Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-12-08 PZC MINUTESPage 1294 WHEREAS, it is also the intent of the City Council to recognize and duly evaluate flood hazards in all official actions relating to land use in the flood plain areas having special flood hazards, and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood, Colorado has authority in accordance with Article 1, Section 3 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Englewood, adopted July 8, 1958, as well as Chapter 139, Articles 32, 59 and 60, C.R.S. '63, as amended, to adopt land use and control measures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby assures the Federal Insurance Administration that it will take legislative action as follows: (1) Enact by December 31, 1971, and maintain in force for those areas, adequate land use and control measures with effective enforcement provisions consistent with the criteria set forth in Sub-part B of Section 1910 of the National Flood Insurance Regulations, (2) If necessary, seek State enabling legislation conferring authority to enact land use and control measures designed to reduce the exposure of property to flood loss, and (3) Take such other official action as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives of the program. Such actions will include but not limited to: (a) Assisting the Federal Insurance Administrator, at his request, in delineating the limits of the flood plain having special flood hazard on available local maps of sufficient scale to identify the location of building sites. (b) After flood insurance is made available, furnishing representatives of appropriate Federal or State agencies or of the National Flood In- surance Association information, as requested, concerning new or sub- stantially improved structures within the area of special flood hazard. This information will include floor elevations and, if there is a basement, the distance between the first flood and the bottom of the lowest opening where water flowing on the ground will enter. (c) Cooperating with Federal, State and local agencies which under- take to study, survey, map and identify flood-prone areas as well as cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions with respect to adjoining flood plains in order to prevent aggravation of the flooding problem. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this City Council hereby appoints the City Manager and the Planning Department with the responsibility, authority and means to implement the commitment made herein. ADOPTED AND APPROVED, THIS day of Mayor Attest: ex officio City Clerk I, Stephen A. Lyon, ex officio City Clerk of the City of Englewood, State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of Resolution No. , Series of 1970. ex officio City Clerk * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1970 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning C mmission was called to order by Chair- man Carlson at 8:05 P.M. Members Present: Woods; Walsh; Patrick; Mosbarger; Lentsch; Henning; Carlson Members Absent: Senti; Lone Also Present: Planning Director Supinger; Assistant Director Romans; Planning Assistant Wardlaw; City Attorney Berardini, . - --- - - -- -- --- --- - --- --- -- ---- - - II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Carlson stated that the Minutes of November 17, 1970, were to be considered for approval. I I I I I I Lentsch moved; Patrick seconded: The Minutes of November 17, 1970, be approved as written. Page 1295 The motion carried unanimously. III. MID-CONTINENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CASE #25-70 Lots 1-5, Block l; Lots 1-4, Block 8, Pleasant View, 2nd Filing. Chairman Carlson asked Planning Director Supinger for a review of this request. Mr. Supinger stated that this request is for property adjacent to the east side of South Lowell Boulevard; to the north, the land is in the City of Sheridan, and the City of Denver is to the south of the subject site. The request encompasses a 1 /2 block depth east from Lowell; the request is for a change of zone classification from R-1-B (Single-family Resi- dential) to R-2-B (Two-family Residential). Mr. Supinger stated that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood shows this area as a medium density development, which would mean a density of seven to fourteen dwelling units per acre. Mr .. Supinger noted that the Planning staff feels there have been changes in the area, citing the change of zoning to the west of Lowell Boulevard to multi-family residential, on which land apartments are presently being constructed; the land to the north, east and south of the subject site is yet single-family in zoning and development. The staff feels that the requested two-family classification will provide a buffer between the high density development west of Lowell Boulevard and the single-family development to the east of the subject property. The staff ,feels the request should be recommended to City Council. Mr. Carlson asked if the property has been properly posted, and if public notice was given? Mrs. Romans stated that the property was posted November 23, 1970, and that public notice appeared in the official City newspaper on November 18, +970. Woods moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carlson asked that persons in favor of the request speak to that point. Mr. Jack Anderson Mid-Continent Development -stated that the R-3 zoning across the street to the west from this subject property, and the construction of apartments on the R-3 land, has made it un- feasible to finance single-family residential construction on the east side of South Lowell Boulevard. He stated that FHA and VA have both denied requests for financing of construction of single-family homes on this property. Mrs. Henning asked what the depth of the lots was? Mr. Anderson stated that the lots have 135 ft. depth, and 60 ft. frontage. Mrs. Henning asked if Lowell Boulevard had the capacity to accommodate heavier traffic resulting