Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-22 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1977 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 Pierson. Members present: Parker, Pierson, Ed Smith, Wade, Williams, Owens Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Don Smith, Tanguma, Jorgenson Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Planning Associate Steve House; Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that Minutes of March 8, 1977, were to be considered for approval. Parker moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Minutes of March 8, 1977, be approved as written. AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Ed Smith, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSENT: Don Smith, Tanguma, Jorgenson The motion carried. III. AUTO WRECKING YARD ORDINANCE Proposed Amendments CASE #33-76 Mrs. Pierson stated that the Public Hearing is concerned with proposed amendments to the existing Auto Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance. Wade moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #33-76 be opened. Don Smith entered the meeting and took his place with the Commission. AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Ed Smith, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Don Smith ABSENT: Jorgenson, Tanguma The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson outlined the procedure that will be followed in the Public Hearing. The staff will present the case to the Commission; the matter will then be opened for comments and -2- questions, and for statements from persons in the audie nce who are in favor of the proposal, and for statements from t hose persons who are opposed to the proposed amendments. Mrs. Pierson asked the staff to make their presentation. Upon being sworn in, Dorothy Andrews Romans testified th a t she is the Assistant Director of Community Development for Pl ann ing. Notice of the Public Hearing did appear in the official City Newspaper. A cover letter with copies of the proposed Or dinance, as amended, were delivered to eleven licensed Auto Wrecki n g Yard and Junk Yard operators in Northwest Englewood on Friday, March 18, 1977. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission has met previously with these businessmen to discuss problems t hey have experienced in trying to operate under the present Auto · Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance, and noted that there wa s a meeting of the Commission and these businessmen in Augu s t, 1976. Mrs. Romans testified that most, if not all, of the Auto Wrecking Yards in existence today were in operation in 1 958 when this area was annexed to the City of Englewood, although there has been some change of ownership. The Auto Wreck ing Yards were a permitted use in the industrial zone district un- til the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted; which Ordinance excluded these uses and they became Non-Conforming Uses, governed by the Auto Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordi nance in the '69 Municipal Code. The Auto Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance is concerned with "housekeeping" problems such as the u s e must be confined to the property, fencing is re quired, sanitary facilities and potable water have to be provided, and other restrictions are imposed such as no stacking, no b u r ning, etc. Several of the Auto Wrecking Yard owners and ope r ators have contacted the Department of Community Development over the l ast few years, and indicated that they want t o i mprove their business by constructing enclosed work and storage areas; but the restrictions in the existing Ordinance prohibit the construction of any new buildings or structures. As a result of the meetings with these businessmen a nd their contacts to the Department, the Commission has arri v e d at some firm conclusions: (1) That automobile Wrecking Yards should continue as a Non-Conforming Use. (2) That no new a u t omobile Wrecking Yards should be allowed in the City of Englewood. (3) That the existing yards should not be allowed t o expand in physical area; but improvement within the existing boundaries of the Automobile Wrecking Yard should be allowed. The staff has indicated in the staff report the philosophy that a Non-conforming Use is a use that was at one t ime a permitted use in a given zone district, but was ex c lu ded as a permitted use at a later date. There is no amortiz at i on clause which pertains to Non-conforming Uses in the Englewood Ordinance; but the restrictions placed on such uses were intende d t o "shorten the life" of the use. The staff feel s t h a t it is inconsistent to keep the Auto Wrecking Yards c lassif i ed as a "Non-conforming Use", and yet allow them to improv e the opera- tio n. The staff would suggest that Auto Wrecking Ya r ds be r -3- considered as "Conditional Uses" in one or both of the Industrial Zone Districts. New Automobile Wrecking Yards would then be allowed by the Planning Commission upon specific application, and provided the proposed Yard met certain standards which would be set forth. Barring Commission determination that the Auto Wrecking Yards should be a Conditional Use, the staff does feel the proposed amendments to the Auto Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance are a step in the right direction. The staff does recommend that the Commission recommend to City Council that the Auto Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance be amended as pro- posed. Mrs. Romans stated that when drafting the proposed changes, the staff was assured by the Code Enforcement Division that "junk yard" references could be deleted from the Ordinance because all existing businesses would come under the Automobile Wrecking Yard Ordinance. However, Mr. and Mrs. Vardeman do have a "salvage yard", and have this yard for some time, and they do not feel they should be classified as an Automobile Wrecking Yard. After discussing the proposed elimination of reference to "Junk Yards" with Code Enforcement Inspector Bittner and Mrs. Vardeman, the staff suggests that references to "Junk Yard" be reinserted throughout the Ordinance. The application for a license, which was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Vardeman, stated "Auto Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard"; however, the license was issued only for a "Junk Yard". If references to Junk Yards are eliminated in the proposed amendment, owners of Junk Yards would be denied the opportunity to expand within their physical boundaries, an opportunity which will be ex- tended to Automobile Wrecking Yards under the proposed amendment. Mrs. Romans reviewed the proposed amendments in the Ordinanc~ and cited §6-2-2, which section reads: 6-2-2 GENERAL PROVISIONS. ALL AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS ANB