Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-03 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 3, 1982 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: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Allen Also present: Planner I Harold Stitt Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of July 7, 1982, were to be con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of the meeting of July 7, 1982, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Becker, Gilchrist ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. Mr. Allen entered the meeting and took his place with the other members. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of the meeting of July 13, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of July 13, 1982, be approved as written. Mr. Gilchrist suggested that on Page 10, ,18, the word "he" be changed to "him". Messrs. Carson and Stoel accepted the amendment to the Minutes. The vote was called on approval of the Minutes, as amended: AYES: Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma The motion carried. -2- Mr. McBrayer stated that the Minutes of July 20, 1982, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of July 20, 1982, be approved as written. Mr. Barbre pointed out that on Page 13, it indicates that Mr. Carson moved, and Mrs. Becker "moved" on the same motion; it should be amended to reflect that Mrs. Becker "seconded" the motion. Mr. Carson and Mr. Tanguma accepted the amendment. The vote on the motion to approve the minutes, as amended, was called: AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. III. CONDITIONAL USE Auto Transmission Repair and Clutch Repair 1236 East Hampden Avenue CASE ltlS-82 Chairman McBrayer stated that the matter before the Commission is a Public Hearing on a requested Auto Transmission/Clutch Repair business at 1236 East Hampden Avenue, which use is a Conditional Use in the B-2 Zone District. Carson moved: Gilchrist seconded: The Public Hearing on the proposed Conditional Use at 1236 East Hampden Avenue, Case #15-82, be opened. AYES: Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on July 13, 1982, and Certification of Posting has been presented by the applicant for the record. Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff report, which was sent to the Commission, be made a part of the record. He asked if the Commission members had any questions of the staff regarding the staff report? Hearing no questions from the Commission, Mr. McBrayer then asked if the staff had any additional com- ments they wished to make on this case? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing further to add. Mrs. Becker noted that the staff report indicates that a chain link fence is on the west and south property lines. She asked if it would be proper to require some type of screening in addition to the chain link fence along these property lines? Mrs. Becker stated that if vehicles are to be parked to the rear of the garage she questioned whether there should be screening required to limit the view of these vehicles from the residential area to the south. Mrs. Becker stated that she recalled a solid fence was required • • • • -3- of another motor vehicle repair business which abutted residential zoning. Mr. Gilchrist asked if Mrs. Becker felt the screening could be accomplished by landscaping, or whether it would have to be a solid fence? Mrs. Becker stated that she did not feel landscaping would accomplish the purpose in this case. Mr. McBrayer asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission? Mr. Jess Crane stated that he was the owner of the property at 1236 East Hampden Avenue, and has offices at 3502 South Marion Street. He stated that he feels he has improved the property since he has owned it, and that if the Commission wanted to check with the Building Department, they would find there have been no complaints registered since he purchased the property. Mr. Crane stated that people in the neighborhood have written letters and signed statements indicating they have no objection to the proposed auto transmission/clutch repair operation on this site, and that the property has, in fact, been used as a garage for over 40 years. He stated that he does not want any junk cars on the site. Mr. Crane stated that he had cancelled the lease with the former tenant, Englewood Imports, for a number of reasons. Mr. Carson asked the distance from the rear of the building to the chain link fence? Mr. Crane stated that he would estimate 60 feet between the rear of the building and the fence; the structure sits back from the street 20 to 30 feet. Mr. Carson asked if the leasee would be storing vehicles at the rear of the building? Mr. Crane stated that it is his understanding this is not planned, but referred to the leasee, Mr. Charles Partridge. Mr. Partridge stated that any storage of vehicles would be on a temporary basis --over-night if someone could not get by to pick up their car. He will be offering one-day service, and does not anticipate storage of vehicles for any period of time. He stated that there will be no junk vehicles on the premises, and that the house on the site will be used for the storage of transmission repair parts; the office will be maintained in the garage. Mr. McBrayer asked what guarantee Mr. Crane had that this leasee would maintain the property in any better condition than the previous tenant? Mr. Crane stated that he has personally maintained the outside of the property at all times; the former tenants whose lease he cancelled, had difficulty meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal, and that he, Mr. Crane, had determined that the operation was misrepresented to the City when the sales tax license was obtained. He stated that for these, and other reasons, the lease was terminated. Mr. Crane stated the requirement of the Fire Department that they comply with Article 29 of the 1979 UFC meets with his approval, and that if the Commission wanted to make this part of the recommendation, he would go along with it. Mr. Gilchrist noted that the structure to the west of the subject site is