The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1959-09-10 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 411 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Date: Subject: Recommendation: August 20, 1959 ICRPC Master Plan Report No. 4 That ICRPC Master Plan Report No. 4, "Growth Guide for the Denver Region" be adopted by the City of Englewood as an official plan. Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Date: August 20, 1959 Subject: Vacation of Easement in Gilpatric~ Subdivision Recommendation: That if a request is received for vacation of five feet of the existing ten-foot easement along the north line of Lot 2, Gilpatrick Subdivision,, su c h vacation be favorably considered. Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 1959 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones at 7:50 P. M. Members Present: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Schmitt Lacy, Ex-officio Members Absent: Romans -1,'-- - - - - Paul Sparks 4550 S. Fox ·Subdivision North Half of East Side of 4500 Block South Fox St. Hearing No. 26-59A July 9, 1959 The Planning Director presented prints of a final plan for subdivision of the subject area. Approval of the Public Works Director and the Utilities Director of the plan was noted. Brief discussion was held on the adequacy of the 16-foot drainageway. The Planning Director restated the City Engineer's contention that this width would be quite adequate for an open concrete structure or a closed conduit line to carry drainage within a comprehensive City drainage plan. Mr. Sparks was present but no other persons who had been notified of the subdivision hearing were present: Mr. Braun requested that copies of the letter notifying nearby property owners of the pending subdivision be transmitted to Council as information only. This is to illustrate the technique used by the City in complying with the Subdivision Regulations. Hill moved: Braun seconded: That the City Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council that the final plan of the Sparks Subdivision be approved. Ayes: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Schmitt Nays: None Absent: Romans Robert P. Anderson 7777 E. Iliff The Planning Director of the subject area. consultation with the and nearby, u n platted Subdivision Large Area Southwest of Durox Prope r ty Bounded by W. Harvard Ave., S. Tejon St., W. Bates Ave., extended, and the C & S R.R. Hearing No. 27-59A July 9, 1959 presented a modified version of the preliminary design for subdivision The modified design had been prepared by the Planning Office after owner and developer, the C & S RR and ow n e r s and developers of abutting i hdustrial areas. Page 412 He explained that this subdivision tied in with the Council request that Planning Commission draw an overall street plan for the industrial areas of Scenic View in connection with sewer service to this area. The present proposed subdivision had been considered in light of thE sewer service study as well as consideration of development in the entire Scenic View area, contour lines, drainage needs, railroad accessibility and the wishes of the property owners in relation to sound industrial development principles. The matter of required paving in the area was discussed. It was unanimously agreed that the area should be paved in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and that the owner should take his choice of including the area in an annual City paving district or posting the required bond to do the paving at a later date. Hill moved: Braun seconded: That the modified preliminary design as pre sented be approved and referred to the Inter-County Regional Planning Commission for study in relation to an area development plan. Ayes: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Schmitt Nays: None Absent: Romans Charles F. Johnson 3149 S. Broadway Annexation Tentative Zoning Study for Area South of Belleview and West of South Broadway. Hearing No. ll-59D March 19, 1959 May 7, 1959 June 4, 1959 July 9, 1959 The Planning Director presented a land use study of the entire unincorporated area between Englewood's south boundary, Littleton's north boundary, SouthClarkson Street and South Windermere Street. The presentation also showed Englewood zoning along its southern boundary and Littleton's zoning and land use along its northern boundary. A letter from Charles & Co. to the Planning Commission was presented as follows: "CHARLES & CO. REALTOR September 4, 1959 Mr. Joe M. Lacy Engineer Planning Director- Planning Commission, Englewood City Hall, Englewood, Colorado. Gentlemen: 150 W. Belleview Englewood, Colorado In regard to the proposed annexation and re-zoning of the property near South Broadway and · West Belleview referred to your regular Council Session August 17th 1959. It is my under- standing that the annexation was referred to the Planning Commission, and this letter is to make you further aware of additional facts concerning the zoning. The property to the east is now occupied as a Real Estate Office, the third property as