JaN* ¥ARBS EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE 1962 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, ARE RECOGNIZED AS NON- CONFORMING USES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS FOR NON-CONFORMING USES IN SECTION 22.6 OF ~HiS THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THEREIN HEREiN, AND ARE SUBJECT TO ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. -4- NOT WITHSTANDING THOSE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 22-6-3 OF ~H~S THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, THOSE AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AS A NON-CONFORMING USE AS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT ENTRANCES TO PARKING LOTS, TO SURFACE ANY AREA, TO MOVE, ALTER, CONVERT, EXTEND, ENLARGE, OR REPAIR ANY EXISTING STRUCTURE OR TO CONSTRUCT A NEW STRUCTURE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS HEREIN. SUCH ACTION SHALL BE PERMITTED IF ITS PURPOSE IS TO INCREASE THE DEGREE OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OR WITH THIS ORDINANCE, OR TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES FOR OFFICE, WAREHOUSE OR OTHER USE, SUCH USE BEING PERMISSABLE IN THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION IN WHICH THE AUTO WRECKING YARD IS LOCATED IF SUCH USE WERE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A NON-CONFORMING USE. ALL CONSTRUCTION OF EVERY NATURE AND SORT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL ORDINANCES AND CODES PRESENTLY IN EFFECT OR IMPLEMENTED CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. (a) UNDER NO CONDITION OR INTERPRETATION SHALL ANY CONSTRUCTION INCREASE THE PERIMETER BOUNDARY OF THOSE AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS IN EXISTANCE AS OF ----- (b) UNDER NO CONDITION OR INTERPRETATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS BE PERMITTED. -5- Another section which has been changed is that requiring "monthly" inspections; it was expressed by some of the business- men at the August, 1976, meeting, that they viewed this require- ment as a form of "harassment" by the City. This provision has been reworded to require "the Code Enforcement Division to en- force compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance and any other Code, Ordinance, Law or Statute pertaining to the opera- tion of an Automobile Wrecking Yard." Inspections can be made as necessary under this provision and not confined to the monthly stipulation. Mr. Williams asked that the proposal be worded to classify the Auto Wrecking Yards as Conditional Uses. Mrs. Romans stated that this would require amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; if it is the pleasure of the Commission, the matter of making the Automobile Wrecking Yards a Conditional Use will be addressed. Mr. Williams stated he felt it must be spelled out that these uses should be classified as Con- ditional Uses. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to speak in favor of the proposed amendments? Mr. Sam Vardeman 2073 West Baker Avenue -stated that he owns the Salvage Yard at 1985 West Baker Avenue; he has been in business since 1957 in Denver and came to Englewood in 1959. Mr. Vardeman discussed some of the problems that have been experienced by and with the Auto Wrecking Yards. Mr. Vardeman stated that the Auto Wrecking Yards are now enclosed by a solid wall, but there is some carelessness with debris coming from the old cars and he suggested that this must be stopped. Mr. Vardeman discussed the need for fire extinguishers in the Auto Wrecking Yards. He stated that he has all three kinds, chemical, water and foam, in his Salvage Yard. He stated that he questions the quality of fire prevention equip- ment provided in some of the other yards. Mr. Vardeman stated that he feels Auto Wrecking Yard operators and owners should be able to expand their business if they so desire. He stated that "business is the blood of our Country." He emphasized that expansion should be allowed. Mr.Vardeman stated that he lived at this yard for 11 years. It was their intention when the property was paid for, to tear down the structure on the site, and to build a new building. Mr. Vardeman stated that new construction would improve the tax base for the City. Mr. Vardeman discussed the monthly inspections: "if you are doing everything kosher you have nothing to hide". He stated that he thinks the monthly inspections are a good thing, and "help keep people honest." Mr. Vardeman asked if any new licenses for Auto Wrecking Yards have been issued? Mrs. Romans stated that no new licenses have issued. Mr. Vardeman stated that he "won't say if any one is operating without a license; if they get caught, that is their problem". He stated that some of the proposed amendments in the Ordinance are good and some are bad for people trying to operate a business. -6- Ed Smith asked Mr. Vardeman if his general opinion of the Ordinance is favorable? Mr. Vardeman stated that it is the "strongest" Ordinance the City has had so far. Mr. Parker asked what Mr. Vardeman termed "bad" points of the proposed amendments? Mr. Vardeman stated that the issue of expansion is of concern to these businessmen. The people should be able to expand their business and if there is vacant property next to them, they should be able to expand the Auto Wrecking or Junk Yard onto that property. Mr. Vardeman stated that there will be some of the Yards that will have to clean up. He recalled a fire at Midwest Wrecking Yard in 1962, which burned for five days on the debris and upholstery, etc. that was in the Yard. Ed Smith asked if there was a structure on this property at the present time. Mr. Vardeman stated there is an old house that is used for storage. The possibility of expansion onto adjoining vacant land by constructing a structure for storage was briefly discussed. Mr. Cary Strauss ABZ Auto Wrecking 1922 West Warren -stated that he disagreed with some of the statements made by Mr. Vardeman. Mr. Strauss stated there are semi-annual fire inspections, and each Yard must have some sort of fire extinguishers. As far as the tt monthly inspections by the Code Enforcement Division being a "harassment", he stated they were at least a waste of time, and did nothing to "keep people honest". Auto Wrecking Yard owners and operators must have a record of every vehicle they purchase, and if an operator were engaged in "stripping" cars, they would keep nothing around with serial numbers or any other means of identification for the Code Enforcement Inspectors to find. He felt that these monthly inspections are a super- fluous requirement. Mr. Strauss stated that he thought the purchase of land adjoining the land used for an Auto Wrecking Yard and the construction of a building on this additional land was prohibited; he stated that he was under the impression a structure could