Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-20 PZC MINUTES\ CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 20, 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Pierson at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Draper. Richard Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development; Steve House, Associate Planner. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes of the September 7, 1977 meeting were to be considered for approval. Parker moved: Smith seconded: The Minutes of the September 7, 1977 meeting be approved as written. AYES: Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma ABSTAINING: Wade, Draper, Williams The motion carried. III, LITTLEHORN REZONING. CASE #14-77 Chairman Pierson stated that the Littlehorn Rezoning Application is before the Planning Commission for PUblic Hearing. Parker moved: Owens seconded: The PUblic Hearing for the Littlehorn Rezoning Application be opened. AYES: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. -2- Chairman Pierson spoke on the items the Planning Commission considers before a rezoning decision is made: 1. That there is a possibility a mistake has been made in the original zoning of an area. 2. That there have been significant changes in the area which may call for a rezoning of the area. 3. That an individual has been denied the use of their land . 4. That the area to be rezoned covers at least one city block. 5~ That proof has been brought before the Commission that there is a need for an expansion of the particular zone classification. 6. That the rezoning would be in compliance with the Master Plan. Chairman Pierson cited the King's-Mill Homeowner's Association v. The City of Westminster Case which was heard in December of 1976 and published in Colorado Lawyer in February of 1977. "In its findings, the Court ruled that the standard for acceptance of the change [in zoning] was whether the proposed zoning action was in compliance with the Master Plan [also known as the Comprehensive Plan]. In which case, the action need only relate to the general welfare of the community. Where the rezoning was in violation of the Master Plan, the Court ruled that there must be some change in the conditions of the neighborhood to support the zoning change." 11 The power to impose conditions on rezoning is an exercise of the police power and such conditions are valid as long as they are reasonably conceived." Conditions can be imposed "to make the change from residential to commercial use a smooth transition." "In determining whether spot zoning is involved, the test is whether the change in question was made with the purpose of furthering a Comprehensive Zoning Plan or designed merely to relieve a particular property from the restrictions of the zoning regulations." The Chairman went on to clarify that the Commission had not determined whether this was spot zoning in as much as further testimony in this hearing was yet to be heard. I -3- Mrs. Pierson then explained that the general format to follow in the rezoning of an area is: 1. A staff report is presented by the Community Development Department. 2. A statement from the applicant is received. 3. The floor is made open and statements and comments are taken from those in attendance. Tanguma arrived at 7:10 p.m. and was seated with the Commission. Chairman Pierson asked that, at this time, the Commission hear the staff report regarding this application from Mrs. Dorothy Romans. Mrs. Romans was duly sworn in and testified that the case being presented for the Commission's decision, Case #14-77, John J. Littlehorn Rezoning Application, is an application to rezone the following described area from R-1-C to R-2-C: "Beginning at a point 99 feet West of the NE corner of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; thence West along the north line of Section 9, a distance of 230.8 feet; thence South a distance of 330 feet; thence East a distance of 230.8 feet; thence North a distance of 330 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.75 acres, more or less." The property has been posted and a notice of the hearing appeared in the 31st of August issue of the Englewood Sentinel. The parcel is in four separate ownerships shown i n the Staff Report. The maps were available for the view of the audience and the Commission. Parcel 1 is owned by Mr . John Littlehorn. Parcel 2 is owned by William & James Ja ckson. Parcel 3 is owned by the Midwest Real Estate Exch ange, Inc. and Parcel 4 is owned by the Seventh Day Adve n tist Association of Colorado c/o of Mrs. Rosa Lee Banks. Mrs. Romans stated that it is possible for one person to i nclude other land in his application when applying for r ezoning. She pointed out the subject area on the Comprehensive Zoning Map on the Council Chambers wall. The subject pr o perty is in an R-1-C, Single-Family Residence Zone District. Immediately to the west, the land is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The area being considered for rezoning i s 1 .2 7 acres. The proposed rezoning is to R 2-C, Medium -4- D3nsity District. This District permits a single or two- family dwelling unit; a triplex or a fourplex cannot be built in the R-2-C Zone Districto The staff is considering this specific zone as a 11 buf fer" zone between the 1-1 District to the west and the R-1-C District to the east. Dorothy Romans submitted several photographs of the site to the Commission. Mrs. Romans further stated that this type of zoning, Medium Density, would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plano The matter was referred to City departments and the Public Service Company and Mountain Bell. No objections to this rezoning have been received. The property being considered has not been subdivided and before it can be developed, a subdivision plat must be considered. However, at this hearing, we are only considering the rezoning of this property. Mr. Larry Owens questioned whether Mr. Littlehorn