a personal residence occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Dearth, and the property on the west is owned by Mrs. Memmer. Mrs. Memmer has been operating as a Motel with approximately fourteen rentable units for several years and it is her intention to continue such. This letter is mainly to acquaint you with the foregoing facts. Sincerely, Charles & Company /S/ Charles F. Johnson Charles F. Johnson" The Planning Director presented a petition of protest against commercial zoning of the subject area as follows: "P E T I T I 0 N 0 F P R 0 T E S T Against a proposal, to be heard by the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, in the near future for annexation and change of zoning of the territory hereinafter described, all in Arapahoe County, Colorado, to-wit: All of that portion of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1 /4) of Section 15, Town s hip 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, which is described as follows: Beginning at a point on the center line of West Belleview Avenue, which point is 660 feet West of the Northeast (NE) corner of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1 /4) of said Section 15; thence West along the center line of West Belleview Avenue 331.2 feet to the intersection of the center line of West Belleview Avenue with the East line of Plot 6, Interurban Addition, ex- tended Northerly; thence South along said extended East line and said East line of said Plot 6, 400 feet to the Southeast corner of said Plot 6; thence East along the South line of Ewing Subdivision, 331.0 feet to the Southeast corner of Tract 3, Ewing Subdivision; thence North along the East line af said Tract 3, 370 feet to the intersection of said East line ·,of said Tract 3 with the South line of West Belleview Avenue; thence East along the South line of West Belleview Avenue, 20 feet; thence South and parallel to the east line of said Tract 3, 370 feet; thence East and parallel with the South line of West Belleview Avenue, 170 feet, thence North and parallel with the East line of said Tract 3 and said East line extended, 400 feet to the center line of West Belleview Avenue; thence West along the center line of West Belleview Avenue, 190 feet to the point of beginning. TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ENGLEWOOD: I I I I I I Page 413 We the undersigned citizens and property owners of land adjacent to and in the vicinity of the above described land hereby vigorously protest the proposal to annex and classify the lots above identified, located on the south side of Belleview Avenue west of South Broadway to C-1 zoning. The property of all of us who sign this petition is located in the immediate vicinity of Belleview Avenue in an area directly affected by the use of the land for which this classification is being ~ought. The signers are the owners of more than twenty percent of such property. This petition therefore constitutes a legal protest as defined by the zoning ordinance of the City of Englewood. Our protest is based on two broad principles: first, that the zoning proposed would be harmful to the health, safety, and welfare of the signatories, their families, and their immediate neighbors; and second, that the classification would result in conditions adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of the municipality as a whole. In brief, our objections are summarized as follows: A. DAMAGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. Home Life. All our homes are immediately adjacent to the subject area. Commercial activity along Belleview Avenue would inevitably create noise and confusion tending to destroy the tranquility and privacy of our homes. We would all be adversely af- fected by the installation and operation of most of the uses that would be permitted in the proposed commercial district. No assurances of limitation to "light" businesses could be enforced once the property was zoned to permit all types of business. 2. Traffic. The traffic generated by business and commercial activities along Belleview Avenue would be much greater and generally more incompatible with the residential quality of our neighborhood that would be the traffic at t ributable to any other type of activity. Commercial traffic would have a direct and measurable effect on the general welfare of the immediate neighborhood--a uniformly adverse effect. 3. Neighborhood Character. We purchased our homes in this locality on the assurance that the suburban-residential character of the neighborhood would not be disturbed. We fully realize that the development of Belleview Avenue as a traffic artery has brought considerable increase in through traffic. But the commercial and business traffic and general confusion that would result if this zoning were to take place would be infinitely more objectionaple to us. If this property is classified as requested, we feel that the residential character of this portion of the area will be destroyed. 