HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 Resolution No. 027•
'
•
. · •
•
RESOLUTION NO. ~7
SERIES OF 1981
7L
A RESOLUTION DENYING REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE FROM · SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BY APPLICANT, GEORGE B. ADAMS, IN
THE 2900 BLOCK OF WEST UNION AVENUE.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the following constitutes the findings
of fact, conclusions, and order of the City Council of Englewood,
Colorado, in the matter of the application of George B. Adams for a
change in zoning of property in Centennial Industrial Park and on
West Union Avenue from single-family residence to light industrial.
This matter came before the Englewood City Council for
public hearing pursuant to the '69 E.M.C. SS 22.3-1 through 22.3-4.
The applicant, George 8. Adams, was represented by Harold Barrett,
Real Estate Agent. Mr. Adams was present and gave testimony on
his own behalf. Also present and testifying for the application
waa Auton Barchesky. Dorothy Romana appeared for the Planning
and Zoning COllllliasion and gave evidence and testimony •
The Council had previously received the reconanendation and
report of the City Planning and Zoning Commission along with
exhi.bita and the complete written record from the Commission.
After heari.ng the evidence of the parties and considering
the reco ... ndation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
City Council makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. Thia matter was properly noticed for public hearing for
May 4, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. by appropriate Notice of Hearing published
April 8, 1981 in the Englewood Sentinel, posting of the property,
and notification of the applicant.
2. That ' the City Council has authority to conduct and
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Englewood City
Charter, Article VIII, Part II, the '69 E.M.C. §22.3-1 through 4.
3. That the parties have come before the Englewood City
Council and made no objections to this proceeding.
4. Thia matter waa previously heard by the City Planning
and Zoning COlllai.asion which baa submitted to the Council a
recOllllendation that the requested zoning change not be granted •
•
•
•
s. The applicant, and his witnesses, stated generally
that the proposed change from residential to light industrial
zoning was for the purpose of developing the property by building
office and warehouse facilities1 that the proposed development
was ready to begin with construction and funding being available;
that storage outside said warehouses would not occur; that they
believed the area was changing to coanercial and industrial uses;
that the •treeta provided a favorable traffic pattern for the
proposed change1 that he had had circulated a petition (now
submitted to Council) and properly explained the proposed change
to all petition signera1 that they believed the proposed change
was appropriate to the area and not harmful to nearby residential
zonesr and an•wered que•tion• by Council members.
6. Ma. Dorothy Ro .. n• pre•ented testimony and documentary
evidence to support the Planning and Zoning Commission recommenda-
tion. Ma. Roman• informed the Council that Planning and Zoning
had reconnended again•t the change because: It had not been
demon•trated that the original zoning was in error1 significant
changes had not occurred to preclude development as zoned or to
render the property more auitable for industrial use1 nearby
properties are reaidential and the proposed zoning is not com-
patible 1 other lot• are zoned indu•trial and available for use.
Ma. Romana preaented atat ... nts to the Council concerning changes
in the area since the original zoning1 concerning surrounding
propertie•r concerning new and present development; concerning
the Englewood C011Pr•h•n•ive Planr and answered various questions
from Council 11ambers.
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. That thi• aatter was properly heard by the Englewood
Planning and Zoning Co.-iaaion in a procedurally correct manner;
that th• Planning and Zoning coanission forwarded its recommendation
of no change in th• zoning pursuant to the Comprehensive zoning
Ordinance, '69 B.M.C., S22.3-4.
2. That the applicant, George B. Adams, properly appealed
to the council to review the Conanission's review by public hearing;
that aaid public hearing wa• convened and followed the procedures
set forth in the '69 B.M.C., Chapter VII, Title I.
3. That each party has been given the opportunity to present
such evidence, in te•tiJDOpial or documentary form, as he wishes
and ha• been given the opportunity to examine and contest the
evidence of the other partyr that the Council has also had the
opportunity and has questioned each party and examined the testi-
monial and docU11entary evidence presented •
4. That th• application for rezoning was filed by the owner
of th• property, George B. Adams, 2929 West Union Avenue, Englewood,
Colorado.