was required to go to the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Romans responded that he did not have to, but did so to request a variance to build on a 5100 square foot lot on his property rather than on the required 6000 square foot building site. Mr. OWens further asked if the property can be divided into four parcels and still have a minimum of 6000 square foot lots. Mrs. Romans answered that it was doubtful this would be possible. An access to the property would have to be provided by Mr. Littlehorn. Mr. Chalmers Parker asked about the 15 foot access onto Quincy Avenue from Parcel #4. Mrs. Romans stated that this is an access to the property on which Mrs. Banks lives. It is not designated as a right-of-way; rather, it is a private road. Mr. Tanguma asked if there is right-of-way on the south side of the property? Dorothy Romans answered that it is not a right-of-way; but an easement. Chairman Pierson called for a statement from the applicant, Mr. John J. Littlehorn. Mr. Littlehorn was duly sworn in. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he felt that the proposal was thoroughly covered by Mrs. Romans. He has examined the area and found this is the best and possibly the only thing to do to be fair to future purchasers of the property and to ~hose who own the adjacent property. Several neighbors were stated as being in favor of the rezoning. -~ Mr. Smith questioned whether the applicant had any access to the east. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he does not but that he would like to submit a proposal for a private road and an easement a~ong the south side of the home at 4335 South Lipan Street for the Fire Department. Mr. Smith also asked if Mr. Littlehorn intended to break up this property into three 6700 foot parcels. In answer, Mr. Littlehorn stated that he would like to build duplexes and that he would only break up the property if there was a condiminium complex breakdown. Under the present zoning, Mr . Littlehorn felt that he could only build one house on the property. Chairman Pierson asked if any one else would like to comment on the rezoning application. Mrs. Banks asked whether a letter has been received from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Mrs. Romans answered that none had been received by her office. There were no persons in attendance at the Hearing who spoke further in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Pierson asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the rezoning application. Mr. Steve Meyer, 4330 South Lipan was duly sworn in. He stated that he is not opposed to Mr. Littlehorn developing the land. His main objection is the parking situation that may result from the increase in the housing situation. He does not want the increased traffic near his home. Mr. Merle Doan, 1201 W. Radcliffe, was duly sworn in. He also stated that he is not against Mr. Littlehorn developing the land. Mr. Doan did not like to see so many houses built is such a small area. The area is already too congested and there is only a narrow access road into the property. Mrs. Wade said that the way the property is built up now, it would only leave Quincy Avenue as an access to the property. She wanted to know whether this was correct. Mr. Doan said this was so. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Littlehorn if he had a right-of-way through his property. Mr. Littlehorn answered that it would be strictly an easement on the property and · the emergency access to South Lipan Street will be locked and be used onl y by the Fire Department. -6- Mrs. Banks again questioned whether anything written had been received from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Mrs. Romans said the staff had not received anything from them, but the Church was mailed a copy of the Staff Report. Mr. Littlehorn said that he spoke to the Secretary of the Church Treasury in the latter part of last week and was told that the Church is not in a position to take a stand in this matter. Mrs. Banks is the trustee for the property and she has the final say in the matter. Mr. OWens requested that Mr. Littlehorn explain exactly what he had in mind. Was he going to develop only his property or the whole parcel? Mr. Littlehorn answered that he will only be developing his own property. The Jacksons would also like to have the rezoning and had included their name on the application. Mr. Smith commented that it was stated in the Staff Report that this section would be a "buffer". To him, it looked like "spot zoning". Mr. Richard Wanush replied that the Commission has to decide whether this is spot zoning or not. The critical element is the ability to develop the land. The greatest issue is if there is a good chance for Mr. Littlehorn and the other owners to develop their property under the present zoning. Mr. Tanguma asked what side of this parcel did Mr. Littlehorn propose the street would be on. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he would like the drive to curve across the property. The road would possibly be of gravel. There being no further testimony, Chairman Pierson asked if there would be a motion to close the hearing. OWens moved: Smith seconded: The Public Hearing of Case #14-77, John J. Littlehorn Rezoning Application, be closed. AYES: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, OWens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Williams moved: That the case cited by Mrs. Pierson, King's- Mill, be struck from the record. No second. Motion died for the lack of a second to the motion. -7- Smith moved: Williams seconded: That Case #14-77, John J. Littlehorn Rezoning Application, be denied. Mr. Smith stated that this is a unique property arrangement and the City would be an R-2-C District right in the middle of an R-1-C District. If the R-2-C District is proposed as a "buffer", it should run the length of the entire I-1 District. The property could be developed