4. Property Values. It is our definite impression that if this rezoning takes place, the value of the subject property will be increased. This is good for the owner of that property. But we are equally impressed with the fact, as we see it, that the value of our property will be reduced. Therefore, if we choose to exercise our right to leave the community, if this zoning action is successful, we will do so only at a loss to ourselves. The applicant would gain; we would lose. For these immediate, personal reasons therefore we beg the Councilto give close attention to the basic purpose of zoning regulations: to allow the free and full utilization of one's property in any way one sees fit --so long as that utilization does not do harm to others. This zoning would be directly detriment~o-Us-:~--~ ~ ~~ B. ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE 1. Overzoning. There is apparently alre ady too much commercial zoning in Englewood; that is, there is land zoned for commercial purposes which i s .not so utilized or which is under-utilized. Again, the owner of the subject property is entitled to make commercial use of it if such use would not do harm to others. In our opinion the opening up of additional land to commercial uses cannot fail to have adverse effects upon businesses already developed or authorized in other parts of the municipality--to the ultimate detriment of the entire community. 2. Strip-Zoning. The proposed classification constitutes strip-zoning--a highly unstabilizing and therefore depreciating process which this city and most others are now striving to avoid. As residents and property owners we protest this proposed reversion to an out- moded land use. 3. Contrary to Comprehensive Zoning. The City of Englewood, together with other parts of Arapahoe County, should by this time have adopted a comprehensive plan such as the one proposed by the Intercounty Regional Planning Commission ('Growth Guide," November 24, 1958). As a consequence of such adoption, all such zoning proposals should be submitted to the Commission for recommendation. If this were done, unless very. substantial change s were to be made in the comprehensive plan, the Commission's recommendation would be that this land should remain in its present classification. It is our contention that no zoning classification should be enacted by the Englewood City Council which is in any way contrary to that recommended by . the Intercounty Regional Planning Commission--a body financed, as is the Council, by property owners' taxes. In addition to our personal reasons, then, we have these community-interest bases for petitioning the Council to deny the requested classification of this property as commercial. We believe that the proposed zoning would be detrimental to the entire community. In summary, we respectfully request the City Council to deny the request for z o ning of this property to C-1. Signature and Legal Description of Property All that part · of Plot 4, South of a line be- ginning at the SE corner of Plot 5, Interurban Addition and extended E parallel with Belleview except a right of way of Platte Railroad Co. and also a 20 foot strip off the W side of said Plot 4, Interurban Addition. /S I Helen D. Harrison Helen D. (Lilljeberg) Harrison ·. Address 155 W. Lehow Ave. Littleton, Colo. Date 8-24-59 Page 414 /S / Gertrude Lilljeberg Gertrude Lilljeberg The Westerly 58 feet of Plots 1 and 2, Interurban Addition /S / Harry A. Daily Harry A. Daily /S / Lillian M. Daily Lillian M. Daily Plot 16, Interurban Addition The West 20 feet of Plot 4, Interurban Addition /S / Lawrence A. Greenlee Lawrence A. Grem lee /S / Rosalind B. Greenlee Rosalind B. Greenlee A 20 foot strip along the Southwesterly line of Plot 7, Interurban Addition, and Lots 1 to 3, and the East 5 feet of Lot 4; all of Lots 5 fo 14 inclusive, Miramonte Subdivision. /S/ Dorothy G. Bashor Dorothy G. Bashor /S / William H. Bashor William H. Bashor /S / William H. Bashor, Jr. William H. Bashor, Jr. Lot 4, except East 5 feet of Miramonte Subdivision /S / John E. Crossley John E. Crossley /S / Gail Sandra Crossley Gail Sandra Crossley The East 1 acre of Plot 6, Interurban, and Plot 15, Interurban Addition /S / Nellie L. Cookson Nellie L. Cookson Lot 1, Ewing Subdivision /S / Anna M. Memmer Anna M. Memmer 155 W. Lehow Ave. Littleton, Colo. 100 W. Belleview Ave. Littleton, Colo. 100 W. Belleview Ave. Littleton, Colo. 240 W. Belleview Ave. Littleton, Colo. 240 W. Belleview Ave. Littleton, Colo. 400 w. Belleview 400 w. Belleview 400 w. Belleview Littleton, Colo. 5190 S. Miramonte Dr .• 5190 S. Miramonte Dr ~ Littleton, Colo. 3 00 W. Belleview Ave. Littleton, Colo. 244 W. Belleview Ave. Littleton , Colorado 8-24-59 8-23-59 8-23-59 8-23-59 8-23-59 8-24-59 8-24-59 8-24-59 8-23-59 8-23-59 8-23-59 8-23-59 This is to certify that we have obtained all the signatures to this petition appearing above, that we saw the signatures affixed to this petition, and that we know the persons wh o signed to be correctly represented hereon. Acknowledged before me this 24th day of August, 1959. /S / Lawrence A. Greenlee /S / Carl M. Harrison /S / Faye E. Rutz Notary Public" Discussion was held as to whether property owners not included in a proposed annexation have a legal standing in consideration of rezoning. A check of the State Zoning Statute (139-60) revealed in subsection 5 that all persons within 100 feet of a proposed zoning apparently do have a legal protest status whether they are wi t hin the City or not. An overlay picturing the type of zoning indicated for the entire incorporated area was pre- sented. The proposal as shown on the overlay was based on: 1. The land use now in effect legally under County zoning. 