Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-02 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1980 5 B The Planning and Zoning Connnission met at 5:30 P. M. in Conference Room A of the Englewood City Hall, for an informal dinner meeting to welcome Ms. Susan Powers, the Director of Connnunity Development, and to meet Mrs. Frances Buck Jonas, Executive Director of the Englewood Housing Authority. Members present: Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer Draper Members absent: Williams Also present: Ms. Susan Powers, Director of Connnunity Development Mrs. Dorothy A. Romans, Assistant Director -Planning Mrs. Frances Buck Jonas, Assistant Director -Housing Mrs. Barbara S. Young, Associate Planner Mrs. Romans reported that Mr. Don Williams would not be present because he had to work until 9:00 P. M. at the Highway Department. Following dinner, Mrs. Pierson asked Mrs. Marjorie Becker to present her slides on ·"urban Planning". Mrs. Becker's slides depicted phases of urban planning and improvement in San Francisco, Concord and Albuquerque, and pointed out aesthetic features that are incorporated in parking lots, street mosaics, parks, building facades and general public areas that make a metropolitan area a pleasant place to live, work and shop. Mrs. Becker also showed several slides of areas in Colorado that are most attractive. I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Connnission was called to order at 6:45 P.M. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Members present: Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer Draper Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Williams Also present: Assistant Director for Planning D. A. Romans Assistant Director for Housing F. B. Jonas Associate Planner B. S. Young II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of November 18, 1980, were to be considered for approval . -2- Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 1980, be approved as written. AYES: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. III. OSAGE ZONING DESIGNATION Findings of Fact CASE f/29-80 Mrs. Pierson stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #29-80, the Osage Annexation Zoning Designation, were to be considered for approval. She asked for discussion on ~he matter. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on the zoning designation of the Osage Annexation area, Case #29-80, and refer the Findings of Fact to City Council. AYES: McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Assistant Director for Planning Romans stated that the staff included a letter from Mr. Reed Harding of the Prowswood Company for the information of the Commission; this was included in the latest packet delivered to the Commission members on Wednesday, November 26th. Also included in the packets was an article from "TIME" magazine on bicycle trails. Mrs. Romans stated that arrangements have been made for the Commission members to meet in two ad hoc groups on December 16th to discuss the matter of bicycle trails and design review. One group will meet in Conference Room A, and the other group will meet in the Community Development Con- ference Room. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has obtained copies of the Denver and Littleton Bicycle Trail system as requested by the Commission. Mr. McBrayer asked if he could obtain copies of these reports this evening, as he wants to get started on the matter of bicycle trails as soon as possible. Mrs. Pierson stated that she has contacted Mr. Bill Howard, who has agreed to chair the ad hoc committee on Design Review. She stated that Mr. Howard was a member of the committee who worked on the commercial district and in- dustrial district for the Comprehensive Plan Review, and is very interested in the matter of Design Review. Mr. Jack Martin, who also served on the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee, has agreed to serve on the Design Re- view ad hoc committee; Mr. Martin is a retired professor of the DU Law • • • • -3- School, and has been a consultant in hotel development. She stated that both of these men are highly qualified individuals and should be valuable members of the ad hoc committee . Ms. Powers stated that she had enjoyed an opportunity earlier in the day to discuss with Mrs. Pierson the direction the Planning Commission is headed, and what course of direction the Commission should pursue. Ms. Powers stated that they shared an interest in having the Planning Commission and the Downtown Development Authority more aware of each others work. Ms. Powers stated that since she had experience with redevelopment and tax increment financing in Reno that she would be spending much of her time working with the EDDA. The Planning Commission should be aware of the overall redevelopment plans of the EDDA so that when a parking lot plan is brought before the Commission by EDDA, it is clear where it fits into the plan. Ms. Powers stated that she felt it might be helpful for members of the Planning Commission to attend the meetings of the Downtown Development Authority if it was possible to do so, and that it might be a good idea to have one or two members of the Planning Commission act as liaison members with the EDDA. She asked that the Commission members feel free to give suggestions on workshops they feel would be of help to them, or slide presentations they would like to see on what is being done in other parts of the country. Ms. Powers stated that she felt it was important that the Commission get to know what the other divisions of the Department of Community Develop- ment do; she stated that Mrs. Frances Buck Jonas, who is in attendance this evening, is the Assistant Director for Housing and Redevelopment and is the Executive Director of the Housing Authority. She suggested that it might be helpful if Mrs. Jonas were to attend a meeting to bring the Commission up-to-date on the various programs and services that the Housing Division offers to the citizens of Englewood, and also maybe give an over- view of the Housing Programs available in the metro area. Ms. Powers asked if the members of the Commission had any suggestions or interests they would like to pursue? Mr. McBrayer stated that he would be interested in having members of the staff from various jurisdictions, such as Boulder or Aurora, for instance, speak to the Commission on such matters as sign controls, landscaping, etc. