Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-12-22 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 521 Holding Capacity - In communities which are surrounded or where future boundaries can be determined, another forecasting method exists. Although it involves some detailed research and some bold decision making, it provides a goal rather than a mere future popula- tion estimate. A study is made of the present ci~y holding capacity. Next a decision is cast as to the optimum desired population. The zoning and annexation policies are then adjusted so as to reach that size. There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 10:20 P. M. Recording Secretary Howard W. Nies For Susie M. S c hneider APPROVED: David F. Munns ~~~~~----~~~~~-D ;:iv id F. Munns Planning Director MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUN CIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: Subject: Recommendation: December 8, 1960 75 Foot Tract at 2828 South Grant Street That the request to rezone the subject property from R-1-D (one- family residential) to R-2-A (two-family residential) be denied. Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Howard W. Nies for Susie M. Schneider Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Minutes of December 22, ,1960 The Planning Meeting was called to order by Chairman Kelley at 8:00 P. M. Members Present: Hill; Rice; Martin, Miles, Kelley, Romans Munns, Ex-officio Mr. Nies, Planning Assistant, was also present. Members Absent: None I. The minutes of December 8, 1960 were approved as read, II. Auto Wrecking Yard Amendment Hearing No. 42-60D October 6, 1960 Junk Yards October 20, 1960 " November 10, 1960 " November 22, 1960 " ., " " " Mr. Nies gave a resume on previous studies and comments on the auto wrecking yards in Scenic View. The proposed amendment will establish a new M-3 Industrial District which will re- quire auto wrecking yards to keep books, have a solid fence and be maintained in an orderly manner. The Chairman asked if the amendment had been properly published for public hearing. Mr. Nies answered in the affirmative. Romans moved: Martin seconded: That the hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. The Chairman inquired as to those who wished to speak in favor of this amendment. Mr. Robert Downing -Mr. Downing said the Industrial Development Committee of the Chamber Engl e wood Chamber of of Commerce enthusiastically favors the amendment and read a paper which Commerce supported his statement. The Chairman asked if there were any others present, for or againstthe amendment. There were none. Hill moved: Romans seconded: That the hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Page 522 Romans asked if there was a time limit when the pres en t auto wrecking yard s had to comply with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Nies replied there was none and discussion ensued. It was agreed that the time limit should remain the same as the time limit on the present amendment which gives the owner and /or operators until Sept. 18, 1961 to comply. Rice moved: Martin seconded: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Ordinance No. 45 , Series of 1955 as amended , be amended as follows: 1. By deleting the existing wording of Sub-section 1 (e) f2) and (10) of Section 13 of Article I V . 2. By redesignating Section 14 of Article IV to Section 15 of Article IV. 3. By redesignation Section 15 of Article IV to Section 16 of Article I V. 4. By deleting the following existing wording of Subsection 1 (a) of Section 2 of Article "Subsection 1 (e) (2) of Section 13 of Article IV of this Ordinance." 5. By adding to wording of Subsection 1 (a) of Section 2 of Ar t icle V the following wording: "Subsection 2 of Section 14 of Article IV of this Ordinance." 6. By adding to Subsection 1 (b) Section 13 of Article I V the following: (except those uses specifically allowed in the M-3 zone) 7. By adding to Subsection 1 (b), Section 12, Article IV the following: (Except those uses specifically allowed in the M-3 zone) 8. By substituting a new Section 14 of Article IV as follows: Section 14 -M-3 -Industrial District. The following regulations shall apply in the M-3 Industrial District: 1. Unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no building, structure or land shall be used, altered (structurally), enlarged or maintained except for one or more of the following uses: (1) Auto dismantling Yards ~2) Auto wrecking yards (3) Auto storage yards (4) Commercial incinerators 2. In addition to the supplemental regulations estab l ished in the M-2 zone the following shall apply to auto dismantling, auto wrecking and auto storage yards; (a) The premises or yard where such operations are conducted shall be enclosed on its perimeter with a solid, non-transparent, verti c al wall or fence with a minimum height of six feet measured from ground level. Two vehicle gates and one normal pedestrian gate or door shall be allowed providing they are also of solid, non-transparent construction . (b) The vehicle gates shall not exceed twenty feet in width at the perimeter of the premises . (c) The aforesaid solid, non-transparent wall or fence and the gates or doors, if any, shall not contain any advertising sign or poster other than that needed to identify the enclosed business. (d) The above requirements shall be complied with no later than September 18 , 1961. (e) The said operations shall