nicely landscaped in the front, and asked Mr. Crane if he had any plans to do any landscaping in the front of his building? Mr. Crane stated that he and Dr. Makens, owner of the property to the west, have discussed land- scaping along their joint side lot lines, and that he has also considered some sort of landscaping in the front of his property. Mr. Crane stated that he and Mr. Partridge have discussed removal of the pipes in the front of the property, and doing some landscaping there. -4- Mr. Gilchrist noted that the staff report indicates there was no response from the City Engineer; he asked for an explanation on this •. Mrs. Romans stated that frequently if a department sees no problem with a request, there is no written response. Mr. McBrayer inquired of Assistant City Attorney Holland what recourse the City would have if this proposal were to be approved, and the leasee starts storing cars on the site for long periods of time, or accummulates junk vehicles on the lot. Mr. Holland stated that the Planning Commission can place conditions for the applicant/leasee to meet on the approval of the request if the Commission feels they are necessary to protect the area; the Commission may also impose a time limitation and make the use subject to periodic review by the Commission. If there is obvious violation and the property is not used as has been represented, then corrective procedures could be taken. Mr. Allen stated that this site has been used for auto repair for at least 30 years, and there is no change in the character of the use proposed. Mr. Tanguma asked if there would be any retailing or wholesaling from this site? Mr. Partridge stated that only in the repair of the transmission or clutch. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Com- mission in favor of this proposal? Mr. Willis Resley 3540 South Marion -stated that he has lived at this location for 29 years, and that the property was used for garage purposes when he moved to this neighborhood. He stated that there has never been any problem caused by this use, and that he feels it is nice to have a garage located in the neighborhood. He stated that he would rather see the site used for garage purposes than remain vacant, and stated that he is in favor of the granting of the request. Mr. Anthony Monte 3527 South Marion -stated that his parents moved into this neighborhood in 1947, and that he has lived there all his life. He stated that Mr. Crane is the best neighbor they have had, and there has never been any problems with this site. It is well taken care of. He stated that he feels the garage operation is a good idea, and as long as the tenants will take care of the property, he is in favor of it. Mr.McBrayer asked if there were any one in the audience who wished to speak in opposition to the request, or if there were further comments to be made on this matter? No one else indicated they wanted to address the Commission. Cars.on moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist NAYS: None The motion carried. • • • -5- Gilchrist moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the application for approval of an auto transmission/clutch repair business as a Conditional Use at 1236 East Hampden Avenue. It is understood that the applicant will comply with Article 29 of the 1979 Uniform Fire Code. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer NAYS: None The motion carried. IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Louis C. Tepe 1600 West Dartmouth Avenue CASE #16-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the staff report had been sent to the Commission in advance of the meeting, and the proposed plat of the subdivision was submitted to the Commission this evening. He asked if there were any questions of the staff regarding the staff report? He then asked if the staff had any additional comments they wished to add to the staff report? Mrs. Romans stated that if there were questions, either she or Mr. Sitt would try to answer them. Mr. McBrayer asked the applicant if he would like to address the Commission? Mr. Louis Tepe stated that 1600 West Dartmouth is part of the Welbourne Development, and that he has occupied these premises for about seven years. Mr. Tepe stated that he had an option to purchase the property from Mr. Welbourne when he signed the lease in 1975; when Mr. Welbourne sold his property to another individual, Mr. Tepe stated that he exercised his op- tion to purchase; he then, in turn, sold to another individual, and retained a small parcel of land that he wants to develop for his business. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Tepe if he is willing to meet the recommendations and conditions suggested by the Utilities Department? Mr. Tepe stated that he has been attempting to solve these problems regarding water and sewer lines by working with the other three present property owners. Mr. Tepe stated that he is only one of four owners, and he expressed concern that he would be able to bring all property owners involved to an agreement. He agreed that the requirements imposed by the Utilities Department are reasonable, and that there must be some way to provide for the maintenance of utility lines. Mr. McBrayer stated that he recalled Mr. Fonda, Director of Utilities, stating at one of the meetings he attended that he wanted a dedicated right- of-way for utility lines rather than an easement. It now appears that an easement for the utility lines would be satisfactory. He asked if this contradiction could be explained? Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Fonda had been under the impression it was a policy of the water and sewer board that the lines be in a dedicated right-of-way; however, in researching the matter, it was determined that there is no such policy, and he is now permitting utility lines to be installed in either an easement or public right-of-way. -6- Mr. McBrayer noted that the Fire Department required adequate access for • emergency vehicles; he asked if this department would review plans for de- velopment when they were submitted? Mrs. Romans stated that the Fire Depart- ment does have to review plans for development. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt it should be strongly stated that no building permits shall issue until the applicant complies with the require- ments of the Engineering and Utilities Departments. Mr. McBrayer stated that this could be made' a part of the recommendation; he asked if Mr. Tepe would agree to this stipulation? Mr. Tepe stated that he would agree. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Com- mission on this matter? Mr. McBrayer then asked the staff if they had any- thing further to add? Mr. Stitt stated that he had talked to Mr. Welbourne and informed him of the date and time of this meeting; Mr. Welbourne called Mr. Stitt earlier this date to say that he would not be in attendance at the meeting, and did not feel his comments would pertain to the matter of the subdivision waiver. He stated that the matter of water and sewer was of concern to him. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Subdivision Waiver application of Louis C. Tepe, Resolution #2, Series of 1982, with the following conditions: The applicant shall: 1. Provide details of curb cut design. 2. Prepare topographic maps showing existing and proposed drainage on and off-site. 3. Prepare a 10-year storm drainage study with provisions for on-site detention. 4. Obtain a letter from PSC granting use of their easement. 5. Supply proof that all existing water and sewer mains are in a recorded easement. In the event they are not, they must be given recorded easements. 6. Provide proof that an owners association has been formed within the Dartmouth Industrial Park for the purpose of maintaining all water and sewer lines. 7. The existing 4-inch sewer line serving the eastern parcel must be upgraded to 6-inch before any develop- ment on the western parcel can tie in. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: None The motion carried. • V. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Leonard Chesler 2303 East Dartmouth Avenue -:-7- CASE 1117-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the request before the Commission is for a Sub- division Waiver on property at 2303 East Dartmouth Avenue, which property is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Chesler. Mr. McBrayer asked if the Com- mission had any questions of the staff at this time? Hearing no questions from the Commission, he then asked if the staff had anything further to add to the staff report? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff report is inclusive, and pointed out that Mr. Stitt has mounted on the display easel, copies of the original Hampden Hills Baptist Church Subdivision Plat, and a copy of the waiver which was granted in 1979. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. and Mrs. Chesler are represented by Mr. Bernard V. Berardini, Mr. Berardini stated that he does represent Mr. and Mrs. Chesler, and · that both he and Mr. and Mrs. Chesler received copies of the staff report. Mr. Berardini reported that he had met with Mrs. Romans and other staff members several weeks ago to review concerns that had been expressed by staff mem- bers of the various city departments. Mr. Berardini stated that the con- ditions suggested in the staff report to be imposed on the granting of the request are reasonable. Mr. Berardini asked if the Commission had any questions to ask of him? Mr. McBrayer asked what the ultimate use of the land would be? Mr. Berardini stated that Parcel "B", as indicated on the Plat, is the location of the structure known as the "Brown House", which is on the market now. Parcel "C" which is to the north of the Church property, is not planned for im- mediate development. Mr. McBrayer questioned the necessity of installing a fire hydrant just because of the division of the land and the possible development of Parcel C. Mrs. Romans stated that she has not discussed this any further with Fire Marshal Groditski, but she understood that it is a concern of the Fire Department that this area have adequate fire protection. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the matter of adequate fire protection is already a problem in this area, and cited the death that occured in a fire a year or two ago. Mr. McBrayer asked if the applicants are aware of the drainage problems caused by a "gap" in the berm? Mr. Berardini stated that they are aware of this. Mr. Gilchrist suggested that the Fire Department requirement of a fire hydrant be made a requirement and a prerequisite of the Department of Com- munity Development. Mrs. Romans required of Mr. Berardini if he had been able to work out the additional five feet along the 15 foot easement? Mr. Berardini indicated this would be no problem. He stated that he didn't know whether this could be done on the east boundary. Mrs. Romans discussed the requirements imposed at the time the waiver was granted in 1979, namely that curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving be installed. -8- This has not been done to this date. The staff had indicated to the church representatives that the curb, gutter, and sidewalk did not have to be in-• stalled until the "Brown House" was relocated to the present location. How- ever, the house has been relocated for several years now, and the curb, gutter, and sidewalk has still not been installed. It is suggested that no building permits be issued until the curb, gutter, and sidewalk work is completed to city specification. Mr. Berardini stated that Mr. and Mrs. Chesler are agree- able to installing the vertical curb. Mr. Gilchrist discussed a statement that had been on the bottom of the Tepe Subdivision Waiver considered just previously, which indicated that all costs incurred would be the responsibility of the applicant; he stated that this statement to which he refers makes it mandatory that the applicant pay the costs, but such a statement does not appear on the application filed by the Cheslers. Mr. Berardini stated that the applicants do expect to bear the costs incurred as a result of the application with the exception of the fire hydrant; he stated that he did not know who would bear the expense of the installation of the fire hydrant. Mr. Berardini asked if it was the intent of the Commission that this cost be imposed on Mr. and Mrs. Chesler? ·Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt if the statement making it mandatory that the costs incurred as a result of the application are to be assumed by the applicant is approved as a part of the Waiver, this would be a cost to the applicants. Mr. Berardini stated that he would agree that the five conditions imposed by the Community Development Department on the granting of the waiver would be mandatory. Mr. Berardini asked if any member of the Commission had an estimate on the cost of a fire hydrant installation? Mr. Allen stated that it could range from $4,000 to $25,000, depending on the tap fee, and where it is located. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked if such an expense is normally charged to the City or to the developer? Mrs. Romans pointed out that the developer of the Navajo Industrial Park had to bear the cost of the fire hydrant installation, as have other developers in the City, and that this is not a cost that the City normally assumes. Mrs. Romans sug- gested that possibly the applicants and Mr. Berardini may want to meet with Fire Marshal Groditski to determine the necessity for such an installation since the hydrant would not be on the Chesler property. Further discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer called a recess of the Commission to enable Mr. Berardini to confer with his clients on the matter of the fire hydrant installation. The meeting reconvened with the following members present: Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen. absent. Barbre, Becker, No members were Mr. McBrayer stated that during the recess, the possibility of delaying this matter for two weeks was considered to give additional time to reach a reso- lution on the matter of the fire hydrant. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to ask the staff to present information to the Commission at the next meeting justifyi ng the requirement of a fire hydrant; iS it to alleviate an existing problem, or would this particular division of land require the in- stallation of a fire hydrant by itself. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would also like information presented on where the water to serve this site would come from, and if this site is served by Denver water, would it be Denver that would have to install the fire hydrant? • -9- Mrs. Romans stated that she understood Mr. Berardini has been working with Mr. Fonda relative to utility service. Mrs. Romans stated that if Mr. and Mrs. Chesler are agreeable to the additional time, there appear to be several things that need further clarification. Mr. ~cBrayer suggested that the Commission be presented with an up-dated staff report and list of conditions to be imposed on the granting of the waiver, and suggested that the drainage problem caused by a gap in the berm also be included as a condition to be met by the applicant. Mrs. Romans stated that a drainage plan would have to be submitted before a building permit could be issued; drainage problems would be taken care of at that time, if it has not Qeen taken care of at this date. Mr. Chesler has stated that the gap has been repaired, and that the water has been retained on the site. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Berardini stated that his clients are not opposing adequate fire pro- tection, but they would like clarificaton of what properties are to be served by this fire hydrant, and the estimated cost of installation. Mr. Berardini reiterated that the only question in the mind of his clients is the matter of the fire hydrant; they are willing to commit to the remainder of the conditions suggested by the staff. Mr. Tanguma spoke in opposition to postponing the decision on this matter for two weeks; he pointed out that the only question is on the fire hydrant. Mr. McBrayer questioned whether the Commission could grant the subdivision waiver without addressing the issue of the fire hydrant. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that a city department made the recommendation that a fire hydrant be in- stalled, and that it is policy that the developers pay for the hydrant if it is required to provide service to the development. Further discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Berardini if the applicants would rather have the matter delayed for two weeks, or if approval was granted at this meeting, have the cost of the fire hydrant installation imposed on th~ applicant? Mr. Berardini stated that he felt the question of cost of the fire hydrant was important and should be addressed, and whether a fire hydrant is needed in this particular location should also be determined. Mr. Allen pointed out that if a water line is not available to serve the fire hydrant, there could be great expense in the extension of the water line. Mr. Berardini stated that he understood there is a water line in South University Boulevard; there is no sewer line. Mr. Gilchrist again made reference to the statement included on the previous subdivision waiver that mandated all costs incurred to be paid by the applicant, and stated that inasmuch as Mr. Berardini had indicated that the inclusion of such a statement on this application was acceptable, he did not feel the questions of costs of the fire hydrant was of conceni to the Commission; it would be the responsibility of the applicant if it were required. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had discussed the statement on the pre- vious subdivision waiver during the recess; this statement is not a usual feature of the subdivision waiver applications, and was added by that par- ticular applicant. The secretary is responsible for keeping the records and application forms, and has stated that she did not type this statement on that application. Mrs. Romans stated that she did not see anything wrong with the inclusion of a similar statement on the Chesler Subdivision Waiver application, however. -10- Mr. Gilchrist asked the staff opinion on who should bear the costs incurred • by the application? Mrs. Romans stated that the costs are normally assigned to the developer. Discussion ensued. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: Case #17-82, Subdivision Waiver application by Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Chesler, be continued to August 17th, 1982. AYES: NAYS: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Stoel Tanguma, Gilchrist The motion carried. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #9-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #9-82, amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish standards for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals . to follow in granting variances to the Sign Code, were to be considered. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on .Case #9-82, as written, and refer said Findings of Fact to the City Council. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, ·carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. CASE #11-82 Mr.McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact pertaining to Case #11-82, amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to allow for exemption of public utilities owned and/or operated by the City of Englewood from meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #11-82 be approved as written, and that said Findings of Fact be referred to the City Council. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Gilchrist, Stoel The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. -11- VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans reported that progress is continuing on the Waterford Develop- ment, and on the Cinderella City remodeling. The Promote Englewood Committee will have their next meeting August 10th at 7:30 A.M. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. McBrayer asked for an up-date on the Hearing that was scheduled for July 26th? Mr. Holland stated that the Court had another matter under consideration, and declined to hear the matter. Mr. Holland stated that a motion to quash the subpoenas was set for hearing on December 21st, and that a hearing on the merits of the case were set for January 25th, 1983. Discussion ensued. Ms. Becker cited newspaper articles and verbal concerns that have been ex- pressed to her concerning the role, responsibility and authority of the Planning Commission, particularly in relation t o other boards and commissions of the City. Ms. Becker stated that she would like to suggest that a study session be scheduled to thoroughly investigate and discuss this matter. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer read a letter from Mr. John Pearce of Englewood Hardware, ex- pressing his appreciation to the Planning Commission for their concern and interest in the problems facing some of the businessmen who will be relocated during the redevelopment program. Mr. McBrayer presented a letter tqat he had drafted regarding the need for a relocation plan, and assistance to the businessmen who will be displaced. Discussion on the draft letter ensued. Mr. Holland discussed various sources which set forth the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Planning Commission. He stated that he would review these various sources for the Commission at a study session if the Commission would so desire. The Commission indicated that Mr. Holland should gather this information for discussion at a later time. Further discussion ensued regarding the draft of the letter Mr. McBrayer had prepared. Mrs. Becker suggested that the letter be amended by rewording the first sentence of the last paragraph and including that sentence in the second paragraph. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The letter proposed by Mr. McBrayer, as amended, be sent to the Urban Renewal Authority. Discussion ensued. It was suggested that perhaps the letter would more properly be sent to the City Council, and let any communication to the Urban Renewal Authority come from the City Council. Further discussion followed. Mr. Carson and Mr. Stoel withdrew their motion. It was suggested that the letter be redrafted by the staff and Mr. McBrayer, and sent to the City Council. -12- Becker moved: Carson seconded: The staff and Chairman McBrayer be authorized to rewrite the letter and send it to City Council. AYES: McBrayer, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Gilchrist The motion carried. Mr. Stoel and Mr. Gilchrist reported on the Landscaping Committee. Mr. Stoel stated that it was his opinion that the City Greenhouses could not be of too much assistance in providing plantings. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he was very impressed with the staff and their dedication to their job; he felt they were doing a great job considering what they have been given to work with. Mr. Gilchrist noted that at the meeting of July 13th, he and Mr. Stoel had requested suggestions from the Commission on locations that they wanted to see landscaped; he noted that no suggestions have been received yet. Further brief discussion followed. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Gertrude G, Welty Recording Secretary CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 11-82, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO ) AN AMENDMENT TO §22.1-8 OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ) ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 1963, ) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO; ) WHICH AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE ) EXEMPTION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES ) PRESENTLY OWNED OR OPERATED BY ) THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND PUBLIC ) UTILITIES TO BE OWNED OR OPERATED ) BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. ) A Public Hearing was held on July 20, 1982, in connection with Case No. 11-82 in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mrs. Beck~r, Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mr. Carson, Mr. McBrayer, and Mr. Senti. The following members were absent: Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Stoel. 