Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-01-24 PZC MINUTESI I I I. CALL TO ORDER: CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 24, 1963 REGULAR SESSION The meeting was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Rice. Members present: Hill, Kreiling, Love, Miles, Rice Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Pershing Page 691 Also present: Mayor Brownewell, City Manager Dial, City Attorney Esch, Building Inspector Wallace, Board of Adjustment members Clayton, Martin and Mezen. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LOVE MOVED: MILES SECONDED: The Minutes of December 13, 1962, be approved as presented. The motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS: A. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Case #30-62G Chairman Rice stated this meeting with the Board of Adjustment and City Council was to review the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and to consider any comments and suggestions on the Ordinance they might have. Mrs. Romans summarized the basic changes made in the Ordinance; i.e. the combination of the R-1-A and R-1-B districts into an R-1-A zone classification requiring 75 foot frontage; the new R-1-B is the present R-1-C requiring 60 foot frontage; and the present requirement of 60 foot frontage in R-1-D will be changed to 50 foot frontage in the proposed R-1-C. The business and industrial zone district prefixes have been changed to "B" and "I" to conform with similar zones in other cities of the area. The proposed R-4 zone has the same restrictions as the present "T" zone. It is felt that the Non-conforming Use Section is much more flexible in the proposed ordinance than in the present ordinance. Land-fill standards have been added. Mr. Hill questioned the creation of the R-1-C zone with 50 foot frontage. Mr. Wallace pointed out that in the older sections of town particularly, there are often only 50 feet available. It is necessary to make application to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for a variance. It was further pointed out that this change in frontage will make no one non-conforming. Mr. Wallace suggested that the side set-backs in this proposed R-1-C zone be changed to 3 foot on the north side and 7 foot on the South. This would give a minimum of 10 feet between buildings. The Planning Director stated that it has been suggested that public buildings be made a Permitted Use in all Zone Districts. Mr. Wallace questioned the front set-back requirements for public buildings, religious and educational institutions as compared to set-back require- ments for other Permitted Uses. He felt this could be determined as "discriminatory". Mr. Rice felt the set-back requirements could be off-set by the fact that public buildings, religious and educational institutions could build higher than other Permitted Uses. Mrs. Romans further pointed out that the purpose of zoning and the intent of the Ordinance is to provide open space. The situation was discussed and it was suggested by Mr. Love that a provision might be written into the Ordinance whereby a certain percentage of the building could have a 25 foot front set-back, such as an entrance, and the rest of the building con- form to the 35 foot front set-back. Mr. Martin asked if the provision Section F (Jurisdiction and Powers of the Board)3(Variance) (a) (1) on Page 8 of the proposed Ordinance would hold on all variances that came before the Board of Adjustment. It was pointed out that this provision is in the present Ordinance. Mr. Clayton suggested the property be posted and publication given only if the rights of others are affected, thereby giving more flexibility. It was further felt that no request for a variance could meet all the requirements set forth in Section F (Jurisdiction and Powers of the Board) 3 (Variance) (a) (3) of page 8. The situation was thoroughly discussed; it was again suggested posting be required only when adjoining property is affected. Mr. Dial asked if a Building Permit would be denied in a newly annexed area until the zoning procedure has been completec, inasmuch as newly annexed areas come in at no zone. He also asked if construction could be completed when begun under a permit in the County? Also, if construction was not started at time of annexation, but a Building Permit from the County had been obtained, could construction be done, if started within a given date of finalization of the annexation? Mr. Wallace replied that Permits issued by the County in such instances were honored, and could be transferred for a nominal fee. This point was thoroughly discussed. Mr. Esch suggested it be written into this Section whereby construction could be started under the County permit within 60 days of the date the annexation became final; after the 60 day period has expired, a City of Englewood permit must be obtained. Mr. Dial also asked if a parking lot could be permitted in any zone as an adjunct to a business. It was stated such a parking lot would have to be in the same zone as the use to which it is an adjunct. Mr. Wallace suggested that Article II, (Administration of the Ordinance) Section A (Enforce- ment) 1 (Enforcing Official) be amended by adding "except as otherwise provided"; Article VIII, (Definitions) Section 37 Floor Area, be amended by adding "open porches"; Article VIII, (Definitions) Section 42, Garden Level, be changed from 3'6" to 4'6" above grade. He also suggested that the definition of "Occupancy" as taken from the Building Code be added to the list of Definitions. Page 692 Discussion followed on the suggestions and comments brought forth at this meeting. The Chairman thanked the bueses for their comments and told them that the Commission will consider their suggestions. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER: CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 7, 1963 The regular meeting of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Rice at 8:05 P.M. Members present: Kreiling; Love; Pershing; Rice Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Hill; Miles Also present: Assistant Director Hess ICRPC Director TenEyck Mr. Ream II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Love moved: Pershing seconded: The minutes of January 24, 1963 be approved as presented. The motion carried unanimously. III. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Mr. Rice stated that at the first meeting of the Commission in February of each year, it is customary to elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year. Mr. Kreiling nominated Mr. Rice for Chairman. Love moved: Pershing seconded: The nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be cast for Mr. Rice for Chairman. AYES: Kreiling, Love, Pershing NAYS: None ABSTAINING: Rice The motion carried. Mr. Kreiling nominated Mr. Pershing for Vice-Chairman. Love moved: Rice seconded: The nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be cast for Mr. Pershing for Vice-Chairman. AYES: Kreiling, Love, Rice NAYS: None ABSTAINING: Pershing The motion carried. IV. NEW BUSINESS 1. Proposed Extension of M-1 Zone at Oxford and South Lipan. The Planning Director outlined this request briefly for the Commission. Mr. Ream had been to the office and had discussed the possibility of getting his property rezoned to M-1. It was explained to him that to zone only his property M-1 would be spot zoning; however, he could include the property owned by Mr. Rucker to the west of him if Mr. Rucker did not ob- ject. It was suggested that he talk to the Commission and if the Commission felt it would be feasible to extend the M-1 zone it might be included on the revised Comprehensive Zoning Map. Mr. Ream stated he had tried to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment, but was denied, as they did not feel it was within their jurisdiction to grant such a variance. He is in- terested in a sheet metal business on his property. The proposal was discussed by the Commission. It was the feeling of the Commission that they would not be willing to initiate an extension of the industrial zone classification in this area. However, Mr. Ream would certainly be entitled to do so should he wish. I I I