HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-06-21 PZC MINUTESI
I
I
I .. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 21, 1967
Page 965
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8 P. M.
by Chairman Kenneth Carlson.
Members present: Woods, Touchton , Rice, Love, Carlson
Romans , Ex-officio
Members absent: Parkinson
Also present: City Attorney Criswell
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Mr. Carlson stated there were two sets of Minutes to be considered for approval ; t h ose from
May 3, 1967, and from May 24, 1967.
Mr. Love moved:
Touchton seconded: The Minutes of May 3, 1967, and May 24, 1967, be approved as written.
The motion carried unanimously.
III . SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER
Penn-Pearl Alley Vacation
CASE #5-67D
Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Salazar, counsel f or Mr. and Mrs. H. P. Dunn, has requested
that further consideration of the requested alley vacation be delayed until the meeting
of July 5; she stated that o f ficials of the Swedish Medical Center have agreed to this
delay.
IV. FLOYD AVENUE CONTRACT
New Englewood, Ltd.
Mr. Parkinson entered and took his seat with the Commission.
CASE #B9-64
Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Davis and Mr. Grijalva of New Englewood, Ltd., were present to
discuss the proposed revision of the Floyd Avenue Contract. Exhibit "A" , the plan approved
by the City two years ago, anduppon which the contract was signed, was displayed. This plan
encompasses a 24 ft . roadway t o provide access to properties north of the shopping complex,
a 35' planting strip, and the access to the New Englewood shopping area to the south of the
planting strip. The only street indicated on the Floyd Avenue Contract which would bisect
the planting strip is South Fox Street.
Mr. Davis reviewed the revision to the contract that New Englewood, Ltd., is proposing ;
there would be a two-lane one-way westbound roadway north of the planting strip,. and south
of the planting strip would be a two-lane one-way eastbound roadway.
Mr. Rice asked if they were proposing to extend Cherokee through the Planting strip? Mr.
Davis replied it could be or could not be --however would best fit into the over-all
traffic pattern. He pointed out that the north "leg" of Floyd Avenue at South Bannock
Street is eliminated in the proposed plan.
Mr. Love asked what purpose the planting strip would serve in the proposed Plan? He pointed
out the original purpose was to act as a buffer for those residents north of the shopping
center. Under the proposed plan, Floyd Avenue becomes a "f reeway" and the planting strip
merely separates the directional traffic. Discussion followed.
Mr. Grijalva pointed out that all changes are made for improvement of the plan. When the
initial plan approved by the contract was devised, they really had not gotten to the actual
groundwork and plans they had initially felt would work are now found to be completely im-
practical.
Further discussion on the intent of the contract followed. Mr. Parkinson agreed with Mr.
Love that the intent was to provide screening for the residents to the north of the center.
Mr. Parkinson further stated that the preservation of zoning integrity was being completely
overlooked in the proposed contract revision, and asked that the planting strip be kept to
the north of the heavy traffic as is agreed by the contract.
Rice moved:
Touchton seconded: The Plan be received and tabled for further study and consideration.
The motion carried unanimously.
V. J. J. CAREY
KLZ Site
Parkinson moved:
REZONING CASE #7-67
R-1-A to R-3-A
Love seconded: The matter of the Carey Rezoning request be raised f rom the table.
The motion carried un~nimously.
Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission had asked the staff to summarize information on the
rezQning application, which the staff has attempted to do. She handed members copies of
this summarization. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the one document covers the history of
Page 966
the site, a discussion on new concepts in multi-family housing, reviews the specific applica-
tion, and the staff recommendation. The other document directed to the Commission is a
summarization of the Staff recommendation. Additional information --land use maps, replies
from department heads on the effect the proposed rezoning will have on their operation, etc.,.
--are also attached to these two main documents.
Attention was directed to the summary of staff recommendations, wherein it is recommended 1hat
consideration be given to subdividing the property in conjunction with rezoning if the Com-
mission recommends approval of the subject zoning request to City Council. Discussion followed.
The Director pointed out that the density permitted under the R-3-A Zone classification ex-
ceeds that which, in the opinion of the staff, would be feasible for a development of the
size under consideration. Although Mr. Carey has explicitly stated that he has no intentirn
of developing the area to the ultimate capacity, the staff is of the opinion that some means
of restricting the number of units and the overall development must be considered. It is
felt that the Subdivision Regulations, which are being revised by an ad hoc committee --
John Criswell, Tom Eitel, Jack Katchur, and Dorothy Romans, is the most appropriate means of
accomplishing this. Mr. Cirswell reviewed some sections of the propos.ed Subdivision Regula-.
tions and stated he felt this would provide adequate restriction on this and any other de-
velopments of this nature. Further discussion ensued.
Mrs. Romans stated that the possibility of placing restrictions on the development of the
area has been discussed with Mr. Welles of the Committee to Preserve Zoning Integrity, and
also with Mr. Carey. Both gentlemen have indicated they feel such a proposal has merit.
Mr. Kerwin Fulton, 3191 East Floyd Avenue, stated the residents of the northeast Englewood
area are indeed concerned about the density, and are in favor of restrictions being imposed
on the development. He pointed out the residents feel that 800 units would be the heaviest
density they could agree to.
Love moved:
Rice seconded:
/
Based upon the information received at the Public Hearing, the matters
contained within the Director's report and an independent inspection of
the site by the Commission members, the Planning Commission recommend
that the application of J. J. Carey to place the subject site in an
R-3-A zone district be granted, and that the Planning Director forwar.d
this Commission's recommendation to City Council, together with a summary
of the information presented at the public hearing and a copy of all
other documents considered by this Commission insofar as it is physically
practicable to do so.
The motion carried unanimously.
VI. SAFEWAY STORE
125 E. Hampden Parking Lot Lay~ut
CASE #11-67
Mrs. Romans stated that a referral from Chief Building Inspector Wallace has been received
requesting Commission consideration on a proposed parking layout for the new Safeway Store
at 125 East Hampden Avenue. A plot plan of the proposed parking lot was displayed for Com-
mission review. Mrs. Romans stated she was concerned about the location of curb cuts on
Hampden Avenue. They are shown at the corners of the property on Hampden. She stated it
was a staff recommendation that th.e curb cuts be placed in the center of the block, thus
eliminating turning movements in such close proximi_ty to the intersections. Discussion
followed.
Parkinson moved:
Love seconded: The proposed parking lot for the Safeway Store at 125 East Hampden
Avenue be approved with the recommendation that the curb cuts be
located not closer than 50 feet to either intersection.
The motion carried unanimously.
VII. PARKING LOT LAYOUT
New Englewood, Ltd.
CASE #12-67
Mrs. Romans read a memo from Chief Building Inspector Wallace requesting review by the
Planning Commission of a revised plan for the road and parking layout -Hampden Street
level -for New Englewood, Ltd. The proposed layout was shown the Commission members; it
was also noted that the 50 ft. width indicated for Girard Avenue south of the proposed King
Soopers store has been changed to a 60 foot right-of-way as of May 19, 1967. Discussion of
the layout followed. It was noted .that the parking plan indicated on this plan differed
from the parking layout as shown on the plan submitted by Mr. Davis and Mr. Grijalva in
the discussion of the Floyd Avenue Contract earlier in the evening. Mrs. Romans suggested
that perhaps bumper guards or some other form of barrier should be erected on all major in-.
terior and exterior accessways in the center to alleviate random ingress and egress to these
parking areas. Further discussion followed.
Parkinson moved:
Woods seconded: The matter be tabled for further consideration.
The motion carried unanimously.
VIII. SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER
Parking Lot
CASE #13-67
Mrs. Romans stated that the Swedish Medical Center owns property on the west side of South
Pennsylvania Street in the 3400 block, immediately to the north of the Pennwood Apartments.
They are proposing a parking lot for the property, and this proposal has been referred to
the Planning Commission by Chief Building Inspector Wallace.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 967
She also reviewed a letter addressed to the Planning Commission and the Planning Director
from Mr. Larson , Executive Director of Swedish Medical Center, further eLaborating on the
plans o f the Center for this property. Discussion followed. A planting strip is indicated
on the south of the property to provide screening to the Pennwood Apartments. It is also
suggested by the Engineering Department that the planting area be raised or a curb provided
to direct drainage west to the alley.
Mr. Parkinson suggested that screening also be provided on the north of the Medical Center
property to shield the view o f the parking -lot from residents north of the proposed lot.
He also questioned the use of asphalt chips as a surfacing material.
Mr. Rice stated he wished to see a more detailed layout for the proposal.
Rice moved:
Touchton seconded: The matter be tabled for further information and to give the Commission
members an opportunity to view the site.
AYES:
NAYS:
Touchton, Rice, Parkinson, Love, Carlson
Woods
The motion carried.
