitted information from a title company, on which is indicated the square footage of the lot, the size of the house, and the fact that the fence at the rear of the lot is set in 17 ft. from the property line, which would give a total of 33 ft., including the 16 ft. a _lley, for parking and maneuvering space. Mr. Saran had presented a floor plan giving approximate measurements of the three bedrooms, living room, bath, and kitchen, and a document from the real estate company which indicates the house was built in 1953, with a complete kitchen in the garden level basement, and a separate entrance to that unit. Mr. Saran did not submit a detailed parking layout as was re- quested by the Commission. Don Smith asked if the staff had information on the State requirements? Does the State require a safe pick-up and drop- off point for the children? Mrs. Romans stated that the safety of ingress and egress is not addressed; there is a 30 sq. ft. floor area per child requirement, exclusive of bath, kitchen, • closet and hall areas, and there must be not less than 1,500 square feet of play area for up to 20 children. • -5- Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt it was the responsibility of the Commission to determine if 2990 South Logan would be a proper location for a day care center, and not determine whether the house or site meets specific requirements at this point; the applicant would have to meet those requirements before he could be issued a permit to operate a day care center. She emphasized the Commission has only to determine if a day care center is an appropriate use, and grant the request or deny the request . Don Smith pointed out that' if the State requirements do not specify safety for the children in points of ingress and egress, then he felt it the responsibility of the Commission to do so. Mr. Smith pointed out that this location is unique --it is a t the bottom of a hill, with no parking on the east side of the street in front of the house, and no access to the property but through the alley. He reiterated he felt the Commission did have a responsibility for safety of the children if the State requirements do not address this point. He stated he would hate to approve something and have a child or parent killed trying to get across South Logan Street, Mrs. Pierson pointed out that East Cornell Avenue is available to parents who want to stop to take a child to the day care center. She felt this proposed day care center was as accessible as any day care center could be. Mrs. Pierson stated that she did not feel inclement weather and the problems that might be caused at this location were of great concern. Mr. Tanguma noted that a great many of these "problems" will have to be corrected by the applicant if he hopes to stay in business. Ed Smith pointed out there is no sidewalk on the east side of South Logan Street, and the children will have to walk in snow in the winter time. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the safety factor should be considered, not only of the children, but also of other motorists using South Logan Street. He emphasized that the day care center will have to have access other than from the street. Mr. Jorgenson stated he felt it would be up to the licensing authority to determine if the applicant had met all the specifica- tions, and not the Commission. Don Smith stated that if it would present problems to the peopl e who might be expected to use this facility, then it is our responsibility. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the traffic matter should be looked at, simply because once you have an accepted set pattern, it's hard to get anything done to change that pattern unless an accident does occur. He stated that if some problems could be avoided, it would be better . -6- Mrs. Pierson discussed the safety factor further, and noted that there would be approximately 15 cars that would have business at the day care center --if the applicant does care for no more than i5 children as he had indicated at the pre- vious meeting. She stated that she failed to see that this is a problem. Furthermore, if South Logan Street does carry too much traffic for safety in dropping off and picking up a child, the parent will find another means of getting the child to and from the day care center. Don Smith stated that his concern is the safety factor and the fact that the alley is bad in winter; he is concerned abo~t the safety of small children who would be cared for at the center. He felt the possibility of this hazard should be considered. Ed Smith suggested the possiblity of a circular drive in the front to bring the children in and pick them up. This might accommodate two or three cars at a time. Ed Smith pointed out that businesses are required to provide off-street parking, and that perhaps Mr. Saran should have to meet off-street parking requirements, inasmuch as he is going to be running a business at this location. Parker moved: The request for approval of a day care center as a Conditional Use at 2990 South Logan Street be denied for the following reasons: 1. The area is subject to a degree of flooding when it rains. 2. The 16 ft. alley is improper for use as ingress and egress to the da¥ care center. 3. This is a hazardous location, with specific possibility of danger in loading and unloading children from South Logan Street. The motion died for lack of second. Pierson moved: D. Smith seconded: The Commission approve the day care center as a Conditional Use at 2990 South Logan Street. Don Smith stated that he felt many of the parents would find ways to get the children in and out of the day care center safely; he noted that the alley is inaccessible in bad weather, but that it might be possible to ~se the existing drive or a circle drive. He stated that while he was concerned, he knew of no valid reason to deny the request; he stated he felt there is a definite need for this use. He pointed out there is a potential hazard and suggested use of a circle drive. Discussion ensued. The vote was called: • AYES: Pierson, D. Smith, Tanguma, Jorgenson NAYS : Parker ABSTAIN: Ed Smith ABSENT: Wade, Williams, Jones The motion carried. -7- Mrs. Romans stated that the Code Enforcement Division would be notified the d ay care center had been approved as a Conditional Use. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Development of the newly annexed land at West Stanford Avenu e and South Windermere Street was discussed. Safety precautions that are proposed were discussed, such as total sprinkling, and the size of water lines, smoke detectors, and electronic surveilance. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt t h e proposed development would be a great addition to the City ; s he did ask that the developers consider the possibility of something besides the plastic stripping in the fence, as the plastic does not "age" well. Mrs. Romans stated that she understood members of the Commission have been given a copy of a memorandum from City Manager Mccown announcing the selection of a Director for the Department of Community Development. Mr. Richard Wanush has been hired, and will begin employment with the City on August 30, 1976. Mrs. Pierson suggested that perhaps a dinner meeting with Mr. Wanush at his initial meeting might be nice. Mr. Parker suggested coffee and cookies; he stated that he is against commission and board members being served meals at City expense, and that he has paid for his meals. Mr. Tanguma suggested that the staff investigate the possibility of a dinner meeting and notify the members how much each meal would be. The dinner meeting was scheduled for September 8, 1976, at 5:30 p.m. V. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Don Smith complemented the proposed developers of the newly annexed area at Stanford and Windermere on their willingness to work with the staff and Commission, and stated it would be nice to have them in the Cityo Ed Smith noted he would not be present at the meeting of Augus t 3r d. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 1 Recording Secret ary The Commission's recommendation is made for the following reasons: 1. The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, is an extension of the I-1 Zone Classification which has been applied to lands within the City of Englewood, which lands are adjacent to the subject area on the north, and will assure that any new development within the subject area will be compatible. 2. The proposed I-1 Zone District will conform with the Generalized -Land Use Plan for that area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Regional Land Use Plan as developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. 3. The land has previously been zoned for Industrial use by Arapahoe County. AYES: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Jones, Wade The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. a~.?~ ertrude Recording • e . MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • DATE: July 27, 1976 SUBJECT: I-1 zoning Designation for Stanford/Windermere Annexation RECOMMENDAT I ON: Don Smith moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described area situated on the southeast corner of the Stanford Avenue/South Windermere Street intersection, be designated as I-1, Light Industrial: A tract of land lying partly in the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, and partly in the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 ·of Sec.t1on 9, TSS, 'R68W of the 6th P .M., County of Arapahoe. State of Colorado. said Tract being the two parcel.s (combined) described in Book 686 at page 44 together with that part of the 40 foot wide South Windermere Street lying. adjacent to and West of said Tract as described in Book 692 at page 121 all of the Arapahoe County Records, which Tract is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point .which is the inter- section of the East line of the right-of-way of the Denver and Santa Fe Rail - road, also known as the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa . Fe Railway , which line i s also the West line of South Windermere Street as described in Book 692 at page 121 of the Arapahoe County Records, with the North line of the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 : of Section 9. ·TSS, R68W; thence Easterly. along the North line of the SE 1/4 NW 1/4 of safd Section 9, a distance of 40.81 feet .to the NW corner of the t wo parcels. (combined) described in Book 686 at page 44 of the Arapahoe County Records; thence ·(along the boundary of the two parcels (combined) described in said Book 686 ·at: page ·44 the following courses · and distances) continuing along the last described course, a distance of 75.51 feet .to the NE corner of said SE 1/4 NW 1/4; thence, on an angle to the left of 0°5'10". along the North line of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4 of said Section 9, a distance of 330.00 feet; thence , on an angle to the right of 90°0 1 011 1 a distance of 220.90 feet; thence, on an angle to the right of 90°0'0", a distance of 195.32 feet; thence on an angle to the .left of 90°0'0", a distance of 220.90 feet; thence on an angle to the right of 90°0'0", a distance of 300.14 feet to the SW corner of the two parcels (combined) described in said ·Book 686 at page 44; thence, departing from the boundary of two parcels (combined), continuing along the last described course. a distance of 40.82 feet to the East line of said Denver and Santa Fe Rai lroad which line fs also the West line of South Windermere Street as described ·i n sa id Book 692 at page 121; thence on an angle to the right of 101°30'19" along sa i d East line of the Denver and Santa Fe Railroad and along said West line of South Windermere Street , a distance of 451.03 feet to the poin t of be gi nning con t ai n- ing 3.9928 acres more or less.