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 Rearing was given. 2. That upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood by Resolution No. 49, Series of 1979, on December 3, 1979, and that 113 Englewood citizens, property owners, and business people participated in the development of that Comprehensive Plan. 3. That in approving the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council adopted certain goals for the City which were developed by the Comprehensive Plan Review Committees, which goals affirm the desire of the citizens of Englewood, the primary goal being to continue to maintain Englewood as one of only three full-service communities in the Denver Metropolitan area. 4. That as a full-service city, the government has assumed the responsibility to provide the necessary municipal services to the properties within the City. 5. That the provision of these services is essential in order to maintain the health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the community. -2- 6. That the City-owned and operated water and sewer service is provided to residents of the City of Englewood and it is essential that these services be maintained. 7. That at this time, water and sewer services are the only city-owned utilities; but in the future, the City may find it desirable and necessary to provide others. 8. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regulations are ambiguous as to the application of that ordinance to the construction of any city-owned and operated public utilities and this issue should be remedied. 9. That by exempting City-owned and operated utilities from the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which may be conflicting, the City can fulfill its obligation to provide and maintain the necessary facilities for the health, safety, welfare and convenience of its residents . 10. That the Water and Sewer Board and the City Council review the installation of City-owned and operated utilities and will evaluate the necessity of such installation to the public before giving approval. 11. That no persons appeared at the Public Hearing who indicated a desire to address the Commission either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendment to §22.1-8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in compliance with §22.3-4 of the Comprehensive Zcning Ordinance. 2. That no persons present wished to address the Commission in regard to this matter. 3. That the goals for the long-range planning for the desired development of the City of Englewood, Colorado, were approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 49, Series of 1979, upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission and recorded in the office of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. 4. That Article VIII, Part II, Section 58 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Englewood, Colorado, sets forth the duties of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, stating that "it shall prepare and recommend to the City Council, a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance or proposed amendments or revisions thereto with such provisions as the Commission shall deem necessary or desirable for the promotion of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City." 5. That the Commission is of the opinion that the proposed amend- ment to §22.1-8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance exempting City-owned and operated public utilities from regulations of said Ordinance will further the goals of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and will carry out the directive of the City Charter. 6. That the Water and Sewer Board and City Council review the -3- installation of City-owned and operated utilities and will evaluate the necessity for the installation to the public before giving approval. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council, that th~ Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963, as amended, be amended by adding §22.1-8 to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which states: §22 ,1-8 Applicability of Regulations The regulations, requirements, limitations and pro- visions of the Ordinance shall not apply to public utilities presently owned or operated by the City of Englewood and public utilities to be owned or operated PY the City of Englewood. However, this does not re- lieve from the duty to obtain building permits those contractors who build or assist in building any City- owned or operated utility. Upon the vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Jµly 20, 1982. Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Allen, Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Carson, Mr. Senti, Mr. Tanguma. Those members voting in opposition to the motion: Mr. McBrayer. Those members absent: Mr. Stoel and Mr. Gilchrist. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. IV\ M Edwin McBrayer, Jr., CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 9-82, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO AN AMENDMENT TO §22.2-6 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES OF 1963, CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO; WHICH AMENDMENT RE- LATES TO THE VARIANCE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED RELATIVE TO VARIANCES FROM §22.7 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SIGN CODE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) A Public Hearing was held on July 20, 1982, in connection with Case No. 9-82. in the City Council Chambers in the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Allen, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Barbre, Mr. Carson, Mr. McBrayer and Mr. Senti. The following members were absent: Mr. Gilchrist, and Mr. Stoel. 