Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-20 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 20, 1984 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 McBrayer. Members present: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Members absent: None Also present: Senior Planner Susan King Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hinson II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 6, 1984 Chairman McBrayer stated that Minutes of the meeting of March 6, 1984, were to be considered for approval. Stoel moved: Venard seconded: The Minutes of March 6, 1984 be approved as written. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE #9-84B I-1 Light Industrial Zone District Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-84B be opened. AYES: Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District is now open. The staff has presented the Chairman with a copy of the legal notice of the Hearing, which was published in the Englewood Sentinel on February 29, 1984. Mr. McBrayer asked that the proposed amendments to the I-1 Zone District, which were the staff report to the Commission, be made part of the record of the Public Hearing. Mr. McBrayer stated that the primary amendment to the I-1 Zone District is -2- the inclusion of mobile home parks as a permitted use in this zone dis- trict, and development standards for mobile home parks have been written into the ordinance also. Mr. McBrayer stated that after hearing testimony from the staff and from the public, the Commission may decide to recommend the proposed amendments as written to the City Council; the Commission may make further amendments to the zone district regulations and ref er it to the City Council, or may ask that the staff do further work on it and have it come back before the Commission for further consideration. Mr. McBrayer asked that anyone wishing to address the Commission would please come to the podium, give their name and address, and be sworn in; he asked that testimony be limited to the matter before the Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that the zone district regulations, as proposed, had been submitted to the Commission several days ago; he asked if there were any questions from the Commission of members of the staff. Hearing no questions from the Commission, he asked if the staff had anything to add at this time. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing to add, but because this is a Public Hearing and members of the audience may not be familiar with the proposed amendments, the staff is prepared to review the regulations for the I-1 Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that if members of the audience are familiar with the proposed amendments, it may not be necessary to make a presentation. Mr. McBrayer asked members of the audience if they were in attendance in regard to the amendment to the I-1 Zone District and the inclusion of the mobile home park as a permitted use; were they familiar with the proposed amendments, or did they want a presentation by staff to review the pro- posed amendments. Mr. Steve Giles stated that a number of the audience members have been working with the staff regarding the proposed zone district, and the de- velopment standards for the mobile home parks, and are familiar with the proposed amendments. Mr. McBrayer stated that unless specific questions arise, there will not be a formal presentation by the staff. He then asked if any members of the audience wished to address the Commission regarding the proposed I-1 Zone District amendments. Mrs. Barbara Laube 3075 South Santa Fe Drive -was sworn in and stated that she is very much in favor of the proposed amendments, and stated that members of the audience would appreciate it if the Commission would recommend favorably on the proposed amendments. There were eight other persons in the audience who were in favor of the proposed regulations. Mr. McBrayer asked if there were other members of the audience who wished to address the Commission in favor of the proposed amendments. No one else wished to address the Commission. Mr. McBrayer then asked if any member of the audience wished to speak in opposition to the proposed amendments. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendments. • • • -3- Mr. Venard stated that he had a question on Page 9, (ii), regarding the 150 foot setback for auto wrecking yards from residential/professional zone district boundary lines. He asked if this would mean an R-4 Dis- trict. Ms. Romans stated that this wording would mean an R-4 District, and suggested that the text is in error, and the wording should be " ..• 150 feet from the boundary line of any residential zone district." The 150 foot setback would give a buffer between the residential use and the higher intensity industrial auto wrecking yard. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this provision is not one of the proposed amendments, but is a pro- vision in effect today. Mrs. Romans stated that when the City agreed to allow auto wrecking yards in the industrial district as a permitted use, regulations to make this use "acceptable" to adjacent uses were drafted, and the 150 foot setback was one regulation that was felt to provide pro- tection to the adjacent uses. Mr. Venard suggested that a property owner might be dissuaded from de- veloping a junk yard if they were aware that this amount of land would have to be provided for a setback. Mr. Venard questioned the prohibition of a chain link fence in §22.4-12 i (1) (a) (iii); he asked if the chain link would be permitted if slats were to be woven through. Mrs. Romans discussed the problems that have been experienced with chain link fences and the aluminum slats; they have not proven to be satisfactory in appear- ance and are difficult to maintain, and are not an approved fence. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission. Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Commission approve the I-1 Zone District amendments, with the correction on Page 9, §22.4-12 (1) (a) (ii), and that these amendments be referred to the City Council for their approval. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the amendments proposed to the I-1 Zone District are very positive changes, and would vote in favor of the motion. Mr. McBrayer stated that by working with WHERE, "we have found a nice group of Englewood people", and that the Commission wants to be able to he of assistance to them. Mrs. Becker stated that she is proud that the staff and the citizens have been able to work together to arrive at the proposed solution to the dis- placement of these people • Mr. Venard stated that he would like to add his support for the mobile home park inclusion in the I-1 Zone District, and pointed out that he drives South Santa Fe Drive every day and this area has been of concern to him for some time. He stated that he would like to see something happen in this area, -4- and would encourage the Commission to support the development of this area as much as possible, Mrs. Romans expressed the appreciation of the staff to Mrs. Laube and Mr. Giles for their willingness to work with the staff, The vote was called on the motion: AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. Giles stated that he would like to thank the members of the Commission and staff for their efforts on behalf of WHERE. Mrs. Laube also expressed her thanks and appreciation to the Commission and staff for their coopera- tion; she commented that some of the former residents of mobile home parks in Littleton are relocating to Englewood, and are very excited about this project. IV. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Amendments #5 and #6 CASE #19-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that this case before the Commission involves some amendments to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, which amendments would be to list additional propert~es for acquisition by the Urban Renewal Authority in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Hinson addressed the Commission, and stated that the amendments proposed to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan are for additional properties that were determined to be needed for public improvements along the Boulevard, and to list properties along South Broadway in the 3300 block to facilitate the construction of the King Soopers Plaza; the properties on South Broadway would be a matter of "leasehold" acquisition only, inasmuch as Brady Corporat i on has purchased the property itself, Mr, Hinson outlined the redevelopment area on the map for the Commission. Mr. Stoel asked if the Key Savings property would be redeveloped, and what was planned for the site. Mr. Hinson stated that it would be redeveloped for some other retail purpose. Mr. Allen asked if properties needed for the Boulevard have been acquired. Mr. Hinson stated that the City Council did approve the transfer of funds from the Public Improvement Fund to the Urban Renewal Authority to facilitate acquisition of properties along South Bannock Street for the Little Dry Creek channel improvements. Mr. Hinson discussed the relocation of utility lines along Little Dry Creek. Mr. Allen stated that it appeared that portions of several parking lots will be taken by the Urban Renewal Authority; he asked what alternate ~ parking areas will be provided, Mr. Hinson stated that the staff is working with First Interstate Bank and Cinderella City, owners of two of the parking lots affected, and are attempting to work out an exchange of parking areas. He also noted that parking structures are proposed to be constructed in the King Soopers Plaza, and another will be constructed in conjunction with the hotel. • • -5- Mr. Allen asked if there had been any changes in the improvements to the Little Dry Creek channel. Mr. Hinson stated that the structure at 180 West Girard Avenue will be removed immediately; the houses along South Bannock Street will have to be removed, and the channel realigned and widened. Mr. Hinson stated that one house has already been acquired and relocated, and the staff has been contacted by several other property owners who are in- terested in selling their property. The preliminary design work is being done, and the final design should be completed by the end of the year. Mr. Hinson traced the alignment of the channel, and noted that South Cherokee Street will carry the overflow of a 100-year flood. Mr. McBrayer stated that additional properties are being added for acquisition and asked if any other properties are being eliminated from the list for ac- quisition. Mr. Hinson stated that the engineers are just now determining what is actually needed for rights-of-way; it does not appear that any prop- erties will be eliminated from the acquisition list. Mr. McBrayer expressed concern with the traffic pattern from north to south west of South Broadway; he noted that with the removal of South Bannock Street as a "through" street it will seriously impede the north/south flow of traffic. Mr. Hinson stated that he understood the traffic engineers have considered the matter of traffic flow, and have designed the streets to facilitate the traffic movement through the area. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the impediments to through traffic on some other streets, such as South Elati Street, would have to be removed to accommodate the north/south traffic flow. Mrs. Romans discussed the installation of the island in South Elati Street at Floyd Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that South Bannock Street was designated for one-way traffic by referendum, and there have been different legal opinions given as to steps necessary to revert the traffic to two-way. Mr. Allen asked if the Urban Renewal Authority would be acquiring all the properties that are being listed. Mr. Hinson stated that the properties being listed would make it possible for the Urban Renewal Authority to purchase the property if the redeveloper cannot do so. Mr. Allen noted that quite a bit of land will be taken from the First National B.ank. Mr. Hinson stated that the land needed for the Boulevard right-of-way would be 1-1/2 to 2 rows of parking, but emphasized that a parking structure will be erected in this vicinity. Brief discussion ensued. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission approve Resolution #3, Series of 1984, A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF THE AMENDED DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, and refer the matter to the City Council • AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None The motion carried. -6- V. GOALS/WORK PROGRAM OF PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. McBrayer stated that a listing of the goals and work objectives of the Planning Conunission have been submitted to the Commission. He asked if there were any questions from the members on this matter. Mrs. Becker suggested that the Commission needed some time to review the proposed work program before it is finalized. Mr. McBrayer agreed, and suggested that the Commission should keep in mind to be prepared to dis- cuss the Work Program with the City Council at the joint meeting in May. Mr. McBrayer suggested that this item be placed on the next agenda for the Commission. Further discussion on the Work Program ensued. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. McBrayer noted that members of the audience who had been in attendance earlier had left the meeting. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans reminded members of the Commission of the Annual Banquet sponsored by DRCOG, scheduled for March 28, 1984. Reservations are required. Mrs. Romans reminded members of the open house sponsored by the Community Care organization, which will begin at Porter's Hospital at 7:00 P. M. on March 27th, and then continue at a group home in Englewood. Again, reser- vations are required. The following members asked that reservations be made to attend the Community Care open house: Mrs. Becker, Messrs. Barbre, Magnuson, Venard, Tanguma and Carson. Messrs. Barbre, Venard and Carson also asked that reservations he made for their wives. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker referred to the Klode "insurance-holding" yard on West Union Avenue, and to an automotive repair shop which was approved at Mr. Forington's request on West Evans Avenue; she stated that she recalled at the time ap- proval was given that automobiles were not to be stored in the right-of-way, nor were vehicles to be worked on to be parked in front of the garage on Mr. Forington's property. Mrs. Becker stated that vehicles are parked in front of the garage on Sundays, and that vehicles are parked in the right-of-way at both locations. • Mr. McBryaer asked if it would be in order to ask the staff to send a letter to the Code Enforcement Division asking them to check into these problems. Mrs. Romans discussed the process of notifying the Code Enforcement Division • of a complaint, and indicated that the staff would take care of it. Mrs. Romans stated that the owner of Klode's has indicated a desire to expand his operation to the east onto property that is owned by Mr. Sam Love. In J ight. of the problems that the City has experienced with this -7- business, the owner has been informed that the expansion would not be permitted until it is approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would not be present at the next Planning Commission meeting, but would be in Key West, Florida. Mr. Allen stated that he would be in Austin, Texas, and would not be present. Mr. Venard stated that a couple of weeks ago when the Commission was con- sidering goals and the work program, Mr. Barbre brought up the problems of enforcing .the weed ordinance. Mr. Venard stated that he wondered if the members of the Planning Commission could be of help, by each member watching their own neighborhood for flagrant violations and reporting these offenders. Mr. Venard stated that in some neighborhoods where there are covenants there is a "group" of homeowners who are responsible for checking on such things. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans discussed the procedure followed in notifying the Code Enforce- ment officers of a violation and pointed out that the staff does appreciate citizens calling problems to the attention of the City. Mr. McBrayer declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 P. M. trude G. Welty cording Secretary • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 3 Series of 1984 A RESOLUTION OF THE ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF THE AMENDED DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. WHEREAS, a Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been prepared by the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan was amended by the Urban Renewal Authority on March 7, 1984; and WHEREAS, the City Council has submitted the Downtown Redevelop- ment Plan to the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the General Plan for the develop- ment of the municipality as a whole in accordance with Section 31-25-107(2) C.R.S. 1973, as amended; and WHEREAS, a review has been conducted by the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com- mission of the City of Englewood, Colorado: ATTEST: Section 1: That the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as amended, has been determined to be in conformity with the General Plan of de- velopment for the City of Englewood. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 20th ----- Edwin E. Chairman day of -------March , 1984.