2. The desirability of not instituting strip zoning along West Belleview which is scheduled to be a four-lane divided street highway. 3. An effort to keep commercial zoning from being located across the four-lane highway (Belleview) from multiple family zoning which is now undeveloped in order to encourage proper multiple-family development in the area north of Belleview. 4. 5. Traffic safety considerations in light of the type and volume of vehicle movement generated by any type of commercial activity along any major h :j:ghway. Englewood's percentage of commerci a l zoning compared to national land usage for cities of Englewood's size is 8.84% compared to 4.93 for satellite cities of 25,000 population. Even though Englewood is a commercial center this percentage appears so great as to indicate overzoning in the commercial classification, particularly since much of the downtown commercial zone is not yet developed as such. I I I I I I Page 415 6. The commercial core of the City is now struggling to retain its property valuation and increase its commercial desirability by off-street parking and greater access. Any move to spread out commercial endeavors will ch wish to locate in theEnglewood area by creating more commercial zone would be unwise . It .was pointed out that the proposed zoning based on the above factors does not propose com- mercial zoning for any part of the annexation now pending south of Belleview. The recom- mendation for commercial zoning in the western half of the prcposed annexation which had previously been transmitted to Council had been the result of land use considerations in a more limited area and the assumption that a large homogenous commercial unit would definitely be constructed. Planning Commission minutes of June 4th definitely show that Planning Commission's discussion and consideration contained many contingent factors in recommending commercial zoning to the Council. Hill moved : Schmitt seconded: That the tentative zoning based on the land use study be received and referred to the ICRPC, the Arapahoe County Planning Commission and the Littleton Planning Commission for their comments before further con- sideration of a recommendation to the City Council. Ayes: · Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Schmitt Nays : None Absent: Romans Planning Office City Subdivision Area Bounded by the City Ditch, W. Stanford Ave. & W. Stanford Dr. Hearing No. 28-59-A July 23, 1959 The Planning Director presented a preliminary design for the resubdivision of the subject area. He explained that the City had acted as an objective coordinator in the matter since so many separate owners were involved. Mr. William Myrick was present , and it was explained that a certain amount of agreement between major property owners was necessary in order that the area could be properly sub- divided. Mr. Rex Ga rrett had contacted all of the available property owners and all but one, Mr. Freeland, had agreed to the general concept of the resubdivision. Mr. Freeland is concerned about the effect of the easement across the back of his property line. It was suggested that a Power r,ompany representative discu s s this matter with Mr. Freeland and urge his participation in the resubdivision. It was explained that the next step in this procedure is to secure a registered engineer to prepare the final plan for signature of all property owners concerned. The Planning Director was instructed to relay this information to Mr. Garrett and Mr. Colman since they, along with Mr. Myrick, are the major property owners concerned. Hill moved: Braun seconded: That the preliminary design be approved subject to minor re-alignment of lot lines in accordance with 1 the wishes of property owners affected. Ayes: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Schmitt Nays: None Absent: Romans City Council City Amendment to Zoning Ordinance for Building Height Hearing No. 43-58C December 18, 1958 July 23, 1959 August 6, 1959 August 20, 1959 The Commission discussed the third draft of an amendment for building height limitations under the zoning ordinance. The Planning Director reported that the City Attorney has ruled that at least one public hearing is mandatory in Planning Commission and Council deliberations of this type. The matter of whether Planning Commission should have the authority to make a decision on the allowance of tall buildings was 1 d iscussed. It was agreed that since the Englewood Planning Commission is now an advisory board only to the City Council in all