IX. BATES-LOGAN PARK AND DARTMOUTH PARK
Street Vacation
CASE #14-67
Mrs. Romans stated the vacation o f streets that are dedicated in these two proposed parks
has been referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council. In the Bates/Logan Park,
Pennsylvania has been dedicated for a distance of 299', but has never been developed as a
street. South Galapago Street thru the Dartmouth Park has been dedicated to a 30' width
between West Dartmouth Avenue and West Eastman Avenue and has also never been developed.
Discussion followed. Mr. Love and Mr. Parkinson asked if there were easements in these
streets that would need to be retained? Mr. Criswell pointed out that there would be no
problem if there were , inasmuch as the land would be reverting to the City.
Love moved:
Rice seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the portion of
Pennsylvania Street that is dedicated in the Bates/Logan Park be vacated ;
also the portion of South Galapago Street that is dedicated in the
Dartmouth Park be vacated. The Plannin g Commission further recommends
that due notice be taken of any easements that may exist in these streets
for which vacation is requested.
The motion carried unanimously.
X. FURNITURE SALES AND REFINISHING CASE #15-67
Mrs. Romans read a memo from Chief Building Inspector Wallace requesting Commission con-
sideration for a proposed furniture sales and refinishing shop located at 303 East Hampden
Avenue. It was pointed out in the memo that all tools used in the refinishing of f urniture
would be small hand tools. This particular use is not specifically mentioned as a permitted
use in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance , but several uses to which it is similar in some
manner were cited by Mr. Wallace. Discussion followed.
Rice moved :
Woods seconded: The Building Department be notified that it is the opinio n of the
Planning Commission that the proposed furniture sales and r ef inishing
use appears to be compatible with similar uses permitted in the B-1
zone district, and comes within the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion carried unanimously.
It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried and the meeting was
adjourned at 10:30 P.M .
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE: June 21, 1967
SUBJECT: Change of Zone from R-1-A to R-3-A for KLZ Site
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the information received at the Public Hearing, the matters
contained within the Director's report and an independent inspection of
the site by the Commission members, the Planning Commission recommend
that the application of J. J. Carey to place the subject site in an
R-3-A Zone D:St rict be granted, and that the Planning Director forward 1h is
Commission's recommendation to City Council, together with a summary o·f
the information presented at the public hearing and a copy of all other
documents considered by this Commission insofar as it is physically
practicable to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning and 2 oning Commission
r..o .... + .... 11nt:> r. WPlt.v . Recording Secretary
Page 968
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE : June 21, 19.67
SUBJECT: Dartmouth Park and Bates/Logan Park Street Vacations
RECOMMENDATION: The Plannin g Commission recommend to City Council t hat the po r tion o f
Pennsylvania Street that is dedicated in the Bates/Lo g an Park be vacated;
also the portion of South Galapago Street that is dedicated in the
Dartmouth Park be vacated. The Planning Commission f urther recommends
that due notice be taken o f any easements that may exist in these s t ree1s
f or which vacation is r e quested.
Respectfully submitted ,
By Order o f the City Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
DARTMOUTH PAR
City ot Enalfwood
P lannlno a Traffic
'St1 °'9
~ ...:
I-
w.
1~9
0
18
1'50
IJD
117.56 131 .S 8Z .5
W. EASTMAN AVE. s
Cl) 0 ~ ...
~ I
~ PROPOSED PARK AREA
~ PROPOSED VACANCY
(/j
I
~
I
I .
I
I
_J ,,
l
....:
Cf)
<:
~
(!)
c
....J
J
12.5 -2
D
D
"' °' °' "'
D
D
..
-'
~o
D
E
BATES LOGAN
City of Englewood
Planning a Traffic
BATES
Scale r 11 r IDO'
Dote 7 Jlln' lrT
Orn • by 4\ffO
AVE.
lb . 125.'l. >
'"'
.··,.--· ."/;~-:
. , .
. ·'
.. ~. ~ . .
· ... •.
~-. . ' . ·-·~' ,:·.~~· ··-~ ~-·· .. ~ ·, ,• .... , .
-~ . '
.... ,., ••• ? •
·-~<~'; -.~·::
.-•• -~ ·. • l ,, .. :
• ,. • ~' .' f • ;.. ,, ~ '.. • I • •
E.
D
D
D
. ,. . ·--~ ~< t ~
. ~ .. ,. '' .... ,_'
. . .;;~_·2_;:_.~
-. . .. . .
' . . .. · ·.·'.·.~·~·.·;,. ,, __ · ·.. . . : ~ :.~. ,
.' .' .'. . ... . ·. ·. /.~ .. )~ < :~:. :'.· .. _ .. ·.
..
50 C.l.fir ·
CORNELL
MEMO
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: D. An~rews Romans, Planning and Traffic Director
DATE: June 21, 1967
Page 969
PARK
..
PARK AREA
PROPOSED VACANCY
'·
i I,
L
AVE.
SUBJECT: Summary of staff recommendation relating to the application on behalf of J. J. Carey
to zone a parcel of land in Northeast Englewood from R-1-A (single-family) to R-3-A
(multi-family).
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Englewood, pursu ant to the provision of
Section 22.3 of Ordinance 26, Series of 1963, (Chapter 22 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Englewood), has had referred to it an application to rezone a portion of that property
commonly referred to as the KLZ Site. In the exercise of its powers under said ordinance
provision, and in order to inform itself upon those matters necessary to be considered in
forumlating its recommendation upo n said application, the Commission has held a public
hearing, after due notice thereof, which hearing was held on Wednesday, the 3rd day of May,
1967, and has requested the Planning Direct or and staff to report to the Commission upon
certain matters relative to the a pp lication.
You will find attached a rather detailed report of the history of the subject site, state-
ments relative to multi-family uses in the City and a discussion of the application. This
review is necessarily long because an effort was made to present as much information as
possible to the Commission for its consideration.
In summary of this report, I would submit the following:
The various departments of the City and utility companies have reported that a development
such as has been proposed can be accommodated at this location.
The development of this site for single-family residences under its present zoning, located
as it is, abutting a major arterial highway on its south and a possible high density use on
its east, is impracticable, from both a financial and planning standpoint. The Arapahoe
County Planning and Zoning Commission, having rezoned f or multi-family use the property which
abuts this site on the east, it is both unwise and impracticable to expect the adjoining
property to develop into single-family residences.
Page 970
For essentially the same reasons, it could not be expected that this site would be developed
for any uses authorized in either the R-2 residential zones.
The City has not experienced a sufficient development of multiple-family uses in the upper
income or "luxury" classes and there presently exists a need in this community for such de-
velopment. In view of the development underway at this time in the City and adjacent communities
this demand for quality apartments will increase. The subject site not only meets the normal
requirements for such a development insofar as its location is concerned (being on the periphery
of the business district, within several blocks of public transportation and abutting a maj:>r
arterial), but the acreage involved, the topography of the site and the value thereof, all
would give incentive to such a development.
While several persons in the neighborhood appeared in opposition to the application, the
protestants' "case" was based, primarily, upon their disagreement with the precise nature
of the anticipated development, not with the use of the ground for multiple-family uses.
The staff is of the opinion that an unaesthetic development cannot take place upon this
site due, principally to the economics of the development, including the market value of the
ground involved. Furthermore, the staff cannot find that a development on the subject site
would have any substantial adverse effect upon the residential properties to the south which
are separated from the subject area not only by Highway #70, but by the substantial distances
between that highway and the improvements to the south, most particularly since there is no
public access to the south from this highway at any point that this site abuts the highway.
By the same token, since this application does not seek a zone change of a large portion
along its northern boundary abutting Floyd Avenue so that no multiple-family residences can
be built upon this "strip" from South Franklin Street east, the staff cannot find that the
development will adversely effect the residents to the north of the subject site. The area
to the east of the subject site within Englewood "backs" on the site and would not be adversely
affected by the proposed development and the area adjoining the subject site on the southeast
has already been zoned by the County for multi-family use, giving as the reasons for the
change in zoning the following: The use is compatible with surrounding land uses and the rro-
posed development meets development objectives desirable for the area. This action further
substantiates the stand that the proposed development is compatible with the projected develop-
ment plans of the area. Further, a tract of land to the south of Highway 70 and to the east
of the subject site has been zoned R.A-1 by Cherry Hills Village, which zone classification
permits a residential and resort hotel with a maximum height of 150 ft. on the main buildirg
and 50 ft. on accessory buildings, with the accessory use of retail shops and restaurants.
This zoning on the part of Cherry Hills Village again indicates that conditions exist in tre
area which lend the proposed development compatible with the development plans for the area
of both Arapahoe County and Cherry Hills Village.
As to the specific application for R-3-A (multi-family) zoning, the staff recognizes the
possible density that could be permitted under this zone classification and is of the opinion
that such a development, were it to take place, would be completely unrealistic. However,
the applicant has stated that he has neither a desire nor intention of developing the area
to the possible maximum density. Indeed, the plans that Mr. Carey has presented to the Com-
mission have shown a development of not more than 1600 units, and he has indicated that he
would be willing to consider a lesser density than that.