not encroach upon or use any area outside of aforesaid fence. (f) Autos shall be stored in a sanitary condition and stacking (placing of one auto body on top of another ) of autos shall be prohibited. (g) Every dealer shall keep at his said place of business a substantial and well-bound book in which he must enter in writing the names and residences of persons from whom he shall purchase or receive items. This book, only at reasonable times, shall be open to inspection by auth orized representative of the City of Englewood . The motion carried unanimously. I I I I I I III. Planning Office Adams Tract Land Northeast of Federal- Union Intersection. Page 523 Hearing No. 40 -60D September 22, 1960 October 20, 1960 November 22, 1960 December 8, 1960 The proposed rezoning for this tract has been advertised for public hearing to be held January 5, 1961. The industrial subdivision preliminary plan is called "Riverside Industrial Park." No action is required at this time. IV. Extended Annexation Studies The Commission was informed that Mr.Nies will be doing some off-hours study on future annexations for the Industrial Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. V. I CRPC Meeting The Planning Director asked if all the Commission members had received the minutes and reports of ICRPC . When they replied in the affirmative , he requested that since the reports were lengthy the members read them at home. VI. Von Frellick Associates The Planning Director asked if all the Commission members had received the Von Frellick Associates report of December 13th. When they replied in the affirmative, he requested since the reports were lengthy the members read them at home. VII. City of Englewood Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Hearing No. 45-60A November 22, 1960 The Chairman asked if the amendment had been properly published for public hearing. Mr. Nies replied in the a ff irmative. The Chairman stated that for several years the Commission and Council have considered simultaneous annexation and zoning as the present system is too slow and unrealistic. Until recently, however, it was Mr. Esch's opinion that since the district court in Greeley had ruled against a similar ordinance that it was not advisable. Subsequently the supreme court reversed this decision. According to Colorado Municipal League, Colorado cities which have this type of ordinance or are considering one are: Greeley, Brighton, Commerce Town, Westminister, Estes, Aurora, Golden and Boulder. Romans moved: Martin seconded: That the hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Director briefly outlined the present ordinance and the Proposed , Amendment as follows: THE PRESENT ANNEXATION PROCEDURE - 1. Petition to Council 2. Referral to City Attorney for lega li ty 3. Referral to Planning Commission for report 4 . Publication four times in paper 5. Pass bill on first r e ading 6. Publish once as a bill 7 . Pass on second reading 8. Publish following Thursday 9. Annexation complete 30 days later Area is now in Englewood with R-1-A zoning. TIME: 2 1 /2 to 3 months HEARING: None PRESENT RE-ZONING PROCEDURE 1. Application to Planning Commission 2. Hearing before Planning Commission 3. Recommendation to Council 4. Hearing before Council -1st reading 5. Publish once as a bill 6. Pass on second reading 7. Publish following Thursday 8. Rezoning complete 30 days later TIME: 3 to 4 months HEARING: 2 * If Planning Commission denies -override = 5 out of 7 vote or (2 /3) * If 20 % of property owners in, or adjacent, object _,override = 6 out of 7 or (3 /4) PROPOSED AMENDMENT Alternative I -Present Procedure Alternative II Concurrent annexation and zoning ~age 524 1 . Petition to Council 2 . Referral to City Attorney f or le g ali t y 3. Referral to .Planning Commission for report 4 . Resolution accepting petition AREA NOT IN ENGLEWOOD Annexation and zoning petition now mus t g o through present rezoning and annexation pro- cedure. TIME: 3 to 4 months HEARING: 2 The Chairman asked for those who wished to speak in favor of the amendment. Robert Downing Englewood Chamber of Commerce -Read the following report from the Board of Directors : "There is a need for the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that is being discussed here to n igh t . It is a realistic approach , with this new proposal surrounding property owners will be f ully informed of proposed usage when annexed land is broug ht in under R-1-A , a zoning classification now constituting only a small area within our corporate limits ~ I f the land is desired to be used for other purposes non-conforming to R-1-A , applicants must "take their chances " as no prior commitments can be made either by this Commissionnor the City Council at the time the area is annexed as to what zoning will be granted. This proposed amendment will enhance proper planning , a necessary factor in the future planning and development of Englewood , and will streamline and modernize the approach to proper and orderly annexation and zoning . If this amendment to the zoning ordinance is approved, it can well preclude possible problems delays and even potential Court cases based upon unfair (in the terms of the objectors) and arbitrary actions by the Commission or the Council that could possibly arise through uncoordinated annexation and zoning procedures . The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide more safeguards for the citizens of Englewood