-2-
.,,,,
•
•
•
s. That the property for which rezoning is sought is
described as follows: Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial
Industrial Park, together with the North 1/2 of West Union Avenue
adjoining Lota 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park.
(Located in the 2900 Block of West Union Avenue.)
6. That the area sought to be rezoned by this application
was annexed to the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 24, Series
of 1960,and was zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence, which zone
classification was changed to R-1-B, Single-family Residence, in
1963.
7. That the zoning of the property to the west and north-
west of the subject site is I-1, Light Industrial1 to the north
and northeast, R-3, High-Density Reaidence1 to the east, R-1-B,
Single-family Reaidence1 and to the south, R-1-B, Single-family
Residence.
8. That there ia a filling station, carwash and retail
outlet to the west and northwest of the subject site in the I-1,
Light Industrial area.
9. That there are two single-family residences inunediately
to the east of the subject site at 2929 and 2939 West Union Avenue;
to the south, there are single-family residences fronting on West
Union Avenue between South Federal Boulevard and South Decatur
Street, and the area west of South Federal Boulevard is developed
with single-family residences.
10. That the property to the north and northeast of the
subject site was rezoned from I-1, Light Industrial, to R-3-A,
Multi-family Residential in 19711 however, no development has
taken place on the property to this time.
11. That property identified as Centennial South Subdivision
located between South Decatur Street and South Clay Street to the
south of West Union Avenue was zoned R-2, Medium-density Residence
in 1976 and is now being developed with single-family attached
housing.
12. That Centennial Park is at the northeast corner of
West Union Avenue and South Decatur Street.
13. That 13 persona signed a petition stating that they, as
property owner• in the adjacent area, did not object to the zoning
change as requested by Mr. George B. Adams.
14. That the 1979 Comprehensive Plan states that the
Industrial zoning applied to the land on the east side of South
Federal Boulevard between West Union Avenue and West Tufts Avenue
should be re-evaluated because of its proximity to the residential
neighborhood on t he west and the Centennial Park on the east.
-3-
•
#"
•
•
•
15. That a goal of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan is to main-
tain the residential neiqhborhood• as the cornerstone of our
COJllDunity.
16. That Centennial Park is a rather large municipal park
which is a proainent public facility in the area and influences
the residential uses in the area.
17. That the applicant did not present testimony that the
property could not be used under zone classification R-1-C, R-2,
R-2-C, B-1 or B-2 intermediate zone classification between R-1-C
and I-1.
18. That the carwaah and filling station retail outlet are
in an I-1 zone classification. They are actually commercial uses
permitted in B-1 and B-2 zone claaaifications, not I-1 uses. Both
B-1 and B-2 are lesa intenaive uaes than an I-1 use.
CONCLUSIONS
1. No evidence ha• been presented to the Council which
haa demonstrated that the original zoning of subject property ·was
in error.
2. Since the aubject aite was annexed to the City in 1969,
the principal chanqea and development in the area have been of a
family reaidential and recreational nature.
3. That other property is available in the area which is
currently zoned light industrial and is undeveloped.
4. That a chanqe in the zoning of the subject property would
expand a light induatrial zoning into a sinqle-family residential
area and not be in conformance with the City of Englewood 1979
Cmaprehenaive Plan.
5. That the public necessity, convenience, health, safety,
morala, general welfare or good zoning practice does not justify
a change of the aubject property's zoning from sinqle-family
reaidential to light induatrial; and the Council, in its discretion,
determine• that the requeated zoninq change would not be appropriate •
_,_
•
•
ORDER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THEREFORE
ORDERS:
That the requested zoning change of the subject property from
single-family residence (R-1-B) to light industrial (I-1) is hereby
denied.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this I lS+-day of Jut>e.,19e1.
~.7f._~
Euqeire~.-Otis, Mayor
Attest: r
~<V&'~re
• I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the
City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of Resolution
No. &..:l • Serie• of 1981.
(C?<J~~
• -s-