as it is even though it is unusual. Mr . OWens concurred with Mr. Smith. It is a unique area; but it does have possibilities. However, he doesn't know if the requested zoning would permit the highest possible use of the property. Possibly something else could be worked out at a later time. Mrs. Wade stated that if the whole area is going to be developed, it is one thing. But, if you have a piece meal development, someone will be unable to use their property. Chairman Pierson felt that it would be easier if all the property owners were to go ahead with a planned development proposal. Mr. Littlehorn is certainly deprived of his use of the property he owns and the rezoning is agreeable with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tanguma objected to the rezoning because it seems to be a "little island". He foresaw problems that would develop in the future. Mrs. Pierson stated that it is such an odd piece of property. She does not think it could be reasonably developed as a single family dwelling. Mr. Smith stated that good negotiations are needed to put the parcels together and develop the property. This, in turn, would encourage cooperation between the neighbors. A reading of the motion was called. AYES: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Chairman Pierson granted a short recess before the meeting continued . -8- The meeting was called to order at 8:13 p.m. Members present: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper Members absent: None IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER. Case #17-77, Jim Dandy Restaurant Chairman Pierson asked for a motion to open Case #17-77, Subdivision Waiver for Jim Dandy Restaurant. Smith moved: Tanguma seconded: The Subdivision Waiver, Case #17-77, be opened. AYES: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, OWens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Steve House stated that the applicant; Mr. Paul Smith, is requesting a subdivision waiver on the Centennial Shopping Center property designated as Parcel 3 on a previous subdivision waiver. ownership of the shopping center is in the name of Mr. Harold Kalke, the trustee, and he is represented by Mr. Paul Smith. The site is located in a typical shopping center with ample parking lots surrounding the area, The zoning is B-3 iµ the area to the east which is in Littleton. Under our zoning, B-2, Business, the proposed restaurant is a permitted use. The history of the area is as follows: In 1962, it was zoned as a single-family zone ·upon annexation to the City, In 1963, it was changed to C-2, which is similar to otir present B-2. Its main history has been commercial zoning. The applicant proposes the building of a Jim Dandy Restaurant, There would be eleven parking spaces in the area for the restaurant. The staff feels there is sufficient access to the site from West Belleview Avenue on the south and South Federal Boulevard on the east. No objections were received from the Engineering Department, Mountain Bell, or Public Service in regards to this subdivision waiver. The Colorado Department of Highways has no objection to the waiver but expressed concern about an acceleration and deceleration lane on Federal and Belleview that was to be constructed by the shopping center. It was explained that this construction must be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Centennial State Bank. The recommendation of the staff is for approval of -9- the subdivision waiver for the following reasons: 1. There are no benefits to be gained by the City or public by requiring a Subdivision Plat to be prepared. 2. It complies with the subdivision regulations and is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The staff recommends the approval of the Subdivision Waiver subject to the following ex>nditions: 1, That no further division of the Centennial Shopping Center site legally described as follows, take place until a subdivision plat is submitted and approved for the entire site: "Beginning at a point 40.0 feet North and 200.0 feet East of the Southwest corner of the W 1/2 of the SW 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section B, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of 6th PM., thence N 89 degrees 43' 52.511 E Parallel to the South Line of the said W 1/2 459.31 feet to the East line of the W 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 8, thence N O degrees 00' 13 11 W along the last line of said W 1/2 680.37 feet, thence S O degrees W 150.0 feet to the point of recorded January 4, 1957 in Book 999 at Page 22 and described as follows: Tract No. 1 for Well No. 1-the South 12 feet side being parallel with and 414.5 feet North of the South line of said section 8 and the West 9 feet end being parallel with and 90.5 feet East of the West line of said SE 1/4. Parcel B 1 containing 351,488.68 square feet or 8. 06907 acres of land more or less." 2. That no permits be issued for construction on the site until the determination has been made by Urban Drainage and the Department of Engineering Services as to whether or not the property is in the 100-year flood plain for the South Platte River. If it is determined to be in the flood plain, construction must be approved by the Department of Engineering Services for compliance with the Flood Plain Ordinance, Section 22.4B of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. House explained that the Federal Insurance Administration Map is divided into three zones: -10- Zone A: the 100-year flood area. Zone B: the area between 100 and 500-year flood. Zone C: the area affected by a 500-year or greater flood . If it is Zone A, the Engineering Department would resolve the problem by having the floor elevation one foot above the flood plain requirements. Chairman Pierson asked if the applicant would like to make a statement. Mr.Paul Smith said he would like to answer any questions t h at the Commission members may have. Mrs. Wade asked what type