and the property owners and residents in the areas surrounding the land under consideration than the present method of annexation and zoning . Under the present system , land can be annexed to Englewood without any public Hearing. The proposed amendment requi:es that hearings will be held if the area is to have any zoning other than R-1-A. Both the present and the proposed systems have two hearings. However , annexation is complete under the present method before any change of zoning is legally given consideration. The proposed method dictates tha t both hearings, before this Commission and the City Council, will be held before any annexation action is taken . Legally this provides betta-protection for the citizenry and the area residents. The present method of annexation doesn't give any consideration to zoning , whereas the proposed method of annexation has an important part in the matter of zoning and f u t ure land use. The proposed legislation is not something new that this Commission has dreamed up. Some of the cities in this area now having similar laws include , Westminster , Brighton, Commerce Town , and Greeley . We understand that the Inter-County Regional Planning Commission looks with favor on this proposal as it will lend itself to sound planning . To show the problems of the present system and the improvement capable through adoption of the amendment we have prepared a hypothetical case. Suppose an area wishing to annex to Englewood under the existing law must be zoned R-1-A. This area is being used and is best suited f or industrial , but prior to a request and any action on re-zoning to i ndustrial , an owner of a piece of property in the area requests a building permit to construct a home meeting the R-1-A standards. Could he legally be denied a permit to build since it is zoned as such? Granted, such action is possibly stretching the imagination , but it might happen. To carry this hypothetical case further , let's presume t his individual was granted the permit and built his R-1-A type home. Shortly thereafter , the area is brought before this Commission to request rezoning to industrial . Would not this new home owner be entitled and have logical reasons to protect such a change that would possibly be damaging to the valuepf his property? Again I say , this may be stretching the imagination , b ut it does exemplify the problems that exis t as the ordinance is now written. If this amendment is adopted the zoning of the area would be established during the process of annexation and such a problem would not exist. Take also the case of areas to be annexed where existing land use is already industrial, commercial, multi-family, or other than R-1-A . Is it not an unrealistic approach to annex under our present ordinance restrictions and then be forced to re-zone to conform with its usage . It is the belief of the Committees of the Englewood Chamber of Commerce and its Board o f Directors who have studied and discussed this proposal that the objective and impartial examination that they have given it by the Commission and the City Council has shown and will show that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is necessary to the well being, planning and proper development of the Ci t y of Englewood; that any disadvantages, either past, present or future , are far outweighted by the advantages to the entire community in the form of an honest and realistic approach to annexation and zoning, and therefore, the Englewood Chamber of Commerce , b y action of its committees , and its Board o f Directors , wholeheartedly support the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and recommends to this Commission and to the City Council that its passage be enacted ." Harry E. Carleno - 50 2 0 S. Fox Mr. Carleno stated that he handles qui t e a few annexations and rezonings for his clients and complained of the constant confus i on because he can't assure his clients of any particular type of zoning. Under the present ordinance he has to go according to land usage o r if i t is vacant land he has to use his own judgement . When he circulates petitions there is of t en a misunderstanding as to what zoning is being requested . I I I I I I Page 525 Martin Dueth 2201 E. Floyd -Stated that he was Chairman of Northeast Englewood Citizens Committee. As Harold Feder - 3275 S. Gilpin a group they are somewhat concerned with the changing of such a complex pro- cedure but if it is a good thing they are for it. Stated t h at he was counsel for the Northeast Englewood Citizens Committee and submitted the following report for the rommission's consideration . As counsel for the Northeast Englewood Citizens Committee I submit the following report. 1 . Basic Premise: It is the desire of our committee to foster and support sound zoning practices for the City of Englewood. With that goal in mind, it is urged that any contemplated change to the City Zoning Ordinance be approached from a standpoint of careful consideration of the following: a. The content of the proposed change from a sound zoning-planning aspect, as the same bears upon an area plan to be developed by the City of Englewood, prior to the adoption of the contemplated ordinance change. b. The legal implications of the proposed change. c. An examination of how the proposed zoning ordinance change would b e applied in a wide range of situations, from a practical and realistic analysis. d. A careful examination of what might be self-serving motives of interests which pro- pose alteration of the existing ordinance. e. Contemplation of the public reaction which may result from official action by the Englewood Planning Commission in the context of a zoning-annexation dispute , and, at the apparent instigation of parties in interest. 