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt someone from the Denver staff would be willing to attend a meeting of the Bicycle Trails committee. He pointed out that Boulder does have a design review policy, and he felt it would be interesting to be brought up-to-date on problems that they have ex- perienced and the ways they have handled those problems. Mrs. Romans stated that it might be of interest to the Planning Commission members to go to Boulder to view examples of their design review process. Members of the Commission were suppor.tive of this proposal. Ms. Pierson stated that the Commission has discussed the need for an educational program in the past, and she feels this is one area in which the Planning Commission is weak. She noted that new members of the Com- mission go through a "haphazard" training process to learn anything about the Planning process and she felt that if visiting lecturers on both the practical and theoretical level could be brought in, it would be most advantageous. -4-' Mrs. Pierson suggested that each Connnission member give a sunnnary of what they do, and what their interests are in the field of Planning, and what • they want to see the Commission pursue. She reiterated that she felt there is a strong need for more educational emphasis for the Connnission. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would like to see some of the ideas that were put forth in the Comprehensive Plan developed further and implemented. She stated that she feels the Planning Connnission has been very "reactive", and that they should exercise a greater degree of initiative. She stated that her personal emphasis is on aesthetics. Mr. Draper stated that he felt the input in to the Comprehensive Plan re- view process was very exciting in that it was a connnunity-wide effort, and that such efforts were of aid to the Planning Commission. He stated that he felt the Commission should be more creative; that the Connnission has "been restrained and retarded" in the past, but that the Connnission does have great potential to make use of the ideas promoted in the Compre- hensive Plan. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission get into the review of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan review was a good start, but there is still a lot of work to be done on the Zoning Ordinance to develop the ideas set forth in the Comprehensive Plan so that its full potential can be realized. He stated that he felt there is much that can be done to help the housing situation, for instance; he noted that "it is beginning to turn around, but it's slow", and that anything the Commission can do to promote the development of housing to attract families should be done. He noted that while the schools are still losing student population, this loss rate has been slowed considerably this past year. Mr. Tanguma stated that he also wanted to see the Community Center started as soon as possible. Mrs. Becker noted that when she and her husband chose Englewood for their home the first time, it "was just a place to live." The second time they moved to Englewood, it was because they wanted to live in this City. Mrs. Becker stated that she, too, would like to see the Community Center built, and she would also like to see the Comprehensive Plan implemented. She stated that she wanted to see the downtown developed in a more pleasing, business-like manner. She stated there is a need to increase the property values in Englewood, and to attract new businesses to the downtown area. Mrs. Becker stated that altogether, she feels very comfortable with the City of Englewood; it has the "small town atmosphere", yet is a part of a larger metropolitan area. Mr. McBrayer stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission initiates enough things. Mr. McBrayer stated that he has developed something in every community in the metro area, and noted that there is considerable difference in the code requirements of each jurisdiction. He noted that he felt the signing provisions that the City of Aurora has are very good. He stated that he feels the City of Englewood should adopt a policy of amending the existing ordinances so that the Planning Commission can re- quire certain landscaping specifications and signing specifications for new development. Mr. Carson stated that he felt the matter of bicycle trails and the com- munity center is very important. He stated that he was sure the City Council will consider the matter of the community center after the first of the year. Mr. Carson stated that he is also interested in the progress of the Downtown Development Authority. • • • • -5- Mr. Barbre stated that he is interested in the educational program for the Commission that Mrs. Pierson has mentioned . He stated that he is also very interested in the Downtown Development Authority program. Mr. Barbre stated that he felt Englewood was in a very unique situation; we are basically landlocked, and "planning" is much more important for that reason. He stated that he felt a step in the right direction was taken in the con- ditions imposed on the parking lots to be developed by the Swedish Medical Center and the Downtown Development Authority. Mr. Senti stated that this is the second time he has served on the Planning Commission; he has lived in Englewood since 1940, and feels it is a great place to live. Mrs. Pierson asked if copies of the priorities from the Comprehensive Plan could be given to all members again. Ms. Powers stated that Englewood does have an advantage in that we do not have to be concerned about "urban sprawl", and that there is time to think about the direction we want to go and what we want to do. V. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer stated that there will be an article in the Englewood Citizen on the Bicycle Trail System, and publicity in the Englewood Herald Sentinel also. Mr. McBrayer stated that he plans to go to the department stores, bicycle shops, etc. and ask that they post flyers announcing the meeting on January 13th, urging interested people to participate. Mr. McBrayer asked if it would be possible to get a letter of introduction from the Planning Commission, or a letter on official City stationery to present to these individuals he will be contacting? Ms. Powers and Mrs. Romans stated that this would be possible. Mr. McBrayer also asked if it would be possible for him to use the tablet and easel in the Conference Room to outline his proposals? Mrs. Young in- dicated there was such a tablet available in the Planning Office that he could take home to work on. Mrs. Pierson asked if everyone had an ad hoc committee to work on for December 16th who wanted to? Mrs. Romans stated that provisions have been made to use Conference Room A for the one ad hoc group and the other group will meet in the Community Development Conference Room. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m . MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 2, 1980 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact --Osage Annexation Zoning Designation RECOMMENDATION: Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on the zoning designation of the Osage Annexation area, Case #29-80, and refer the Findings of Fact to City Council. AYES: McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. • • • , • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 29-80, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE ) ZONING OF AN AREA ANNEXED TO THE ) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BY ORDINANCE ) NO. 40, SERIES OF 1980. ) A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 29-80 on October 21, 1980, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Carson, Mr. Draper, Mr. McBrayer, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Senti and Mr. Tanguma. Those members absent: Mr. Williams. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That the following described property was annexed to the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1980, upon the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Donald L. McGirr and Mr. and Mrs. Marvin L. Vette, and that said annexation became final on November 22, 1980: Part of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 9, T 5 S, R 68 W, of the 6th P.M. described as beginning at a point 662.1 feet North and 87 feet East of the center af said Section 9, said point also being the centerline of West Tufts Avenue; thence North 220 feet +/-to a point on the Englewood city limits; thence East along said city limits 46.9 feet +/-; thence North along said city limits 220.9 feet +/-; thence East along said city limits 196.8 feet +/-; thence South along said city limits 440.9 feet +/-to the centerline of West Tufts Avenue; thence West along said centerline 244 feet +/-to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 2.231 Acres +/-. Arapahoe County, Colorado. 3. That the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 requires that any area annexed to a municipality be brought under its zoning ordinance and map within ninety days after the effective date of the annexation ordinance. 4. That the property annexed by Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1980, is used for industrial purposes and adjoins or is adjacent to property in the City of Englewood which is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. 5. That the subject property was previously annexed to the City of Englewood and, following Public Hearings, was zoned I-1, Light -2- Industrial, which annexation was subsequently voided following Court action initiated by other parties. 6. That the 1979 Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as an I-1, Light Industrial, area. 7. That the subject area does not lend itself for a residential use because of its proximity to other industrial development, the railway lines and South Santa Fe Drive . CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper public notice of the Public Hearing relative to the zoning of the subject property was given according to §22.3-4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the subject property has been annexed to the City of Englewood effective November 22, 1980. 3. That the Generalized Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject property is situated, as being most appropriately developed with light industrial uses. 4. That the subject property is used for industrial purposes and is adjacent to or adjoins property similarly used which is in the City of Englewood, and which has been zoned I-1, Light Industrial. 5. That the highest and best use of the property is to be found under the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District classification. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council that the above described property, which has been annexed to the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1980, be zoned I-1, Light Industrial for the following reasons: 1. The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District would be an extension of the I-1 zone classification which has been applied to lands within the City of Englewood which adjoin or are adjacent to the subject area. 2. Because of its proximity to existing industrial development, major railway lines and South Santa Fe Drive, the subject area does not lend itself to residential development. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the sub- ject property is located as suitable for industrial development. ' • Upon the vote on a motion made at a meeting of the City Planning • and Zoning Commission on October 21, 1980. .. ~· • ; • -3- Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Carson, Mr. Draper, Mr. McBrayer, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Senti and Mr. Tanguma • Those members voting in opposition to the motion: None. Those members absent: Mr. Williams. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.