from the higher density developments? Mr. Anderson stated that the curb line is in place on the east side of South Lowell Boulevard, and he does not know what plans Denver might have for widening the street. Mrs. Romans stated that Lowell Boulevard is designated as a collector in the Comprehensive Street Plan. Dr. Walsh asked how many lots under consideration were owned by the Mid-Continent Develop- ment Company? Mr. Anderson stated that there are nine lots included in the rezoning request, and the Mid-Continent Company owns eight of the lots. Mr. Anderson stated that the Company also owned a great deal of the open property to the east of the area included in the rezoning request. Mr. Carlson asked if there were further comments to be made in favor of the request? No one indicated a desire to speak. Mr. Carlson asked if there were persons present who wished to speak in opposition to the re- quest? No one present indicated they wished to speak in opposition. Woods moved: Walsh seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Woods moved: Mosbarger seconded: The request filed by Mid-Continent Development Company to rezone Lots 1 -5, Block 1, and Lots 1 -4, Block 8, Pleasant View, 2nd Filing, from R-1-B (Single-family Residential) to R-2-B (Two-family Residential) be approved and recommended to City Council. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt the Commission should include reasons for the recommended approval, and offered the following amendment to the motion: Lentsch moved: Henning seconded: The motion be amended to include the following reasons for approval: 1. Since this property was rezoned in 1963, the land to the west has been annexed to the City of Denver and has been zoned R-3 (Multi- family Residential), and is now being developed with high density residential units. 2. The R-2-B (Two-family Residential) Zone District would serve as a transition between the multi-family development to the west and the single-family residential development to the east. 3. By virtue of the subdivision of the land, the subject lots front onto South Lowell Boulevard and the rear property lines serve as a logical division between the R-2-B and R-1-B Zone Districts. Page 1296 4. As a result of the introduction of high-density residectial develop- ment to the west, sufficient change is shown in the area to warrant reconsideration of the present zoning. 5. The R-2-B (Two-family Residential) Zone District would permit a medium-density development which development is consistent with the Generalized Land Use Plan, 1970, as incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood, and would be compatible with the ad- jacent development. Mr. Carlson called for the vote on the amendment to the motion. The motion to amend carria:i unanimously. Mr. Carlson then called for the vote on the motion, as amended; the motion as amended carried unanimously. Motion as amended reads as follows: The request filed by Mid-Continent Development Company to rezone Lots 1 -5, Block 1, and Lots 1 -4, Block 8, Pleasant View,.2nd Filing, from R-1-B (Single-family Residential) to R-2-B (Two-family Residential) be approved and recommended to City Council for the following reasons: 1. Since this property was rezoned in 1963, the land to the west has . been annexed to the City of Denver and has been zoned R-3(Multi-family Residential), and is now being de- veloped with high-density residential units. 2. The R-2-B (Two-family Residential) Zone District would serve as a transition between the multi-family development to the west and the single-family residential development to the east. 3. By virtue of the subdivision of the land, the subject lots front onto South Lowell Boulevard and the rear property lines serve as a logical division between the R-2-B and R-1-B Zone Districts. 4. As a result of the introduction of high-density residential development to the west, sufficient change is shown in the area to warrant reconsideration of the present zoning. 5. The R-2-B (Two-family Residential) Zone District would permit a medium-density develop- ment which development is consistent with the Generalized Land Use Plan, 1970, as in- corporated in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood, and would be compatible with the adjacent development. Mr. Lone entered and took his place with the Commission. - - - - - - - -- ---- -- IV. COLLIER, ANDERSON, WRIGHT, SMEDLEY & TURRE Lots 17-32, inclusive, Block 18, Englewood; All 0£ Block 19, Englewood; Lots 1-16, inclusive, Block 20, Englewood. . . ----.- Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Supinger to review the request for rezoning. CASE #26-70 Mr. Supinger stated that this request encompasses property in the "central" area of Englewood, between West Jefferson Avenue and West Kenyon Avenue, the Delaware /Elati alley and the Fox / Galapago alley. The Denny Miller Field is immediately north of this site. There is R-3-B zoning to the north and east of the site; R-1-C zoning to the south; R-4 (Residential-Pro- fessional) zoning to the west; and I-1 (Light Industrial) to the no>th of this property. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the request filed for rezoning to R-3-B does comply with the Comprehensive Plan of the City; the staff has recommended approval of the request. Mrs. Romans stated that the property was posted on November 23, 1970, and that Public Notice was given in the official City newspaper on November 18, 1970. Lentsch moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Carlson asked that the proponents of the request present their case. Mr. Tom Eitel Attorney -stated he represented the applicants, Messrs. Wright, Collier, Anderson, Smedley, and Turre. Mr. Eitel stated that Mr. Turre and Mr. Smedley are owners of Lots 27 -32, Block 19, Englewood, and that Messrs. Collier, Anderson, and Wright have option to purchase these lots. They are requesting that the zoning of the area be changed from R-1-C (Single-family Residential) to R-3-B (Multi-family