2. Content and examination of proposed change: In order to obtain the best and most current technical views of various annexation-zoning ordinances throughout the United States, it is suggested that the Commission direct a detailed letter of inquiry to : The American Society of Planning Officers 1313 E. 60th Street Chicago 37 , Illinois This letter might well request information as to the proper method of ·integrating zoning -annexation ordinance with area development plans. 3. Legal problems of zoning-annexation ordinances: There are three basic types of zoning- annexation ordinances in current use; each has at least one major legal problem involved in its application. The various types of ordinances are set forth below, in addition to notations as to the major legal difficulty with each. It is urged that the City Attorney be requested to make a detailed analysis as to the legality of the contemplated change as well as other types of ordinances available to achieve the desired ends. Consideration should be likewise given to legal requirements governing referral of contemplated zoning changes to city and /or county planning and zoning bodies of areas surrounding the land to be annexed. a. Annexation of land under highest zoning category: This method provides maximum pro- tection for landowners surrounding the land to be annexed. Nevertheless, this type of ordinance may be subject to attack upon the theory that the high residential classification is completely .arbitrary and without justification in a given fact situation. b . Annexation of land with no zoning designated: The major enefit of this approach is that a separate hearing may be had as to the two issues present; land may be annexed in spite . of objections to a particular zoning classification. This type of ordinance opens the door to annexation involving considerable risk to the owner desiring to have land annexed; no guaranty of ultimate zoning can be given . Annexation may often be accomplished without sufficient notice to surrounding landowners. The steps required for an automatic zoning proceeding following the annexation may be delayed . c. Concurrent zoning -annexation proceedings: This plan allows annexation of valuable land , and particularly with reference to sound growth based upon an area development plan. Because of doctrinal legal concepts regarding political boundaries, it is highly possible that land owners may have no legal status to object to proposed zoning of land to be annexed while that land lies outside of the municipality. There is also a serious question as to whether a zoning authority may assign specific classifica- tions to land technically beyond its jurisdiction. 4. Examination of motives and public reaction: Consideration of the motivation causing a particular interest group to initiate an ordinance change and factors of public reaction must be left to the sound discretion of the Commission. In conclusion, it is urged that the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission investigate the proposed ordinance amendment from every aspect of sound zoning-annexation procedures. The Northeast Englewood Citizens Committee suggests that detailed consideration of the problem areas enumerated herein be completed prior to a recommendation by the Commission regarding the proposed change. Our commi t tee, as well as the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission, is vitally concerned with sound growth for Englewood . The future of the City for many years to come may be determined by this proposed ordinance change. Your action must be based upon due deliberation of all aspects of the problem now confronting your Commission. Mr . Feder '. asked the following questions: Page 526 1. What about a multi-ownership annexation wherein different types of zones are requested? 2. Does the r ommission ask the local surrounding planning commissions for their opinions on rezoning? The Planning Director and City Attorney answered the questions presented: 1. A multi-ownership area could quite logically come in under different zones of those zones provided an appropriate land pattern . 2. The Commission does ask the opinion of the surrounding planning bodies if a large area of a regional nature is involved but they are not obligated by those opinions. Dr. Lew Trenner - 3995 S. Cherry Asked if an area refused to be annexed to Englewood, who h ad jurisdiction? The City Attorney said the County had jurisdiction. Mr. Hiester 3600 S . Gilpin -Would the City be limiting growth by refusing to accept a petition which was not zoned properly or put in another way, would this restrict annexation as the zoning would be at the whims of the people who wish to annex. The City Attorney said under the Colorado law the City cannot institute annexations. John Welles 3602 S. Gilpin -Felt that in the petition stage we have committed ourselves, and won't it be hard to reverse the decision in the second part? The Planning Director said we would work with the applicant advising him what zoning is desirable and logical . At that stage ·Only a resolution would result and neither the petitioner nor the City would be obligated to continue the process into the action and completion phase. Mr. Hill -The people have the same opportunity to object and the proposed amendment is more above board. Mrs. Will Lewis --Who can protest annexation? 