not even be built on the site used for the wrecking operation itself. Mrs. Romans discussed an interpretation by the Code Enforce- ment Division regarding the issuance of permits on adjoining properties under the same name. She stated that she under- stood the interpretation to be that if two adjoining properties were under one ownership, and one of the parcels was used as an Auto Wrecking or Junk Yard, a permit would not be issued for construction on the adjoining parcel. Ed Smith asked if it was not the intent of the Commission that construction of a building for storage and sale of auto parts cotlld be accomplished on an adjoining piece of land? Mrs. -7- Romans referred to the definition of Automobile Wrecking Yard which states it is a Yard where the "sale or dumping of dis- mantled, obsolete, or wrecked vehicles OR PARTS THEREOF pre- vails." She stated that it is the determination of the Code Enforcement Division that the phrase OR PARTS THEREOF constitutes an expansion of the Auto Wrecking Yard if those parts are sold from the adjoining lando The staff has proposed that this phrase be deleted in the pro p osed amendment. Mr. Wanush stated that he felt this is "splitting hairs"; the policy has been that the legitimacy of the Auto Wrecking Yard business is not recognized. The interpretation the staff goes by is that the construction of a new building for sale or storage of used car parts is "expansion" of an Auto Wrecking Yard. The staff does feel that Automobile Wrecking Yards are a legitimate use and business. Don Smith stated that he felt the major concern was not the sale of used parts, but rather that the area used for the dismantling and storage of the car hulks not be expanded. He stated that he felt these businessmen were entitled to have a retail sales business for the used auto partso Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Wanush stated that he felt part of the problem "is the adjacency that carries the assumption of sub- version of the Ordinance." Mr. Wanush stated that "you can't have it two ways; you cannot say you want to stop the expansion of those uses, but permit those uses to expand in some other wayo" Don Williams noted that by being Non-conforming, the Auto Wrecking Yards cannot expand. Mr. Don Smith stated that he felt this was what the Commission wanted --the yards were to remain Non-Conforming; but that they would be allowed to improve within their physical boundaries, such as to construct a garage for the demolition of vehicles in cold weather. These businessmen also needed to be allowed to construct a building for storage of the used auto parts out of the weather. Mr. Wanush stated that he felt there is an inconsistency if these businessmen are permitted to construct a structure on the subject property, but not on adjacent property. He stated that he felt there could be problems if the sales area is allowed on adjacent property --would all the auto parts have to be under a roof? He felt this would lead to enforcement problems. Mrs. Wade stated that she understood the intent was to allow the Auto Wrecking Ya r ds to expand within their present perimeters, to improve the "wrecking" conditions for these businessmen. These businessmen were not allowed to build a new building previously, but under the proposed amendment they could do so. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Strauss if there was vacant land adjacent to him that he could purchase for expansion? Mr. Strauss stated that about two years ago, there was some vacant land adjoining his property which he considered purchasing, but he was not allowed to do anything with it at that time. Now, most of that property is developed with something else --there may -8- be about 1/4 acre remaining of this site. He stated that he really does not know how much vacant land there is around other wrecking yards, but he stated that he did not think most people could expand their yards. Mr. Strauss pointed out that if he did construct a building on his present site, he would be re- quired to provide off-street parking which would cut into the area he could devote to storage of auto hulks. Mr. Owens asked, if Mr. Strauss were to purchase the land next to him, would this land be used for retail purposes or to ex- pand the entire operation? Mr. Strauss stated that he would use it for a parts building; he stated that he has not talked to the land owners --cement forms are stored on the land at the present time. Mr. Owens asked if Mr. Strauss would be able to construct a building in the area he has now? Mr. Strauss stated that con- struction of a building on his present site would cost him storage space of 20 vehicles; he pointed out that he dismantles trucks, and keeps about 50 hulks for salvage. Mr. Strauss stated that he felt the recent discussions and meetings with the staff and Commission have been helpful, and he does appreciate the feeling that Auto Wrecking is a legitimate business. He stated that he had tried to keep within the limits of the Auto Wrecking Yard Ordinance, but some of the restrictions do make it very difficult for the Auto Wrecking Yard operators. Mrs.Wade asked "do you feel this Ordinance will help you in your business?" Mr. Strauss answered yes. Referring to statements made earlier in the meeting, Mr. Wanush pointed out that the Code Enforcement Inspector has nothing to do with determining if a car is stolen. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of the Ordinance? No one else indicated they wished to speak. Mrs. Pierson asked that anyone who wished to speak in opposition now present their comments. Mr. Parker asked if, originally, all the Wrecking Yards were conforming? Mrs. Romans stated that from 1940 to 1963, the Englewood Zoning Ordinance did permit Auto Wrecking Yards. This area was annexed to the City in 1958. In 1963, the amended Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted, and Auto Wrecking Yards were excluded as a permitted use. When the Santa Fe/Union annexation land was in the City, the I-3 Heavy Industrial Zone District was adopted, which zone district did permit Auto Wrecking Yards and Junk Yards; however, when the property reverted to Arapahoe County jurisdiction by Court decision, the City repealed the I-3 Zone District. All existing Auto Wrecking Yards are Non-conforming Uses under the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, but are governed by Title VI in the Englewood Municipal Code. Were the Auto Wrecking and Junk Yards to be made Conditional Uses, the Comprehensive Zoning -9- Ordinance would have to be amended, specifically §22.5-13, §22.5-14, and §22.5-21. If the Auto Wrecking Yards and Junk Yards were to be made Conditional Uses in one or both of the Industrial Zone Districts, there could be new Automobile Wrecking Yards or Junk Yards, but the yards would have to meet certain standards and would have to