Residential). Mr. Eitel presented pictures to the Commission of signs posting the property for the public hearing before this Commission, and asked that these pictures be made a part of the applica- tion. Mr. Eitel then presented three petitions to the Commission, which petitions were circulated within the area itself; it was noted that signers of the petitions were advised that by signing they were joining in the application for rezoning. Mr. Eitel stated there were 26 owners, of which 13 have signed. Three owners could not be contacted, and others stated they were not opposed, but didn't want to sign the petition. Mr. Eitel noted that o~ly four or five owners appeared to be in opposition to the request for rezoning. Mr. Eitel stated that 56% of the land area owners have signed to join the request for rezoning. Maps of the area on which properties of those signing the petition in favor of the request have been marked, were presented to the Commission. Mr. Eitel asked that the petitions and maps be made a part of the extensive application previously filed, and that the entire application and exhibits presented at this Hearing be made a part of the . record. I I I I I I Page 1297 Mr. Eitel noted that this two block area is a "Zoning enclave". The only comparable single- family zoning, stated Mr. Eitel, is south of Kenyon Avenue, which forms a barrier or natural boundary line by virtue of the street width and the designation as an arterial. Mr. Eitel discussed the changes which have occurred in the area since the 1963 Zoning Ordinance was adopted: Cinderella City has been developed; the City Hall has moved to the former Norgren Plant site; the City park and golf course have been sold for commercial development. Satellite business uses such as banks, restaurants, tire stores, etc. have been developed on the fringes of the Cinderella City shopping complex, adding to the many changes in land use and character of the general neighborhood. Mr. Eitel cited the increased traffic in the area as a result of the commercial, industrial, and apartment developments and stated that as a result, the area is no longer desirable for a single-family area. He pointed out that this area under consideration is directly west of an apartment complex, and is adjacent to R-3-B zoning, which is what the applicants are requesting. Mr. Eitel stated that he felt there were many reasons to justify the requested R-3-B zoning, among them being: (1) There is a need for additional multi-family development in the area to house the many persons brought into the City by the commercial and industrial developments; (2) The vacancy rate of apartments in Englewood is very low, evidencing a need for additional apartment units; (3) The subject property is in close proximity to a State Highway; (4) The subject property is within two blocks of the Cinderella City complex and the satellite businesses that have sprung up on the borders of the complex; (5) It cannot be expected that the property will remain R-1-C (single-family) and will redevelop as single-family because the land is too expensive, there is a question of obtaining financing for a new single-family use in the area, it is doubtful if home im- provement loans would be accepted, and with the fire /police station proposed for the area to the west and Denny Miller field in existence providing required open space, the subject property is very conducive to multi-family development. Malcolm Collier 1421 E. Cornell Place -presented preliminary plans for the development of the property he, Mr. Wright and Mr. Anderson have under option. The proposal is for . a 31-unit apartment house, three-story walk-up, with 1:1 parking ratio. There will be 26 one-bedroom units, and five two-bedroom units in the proposed development, which will be on the southeast corner of South Fox and West Jefferson Avenue. Mr. Collier stated they were proposing to rent the one-bedroom units for approximately $125 per month, and the two- bedroom units for $150 per month. The preliminary plans for this development were filed with the Commission. Mr. Eitel stated that slides have been taken of the property, and of the general area, and asked the indulgence of the Commission to show these slides. Seventeen slides were shown and Mr. Eitel then filed these slides with the Commission, asking that they also be part of the record for this requested rezoning. Mr. Eitel read the following letter from Public Service Company, and asked that it be made part of the record: City Planning Department City of Englewood Englewood, Colorado 80110 Gentlemen: "November 27, 1970 On November 24, 1970, First Federal Savings and Loan Association requested we furnish data as to the availability of gas and electric distribution facilities to serve multi-family residential units in Blocks No. 18, No. 19, and No. 20 -Englewood Colorado. This informa- tion is being requested to support their petition for rezoning. At present, Public Service Company has a 4 inch low pressure gas main in So. Elati Street, the South end of which is 25 feet North of the South property line of W. Kenyon Avenue. It also has a 2 inch low pressure gas main in South Fox Street, which ends 40 feet North of the North property line of W. Kenyon Avenue. The Company's overhead electric distribution facilities are existing .in the alleys of Blocks No. 18, No. 19, and No. 20. Blocks No. 19 and No. 20 are currently being served from its 4 K.V. facilities and Block No. 18 from a 13 K.V. overhead primary system. Any extension, reinforcement, modification, or conversion of the aforementioned gas and electric distribution facilities would be made in accordance with our Service Connection, Gas Main Extension and Electric Line Extension Policies as in effect and on file from time to time with the Public Utilities Commission and the State of Colorado. Fore more detailed information and cost to serve, we would need specific data as to the type of service wanted, i.e., overhead or underground, single phase or three phase, etc., plus