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 upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council adopted a new and revised Sign Code for the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1982, on July 6, 1982, and that Englewood citizens, property owners, and business people participated in the development of that Sign Code. 3. That upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood by Resolution No. 49, Series of 1979, on December 3, 1979, and that 113 Englewood citizens actively participated in the development of that Plan. 4. That in approving the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council adopted certain goals for the City, which goals affirm the desire of the citizens of Englewood to, inter alia: Encourage and support the vitality and the existing variety of established businesses; Provide the climate for attracting new businesses, thus increasing our tax base; and • -2- Improve the visual aspects of businesses both in the central business district and along commercial strips. To this end, attention must be given to sign control in these areas. Improve the visual quality of the City. 5. To improve and enhance the aesthetic character of the City and protect the residential, commercial and industrial areas in the City, it was necessary to seek the removal of signs which detract from the aesthetic standards of the community or which pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, in the most expeditious manner possible. 6. That the criteria by which the request for a variance to other sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is weighed are not necessarily applicable to requests for variances to the Sign Code, and for this reason, new criteria has been developed which will pertain specifically to the re- quests for variances from the regulations pertaining to signs. 7. That the repealed Sign Code had no amortization provision and "grandfathered" in all signs which were in existence at the time it was adopted. 8. That many signs are in existence throughout the City which will not be permitted under the new ordinance, and steps will be taken to notify the owner or lessee of all signs which must be removed or brought into compliance within a specified time period. 9. That if the owner or lessee of the sign which is not in compliance with the new Sign Code wishes to appeal the notice, an appeal is first made to the Director of Community Development. 10. That if the owner or lessee of the abandoned, nonconforming, or prohibited sign is not satisfied with the decision of the Director, an appeal can be made to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (with the exception of hazardous signs). 11. That the procedure which must be followed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in considering requests for variances to provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is set forth in the amended §22.2-6c Variance. 12. That persons and businesses which did not conform to the regula- tions of this new and revised Sign Code be given a recourse to any actions taken upon them by the City of Englewood. 13. That by establishing new variance criteria relating specifically to Sign Code regulations concise review procedure can be developed to more effectively deal with variances from this Code. 14. That no persons appeared at the Public Hearing who indicated a desire to address the Commission either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed amendment to §22.2-6 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. -3- CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given in compliance with §22.3-4 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2. That no persons present wished to address the Conunission in regard to this matter. 3. That the Goals for the long-range planning for the develop- ment of the City of Englewood, Colorado, were approved by the City Council in Ordinance No.29, Series of 1982, upon the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission and recorded in the off ice of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. 4. That the following goals of the City of Englewood as stated in the Comprehensive Plan are germane to the issue at hand: To encourage and support the vitality and the existing variety of established businesses; To provide the climate for attracting new businesses, thus in .creasing our tax base; and To improve the visual aspects of businesses both in the central business district and along commercial strips. To this end, attention must be given to sign control in these areas. To improve the visual quality of the City. 5. That the Commission is of the opinion that considering an amendment to the variance criteria presently established which would specifically address variances from §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Sign Code, will further goals of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the reconunendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council, that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963, as amended, be amended by adding §22.2-6c(2) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which states: §22.2-6c(2) In considering a request for a variance to the Sign Code, §22.7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall determine that: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions such as the existence of buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters • on adjacent lots or within the adjacent public right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; pro- vided, however, that such special circumstances • •• 2. 3. 4. -4- or conditions must be peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. The variance, if authorized, will weaken neither the general purpose of this Ordinance nor the regulations prescribed for the District in which the sign is located. The variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential character of the District in which the sign is located. The variance, if authorized, will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of ad- jacent conforming property. Upon the vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on July 20, 1982. Those members voting in favor of the motion: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre. Those members voting in opposition: None. Absent were: Gilchrist and Stoel. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. / I