other planning and zoning matters that this concept should not be changed. Therefore, the ultimate authority to allow taller buildings should rest with the Council after detailed consideration by the Planning Commission. Considerable discussion was held on whether the amendment should specifically require a public hearing before Council as well as the Planning Commission and whether Council would be bound to zoning ordinance provisions as to Planning Commission recommendations on ordinance amendments in considering the allowance of tall buildings. A check of the amended zoning ordinance in ection 3, paragraph 3 of Article III as amended by Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1959, revealed that the Council would not be legally bound by Planning Commission findings in considering tall buildings as it is now in considering zoning ordinance amendments. It was agreed that if Council felt a second hearing was necessary after Planning Commission had already conducted a full hearing, that such second hearing was well within the authority of the City Council although not mandatory. The amendment was considered in detail and certain minor wording changes were made. Braun moved: Schmitt seconded: That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: 1. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1959, should be repealed. 2. Subsection 3 of Section 9 of Article IV of Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1955, as amended, of the ordinances of the City of Englewood, Colorado should be amended to read as follows: Page 416 "3. Maximum Height of Buildings: (1) 5 stories but not greater than 60 feet. (2) The height of buildings constructed in this zone may be increased beyond the maximum specified in subparagraph (1) above by action of the City Council upon consideration of the Planning Commission after a public hearing and subject to the following conditions: a. Public notice of said hearing shall be given as specified in Article 1, Section 5, Subsection 62 of the Zoning Ordinance. b. In considering the application the Planning Commission shall be guided by the following considerations: (a) The effect of the increased height on adjacent property including the effect on light, air and ventilation. (b) Availability and suitability of off-street parking. (c) Location of the structure with reference to fire, health and safety factors. (d) Other factors pertinent to the location of the proposed structure. c. The applicant must present written evidence from the City Fire Department and Building Inspector that the preliminary plans for the proposed buiJd ing include adequate features for fire protection and public safety. Such written evidence must include the approval of both the Fire Chief and the Building Inspector •. d. All expenses occasioned by the application shall be paid by the applicant including economic feasibility studies or other planning surveys deemed necessary by the Planning Commission. Such studies may be accomplished by the City Planning staff or by qualified outside organizations to be selected by the Planning Commission." 3. Subsection 2 of Section 10 of Article IV of Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1955, as amended, of the ordinances of the City of Englewood, Colorado, should be amended to read as follows: "2. Maximum Height of Buildings: (1) Four stories but not greater than fifty feet. (2) The height of buildings constructed in this zone may be in- creased beyond the maximum specified in subparagraph (1) above by action of the City Council upon consideration of the Planning Commission after a public hearing and subject to the following conditions: a. Public Notice of said hearing shall be given as specified in Article 1, Section 5, Subsection 62 of the Zoning Ordinance. b. In considering the application the Planning Commission shall be guided by the following considerations: (a) The effect of the increased height on adjacent property including the effect on light, air and ventilation. (b) Availability and suitability of off-street parking. (c) Location of the structure with reference to fire, health and safety factors. (d) Other factors pertinent to the location of the proposed structure. c. The applicant must present written evidence from the City Fire Department and Building Inspector that the preliminary plans for the proposed building include adequate features for fire protection and public safety. Such written evidence must include the approval of both the Fire Chief and the Building Inspector. d. All expenses occasioned by the application shall be paid by the applicant including economic feasibility studies or other planning surveys deemed necessary by the Planning Commission. Such studies may be accomplished by the City Planning staff or by qualified outside organizations to be selected by the Planning Commission." Ayes: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Schmitt Nays: None Absent: Romans I I I I I I Planning Off ice City Master Plan No. 1 Drainage Parkway Page 417 Hearing No. 20-59D May 21, 1959 June 4, 1959 July 2, 