The City Attorney has advised us that in his opinion, there is no way that the zoning can be
granted conditionally so it would appear that other means of controlling the density should
such control be desirable, would necessarily have to be considered. For this reason, the
staff would recommend that if the Commission refers the application to the City Council with
approval, that consideration be given to the simultaneous ·subdivision of the subject site
in order that an orderly development of the site as to traffic flow, storm drainage, water
and sanitary sewer service, etc. can be assured in harmony with the purposes set forth in
the Subdivision Regulations.
With the additional regulations and restrictions of the Subdivision Regulations applied to
the site, it would be the opinion of the staff that the plan being proposed by Mr. Carey
will be compatible with the long range plans of the City and an asset to the overall com-
munity; the staff would therefore recommend its favorable consideration by the Commission.
s/ D. Andrews Romans
D. ANDREWS ROMANS, Director
Planning & Traffic Regulation
DAR /gw
TO: Members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: D. Andrews Romans, Planning & Traffic Director
DATE: June 21, 1967
SUBJECT: Application on behalf of J. J. Carey to rezone a parcel of land in
Northeast Englewood from R-1-A (single-family) to R-3-A (Multi-family).
On April 5, 1967, an application was filed by J. J. Carey with the City Planning and Zoning
Commission for the rezoning of the land which was used for many years as a transmitter site
by radio station K.L.Z. and which is owned by Time-Life Broadcast, Inc. The present zoning
is R-1-A, a single-family residential zone district andthe requested zoning is R-3-A, a
multi-family zone district.
Acting in compliance and accordance with applicable statutes of Colorado, Ordinances of the
City of Englewood and its own rules and regulations, the Commission, at the meeting on April
5, 1967, set a Public ·Hearing on the matter to be held on May 3, 1967, the hearing to -take
place at 8:00 P.M. in the Englewood City Hall. The Notice of the Hearing was published in
the official City Newspaper, the Englewood Herald, on April 13, 1967, and the property was
posted on April 17, 1967.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 971
The Hearing, as you know, was held as scheduled on May 3, 1967, at which time the applicant
presented certain evidence in support of his application and persons opposing the zoning
submitted information against the application.
Inasmuch as all of the members o f the Commission were present at the Hearing and the minutes
of the meeting reflect the evidence presented, I shall not review those matters in this re-
port.
I am, however, setting forth for your consideration a resum~ of the actions relating to t~
subject site which have preceeded Mr. Carey's application for R-3-A zoning, some general
thoughts on apartment house developments such as has been proposed by Mr. Carey, and a re-
view of the application at hand.
The subject site, common.ly known as the "KLZ TRACT" or "KLZ SITE", consists of some 57 acres.
It was zoned originally for 'residential and agricultural use" under the Cherry Hills Planning
District. This zoning was passed by the District late in 1940 and was declared to be the
official zoning in January of 1941. In. October of 1941, Arapahoe County adopted the first
comprehensive zoning resolution for the unincorporated area of the County. At that time t~
zoning for the entire Cherry Hills Planning District was adopted. Later, when both Cherry
Hills and Greenwood Village incorporated, the incorporated areas created their own zoning
and the unincorporated areas remained under the County zoning.
In 1941, the KLZ tract was zoned R-2-A which zone classification permitted single-family
residences on 1 /2 acre lots. Permitted uses in this original zoning were:
1) One family dwelling.
2) Customary agricultural operations, nurseries and truck gardens, provided that no
storage of manure or odor and dust producing substances shall be permitted within
one hundred (100) feet of the property line and provided that the raising of numbers
of livestock or other farming activi~y that would be objectionable because of odor,
noise, or other nuisances shall not be permit~ed. Fur farms and farms operated for the
disposal of garbage shall not be permitted.
3) Public or private school or college; church parish halls or other place of worship;
public library; municipal, county or state building; park or other recreational area;
golf course; polo fields; water supply or flood control reservoir; well; tower. or filter
bed; irrigation canal; private club operated for the benefit of members and not for
gain.
4) Telephone exchange where no public business office and no repair or storage ~acilities
are maintained.
5) Philanthropic institutions other than a penal or correctional institution and hospital
or sanitarium other than f or contagious or infectious diseases and other than for the
insane or feeble minded, if approved by the Board of Adjustment as hereinafter provided
6) Radio station, residential hotel, commercial greenhouse, riding academy, commercial
stable, commercial dairy or commercial poultry raising, if approved by the .Board of
Adjustment as hereinafter provided.
7) Accessory buildings or uses customarily incident to any of the uses permitted above,
provided that such accessory uses shall not include any activity commonly conducted
for gain except as hereinafter provided.
In August of 1960, a zoning application was filed with Arapahoe County requesting a zoning
change to commercial. In December of 1960, this petition for rezoning was withdrawn.
In 1961 the subject land was studied by the Englewood Planning Commission and its proposed
annexation to and.zoning by the City of Englewood was recommended to the City Council by
the Commission on May 25, 1961. The subsequent action of the City Council annexing and
zoning the subject land for commercial use by Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1961 , was in-
validated by judgments and decrees of the Arapahoe County District Court and the Arapahoe
County Court in 1962. ·
The site was then annexed to the City by Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1962. At that time,
the City's Zoning Ordinance provided that all newly annexed land would automatically be
zoned R-1-A until "permanent" zoning was established for it. It was subsequently zoned
C-3, the shopping center zone classification, by Ordinance 23, series of 1963. This
Ordinance was "declared to be null, void and of no force and effect whatsoever" by the
District Court.
At the time the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted by Ordinance 26, Series of
1963, the site was zoned B-3 a business district zone classification designed primarily
for shopping center development. This actio n in placing the site in a commercial district
was also invalidated by the District Court Decree and the land "reverted" to the R-1-A
Classification which was automatically imposed by the Zoning Ordinance existing at the
time of annexation.
This Court Order, however, did not require the City to maintain the R-1-A zoning on this
site, nor did it prohibit its re-zoning --it merely found that there h~d not been
sufficient changes in the character of the neighborhood to warrant commercial use of the
ground. On the other hand, the Court expressly noted that the neighborhood had changed
during the period from the date of its original zoning in 1941 from a "suburban agricultural
area into an urban residential community" (page 16 of Court Order Civil Action No. 19406).
On July 28, 1965, Beau Monde, Inc. filed an application with the Planning Commission for
rezoning of the site from ,R-1-A (Single-family) to R-3-B (Multi-family). A Publi~ Hearing
was held by the Cit y Planning and Zoning Commission on August 25, 1965.
' At the Hearing, testimony was introduced which indicated that Beau Monde, Inc. and the in-
terested residents adjacent to the site were meeting to work out plans for the multi-family
development that would hopefully meet with the approval of all of the interested parties.
After having considered the testimony submitted at the Hearing, and after having reviewed
the staff recommendation at the regular meeting on September 22, 1965, the Comm i ssion voted
to recommend to the City Councii that the zoning of the site be changed from R-1-A to R-3-B.
A Public Hearing on the zone change request was then held by the City Council on November
15, 1965. At that meeting, Mr. Arthur Davis appeared on behalf of Beau Monde, Inc. and
withdrew the rezoning request because, according to Mr. Davis, it appeared that no satisfactory
agreement for the proposed development could be reached with the residents in the area.
Page 972
The Hearing was then closed and no further action was taken by the Council.
This site, as you know, was used by Radio Station KLZ
July of 1962. Since the time that the first tower was
since the original zoning was imposed upon the site in
around it have been substantially affected by changes.
community to an urbanized community.
as a transmitter site from 1935 until
completed in August of 1935, and
1941, the subject land and the areas
The area has changed from a rural
There has been a considerable increase in population and a correlative development of lands
on the north, northeast and west of the subject land and the annexation of these areas by
the City of Englewood followed by zoning for more intensive uses.
The records available in the Building Department show that most of the residences adjacent
to the site on the north, east and west were built in 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954.
The Temple Rest Home to the west of the subject site has been at its location for more than
35 years; major remodeling was done to the Home in 1963, and it has been further improved
since that time.
The Bullock Mortuary, also to the west of the subject site, was constructed in 1951, and
additions have been made periodicµlly since that time; the medical clinic to the southwest
was built in 195 9 and has added a dental clinic to the west of the site and there are now
plans to expand the original building.
The Kent School for Girls was constructed on approximately 28 acres of land adjoining the
subject site on the east. This site is being abandoned by the Kent School and the west 11
acres have been sold and are being developed with multi-family units. The Arapahoe County
Commissioners approved R-4 (Multi-f amily) zoning of this area on February 14, 1966. The
reasons given by the Arapahoe County Planning Commission for the R-4 zone classification
were: "(l) Use compatible with surrounding land uses. (2) Proposed development meets
developme~ objectives desirable for the area.'' I am furnishing herewith a copy of those
proceedings.