2398 E. Floyd Pl. The City Attorney replied that only resident property owners within the annex a tion boundaries could legally protest an annexation. Mr. O'Flaherty 2750 S. Williams -Felt the 100' radius for people objecti ng was too small. The City Attorney said that this is a State Statute. Mr. W. Urban 2100 E. Floyd -Under the 20 % rule 15 or 20 people can control. Mr. Rice said any ordinance can come to the vote of the people to be repealed. Mr. Shannon 2161 E. Floyd -Is this the proper time to go into this amendment because of the highly controversial Cinderella City. The Chairman said we should consider that the KLZ land will not remain as is or used only as "Cinderella City Shopping Center." There are other possib i lities for this land. Dr. Trenner -The Doctor said he thinks this is an excellent amendment because of the thorough study involved. Mr. Neilson -Wished to know what experience other communities had had with this type of am endment. The Planning Director said experiences will be learned as we check out the cities using such amendments, and probably we should use Colorado cities experience because of Colorado Law. Miles moved: Hill seconded: That the hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Miles moved: Hill seconded: That the proposed amendment be taken under advisement and vote on it at a later date. The motion carried unanimously. The Commission instructed the Planni ng Director and the City Attorney to work on a specific ordinance. The City Attorney said we should probably have another hearing. Romans moved : Hill seconded : Hill moved: Romans seconded: That when specific ordinance is written that a public hearing be held be- fore the Commission. That the above motion be tabled . Ayes: Nays: Hill , Romans, Kelley Miles Rice, Martin Mr. Rice requested that the first motion be voted on. The results of the voting were: I I I I I Page 527 Ayes: Hill, Romans Nays: Miles, Rice, Martin, Kelley There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Susie M. Schneider Recording Secretary APPROVED: David F . Munns MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: December 22, 1960 Zoning Amendment to Allow Combined Annexation and Zoning That the Zoning Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1955 as amended, be amended as follows: 1. By deleting the existing wording of Sub-section l(e) (2) and (10) of Sect]on 13 of Article IV. 2. By redesignating Section 14 of Article IV to Section 15 of Article IV. 3. By redesignation Section 15 of Article IV to Section 16 of Article IV. 4. By deleting the following existing wording of Subsection l(a) of Section 2 of Article V: "Subsection 1 (e) (2) of Section 13 of Article IV of this Ordinance." 5. By adding to wording of Subsection l(a) of Section 2 of Article V the following wording: "Subsection 2 of Section 14 of Article IV of this Ordinance." 6. By adding to Subsection 1 (b) Section 13 of Article IV the following: (except those uses specifically allowed in the M-3 zone) 7. By adding to Subsection 1 (b), Section 12, Article IV the following: (except those uses specifically allowed in the M-3 zone) 8. By substituting a new Section 14 of Article IV as follows: Section 14 -M-3 -Industrial District. The following regulations shall apply in the M-3 Industrial District: 1. Unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no building, structure or land shall be used, altered (structurally), en- larged or maintained except for one or more of the following uses: (1) Auto dismantling yards (2) Auto wrecking yards (3) Auto storage yards (4) Commercial incinerators 2. In a ddition to the supplemental regulations established in the M-2 zone the following shall apply to auto dismantling , auto wrecking and auto storage yards: (a) The premises or yard where such operations are conducted shall be enclosed on its perimeter with a solid, non- transparent, vertical wall or fence with a minimum height of six feet measured from ground level. Two vehicle gates and one normal pedestrian gate or door shall be allowed providing, they also are of solid, non-transparent con- struction. (b) The vehicle gates shall not exceed twenty feet in width at the perimeter of the premises. (c) The aforesaid solid, non-transparent wall or fence and t~e gates or doors, if any, shall not contain any advertising sign or poster other than that needed to identiry the enclosed business. Page 528 (d) The above requirements shall be complied with no later than September 18 , 1961 . (e) The said operations shall not encroach upon or use any area outside of aforesaid fence. (f) Autos shall be stored in a sanitary condition and stacking (placing of one auto body on top of an- other) of autos shall be prohibited. (g) Every dealer shall keep at his said place of business a substantial and well bound book in which he must enter in writing the names and residences of persons from whom he shall pur- chase or receive items. This book , only at reasonable times, shall be open to inspection by authorized representative of t he City of Englewood. Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Susie M. Schneide r Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I