The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1963-12-19 PZC MINUTESPage 738 I. CALL TO ORDER . CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 19, 1963 The meeting was informally called to order at 8:25 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Touchton. Members present: Ca rlson; Miles; Touchton Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Hill; Love; Rice Staff present: Tom Eitel; Wayne Mon son I I . CASE #17 -63 The Vice-Chairman stated that inasmuch as a quorum was not present; informal discussion o f the Subdivision Regulations would be held. Mrs. Romans stated that the Subdivision Regulations were adopted in 1957 and that it had seemed wise to review them at this time. Mr. Eitel, a member of the Planning Department staff, has been assigned to go through the Regulations and to point out any areas which should be dis- cussed with the Commission. Inasmuch as a quorum was not present, Mr. Eitel's presentation was rather general. Mr. Eitel cited Section 21.3-4(a) o f the Municipal Code which states: "Subdivision required. The division of land within the City into two or more lots, tracts, sites or parcels, any one of which has an area of less than three acres, must be accomplished by the filing and acceptance of a plat as specified within this chapter." There was some discussion as to whether or not three acres was feasible or whether it should be more or less than three acres . The problem o f the building site which is in excess o f the minimum fr ontage or area require- ments was discussed. In some instances, this question has come up. For example, the lot in an R-1-C Zone District which is 100' x 125' with the existing structure located in such a way that an additional building site could be available. In such an instance, would the developer be required to submit a subdivision, or , as has been done on occasion in the past , could a variance be granted? Mr. Eitel stated that according to Section 22.2-6(c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance , and accepted zoning practices, a variance should be granted only when unique circumstances exist on a parcel of property and such circumstances would create an unusual hardship on any owner of that parcel if he tried to conform to zoning standards in developing his property. Therefore, variances are not applicable to the subdivision of land. Section 21.3-5c(5) Exceptions, was discussed. Mr. Eitel asked whether or not the Commission felt this particular section should be tied down more closely. Mr. Carlson stated the reason the four-site restriction was included was to aid the developer. Mr. Touchton stated Section 22.3-4c(4) provided restrictions and asied if c(5) was necessary. Mr. Eitel stated in that event, building permits could be issued and an entire area developed without benefit of subdivision. The City, in such instance could not be assured of an o rder ly development or that the proper improvements would be installed. Further discussion foll owed on this particular section. Section 21.4-5 was also thoroughly discussed. Section 21.4-6 was discussed in regard to Bond requirement and improvements. Hearings on Subdivisions were als o discussed, and it was pointed out that a Hearing could be held on the Preliminary Plat , or Bond be required for improvements before Hearing is held on the Final Plat and approval given. Detailed discussion followed. It was felt the method of holding a Hearing on the Preliminary Plat might be less expensive to the developer and would have merit. III. Mrs. Ibbotson, from Andy Lucas Realty, Denver , Colorado, was present to ask the Com- mission to consider amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to include a new I-3 Zone District for auto wrecking and junk yards , or to include these uses as a permitted use in one of the existing zone classifications. Mrs. Ibbotson explained she felt there was a "definite need" for a zone classification permitting this type use in Englewood, and she felt the City would be gaining on a tax basis. The proposal was discussed, and it was pointed out to Mrs. Ibbotson that the City did at one time have such a zone classification. It was not felt to be a desirable classification and, as no area was so zoned, the classification was not included in the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Touchton stated the Commission would consider the situation on an informal basis, and if formal action was desired, to appear before the Commission at the next regular meeting at which time it would be hoped a quorum could be present. Mr. Love entered and was seated with the Commission. IV. The meeting was formally called to order with the following members present: Carlson; Love; Miles; Touchton Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Hill; Rice Staff present: Tom Eitel; Wayne Monson I I I I I I V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Miles moved: Love seconded: The Minutes of December 5, 1963, be approved as presented. The motion carried unanimously. VI. JOHN-TETER-McFARLAND 3700, 3800, 3900, and 4000 blocks South Grant, Logan , Pennsylvania, Pearl and Washington. Carlson moved: REZONING R-1-C to R-2-B. Page 739 CASE #ll-63B Miles seconded: The matter of the John-Teter-McFarland Rezoning be raised fr om the table. The motion carried unanimously. The case was discussed. It was pointed out that in a Land Use Study made of the area, there were many non-conforming and/or illegal two-family uses existing. Discussion f ollo wed. Love moved: Miles seconded: The Planning Commission deny the zone change request from R-1-C to R-2-B in the 3700, 3800, 3900, and 4000 blocks of South Grant, Logan, Pennsylvania, Pearl and Washington f or the following reasons: (1) The Public Hearing held December 5, 1963, indicated a difference in desires of the residents of the area. (2) A change of zoning in this area would appear to be an attempt to legalize present illegal uses. (3) Present non-conforming and illegal uses constitute a small portion of the total area. (4) The zone change request included 15 blocks , in which there are only 4 undeveloped sites. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Touchton stated he felt the adoption o f a Housing Code would make a two-family residential use compatible in this area; also he felt the trend in the area is toward a higher density zone classification, but in this instance the proposed change was untimely in view of no Housing Code. VII. Fairley Rezoning R-2-B to I-1 Case #15-63A The Area was indicated on the Map. The discussion o f the case at the meeting o f December 5 was reviewed. Mrs. Romans read an interpretation of the Rules and Regulations from City Attorney Esch. Further discussion followed. Carlson moved: Love seconded: The Public Hearing for the rezoning request submitted by Mr. & Mrs. R.J. Fairley for change o f zone from R-2-B to I-1 be set for March 19, 1964. The motion carried unanimously. VIII. Fout Subdivision Case #10-63D Mr. Monson reported all Preliminary Plats sent to Utilities Companies and Departments had been returned and were in order. The Engineer's Department had indicated there will be no problem in regard to drainage or serving the area with sewer. Discussion f ollowed as to whether a Public Hearing should be set on the Preliminary Plat or on the Final Plat. The Commission asked that the Fouts be contacted and asked to attend the next meeting, to discuss this particular situation. IX. Annexation. The possibility of annexing the area South o f Belleview at Broadway was discussed. The annexation of this area was recommended by the Commission some time ago, but annexation was not completed. It was moved, seconded, and carried the meeting be adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary Page 740 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 19, 1963 SUBJECT: Denial of Rezoning Request ACTION: Love moved: Miles seconded: The Planning Commission deny the zone change request from R-1-C to R-2-B in the 3700, 3800, 3900, and 4000 blocks of South Grant, Logan, Pennsylvania, Pearl and Washington for the following reasons: (1) The Public Hearing held December 5, 1963 indicated a difference in desires of the residents of the area. (2) A change of zoning in this area would appear to be an attempt to legalize present illegal uses. (3) Present non-conforming and illegal uses constitute a small portion of the total area. (4) The zone change request included 15 blocks, in which there are only 4 undeveloped sites. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted , By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I I