This area has subsequently been subdivided by the developer and at least one unit is now under
construction. I have not been able to find out exactly how many units will be built on th:i5
property; but it is my understanding that the maximum height will not exceed two stories ani
there will not be more than eleven units per acre permitted under the County R-4 Zone
classification.
The site is bordered on the north by East Floyd Avenue, which has been designated as an
arterial since 1957, and on the south by State Highway No. 70. Highway 70 is at this time
a major east-west six lane arterial, and has been designated on State Highway maps as an
expressway since its construction. I believe the following 24 hour traffic counts taken
on State Highway #70 west of University Boulevard are indicative of the change that has
taken place in the area:
Year 24-Hour Vehicular Count
1940 525
1946 1,150
1948 2,300
1950 4,500
1952 5,300
1954 6,200 (est.)
1956 8,700
1958 9,200
1960 11,000
1962 16,100
1964 18,200
1965 19,000
No counts have been taken by the Highway Department in this vicinity since 1965.
South University Boulevard, located some 1,200 feet to the east of the site, is a major
arterial with a projected 1980 volume of 35,000 cars a day.
The DMATS System 4B shows a projected demand for a capacity of 35,000 vehicles a day if
Highway 70 is to remain a six-lane major divided arterial. However, in view of the New
Englewood shopping complex and other development in the area, the City of Englewood, the
Arapahoe County Planning Department, the Denver Planning Department, and the DMATS Steering
Committee have all recommended that Highway 70 be designated as a freeway in the projected
metropolitan major street system.
Cherry Hills Village has zoned more than 70 acres o f land in the village fronting on Hampden
Avenue, or Highway 70, and South University R-A-1,.Resort Area District. This development
has not been started, but the zoning still is applicable. I am enclosing a copy of this
section of the Cherry Hills Zoning Ordinance for your information. You will see that the
permitted uses in this Zone District include a Residential and Resort Hotel with conveniences
and facilities which include public dining areas, meeting rooms and facilities, and retail
shops. A resort hotel is defined in the Cherry Hills Zoning Ordinance as "a building or
associated group of buildings, designed for the entertainment of transients as guests for
compensation, the residents of which are not predominately permanent, (in the sense of con-
tinuous, year-round tenancy), and do not have exclusive possession and control of the rented
f acilities, and the conveniences and facilities of which include, but not by way of limitation,
public dining areas, meeting rooms and facilities, retail outlets, room service and house-
keeping and maid services. No more than 25% of the rooms available for rent shall have
cookipg facilities." You will also note that the maximum height of the main building is 150
feet, roughly 15 stories, and of accessory buildings, 50 feet.
A small triangular section of land at Lafayette and Highway 70 which is in Cherry Hills
Village and adjacent to the subject site on the southwest is z~ned C-2 Commercial District
by.the.Village .. This Zone District permits retail shops, restaurants,' and office buildings:
This site, too, is undeveloped at this time.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 973
Recognizing a change in this general area, the City imposed R-2-B (two-family) and R-3-B
(multi-family) zone classifications in the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to the west
of the subject site. With the exception of some three hundred f eet adjacent to the extreme
northeast corner o f the site, the area to the north and northwest of the site is zoned
R-1-C, (single-family residential) the least restrictive of the single-family residential
districts. The area between South High Street and South Race Street to the north of East
Floyd Avenue and the area within the City to the east, is zoned R-1-A (single-family resi-
dential) which zone classification requires a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet.
As I have stated previously, the Planning Commission has considered this matter upon four
occasions --once upon the application for simultaneous annexation and zoning ; once upon
application for C-3 zoning, again in 1973 at the time the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
was adopted, and in 1965 when the R-3-B zoning was being considered. Each time that it has
been before the Commission , the majority opinion of the Commission members was that single-
family residential development was not the best use of the land.
Adding weight to this opinion are projected population studies by the Planning staff, the
Denver Planning Department, Inter-County Regional Planning Commisssion, and the Denver
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Committee which indicate that a demand for multi-
family units in the City will undoubtedly increase in the very near future with the com-
mercial and industrial development that is underway both within the City and in adjacent
communities. New Englewood publicity estimates that as many as 3,000 employees will be
associated with that development ; the Continental Bank Building is attracting major con-
cerns to its office space; Gates Rubber Company has announced plans for a new plant south
of Englewood --these are just .a few of the major projects which are underway and which add
weight to previous predictions. New concepts o ~ multi-family residential construction which
are now being implemented in the Denver Metropolitan area have not, up until this time, bem
undertaken in Englewood. The size and location of the · subject site lends itself to an
imaginative development with aesthetic appeal to persons seeking a quality of excellence in
a multi-family residential area.
The Inter-County Regional Planning Commission Master Plan Report Number 23, entitled "Com-
munity Development Area Planning for the Denver Region Toward Greater Livability" considers
the subject of the community development area (CDA) and the community service center (CSC).
With respect to multi-family development, consideration of the following factors is sug-
gested when determining the location of apartment houses :
"Employment patterns . Apartments are frequently located near large centers of employment,
with occupancy by f amilies upon arrival for employment before they buy homes, by unmarried
employees on a more permanent basis, etc.
Population characteristics. Apartments are needed in areas where there are concentrations
of transients, single individuals , newly-married couples, working couples, 'post-family'
couples, and elderly individuals and couples.
Proximity to Central Business District. The tremendous upsurge of apartment-house develop-
ment in the Capital Hill area and the recently accepted proposal for apartments in the down-
town area are evidence of the desire of many apartment dwellers to be located near the Central
Business District.
Availability of Public Transportation. Others prefer to live in areas separated from downtown,
but where good public transportation is provided to the Central Business District.
Recreation facilities. A more recent trend is toward locating apartments near out-door recrea-
tion facilities --lakes, golf courses, and the like."
The report also points out that there is a need for "facilities which will enable older people
to move into apartments without severing their ties with the neighborhoods in which they have
spent their earlier lives." Consideration is then given to a zoning category which is based
on the premise that: "Almo st everyone is agreed that it is not desirable to scatter multiple
family.d wellings (apartment houses) at random among single-family homes. However, a fair-
sized tract of land carefully designed for an admixture of apartments and two-family and
single-family homes --with a generous allocation of open-space --can be an attractive,
livable, and at the same time economically valuable development." The statement of purpose
for the Residential Planned Combination (RPC) zone, seems to be comparable to the objectives
Mr. Carey is seeking in his proposed development in that they are "intended to encourage
large-scale development planning, to encourage the design of a planned combination of
structural types in appropriate areas within or abutting existing residential zones, and at
the same time to maintain housing density controls, (to) preserve open space, and (to) insure
compatibility of development with adjacent residential districts."
The City land use survey indicates that 4.2% of the City area is zoned at this time for multi-
family use. Cities throughout the country of comparable size and proximity to the core city
have up to eleven percent of the City zoned for multi-family use. At the time the land use
study was made, only 10.9%.of the area zoned for multi-family use was developed with mul t i-
family uses. Most of the land zoned R-3 within Englewood is located adjacent to the Core
Area in the "older" part of the City and is held under small ownerships that have been de-
veloped with single-family res i dential units --an intermixing of old and new structures.
Many of these are rental units and others are occupied by older citizens who don't want to
relocate but prefer the convenience of living adjacent to the central business district. It.
has not been economically feasible for a developer to buy several of these ownerships in order
to put together a parcel of a size which will lend itself to a well-planned development.
Until a program can be worked out to encourage redevelopment of these areas it would appear
that these areas will remain at status quo, and that a development such as that proposed by
Mr. Carey would have considerable merit.
On the application which is being considered by the Commission at this time, Mr. Carey has
given the following reasons for the zone change request: "The subject property consists of
approximately fifty-five acres of unimproved land. Its location, terrain and value are such
that it cannot be economically utilized for any purpose other than the type of multi-family
residential uses contemplated by R-3-A zoning. Not t o o long ago, land which adjoins the
subject property on the east was zoned for multi-family residential purposes by the County
o f Arapahoe. This change in circumstances has the tw o -fold effect of making the subject
Page 974
property even less desirable and economically capable of being utilized for purposes other
than those permitted by R-3-A zoning, and of enabling the property, if it is so zoned, to
be integrated in use with the land that adjoins it on the east.
"The property ideally meets the qualifications for R-3-A zoning set forth in Sec. 22.4-7 of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Englewood. Among these qualifications are
nearness to major arterial streets, nearness to public transportation, within convenient
walking distance to shopping areas, etc.
"In the respectful opinion of the applicant, it is, at this particular time, impossible to
provide any sort of development of the subject property outside the R-3-A zoning classifica-
tion. By the same token, if such R-3-A zoning is obtained, the subject property can be de-
veloped int o a multi-family residential show place. Its cont ours and size are of a nature
that such development can and will result in an aesthetically outstanding residential community
of high -class and character, affording the City of Englewood a very high tax base.''