of restaurant is a Jim Dandy Restaurant? Mr. P. Smith replied that it is a fast food, take-out restaurant. Mrs. Wade further asked why this area was chosen for the restaurant site. Mr. Smith stated that a market investigation study was done and it proved this area to be a good site for the restaurant. Mr. Parker questioned whether this would be the first Jim Dandy Restaurant in Englewood? Mr. P. Smith replied that this would be the second one. Mr. Draper asked where the customers would exit. Steve House said that vehicles would exit at curb cuts on Belleview or on Federal. Mrs. Wade wanted to know if Mr. P. Smith was familiar with the shopping center, and asked if he had been around the area at shopping times. Mr. P. Smith replied that he had been. Mrs. Wade further stated that the parking lot is almost entirely filled a great part of the time. She felt that the space that would be taken by the parking spaces would be a detriment to the shopping center. She inquired whether he talked with anyone in King Soopers. Mr. P. Smith stated that he had spoken with Mr. Brook from King Soopers and that he had made several suggestions with which they have complied. King Soopers had also suggested this particular area for the Jim Dandy Restaurant. Mr. Lathrop further wondered if Mr. P. Smith had polled any other people and businesses besides King Soopers to see what their feelings were. Mr. P. Smith stated that he had not pollP-d any others, but Jim Dandy's realty department had and found no objections to the restaurant. Further discussion ensued. -11- Tanguma moved~ Williams seconded: The Subdivision Waiver for Case #17-77, Jim Dandy Restaurant, be granted subject to the two recommendations of the Community Development Department. AYES: Wa:ele, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, PiePson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: .llene :Jt/d~t;, VtJ4E 7U ~Wt??t A//~/ ';h:.c1 ABSENT: None The motion carried. V. AUTO WRECKING/JUNKYARD ORDINANCE PROPOSED REVISION. Chairman Pierson granted a few minutes for the Commission to look over the Auto Wrecking memorandum from the staff. Dorothy Romans spoke on these proposed amendments. She stated that three of the members of the Commission visited the automobile wrecking yards in Englewood on September 7th. Informal discussion then took place and these are the resulting suggestions: Automobile Wrecking and Junk Yards would become a Conditional Use in the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District. Upon application, the Commission and the City Council would consider each Yard individually. Major requirements would be: 1. The yard shall be on one parcel or adjoining parcels, with a minimum area of five acres. 2. A yard would have to be enclosed by an eight-foot decorative fence of wood or an eight-foot concrete, block or brick wall. 3. All yards approved pursuant to these provisions shall comply with the provisions of the Auto Wrecking and Junk Yard Ordinance of the 1969 Englewood Municiple Code • . 4. Any automobile wrecking or junk yard licensed as of the date of the ordinance, would be considered to be a legal use and could be expanded onto abutting property, provided the expanded yard meets the requirements of this ordinance and any other. Mr. Tanguma questioned whether ABZ Automobile Wrecking Yard must buy three acres to expand if they now only have two -12- acres of land? Dorothy Romans said they would not have to under this proposal and that she is of the opinion that such a restriction would be unreasonable. In this case, ABZ has no adjoining land. The purpose of the amendments is to give the owners opportunity to improve their yards, not to further restrict them. It was pointed out that any expansion of an existing yard would not be required to come before the Planning Commission under this provision. Qnly new yards would have to come to the Commission and City Council. Mrs. Wade asked if ABZ were to expand, would they have to put up the eight-foot fence. Mrs. Romans answered that they would, but only if they were to expand; the new requirements would not be retroactive otherwise. Proceeding, Mrs. Romans said that in the I-2, General Industrial District, it is proposed that the Commission would add automobile wrecking and junk yards as a permitted use; but, the yard must meet the requirements of Section 1-11, Chapter 2, Title VI, of the 1969 Englewood Municipal Code, as amended. §22.5-21 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would also need to be deleted. This section refers to the automobile wrecking and junk yards as non-conforming uses. Dorothy Romans would suggest this be repealed and use this number for the proposed Conditional Use Ordinance. These amendments would have to go to public hearing before the Commission and then to Council for public hearing. Chairman Pierson suggested that the wording in (1) and (2) on page 1 be changed to clarify the meaning. Discussion ensued. Williams moved: Tanguma seconded: The amendments as proposed to the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance and 1969 E.M.C. as amended, be submitted for public hearing on October 18, 1977 at 7:00 p.m. AYES: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. •• -13- VI . F I NDINGS OF FACT. Tanguma moved: Lathrop seconded: The Findings of Fact on the Cherokee Kiva Planned Development be accepted and referred to the City Council. AYES: Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINING: Wade, Williams, Draper Th e motion carried. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Richard Wanush briefly stated that City Council approved the Commission's motion to downgrade South Santa Fe to a Principal Arterial. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Parker moved: Smith seconded: The Commission send a letter of commendation to Plaza de Medico for the fine job that was done on the Planned Development. AYES: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m •