have approval of the Planning Commission before they could begin operation. Mrs. Vardeman 1985 West Baker -asked "if they are Non-conforming Uses, how come there are new yards now?" She stated that the yard she referred to may not be licensed, but it is a new Wrecking Yard. Mrs. Romans stated that there has been question on one yard; however, investigation has shown that on the original Auto Wrecking Yard license, the legal description covered the en- tire property --not just that area which was in use at that time as an Auto Wrecking Yard. On this particular property, there were two houses on Harvard Avenue that were included in the legal description on the Auto Wrecking Yard license; the total parcel was under one ownership. The property recently changed hands, and the purchaser started using the area on which the two residences were located for auto wrecking purposes, even though the part originally used for auto wrecking was under lease to, and operated by, another individual. There has been question by some of the residents of the area as to whether or not this is an expansion of a Non-conforming Use or a new yard, neither of which is permitted under the current restrictions. Mrs. Romans reiterated that in checking through the records, the legal description on the original Auto Wrecking Yard license did cover the entire property. Mrs. Vardeman stated that the Junk Yard is licensed for the rear portion of the land; the front part of the property is not licensed and is now being used as a junk yard, so there are, in essence, two junk yards on this property. Mr. Wanush stated that the entire property is licensed for use as an Auto Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard, and has been since it was first licensed, according to Departmental records. Don Smith asked if a Non-conforming Use is sold, if it may continue to operate as a Non-conforming Use? Mrs. Romans stated that a Non-conforming Use goes with the land and not the property owner. She pointed out there can be no new Auto Wrecking Yards or Junk Yards in the City at the present time and the licensing for such a Non-conforming Use is valuable. Don Smith asked "when does it cease?" Mrs. Romans stated that the Non-conforming Use status will continue unless the use is intentionally abandoned for a period of one year; if this occurs, the property must then be used for a Conforming Use. Mrs.Vardeman stated that the front 1/2 of the lot in question was used for residential purposes for 10 to 15 years, but is -10- now used for junk yard purposes; she noted that it has been within the last six months that the junk yard has been on the Harvard Avenue side of the property. Mr. Wanush stated that the property extends from Harvard Avenue to Baker Avenue; it is one ownership. The Auto Wrecking Yard license, which is issued to a Baker Avenue address, contained a legal description encompassing the entire ownership; the entire ownership has been licensed for use as an Auto Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard since it was first licensed. Wade moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #33-76 be closed. AYES: Williams, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson, Tanguma The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson asked the pleasure of the Commission on this matter? Mr.Williams moved: D. Smith seconded: The Planning Commission postpone further consideration until the next regular meeting of April 5, 1977. Don Smith asked if the staff could get some specifics on what a retail outlet entails? Mr. Parker asked that there be clarification of "adjacent" submitted for the Commission also. Mrs. Pierson asked if, when the "Junk Yard" phrasing is re- instated in the Ordinance, would there be a "grandfather clause?" Mrs. Romans stated that Junk Yards are included in the Ordinance now, and they would be under the same restrictions as the Auto- mobile Wrecking Yards. Mrs . Romans stated that she was aware of plans for improvement of the Vardeman property, which would be possible under the proposed amendments. They could not, however, purchase property adjacent to their present site and expand the salvage operation to that property under the proposed amendment. Don Smith stated that he felt the staff should look into the matter of how much land would be taken for off-street parking if structures are built on the Auto Wrecking Yard sites. Ed Smith suggested that members of the audience might be in- terested in discussion at the next meeting of April 5th, even though the Public Hearing is closed. The vote was called: AYES: Wade, Williams, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson, Tanguma The motion carried. -11- IV. HAMPDEN PROFESSIONAL PARK Findings of Fact CASE #31-76 Mrs. Pierson asked what action the Commission wished to take on the Findings of Fact. Don Smith moved: The Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact on Hampden Professional Park Sub- division, Case #31-76, as written. Ed Smith stated that he has had some serious thought about the Commission decision on the proposed Subdivision. He stated he felt that possibly the Commission was swayed by the emotional discussion that took place the evening of March 8th. Mr. Smith stated that he feels that his vote, which was to deny the ap- plication, was wrong. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the pro- posed Subdivision was denied because of emotion and previous commitments. By denying this application, the Commission is denying the land owner his legal and rightful use of his land. Mr. Smith said that the Commission cannot continue forever trying to meet the wishes of the people who have personal feel- ings about something that may transcend what is good for the City of Englewood. Mr. Smith stated he didn't know quite how to go about this matter, whether the case should be reopened, or whether anything can be done at this point. Mr. Smith stated that if the matter cannot be reconsidered at the Com- mission level, he does feel obligated to go to the City Council and make known his opinion. Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Smith is aware that the covenants placed on the land would expire within 15 years. Ed Smith stated that he was aware of this. Don Smith stated that the procedure to be followed would be a motion to reconsider Case #31-76, made by a member who voted on the prevailing side; if this motion to reconsider were adopted, it could be moved to approve the Subdivision Plat, and the matter would be voted on again. Ed Smith stated that this does not change the fact that it was a wrong vote on the initial decision. Discussion ensued on the merits of reconsideration. Don Williams pointed out that the applicant is not the property owner, but did have an option to purchase if the Plat was approved. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that the applicant did have an interest in the property. -12- Don Smith pointed out that many people who come to the Com- mission applying for approval of a Planned Development, zoning, or whatever, have an option to purchase the land based on the approval of the Commission, and questioned that this fact was a valid argument. He stated that he felt if an applicant or developer wanted to build a motel on this piece of land, there i s nothing that could be done to stop it. He pointed out that the use of this piece of land cannot be denied if it is zoned for that particular use. The proposed Subdivision Plat was legal and the size of the l ots met the requirements in the R-3 Zone District. Mr. Smith pointed out that under the Larwin proposal, there would have been 60 ft . heights on some of the structures toward the center of the site which would have been an obstruction to the view of residents to the east. Mr. Smith stated that he is in favor of approving the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision Plat . There was no second to the motion to approve the Findings of Fact on Case #31-76. Ed Smith moved: Don Smith seconded: The Planning Commission reconsider Case #31-76. Mrs. Pierson asked what kind of problems could be created by the reconsideration of the case? Mrs. Wade pointed out that the only reason the applicant was here in the first place was because he wanted to subdivide the land. Mr. Wanush stated that the staff approached the matter as that of "subdividing the land"; the zoning was proper and the proposed plat did meet the requirements of that zone district. The Commission does have the authority to approve or deny as they so choose . The staff did not agree with the Commission's decision, but the Findings of Fact do support the decision of the Commission . Mr. Wanush stated that the facts can be in- terpreted in many ways. There was a development plan for this site, and the facts support the evidence heard at the Public Hearing. However, the Findings of Fact could be expanded to find "differently". Mrs. Wade asked what steps the applicant has taken and would have to take if the matter is re v ersed? Mr. Wanush stated that if the Subdivision Plat is approved, it will be referred to City Council; denials are not as a rule referred to City Council. The City Council, upon receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will have to determine whether or not the Subdivision Plat should be approved. Mr. Owens stated that throughout the hearing it was brought out that the Larwin "use was to be residential." He stated that he feels the zoning did permit other uses, but no one -13- ever mentioned any other use but residential. It was assumed by everyone it would be an apartment complex that would be developed on the site. Mr. Owens discussed the apartment vacancy rate and the effect it has upon the development of property. At the time the covenants and resolution were ap- proved, no one ever gave any thought to the possibility that the land would be used for anything other than as an apart- ment development. Mr. Owens stated that he felt the Commission was "carried away by diversions" and that the Commission should have looked at the facts of the Subdivision Plat. He stated he felt there is a possibility the Commission is denying the use of the land. Mr. Owens pointed out that this particular parcel of land may be a "key corner" to the development of the remainder of the site. Mrs. Wade stated that another point brought was that of the traffic volume on U.S. 285. she felt if the remainder of this site were with multi-family complexes, the traffic on "horrendous". out at the Hearing She stated that to be developed U.S. 285 would be Mr. Owens stated that he felt the Commission was "awed" be- cause the homeowners brought in an attorney; he asked if the decision would have been the same in any other area of the City on the same question? Mrs. Pierson stated that her decision was based on the fact it appeared that a predecessor Commission said that use of the land would be for residential purposes. She stated that she thought the conditions ran with the land. Don Smith pointed out that in all the evidence presented at the Hearing, there was nothing in any of it that said the land shall be used "only" for residential development. It did limit any residential development on the site to a maximum of 1500 units. At no time was any other use permitted under the R-3 Zone District discussed. Discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt asked if the applicant had filed an appeal to the decision of the Commission? Mrs. Romans stated that they have not yet filed an appeal, but plan to do so this week. Discussion ensued. Mr. Williams questioned the restriction in the motion of March 8th, made by Don Smith, which required that all development of the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division be accomplished by the Planned Development process. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this was a restriction placed on the approval of the plat by Mr. Smith in an effort to ensure proper development. Don Williams stated that if the applicant would come in with a Planned Development for .the site, he would go along with it." Mrs. Romans pointed out that at the present time, the applicant is only trying to divide the site into 1/2 acre lots. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the R-3 zoning was placed on this property in 1975, and not one resi- -14- dent of the area opposed the R-3 Zone classification for this site. The one person from the area adjacent to the Larwin ~ site who did attend the Public Hearings on the R-3 Zone Dis-.., trict, was concerned that the 42,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area was too restrictive to foster additional multi-family development. The vote was called on the motion to reconsider. AYES: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Wade, Owens NAYS: Williams, Parker, Pierson ABSENT: Tanguma, Jorgenson The motion carried. Don Smith moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision, as set forth in Case #31-76, with the follow- ing conditions made a part of the approval: (1) Buildings in the development of Hampden Professional Park shall not exceed two stories. (2) All development of the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division shall be accomplished under a Planned Development. (3) If the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision is developed with professional office buildings, the following definition of "Professional Office" shall be enforced throughout this development: "Professional Office: The office of a person engaged in any occupation, vocation, or calling, not purely commercial, mechanical, or agricultural in which a professed knowledge or skill in some department of science or learning is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising or guiding them in serving their interest or welfare through the practice of an act founded thereon, such as medical doctors, dentists, attorneys-at-law, architects or engineers." Mr. Parker asked of Mr. DeWitt "have you told us whether or not the covenants run with the land or does it go to the Planning Commission?" Mr. DeSitt stated that certain covenants do run with the land, and some covenants do not. Mr. DeWitt stated that covenants generally run for a period of 25 years, and may be renewable; some covenants may run for an indeterminate period of time. In this case, Mr. DeWitt stated, the Commission has the authority to pass or approve this Subdivision Plat. He stated that the Commission does have the authority to re- consider the matter this evening. Mr. DeWitt asked that the Commission consider "if those people were here tonight, what would you do?" He emphasized that the Commission must exercise caution, and base their decision on the facts of the case. -15- Ed Smith questioned whether now is the best time to actually reco nsider and vote on the matter. He stated that he is not anxious to get something changed when "no one is here". Mrs. Pierson pointed out that the Public Hearing is over and that the opponents and applicant have nothing more to say to the Commission that the Commission can hear at this point. Mrs. Pierson stated that she was concerned about the time extension granted by Mr. Regan, the applicant. She noted that this time extension expired on the 8th of March, and asked if the Com- mission can reconsider the matter now? Mr. DeWitt stated that the true party in interest is the applicant, and he did not know whether other parties had a right to the time extension; only the applicant could waive the time restriction. Discussion ensued. Don Smith stated that by a motion to re- consider, all things are equal going back to the original vote; the motion to reconsider is in order. Mr. Smith stated there "might be major concern if the motion to reconsider was against the applicant"; Mr. Smith pointed out that Mr. Regan had stated in January that he would extend the time limitation as long as the Commission felt they needed. Mr. Williams excused himself from the meeting. Discussion ensued. Don Smith stated that he felt it is possible the residents of the area will "fight anything that goes in there because they know Larwin cannot continue to develop the site". Mr. Smith pointed out "there wasn't one of those people that said they wanted the Larwin Plan con- tinued." They are trying to "get the best of both worlds". Mr. Smith pointed out that the land is zoned R-3 and that the City does have an obligation to the people who want to develop the land. He stated he felt there would be more control over the development of this land under his motion, than exists today. Ed Smith stated that if the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division is developed under the restrictions set forth in Don Smith's motion, it could set a precedent for any other subdivision in the area. Mr. Owens pointed out that the applicant may not want to accept the restrictions placed on the development by this motion. Mr. Owens questioned the proximity of the majority of the audience on March 8th to the subject site. He stated that the Commission has a responsibility to the total citizenry of Englewood over and above "a selfish interest in this property" by those opponents. Mr. Owens stated that he felt the proposal for the property was logical, and would result in the highest and best use of the land for the neighborhood. A recess of the Commission was called at 8:50 P.M. The meeting reconvened with the following members in attendance: Ed Smith, Wade, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith. Members absent: Tanguma, Williams, Jorgenson. -16- Mrs. Pierson asked for the roll call on the motion. Mr. DeWitt stated that three members of the Commission were absent. Discussion ensued. It was determined there is a quorum present as set forth in the Commissioner's Handbook, and that the Commission may rule on the matter. The vote was called: AYES: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Wade, Owens NAYS: Pierson, Parker ABSENT: Tanguma, Williams, Jorgenson The motion carried. Don Smith moved: Owens seconded: The staff report for Case #31-76 be included in the Findings of Fact to be written by the staff. AYES: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Wade, Owens, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Williams, Jorgenson The motion carried. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Lee Jones 2740 South Cherokee -asked to address the Commission on the matter of an automobile shredder which is to be located south of Oxford Avenue west of Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Jones stated that the C.F. & I. subsidiary is moving their operation from downtown Denver to this location. The land in question is in Arapahoe County, and the Arapahoe County Com- missioners have granted a permit for construction of this car shredder. Mr. Jones stated that a number of Englewood citizens are concerned about the location of the car shredder right next to the club house on the City golf course. Mr. Jones stated there have been meetings with a number of citizens on this matter, and that Mr. Wanush had attended a meeting with ROMCOE at which meeting the shredder operation was discussed. Mr. Jones stated that this matter has been discussed with the Ci ty Council, and he understood City Attorney Berardini's opinion was that there is nothing Englewood could do as a body to oppose the shredder "inasmuch as our own ordinance permits auto wrecking yards in the industrial areas." Mr. Jones noted that Englewood Or dinances make reference to the storing and dismantling of automobiles and the sale of parts from these automobiles; there is a question as to whether the car shredder is a final step in the dismantling of automobiles. Mr. Jones suggested that the Commission and staff might want to look into whether there is something that needs to be clarified or amended in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to allow the City a voice in matters outside the City limits -17- that have an affect on the City. Mr. Jones stated that he is concerned about what may happen subsequently to the approval of the operation of this car shredder. Mr. Jones stated that he is asking the Planning Commission to review the I-1 and I-2 Ordinances to determine if auto shredders are permitted uses, or whether this operation should be classified as a part of the salvaging and junk yard business. He pointed out the shredding operation is the final phase of disposal of used cars. If this is the proper interpretation of the Ordinances, it is not too clear if this is permitted in our zone districts, or should it be specifically eliminated