In order that the Commission might have knowledge of the effect the request might have on
the various service departments of the City and applicable utility companies, the matter was
referred to these agencies. Again, a typical letter which was sent to the companies, and
copies of the replies are included for your information. You will note that a figure of 1600
units was given in the letter as the basis for their computations. To summarize the responses,
the following information was received:
Public Service Company, Electric Distribution section, states that:
primary power to fulfill all proposed requirements is available."
"sufficient electric
Public Service Company, Gas Distribution section, returned a series of prints showing the
availability of gas to the area.
Mountain States Telephone states that:
vice to all customers."
"We are ready and capable of providing telephone ser-
The Englewood Police Chief's reply indicates that proposals that are being made to increase
their staff and facilities should allow the police department to absorb the proposed develop-
ment along with other new developments in the City.
The Fire Chief on behalf of his department indicates "considerable" approval of the request.
The Director of Libraries states that the area would "provide the possibility of another
productive bookmobile stop" and that the American Library Associations Standards for Public
Libraries require one library staff member for each 2000 population.
The Director of Public Works refers to the 1961 Hoskins Report on storm drainage and recommends
that the developer work out some arrangement with the City for the installation of the drainage
line as proposed by the Ho skins report.
The Director of Utilities states that "it would probably be safe to assume water is available
without any major capital improvements", but that it may be necessary to install larger pumps
in order to serve the development. As to the sanitary sewer service, the Director of Util:it ies
states that the system in the area does not appear adequate to serve 1600 units and that he
could not say what additional capital expenditure would be necessary.
The Director of Parks and Recreation did not reply.
The two school districts involved indicate that the increased valuation anticipated with a
development such as has been proposed compared t o the valuation were it to be developed wi1h
single-family residences would generally off-set the cost of educating any children.
May I add at this point, that an analysis of the Englewood School District based on the most
recent school census shows that a large percentage of apartments in Englewood have no children,
and that in those apartments with children there is an average of 1.5 children per unit.
This includes all children u p to 21 years of age and includes all units in structures with
three or more units and not just the larger apartment houses. Of 837 multi-family units ,
589 had no children. Several of the larger apartment houses are not available to families
with children under 16.
Taking into consideration the foregoing information, the staff has reached certain conclusions
which are now set forth:
1. The development of this site for single-family residences under its present zoning, lo-
cated as it is, abutting a major arterial highway on its south and a possible high density
use on its east, is impracticable, f rom both a financial and planning standpoint. The
Arapahoe County Planning and Zoning Commission, having rezoned for multi-family use the
property which abuts this site on the east, it is both unwise and impracticable to expect
the adjoining property to develop into single-family residences.
2. For essentially the same reasons, it could not be expected that this site would be developed
for any uses authorized in either the R-2 residential zones.
3. The City has not experienced a sufficient development of multiple-family uses in the
upper income or "luxury" classes and there presently exists a need in this community for
such development. In view of the development underway at this time in the City and
adjacent communities, this demand for quality apartments will increase. The subject site
not only meets the normal requirements for such a development insofar as its location is
concerned (being on the periphery of the business district, within several blocks of
public transpor~ation and abutting a major arterial), but the acreage involved, the topo-
graphy of the site and the value thereof, all would give incentive to such a development.
4. While several persons in the neighborhood appeared in opposition to the application,
the protestants' ''.c~se" was based , primarily, upon their disagreement with the precise
nature of the ant~cipated dev~l~pment, not with the use of the ground for multiple-family
uses. :he ~taff is of .th~ opinion that an unaesthetic development cannot take place
upon this site due, ~rincipally to the economics of the development, including the market
value of the ground involved. Furthermore, the staff cannot find that a development on
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 975
the subject site would have any substantial adverse effect upon the residential properties
to the south which are separated from the subject area not only by Highway #70, but by
the substantial distances between that highway and the improvements to the south, most
particularly since there is no public access to the south from this highway at any point
that this site abuts that highway. By the same t oken, since this a p p l ication does ~not
seek a zone change of a large portion along its northern boundary abutt i ng F lo yd Avenue
so that no multiple-family residences can be built upon this "strip" from South Franklin
Street east, the staff cannot find that the development will adversely effect the residents
to the north of the subject site. The area to the east of the subject site within Englewood
"backs" on the site and would not be adversely affected by the proposed development and the
area adjoining the subject site on the southeast has already been zoned by the County for
multi-family use, giving as the reasons for the change in zoning the following: "The use
is compatible with surrounding land uses and the pro p o sed development meets development
objectives desirable for the area. This action further substantiates the stand that the
proposed development is compatible with the projected development plans o f the area. Further,
a tract of land to the south of Highway 70 and to the east of the su b jec t site has been
zoned R.A-1 by Cherry Hills Village, which zone classification permits a residential and
resort hotel with a maximum height of 150 ft . on the main building and 50 ft. on accessory
buildings, with the accessory use of retail shops and restaurants. This zoning on the part
of Cherry Hills Village again indicates that conditions exist in the area which lend the
proposed development compatible with the development plans for the area of both Arapahoe
County and Cherry Hills Village.
As to the specific application for R-3-A (multi-family) zoning, the staff recognizes the
possible density that could be permitted under this zone classificatio n and is of the
opinion that such a development, were it to take place, would be completely unrealistic.
However, the applicant has stated that he has neither a desire nor intention of developing
the area to the possible maximum density. Indeed, the plans that Mr. Carey has presented
to the Commission have shown a development of not more than 1600 units, and he has indicated
that he would be willing to consider a lesser density than that .
The City Attorney has advised us that in his opinion, there is no way that the zoning can
be granted conditionally so it would appear that other means of controlling the density
should such control be desirable, would necessarily have to be considered. For this reason,
the staff would recommend that if the Commission refers the application to the City Council
with approval , that consideration be given to the simultaneous subdivision of the subject
site in order that an orderly development of the site as to traffic flow, storm drainage ,
water and sanitary sewer service, etc. can be assured in harmony with the purposes set forth
in the Subdivision Regulations.
With the additional regulations and restrictions o f the Subdivision Regulations applied to
the site, it would be the opinion of the staff that the plan being proposed by Mr. Carey
will be compatible with the long range plans of the City and an asset to the overall com-
munity; the staff would therefore recommend its favorable consideration by the Commission.
D. Andrews Romans, Director
Planning & Traffic Regulation
DAR /gw
Page 976
Date:
APPLICA NT:
Nam e :
Addr e ss :
,!'.I.Pi: 5 196 7
r L1\t ·~~'{, :c: /\ .:J i R/ ;=;.:c
P.EG ULA"r!C : r:?A RHAEN T
APPLICATION FOR REZONING
Clty of Englewood, Co lorado
April 3, 1 9 67
J, J, C a rey
3 6 9 5 South F e der a l Boulevard
(For C i ty Use Only)
(He aring Numb e r L C:-1 )
StaLem e nt o f prior contact
with City Planning Depart-
me nt: Englewood, Colorado
Tc 1 c p h o n c :_..._7_,..8_...,9_-_,,,2...,.5c..2 ..... l.__ ________ _
Re l a ti o n t o
OWNER:
Na me: Tim e -Life Bro a dc a st. In c.
Add res s : 131 Speer Blvd,. D e nver. Colo. 80204
T e l e ph o n e : 623-4271
-~~~~~---------~
Subm i tt e d h e rewith is a d €po :it of $50.00 for the first 10 acres or
any port io n th e reof, plus $5.00 for each additional 5 acres or any
p o r tio n t h ereo f, as d et ermined by the Planning and Zonin g Commission.
It is understood that this deposit is nec e ssary to d e fray the ad-
ministrative costs entail e d by this request and, therefore, will not
b e return e d, and that additional fees may be required to cover. the
c o sts of advertising if ecessary. The undersigned cert i fies that
he has r e ceived a statement of current City policies and
applicable 1 't)\ ordinances concerning re z oning .
. \ e-Life Broadca nc.
APPLI CANT ~ OWNE~·---r
by ~--'l.Lo.o~ ....... '""i'"<=-1-'----,~.-,~~~-=--~
COM MON TO BE REZONED:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 10 BE REZONED:
Th e Southwest quarter of th e Southeast Quart e r . and the East half of the Southeast
Quart e r of the Southwest Quarter of Se c tion 35, Township 4 South, R a nge 68 West
o f th e 6th Principal Meridian, City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of
Color a do, e x ce p t the North 1 5 0 feet o f the East 1292. 46 f e et.