1959 August 20, 1959 The Planning Director reported that a joint meeting of Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village had been held on September 2, 1959. At that meeting the Planning Director and Bill Parker of Harold Hoskins and Associates appeared and presented the story on Englewood's movement toward Federal assistance in drawing a master drainage plan. He reported that members of both Town Boards seemed quite receptive to the idea and that Bill Parker is meeting with the Mayor of each community on September 10. Both Villages hold regular meetings on September 14 at which time they are expected to decide on whether to submit separate applications for similar Federal assistance along with Englewood in order that the overall drainage basin which must be constructed can also be covered in the drainage plans. A letter explaining the movement to date has been sent to the Arapahoe County Commissioners to keep them informed of this pending cooperation toward a major drainage improvement within the three incorporated areas. The matter of Englewood Dam was discussed briefly and Mr. Braun pointed out that it seems that action to maintain the dam is the next step. There is an apparent misunderstanding be- tween the City of Englewood and Arapahoe County as to whose equipment should make the mo.re to maintain the dam. Planning Off ice City Revised Zoning Ordinance Hearing No. 31-59 The Planning Director stated that the zoning ordinance is becoming quite bulky and difficult to use since a number of major amendments have been made. He stated a revised ordinance would probably be necessary during 1960 for the following reasons: 1. A new format would be necessary to modify the ordinance into a true zoning code since all City ordinances must be modified by Charter beginning in 1960. 2. A total of ten amendments have been passed, many of them very lengthy, since the ordinance was republished in 1957. Four amendments had been passed prior to that time and were built into the 1957 publication. The inter-relation of these amend- ments is be c oming very difficult to follow even though all amendments are included in copies of the zoning ordinance as soon as p as sed. 3. Mr. Braun has requested a thorough review of all off-street parking requirements in relation to each usage. This entails a major comprehensive study of all factors affected by off-street parking requirements. 4. Means of tying a certain development plan to a given rezoning either by time limits or deed covenants or some other method is needed to assure development of certain parcels of land when such pending development is a major factor in the request for rezoning. 5. A flood plain zone to further improve Council's policy of not allowing building permits in draincourses is necessary. This type of zoning is needed now that the City extends across the South Platte River and is moving into the Big Dry Creek drainage area as well as certain other drainage problem situations within the City. 6. A new format has been devised for a more concise and specific publication of zoning ordinances. This format calls for grouping all possible uses into certain lettered groups. Each zone simply lists the lettered groups which are permitted in that zone, thus standardi~ing the uses as permitted in all zones rather than as at present in the Englewood ordinance. The Planning Director stated that the zoning map would not need to be changed in any way other than addition of the flood plain zone areas by the needed revision of the ordinance. Zone classifications by title or letter would also not be changed. The revised zoning ordinance would simply entail building all present provisions and amendments ofthe Englewood zoning ordinance into a comprehensive code following a new and more streamlined format. There being no further business to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P. M. Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Date: Subject: Recommendation: September 10, 1959 Sparks Subdivision That the final plan of the Sparks Subdivision be approved. Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary Pa g e 418 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Englewood, Colorado P lanning & Traffic Department '· Offi ce of Pl a nni ng a nd Traffic Director P.O . Box 17 8 SU 1-7 86 1 The a!"E~a ou ... lined in r.ed i .B b~1ng subdi vict .3d t nto thx-0e r~s:t - d ti .. l lots Th~ area is zoned ·for singl~-taF.ttly dwol:U ... gs w:l. t h 9 ~~OO "'sq~a>:e 0 :fcue ·~ area. 0 Prt'>pnsed. davelopment is i.r~ accordancfi with this ~"'n n~, City Subdivisio n R.t>~lations .r.equ J ra that c)wne-rs of prope .. ty in the vic:.l ni ty of aay subdivision be not.i:fi~d ':;f the da:.e fo,: .a~l informal hearing en .the proposnd raubdivi.s1.:-J n a Th~ hearin~ v.i be be 1.d at ~1 ~30 p , y . ~ Sf!ptembex-10 9 1959 ~ D0!o~e t.he ~la.~1.ing . -~ -in ->h"" c~ .,. " •'"'oun<d).. cbambE.