and covered as part of the Auto Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance? Mr. Jones stated that there will be a hearing before the County Commissioners of Arapahoe County on April 4th, related as to whether or not they will in fact grant the auto shredder an operating permit. The land the shredder is to be located on is properly zoned, but the County was in the process of re- zoning the land to a classification which would not have allowed such use; however, they were not far enough advanced in this rezoning procedure to preclude the Building Permit for the car shredder. Mr. Jones stated that the matter of the car shredder will be discussed this evening with officials from the town of Sheridan. Mr. Jones stated that at the Public Hearing before the County Commissioners on April 4, there will be a great number of people asking that the County Commissioners consider whether or not an operating permit for the car shredder should be granted. Mr. Jones reiterated that the County Commissioners have granted a building permit, and the applicant has spent between $400,000 and $500,000 on the land. Mr. Jones pointed out that the City of Englewood has expended considerable funds in the development of the golf course to the north of West OXford Avenue, and the car shredder will not be compatible with the golf course use. Mr. Jones stated that the car shredders have eliminated a number of car hulks that have been stored in the auto wrecking yards in the area, and it seems that there should be some place for such a use. However, the auto shredder located where it is proposed, will make it very difficult to clean up the South Platte River area between West Oxford Avenue and West Union Avenue. Mr. Jones pointed out that the City has also expended funds for the development of Centennial Park in this immediate vicinity, and has an agreement with the County Commissioners to purchase additional land for the future development of the Park. By the develop- ment of the golf course and Centennial Park, the City has demonstrated great concern over the future of the Platte River area. Mr. Jones stated that he felt there should be close scrutiny on the development of the car shredder to en- sure that the standards on noise, air and water pollution are met. He stated he understood that the operation does not have a source for water yet. Mr. Jones stated that he has not determined yet what will be done with the "wash water" from the operation; they may make application to the Water -18- Quality Control Division of the Water Conservation District. Mr. Jones stated that he did want to have the Commission determine what can be done in handling something which he sees as a new form of industry which was not contemplated at the time the I-1 and I-2 industrial districts were drafted. Mr. Jones presented to the Commission members, copies of a State Statute pertaining to the ability of a municipality to govern uses, which are located outside the corporate limits of the municipality, which may be termed a nuisance or have an adverse e ffect on the municipality. Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Jones is suggesting that an Ordinance be considered, which would allow Englewood to have a determina- tion on matters outside of the City limits that would have an effect on Englewood? Mr. Jones stated that this is his suggestion. He would suggest t hat such an ,ordinance be prepared and con- sidered, so that Englewood could be in a position to enter into cases where adverse effec t s on the City of Englewood would be created by uses outside the corporate limits of the City.' Mr. DeWitt stated that he understood there had been some dis- cussion and study on the matt j r already. Mr. Don Smith stated that the Council is not working on any such Ordinance at the present time, and he did not know whether any such ordinance passed at this point would affect this matter. Mr . Smith pointed out that "everybody, including the Corps of Engineers", are working to beautify this river valley. He pointed out that there has ,been a considerable amount of money expended by the City of Englewood in this area, and the Corps of Engineers are going to begin their beautification projects very shortly in this general area. Mr. Smith stated that he understood this car shredder operation has a fire truck, but no one to man the truck, and the hulks do frequently burst into flame. The City Council is opposed to the location of the shredder, and has notified the County Commissioners as early as July, 1976, of their opposition. Mr. Smith stated that several options have been discussed, including that of annexation, purchase, etc, Mr. Jones reiterated that the 'meeting before the County Com- missioners will be on April 4th, at 9:30 A.M. If the Commission members could manage to attend this meeting and voice their opinion, it might be of help. Mr. Jones stated that a lot of money and effort has been expended trying to do something to beautify and clean up the river channel. Mr. Jones suggested that possibly the Commission could take a position on this matter by Resolution. Mr. DeWitt pointed out that the ordinance which would allow Englewood a voice in matters of concern outside the corporate limits would be based on a State Statute which was implemented prior to approval of zoning. Mr . Jones pointed out that there is a provision which would govern new industries; if the new industries were allowed, an -19- operating permit would be issued after compliance with standards governing air, noise, and water pollution. Mr. Jones stated that he felt C.F. & I. would be very concerned about their "corporate image", and would want to be in compliance with the standards. Mr. Wanush stated that there are a couple of issues to con- sider. One is that the auto shredder is going in; if the Com- mission wants to pass a resolution opposing the use in this location, this is the prerogative of the Commission. The second issue, is the use of the Platte River Valley itself. It would be appropriate to look at this problem and try to arrive at a solution with Sheridan, the County, the Corps of Engineers and other interested parties. Mr. Wanush stated that this problem will arise again if something isn't worked out. Mr. Wanush referred to a copy of an opinion submitted by Mr. John A. Criswell when he was City Attorney, which opinion states that an auto shredder is a permitted use in the I-2 Zone District. Discussion ensued. Don Smith moved: Owens seconded: The Planning Commission forward to the County Commissioners for their Public Hearing on April 4, 1977, the following Resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission opposes the installation o _f the car shredder at the Oxford site within Arapahoe County because of the years of endeavor, planning and money that has been expended by Federal, State and local governments to