PRE S ENT ZONING: R 1 A REQUESTED ZONING: R 3 A
--~~------------------
REAS ONS FOR REQUESTED CHANGE:
The subject property consists of approximately fifty-five acres of unim-
prov ed land. Its location, t e rrain and value are such that it c a nnot be economic-
ally utilized for any purpose other than the type of multi-family r esid e ntia l uses
contempla ted by R 3 A zonin g . Not too long ago, land which adjoins the subject
prop e rty on the East was zoned for multi-family residentia l purpos e s by the
County o f A rapahoe . This c hange in circumstances has the two-fold effect of
m a king the subject property e v en l e ss desirable and e c onomically capable of be-
i n g utilize d f or purposes oth e r than those permitted by R 3 A zoning, a nd of en-
;1blir1 g I.h e rro p c dy, if it i s s o zon e d, to h 0 jntegratecl in it s c· wjtlt tile ' Lind 111:-it
adjo i n s it 011 th e C;.isl .
Th e property ideally meets the qualifications for R 3 A zoning set forth in
S e c. 22. 4-7 of the Comprehensive Zoning O rdinance of the C i ty of Englewood.
Among t h e se qu a lifications are n e arness to major arteria l st reets, n ea rness to
public tr a nsport a tion, within ' convenient walking distanc e to s hoppin g a r ea s, etc.
(A t t a c h a dditional sheet if necessary)
J11 th e l 'l'S p e cl.fu.l. op11110n of' th e L1p pl.ic <t 11I., jl is, u.t thi s p;ir1.i c .u];ir
Li 11w, .i111pu ss i b l (' lo pr ovid e <.111y s od ol' u c v c l o p mc nt ror th e subj e ct p ro p c dy
o ut sid e tli c H 3 /\ zo ning cl;:i.ssification . By th e same tok e n, i[ su c h R :3 A z o n-
i n g is obt a in e d, th e s ubj ect prop e rty c an b e d evelop e d into a multi-fam ily
re s i d e n t i a l s how p l a c e . Its c ontours a nd size are of a n ;itur e th a t s u c h
d eve lop me n t can a n d w ill r esult in an a esth etically outst a nding r e s i cl c 11t al
c ommun i t y o f hig h-cla ss and c har ac ter, afford i n g th e City of Eng l ewood ;:i
ve ry hig h t ax b ase .
I
I
I
?'
I
I
ll
' I
j1
I' '
lj
I
I
11
'
11 I ~
·l
I· ,,
1 '
I I'
lj
I
11
11 'I
l1 ,,
I ~
Ii
I I
I·
11
11
11
11
I
.I II II ,I
I
1 '
I
I ----·
I fl
I
306 .-Ct;:RTIFIED COPY OF OR :.-THE c. F. HOECKEL B LAN K B OO K "' LI T HO. co .. D ENVE R . C O L
STATE OF C OLORADO, (
SS.
CO UNTY OF .... f:.:'!:9,P.R..h.O .~ ......................... . At a ..................... .reg.ular ........................ meeting of the
Boa rd of County Commissioners for ........... hX_gpsi,bQe .......................... County, Colorndo, held at the Court
H ouse in __ ;I;.i .itt l.e.t.OJ)._, __ .. Colo.r.a.d_o ___________ on ........... Monday .................... t h e ......... l.4th .......................... .
cla y of... .... f..~_P.r..u..a.r.y .............................. , A. D. Hl .. 6.6., there were present:
.. J.ohn ... V .•.... C.hr.i .s.t.en .s.en ............................... , Chairman,
.Vi.n._<;:;.en.t .. A ..... M.cMill..e_n _______ ....................... , Commissioner,
.. Y..9h .l} __ .J _ •... JU._c;)}9,1.J ............................................. , Commissioner,
.. Ron.a.ld ... S ..•... LO .i?er ............................................ , County Attorney,
_M.g,rj _or.ie_ .P.age ................. _ ............................. , Clerk,
....................................................................................... , D eputy,
wh en the following proceedings, among others, were had and done, to-wit:
No.81-66 It was moved by Commissioner Nicholl and duly seconded by
Commissioner McMillen that the following Resolution be adopted:
Case No. 65-42
ii
WHEREAS, application has been made by Vincent A. Rieger,
4125 East Jewell Avenue, Denver, Colorado, for the rezoning of certain 1I
property hereinafter described from R-2 (Residential) Classification
to R-4 (Residential) Classification, and the Arapahoe County Planning
Commission has made favorable recommendation of such change in
zoning by Resolution of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, public notice has been given of such proposed
rezoning by one publication in the Englewood Herald and Enterprise,
a newspaper of general circulation within the County of Arapahoe, and
notice of such rezoning has been posted on the property prior to such
hearing, as required by Zoning Resolution of Arapahoe County, and
as shown by the Affidavit and Photographs attached thereto, filed
by the applicant at the time of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, public hearing was held pursuant to the afore-
said notice before the Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe
County in the Hearing Room of the Board of County Commissioners in
the Welfare Building at Littleton, Arapahoe County, Colorado, on
the 1st day of February, A.D., 1966, at the hour of 10:30 A.M., at
which hearing persons appearing in favor of the application presented
evidence and testimony, and no persons appeared in opposition to
the proposed change in zoning; and
WHEREAS, such matter was taken under advisement and
deferred for decision to this date; and
I, ................. M9.rj .o.r.i .e .. Page ......................................... ,
Co unty Clerk and ox-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State
afo resa id , do h ereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Order is truly copied from the R ecords of the
proc ee din gs of the Board of County Commissioners for said ............... Ar.ap.aho.e ............................... County,
now in iny of11co .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said County, at... ... Iiit:t.l.e.t.on_, ____ Colo.r.a.d.o ....................................... this
..... ?.}?;.9: .................................... dny of .......... M.9.Y .......................... , A. D. 10 .~.7. ..
_____ ,°M_gX:jQ-r;_i_e ____ :p_c;i._g _~--------·------------·-··-------------------------------·
p.,~a,~~:::~,.,
I I
i
I
P age 977
P age 9 7 8
~age No.2 -Case No . ;5-42
WHEREAS, this Board has found and determined that the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices
justifies the change in zoning of the hereinafter described property
from R-2 Classification to R-4 Classification as hereinafter set forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado:
A. The zoning of the hereinafter described property located
within the County of Arapahoe and State of Colorado,
is hereby changed from R-2 to R-4 Classification, to-wit:
The West half (W~) of the Southeast quarter (SE~)
of the Southeast quarter (SE~) of Section 35,
Township 4 South, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian, Arapahoe County, Colorado, except the
North 430 feet thereof; subject to and excepting
the following:
1. The South 30 feet thereof, as right-of-way
for State Highway No. 70, which is East
Hampden Avenue.
2. That portion thereof conveyed to the Department
of Highways, State of Colorado as right-of-way
for State Highway No.70 by warranty deed dated
October 9, 1959, and recorded in book 1159
at page 590, Arapahoe County records.
3. An agreement dated June 30, 1915, and recorded
August 25, 1915, in book 91 at page 235 of the
Arapahoe County records.
4. An agreement dated March 1, 1917, and recorded
October 23, 1917, in book 101 at page 373 of
the Arapahoe County records.
5. Easement for ditches granted in deed dated May
17, 1887, recorded June 9, 1887, in book 317
at page 491 of the Arapahoe County records.
6. A right-of-way easement granted by Kent School,
Inc., to the Colorado Central Power Company
dated December 5, 1950, and recorded December
21, 1950, in book 703 at page 68 of the
Arapahoe County records.
B. That the zoning map of the county be and the same hereby
is amended to conform to and reflect such change.
Upon roll call the vote was:
Commissioner Christensen, Yes; Commissioner McMillen, Yes; Commissioner
Nicholl, Yes.
The Chairman declared the motion carried and so ordered.
I
I
1.
I
I
I
!:_age 3
Following some discussion, It was moved by Mr. Sternberg and seconded by Mr.
Johnson thnt the Planning Commission approve the overall development plan of
P-65-16, King's Ridge.
Upon rol I call, the motion was unanimously carried.
#65-42 -Rfeger -R-2 (Residential) to R-4 (Multi-Family Residential) -NW of
University and Hampden
Mr. Vincent Rieger, developer, and Mr. Robert ~laters, sales agent, were present.
Mr. Trenka showed the location on the 200 scale map. He recalled that the first
presentation of the request was made at the December 7th meeting. at which time
evidence was heard and the request tabled until the next meeting. He reviewed
the surrounding land uses and zoning of the affected jurisdictions. He pointed
out that the reason the request had been tabled was because the residents ln
the surroundlng area expressed concern over the types and quality of proposed
condominiums.
Pa ge 979
Mr. Nicholl asked Mr. Rieger the height of the proposed condominiums. Mr. Rieger
replied 21', having the second level as part of the first floor for single family
use. Mr. Nicholl asked tho maximum allowable height under the R-4 classlflcatfon;
Mr. Woolsey replied 25'.
An unidentified lady tn the audience said the residents of the area strongly opposed
high rise apartments, but could not object to the allowable 25' height. She said
the residents would not object if development occurs as proposed.
Mr. Woolsey replied he had received a telephone call from Mr. Blnke Hiester, associated
with the group responsible for preserving Integrity of zoning In Cherry Hills. He
said Mr. Hiester had told him he felt conf ldent the proposed development would
occur as Mr. Rieger set forth, but thought rt desirable for an agreement to be
received prior to formal hearing before the Board of County Con-.mlsslonars .