$rs fl 334 ..... vou th a ... nm ck Com""'ssio n L· ~, -, • ... Street G It is not uaca€sary t hat you atteud 9 but ym.l are ~elc ' me to oe beard and study the p~opos~d plat at that ti~~~ ii ycv wis ~, The recorded owneJ.' of tbe p:rop~rty bei ng subd;i.vide ct is Paul Sparks:, 4550 Sou th :rox Stl'N~t11 Englewoo~,,, i\. LJL~. . J!eepectfully " E:::::::J E:::::J ~ W. STANrl"" Q_4V:£, -, -r-·---r L~~ ' Plaun ng and Traffic Director I i rf~·c..AC ~·4JH~ I JML/ij 1ii--... -- \ -------• N ---L_ ~ V) ll. ')( c :I \l - Vj r----t ~ Cl) -,, ~ -.....J ~ ~ \a MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECO MMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . Date: September 10 , 1959 Subject : Amendm e .nt to Zoning Ordinance f or Building Hei g ht Recommendation: That the Zoning Ordinance be a mended as follows: 1. Ordinance No. 3 , Series of 1959, should be repealed. 2. Subsection 3 of Section 9 of Article IV of Ordinance No. 45 , Series of 1955, as amended, of the ordinances o f the Ci t y of Eng lewood, Colorado should be amended t o read a s f ollows : "3. Maximum Hei g ht o f building s . (1) 5 Stories bu t not g re a ter than 60 feet. (2) The hei g h t o f building s constructed in this zone may be increased beyond the maximum specified in subpara g raph (1 ) a bove by action o f the City Council upon consideration o f the Planning Commission after a public hearing and sub- ject to the followin g conditions : a . Public notice o f said hear i n g s h all be g i v en as speci f ied in Article 1, Section 5 , Subsection 62 of the Zoning Ordinance. b. In considering the application t he Plann i n g Commission sh a ll be g uided b y t he f ollowing considerations : I I I I I Page 4 1!9 (a) The effect of the increased height on adjacent property including the effect on light, air and ventilation. (b) Availability and suitability of off-street parking. (c) Location of the structure with reference to fire, health and safety factors. (d) Other factors pertinent to the location of the proposed structure. c. The applicant must present written evidence from the City Fire Department and Building Inspector that the preliminary plans for the proposed build- ing include adequate features for fire protection and public safety. Such written evidence must include the approval of both the Fire Chief and the Building Inspector. d. All expenses occasioned by the application shall be paid by the applicant including economic feasibility studies or other planning surveys deemed necessary by the Planning Commission. Such studies may be accomplished by the City Planning staff or by qualified outside organizations to be selected by the Planning Commission." 3. Subsection 2 of Section 10 of Article IV of Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1955, as amended, of the ordinances of the City of Englewood, Colorado, should be amended to read as follows: "2. Maximum Height of Buildings: (1) Four stories but not greater than fifty feet. (2) The height of buildings constructed in this zone may be increased beyond the maximum specified in subparagraph (1) above by action of the City Council upon consideration of the Planning Commission after a public hearing and sub- ject to the following conditions. a. Public notice of said hearing shall be given as specified in Article 1, Section 5, Subsection 62 of the Zoning Ordinance. b. In considering the application the Planning Commission shall be guided by the following considerations: (a) The effect of the increased height on adjacent property including the effect on light, air and ventilation. (b) Availability and suitability of off-street parking. (c) Location of the struc ture with reference to fire, health and safety factors. (d) Other factors pertinent to the location cf the proposed structure. c. The applicant must present written evidence from the City Fire Department and Building Inspector that the preliminary plans for the proposed building include adequate features for fire protection and public safety. Such written evidence must include the approval o f both the Fire Chief and the Building Inspector. d. All expenses occasioned by the application shall be paid by the applicant including economic feasibility studies or other planning surveys deemed necessary by the Planning Commission. Such studies may be accomplished by the City Planning staff or by qualified outside organizations to be selected by the Planning Commission." Respectfully submitted, By order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission Jewell M. Banfield Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 1959 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones at 7:45 P. M. Members Present: Braun, Hill, Jones, Kelley, Romans, Schmitt Lacy, Ex-officio Members Absent: None Charles F. Johnson 3149 S. Broadway . Annexation Tentative Zoning Study for Area South of Belleview and West of South Broadway Hearing No. ll-59E March 19, 1959 May 7, 1959 June 4, 1959 July 9, 1959 September 10, 1959 The Planning Director reported that the zoning study for the subject area is to be con- sidered by the Arapahoe County Planning Commission on October 6th. This schedule was set after personnel of ICRPC suggested that the county should consider such a referral before