clean up the Platte River Valley; because of the unaswered questions relative to the proposed car shredder such as fire protection, water sources, contaminated water drainage; and because the shredder will be totally adjacent to the planned development of two cities and a planned park area, as we l l as a municipal golf course. THEREFORE, we, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, hereby recommend that the approval of the operating permit for the car shredder proposed to be located in Arapahoe County on a site south of West Oxford Avenue and east of the South Platte River, be denied. AYES: Ed Smith, Wade, Owens, Parker, Pierson , Don Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Williams, Jorgenson The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson asked if this matter should be on the April 5th Planning Commission agenda? Mr. Wanush sta t ed that it would be. The secretary was asked to insert a flyer wi~h the ?ext agenda reminding the Commission members of the Public Hearing before the County Commissioners on Apri l 4, at 9:3 0 A.M. -20- Mr. Wanush stated that the staff has been approached by a Mr. Don Marshall, who owns property on Bannock Street in the 3200 block south. Mr. Marshall has his architects office in this block, which office is on 1land zoned B-1, Business. Mr. Marshall owns residential property adjoining to the north of the B-1 zoning, and is interested in rezoning this property to B-1 also. The next regular 'quarterly hearings on zoning matters would be June 21st, and Mr. Marshall has asked that the consideration of his request be moved forward on the Com- mission calendar. Mr. Wanush stated that there has been no evidence presented to warrant a change in the Commission procedures. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that the Handbook clearly states there shall be quarterly zoning hearings. Don Smith stated that unless a viable reason has been presented to warrant the change in procedure, he would favor the June quarterly hearings. Mrs. Pierson asked that the staff convey to Mr. Marshall the concensus of the Commission. Mr. Wanush stated that notices have been sent to all service organizations within the City asking for a representative from that organization to participate on one of the review committees for the Comprehensive Plan. There has been some response, The staff has met with the department heads to explain the program to them and to ask for input in the re- view process. The department heads have indicated they would be willing to meet with the review committees as needed. Letters have also been sent to all City boards and commissions asking for representation on the review committees. There has been discussion of a very strong P. R. program during the life of these committees; it is very important to make a special effort to get publicity on the process. A special two-page insert in the Citizen has been considered as a manner of "getting the word out". The staff is also contemplating the hiring of two summer interns to handle some of the work that the committee will be doing. Mrs. Pierson stated that she has four members on her com- mittee, and was turned down by a fifth person. She stated this she was waiting to see the type of response received from the organizations, boards and commissions. Ed Smith stated that he hopes to begin contacting possible members for his committee very shortly. Don Smith asked if the churches had been contacted and asked for representatives? Mr. Wanush stated that they have not been contacted. Mr. Smith stated that he felt there might be a Church board member that might serve on some of the com- mittees. Mrs. Wade suggested contacting youth organizations, such as 4-H groups for representatives on the Parks and Recreation -21- Review Committee. Ed Smith suggested that there might also be a contact to the Junior Achievement. Further discussion en- sued. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE There was nothing to be discussed under Commission's Choice. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. • -22- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEW(X)D CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: March 22, 1977 SUBJECT: Hampden Profess ional Park Subdivision Final Plat RECOMMENDATION: Don Smith moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision, as set forth in Case #31-76, with the follow- ing conditions made a part of the approval: (1) Buildings in the development of Hampden Professional Park shall not exceed two stories. (2) All development of the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division shall be accomplished under a Planned Development. (3) If the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision is developed with professional office buildings, the following definition of "Professional Office" shall be enforced throughout this development: "Professional Office: The office of a person engaged in any occupation, vocation, or calling, not purely commercial, mechanical, or agricultural in which a professed knowledge or skill in some department of science or learning is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising or guiding them in serving their interest or welfare through the practice of an act founded thereon, such as medical doctors, dentists, attorneys-at-law, architects or engineers." AYES: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Wade, Owens NAYS: Pierson, Parker ABSENT: Tanguma, Williams, Jorgenson The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. / . /-,:• / . ·"/" I // L I / . ' , '/-l:tf: ·, /2e e ( r . ...:.../ /'":; ,//·(,,..- Gertrude G. Welty ,7 / ., Recording Secretary RESOLUTION Of The CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Don Smith moved: Owens seconded: The Planning Commission forward to the County Commissioners for their Public Hearing on April 4, 1977, the following Resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission opposes the installation of the car shredder at the Oxford site within Arapahoe County because of the years of endeavor, planning and money that has been expended by Federal, State and local governments to clean up the Platte River Valley; because of the unanswered questions relative to the proposed car shredder such as fire protection, water sources, contaminated water drainage; and because the shredder will be totally adjacent to the planned development of two cities and a planned park area, as well as a municipal golf course. THEREFORE, we, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, hereby recommend that the approval of the operating permit for the car shredder proposed to be located in Arapahoe County on a site south of West Oxford Avenue and east of the South Platte River, be deniedo AYES: Ed Smith, Wade, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Williams, Jorgenson The motion carried.