Following some discussion, It was moved by Mr. Johnson that the following resolution
be lntroduc~d for passago by the Arapahoe County Planning Commission: Be It
Resolved by the Arapahoe County Planning Commission that the appllcatfon for rezoning
from R-2 (Residential District) to R-4 (Residential District) of Vincent A. Rieger
of NW of University and Hampden covering the following described property In Arapahoe
County, Colorado to-wit: (Insert legal description> be recormiended favorably to
the Board of County Conmlssfoners for the fol lowing reasons: (f) Use compatible
with surrounding land uses. (2) Proposed development meets development objectives
desirable for the area.
Motion seconded by Mr. Belden.
VOTE: For Passage:
Abstained:
Mr. Sternberg, Mr. Wright, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Belden
Mr. Nf chof I
The Cholrman declared the motfon passed and ordered that a certlf fed copy of this
Resolution be fon1arded with the file of this cas~ to the Board of County Comnlssloners
for further proceedings.
DISCUSSION
1966 Work Program
Mr. Woolsey e~plalned the various phases of the projected Work Program for 1966.
Page 980
CHERRY BILLS VILLAGE
Ordinance No. 7
Series of 1956
As Amended
Section 9 (A). R.A.-1 --Resort Area District.
A. Use Regulations. No building 01· land shall be used
and no building or structure shall be erected or structurally
altered unless otherwise permitted herein, except for one or
more of the following uses:
1. Residential and Resort Hotel. For the purposes
of this section, a residential and resort hotel is defined as
a building, or associated group of buildings, designed for
the entertainment of transients as guests for compensation,
the residents of which are not predominately permanent, (in
the sense of continuous, year-round tenancey), and do not have
exclusive possession and control of the rented facilities,
and the conveniences and facilities of which include, but not
by way of limitation, public dining areas, meeting rooms and
facil~ties, retail outlets, room service and housekeeping and
maid services. No more than 25% of the rooms available for
rent shall have cooking facilities.
2. Recreational area, including but not by way
of limitation, bridle paths, golf courses, pitch and putt
courses, parks, lakes, swimming pools, playgrounds, tennis
courts and polo fields.
3. Growing and preservation of trees and nursery
stock, and protection of water courses from erosin and floods.
4. _Watershed protection and similar uses.
5. Grazing of livestock.
6. Retail shops and restaurants when attached to or
forming a part of a residential and resort hotel; provided
that the total floor area devoted to the use of retail shops
and to retail outlets shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of
the total floor area of the residential and resort hotel.
7. Accessory buildings or uses customarily incident
to nny of the above useso
B. Height Regulations. No main building shall exceed
150 feet in height. No accessory building included in the
hotel complex shall exceed 50 feet in height, and no other
accessory building shall exceed 30 feet in height.
C. Area Regulations.
1. Occupied area. No more than ten percent (10%)
of the total area shall be occupied by buildings or s.ructures
of any type.
2. Primary accesso Primary access to any such
area shall be from East Hampden Avenue.
Do Regulaiionso Regulations as to planning, ·
planting and light and advertising shall be as follows:
1. Fronts of all commercial enterprises in a
district shall be similar in exterior design and the areas
between entranceways or immediately fronting on any single
building shall be appropriately landscaped with grass and
shrubs.
2. ~dvertising lighting shall be so arranged as to
avoid glare on adjoining property, and no advertising shall be
permitted, except for ordinary commercial signs, the design
and size of which -shall be subject to approval of the Planning
Co i on.
I
I
I
-
Mr s~ D. Andrews Romans
.Direct or
?J. arming and Tra!fic ReiUlation
Eng l e11 ood, Colorado
Dear Mrs. Romana :
IJ.ttleton, Colorado
Mq 19, 1967
Thank you for yonr letter of Mq 16, 19b7 advising ua
of the po ssible rezoning of the KLZ site.
At the present time we do not have facilities to provide
Re rvice for 1600 cuatomers at thia location, hovner I can assure
yo u we are ready ,and capable ot providing telepho• senice to all
cua tom ere .
I am c onfident Mr. Care7 will be •oat agreeable to work
wi t h u 9 in order that we 11a7 provide thi.8 service when it 1• desired.
If ve can be or further assistance please do not hesitate
to cal l me.
Very truly 7ours,
~-..:7 .... -------1. ~Jobnaon
M&Lger .
KD J :s
-__; ... ·-
•
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
". ~· 8 0 X e • 0 • D • .. Y • ll, 0 0 I. 0 ll A D 0 • 0 8 0 1
· May 22, 1967
Hr. O . Andrews Romans, Director
Planni ng and Traffic· Regulation
City of Englewood
P. 0 . Box 178
Englewood, Colorado 80110
We have made a complete study of the electric facilities In
the a rea conmonly referred to as the KLZ site R-3-A, and we
will have sufficient electrrc primary power to fulfill all
prop os ed requirements . The secondary voltage will be deter-
mi ned later from the rate structure and Individual load req ui rements.
We wish to thank you for your consideration in notifying us
in advan c e of the proposed project. If we can be of any
f u rther assistance please let us know.
J. L. PARKER , Supervisor
Electr ic Distribu tion Engineerfng
JLP : J EM :vg
1-d
ti)
\IQ
(!)
(.!:)
00
I-'
INTll4"ICI
~·
TO: D. A. Ranans, Planning~ Tr•ffic DATI: H•y 22, 1967
FROM: Jack L. Clasby, Chief of Police
SUIJECT: Propo s ed Development of KLZ Site
The Pol;ce Department's organizational planning and proposals for 1968 include
additional personnel and facilities, with the development of a traffic division
contemplated.
The addit i on of 1,600 units with approxi.,.tely 4,SOO to S,000 new residents is
expected to create some addit i onal traffic and other problens requiring police
attention. However, the proposals reconrnended to fncre•s• our staff and facility
should allow the police to absorb this increase along with that genera,ed with the
other new development in Englewood.
It must be considered that even though the development may take several years
to complete, that during construction of this large area many other problwns of
police concern will exist. ·
The matter of access into this proposed development for emergency services will
be of much concern to us, and we would appreciate receiving fnforrn1tion regarding
proposed access routes ~s they becane available.
JLC/ez
-
Jack L. Clasby
Chief of Police
TOt D. Andrews Roe1n1, DiHctor
Planning and Traffic a.sulation
ROM: Q\ief Doualaa c. Sovern
~
WOUMMl
SU&llCT: Propoaed Development of 11.Z Site
DATlr May 17, 1967
The reque1t a1 stated ln 10\lt' ..-orand• of the JSth ccncemlnC ihe
zoning of the ltLZ 1ite to l-l-A ... ta vlth cca1iderable ~pprov•l of .thi•
-
department.
We 1incerely hop that thia laprov ... nt or acaiatbinl Qf like natur•
can be obtained for thil property~ ·
DCS(bj
~s Q. sona
•ir.-Chief
ltj
~
(1q
(1)
(!)
00
!:...:>
·-
INTll~I
M
Tc>. D .. A ... RoJT1ans, Planning & Traffic DATii May 19, 1967
D.l.rector
FROM: Mrs. Phyl J ie Wiebe, Director of Libraries
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF KLZ SITE
P u r s uant to your memo on the proposed development of the
KIZ s~~P , th~s could possibly add 3,000-4,000 potential library
u ,~r3 to our service area population .
The .\merican Library Association's Standards for Public
Li b r.a~Les require one library staff member for each 2,000 popu-
lati c n~ Tf we now have approximately 45 ,000 people in our ser-
v1cP ar a 1 ot1r full tl ~e staff of 8 people provides one staff
werrrer for each 5,620 people, well below the standards for good
li t r ry SPrvice~
~~ai~g this many potential library users to our servic~
arP-a would require at leas t one additional staff member to main-
taj n ~ny progress we have made toward minimum standards in this
arPa. Sp 2 cn ~nd book collection growth might need to progress
at a more.rapid pace also, but I see no critical situation here.
This area would also provide the possib ility of anot her
producti.ve bookMobile st op •.
P,J ,J/ j e s
e_;t1)rL t0Ji,
Phyll i~iebe
Director of Libraries
Englewood Public Library
--
IN1'IM)llftCI
MIMOllANDUM
TO: D. A. RoJllans, Planning Director DATlr M1.7 24, 1967
ROM: William R. IX>brats, Director ot Utilities.
SUIJICT1 PROPOSED DEVELOPM~T OF I. L. Z. SITI
This llle11>rand\Dl ia in response to ,our inquiry or May 15, 1967
concerning availability of eerYicee to the I. L. z. site.
Depending OJ\ the UtOUnt or water r.Quired ( especiall7 sumer
irrigation requir•ents) 1t would probably be sate to assume water is
available without any 11ajor capital iaprov.enta. However, this ie a
low pressure area which presently ia 1er~ by a booster station, and
it mRy be necessary for the installation ot larger pUllps in order to
serve a com.plex of this eize.
The aani tary 8811er syat. in the area does not appN.r
adequate to serve 1600 units. Parker and Underwood c011piled a report
for the City Council (a copy of which I presented to you) and made
several alternate proposale for sever main installations. ill or the
propo sals were based on the K. L. z. site being single t111ily residen-
tial or co11T11ercial zoning. (The design of the aaina na on a residen-
ti&l classification.) The city did install new aaina based on the
Parker and Underwood report, and I cannot state at this time what
add itional capital expenditu:Me wuld be necMB&17 to adequately serft
the K. L. z. site !or the 1600 units. ·
W.R.D. ej
Willi• R. Dobrats
Director of Utilities.
~
SlJ
IJQ
CD
~
00 w
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTll-OPPICI
MIMOIANDUM
D. A . Romans, Planning & Traff1ic DAn: May 24, 1967
Director
Kells Waggoner , Director of Public Works
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF KLZ SITE
This memo is in reply to your memo~ May l~, 1967 requeatiDI
comments concerning the effect that this development will
have on my department.
There is at the present a drainage proble• in the Northeaat
area of Englewood, specific locations would be: Osden at
Cornell and Bates at Clarkson. These locations are uauallJ
flooded during every normal rain.
The Hoskins report of 1961 proposed that a storm sewer line
be extended from Little Dry Creek at Clarkson to Floyd Av~nue
and then East on Floyd to University and thereby eliainating
the existing problem. The line was designed to include the
anticipated runoff from the ILZ site and it looks like the
cost of the line was based upon the development in•talliDI
that proportioned share which was attributed to them.
Som ~ of the runoff figures and pipe size• are aa follows:
From the Hoskins Report
At the Northeast corner of the development
Q ~ quantity of runoff in cubic feet per second
require~ Q -80 cfs
Pipe size -48" slope ·'°'
Pipe flowing full Q -88 cfs
At the Northwest corner of the developaent
required Q -124 cfa
pipe size -48" slope • 1.()()1
I
Pipe flowing full Q -140 cfs
As you can see, the design Q was increased by 140 -88 or
52 cfs for the development.
--
Th i;: c-1~g i -: --r for t he Kent Village development estimated 1 cfs
p l•r acre run o .f 1 and if this were applied to the development 1
h ~n t h e r~n off wou l d be 55 cfs .
A ~ i nc reas e of runoff of this quantity would certainly have
a d J~a ging ef fec t on tho problem areas mentioned above, there-
fo re, th e d evel oper of the KLZ site should work out some
arra n g e ~ent with the City for the installation of the drainage
line as proposed by the Hoskins report.
The 55 cfs runoff would require a 42" pipe if we use an average
slope o f .soi along the route proposed by Hos.kins .
Sincerely,
KW
KW pd
\ -
"d
!).)
(Jq
(t)
<.O
00
~
-ENGLEWOOD Puauc SCHOOLS
.. IOI IOU'TM MNNOCK
ENGLEWOOQ. COLORADO 80110
June l, 1967
D. Ancirt>w s Romans, Director
PJaJ'\mn g e:n d Traffic Regula.tion
C i.ty of Englewood
P. O. Box 178
Englewood, Colorado
· Dear Mrs. Roni.ans:
I apologize for the late reply to your letter concernin& the impact
o! housing on the KLZ site. We bad done some •tudy with Cherry Creek
as to t ~e use of this site and the type of development that might be placed
o n it., tln nking the best development, of couree, for any achool eystem to
be luxury apartment a and dwellings because of the high aseessed valuation
per u mt and the nU..'Tl.ber of children as a yield from such unite.
If the units were equally divided between Cherry Creek School Die·
trict and Englewood Sohool District, there would be 18 of the apartment•
containing 1650 uruts in the Englewood School Di•trict. Our share of
students then would be 140 etudenta. A rouah 1ueaa would give the total ·
valuation of $4, 476, 666 and a.n asaeeaed valuation of $1, 343, 000. The
yi~ld would be $107, 440 for Englewood. The coat of educating 140 student•
is $84, 000 0£ which a share would be provided by the eta.te and the county, ·
so we would gain financially with thia added property value in the echool
dJ stri c t.
Should it go to homei~ 18 a'cre•~ which would be Englewood'• ~lire
of the area would provide about 49 homes with two atudelit• per home we
would expect to have 98 student• in echool. Total valuation would be
much lee~, approximately $980, 000 with an aaaeeeed valuation of $294', 000.
The yield in taxes would be $39, 200. The co•t of educating thit number of
stude~ts would be $58, 800, so in this caae, there would be e.pproldmately
$lO, 000 over and above income for the area.
l haven't run this out in tablee, but would set thu up in fable expl&Da-
1on 1£ this is not easy enough to follow. Ae you know, we have certain I
--Mrs. R o!n<.a ::i -2-June 1, 1967
r -nc fro m the state and county which could be credited to either of the
amo l-nt ~ indicated.
11 there is further inforn;mtion you would need, we would be glad to
p u t 1! t "~,dh ~r f o r you.
w m
Sincerely,
W. E. Bishop
Superintendent
~
ti)
(1Q
(t)
(!)
00
CJ1
CHERRY CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l
ARAPAHOE COUNTY OFFICE OF 1111 SlJPDINTINDlllT
~100 South Yo ... &11 Street
Englewood, O,Jorado 1()16)
May 22, 1967
Mr . D An dre•.J s Romans , Director
Fl ~n~ln g dnd Ira 1 f 1 ~ Regulations
Ci ty of Eo gl ~woo d 1 P.O. Box 178
En g l?.woo d Color a d o 80110
De a r Mr Romans :
As r ~' y ou r r equest of May 15 , we have c ompiled the following figures
>:'if J on t ht.'. i nfo rmation you supplied a1 well as some obtained previously
fro;n '1r. (arey Sh ould ther e be questions do not hesitate to call .
PR OPO SED .KLZ DEV ELOPMENT -Carey Construction Company
55 A .
37 A.
1 ,600
1 ,066
266
s 530
$14o~
20 000 000
$.3 ,5 0 0 ,000
$ t.,0 50 ,000
@ 40
$ 16 2,00::>
4 8 ,000
$ 210,000
Total
In Cherry Creek (2/3)
Apa r tment Units Total · (l-2-3 bedrooms)
Apartment Units ln Cherry Creek
Students in Cherry Creek (174 per unit)
Cost per Student (+ State Aid) ($710 Total)
Annual Coit to Cherry Creek t o Edu c ate
Total Value when Developed
I n Cherry Creek (2/3)
Ass e ssed Value
Mills (General Fund Le vy)
County
+ Specific Owne r ship • Total Reve nue
Additiona l clas s rooms n e~ded for 66 students
--
Mr . D. AndrewA Romans
Pa g e
May 2 2 , 196 7
<::
@ $
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
100
20 ,000
2 ,000 .000
600 ,000
200
10 6 ,000
25 ,900
9 ,000
11,200
9,lOO
J .ooo
8 ,800
ALTERNATIVE
Homes in Cherry Creek (37 A. @ 2.7 deuaity)
Per Home
Tax Base
Aasessed Value as Oppoted to $4,050 ,000
Students in Cherry Creek
Cost to Educate (+ State Aid)
Revenue + Specific Owner1hip
Current Per Pupil Tax Ba1e
JCLZ Per Pupil Tax Bai•
Total Di1trict lncludina 1CLZ
Per Pupil Tax Baae if Developed in 100 Hoine1
Total Di1trlct Per Pupil Tax Ba1e if Drleloped in
100 Homes
No additional clas1rooma needed if developed in homea
Vi llag e He i ghts can absorb
Ch e rri Hills can absorb
150
....iQ
200
RCP ·dh
•rely youra,
' ~.~ a -
RuHell C. Polton
Aaaiatant Superintendent
-
~
~
C1'Cl
('!>
tD
00
(j)
I
I
I
ENGLEWOOD
COLORADO
.
'
z
! :
, -0 .., a: :
R-3 ZONES
LAND : MUL Tl-FAMILY i USE
N
PLA.NNINO DEPT.
CITY OF ENCILEWOOO
R-3 ZONES
-1UL Tl-FAMIL
LAND LSE
Page 987
Pa ge 988
LAND USE
MULTI-FAMILY ZONE DISTRICTS
COMMERCIAL
STREETS
a
VACANT
ALLEYSllr
SINGLE FAMILY
TWO-
FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
~INCLU D ES RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY,
RIVERS, CREEKS, AND ANY OTHER
RESIDENTIAL
LAND THAT CANNOT BE RE ASONAl3LY
DEVELOPED
PUBLIC-
SEMI-PUBLIC
TOTAL ACREAGE..f.\;' 166.3
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I
I
.I