the total gas and electric load to be connected. We hope this information is sufficient for your present needs. If you have further questions, please feel free to call us. My telephone number is 244-7511 -Extension 7791. RLS:dp" Sincerely yours, /S I R. L. Sorrell R. L. Sorrell Customers' Service Extension Dept. Mr. Eitel read the following letter from Mr. Charles Carroll, Utilities Director, and asked that it be made part of the record: Page 1298 Planning Department Municipal Building "November 27, 1970 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Jim: With regard to the rezoning matter in the area of West Jefferson and South Elati Street, listed below is the utilities information you requested. Water: A 6 inch line connects Fox and Elati along West Jefferson. Water pressure reading at the hydrant at Fox and Jefferson is 84 pounds and at Delaware and Jefferson is 79 pounds. Both Elati and Fox contain 4 inch mains. Sewer: An 8 inch sanitary sewer main lies in the alley between Fox and Galapago; an 8 inch sanitary sewer main also lies in the alley between Fox and Elati and in Elati betw~en Jefferson and Kenyon. Utilities are adequate in this area for higher density population, although I ·.don't particularly subscribe to expanding the multi family zoning areas further outward from the present boundaries. CBC /kr Sincerely, /S I Charles B. Carroll, Jr. Charles B. Carroll, Jr., Director of Utilities cc: Mr. Collier, First Federal Savings and Loan 4301 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Mr. Eitel closed his .presentation by stating that this area is a prime area for redevelopment, and that the R-3-B zoning, as requested, complies with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Mr. Eitel urged the Commission to favorably recommend the rezoning of the subject property. Mr. Carlson asked if there were additional proponents who wished to speak in favor of the request? No one indicated a desire to speak. Mr. Carlson asked for the opposition to present their case. Mr. Edmond Glasier 3738 South Fox Street -stated that he wished to present a petition in opposition to the re- quested rezoning, which petition has been signed by persons living in the 3700 block, and by one person living within the subject site. Mr. Glasier asked permission to read the heading to his petition, which is as follows: "W e the following undersigned residents and property owners, adjacent and contiguous to an a rea described as Lots 17 through 32, inclusive, Block 18, Englewood. All of Block 19, E ng lewood. Lots 1 through 16, inclusive, Block 20, Englewood, to be the subject of a re- zoning request at a public hearing on December 8, 1970, oppose and object to a change in the present zoning for the following reasons: It would destroy the residential nature of the neighborhood. The influx of such a large number of people would make a much greater demand on our existing police and fire depart- ments, perhaps increasing the need for additional taxes. The proposed multiple dwelling would increase the air pollution .and waste disposal problem. It would greatly increase the vehicular traffic in the area. The parking problem would be a source of great irritation to the neighborhood." Mr. Glasier stated that all property owners could not be contacted, as there were only "nine working days since the signs were put up in the evening", but those who were contacted and signed the petition said they were opposed to a development such as in the 3600 block of South Delaware Street. Mr. Glasier stated that this particular development on Delaware has not provided sufficient parking for their tenants, and toe tenants park on the neighborhood streets. Mr. Glasier .stated that he felt it was the responsibility of the Planning Com- mission to assure that sufficient parking is provided for such developments, and asked the Commission to consider this matter very carefully and consider what the rezoning would do to the neighborhood. Mr. Carlson asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in opposition? Mr. Gaylord Leffler 3619 South Elati Street -stated he owned Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 19, Englewood. He stated that he had discussed the possibility of putting a medical center on his property for some time as a "redevelopment" project. He stated tbat he didn't feel there was sufficient space in -the school system for additional children who would be attending from the apartment houses. He stated that he would like to see the area develop and improve in many ways, but he isn't sure that apartment houses are what they want. He stated that he had heard that part of the Denny Miller .Field would be taken for a parking lot for the fire /police station ~nd .asked if this were true? He noted that parking in the area is quite critical, and that more apartment houses will just compound the problem. He stated that his land was not for sale for apartment buildings. Mr. Supinger stated that he had no indication that any portion of the Denny Miller Field would be taken for a parking lot. f'. ·-~. I I I .. - I I I Page 1299 Mr. Swartland 3695 South Elati -stated that he believed the City would grow "whether we want it to or not", and will bring in business, population and the problems that both will attract, but if the City is "Progress Country" he felt we had better "stick with it". Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Eitel if he would like an opportunity for rebuttal? Mr. Eitel stated that he appreciated the comments made by the opponents to the rezoning re- quest. Mr. Eitel asked where Mr. Leffler resided --if the gentleman resided at the address on Elati Street, or if he lived elsewhere? Upon questioning by Chairman Carlson, Mr. Leffler stated that he resided at 3392 West Layton A venue. He owns the pr.opert,y at 3619 Sou th Ela ti Street. Mr. Le.f fl er further commented that he had talked to City Manager Dial about building a medical center on his property at this location, and was told he could bpild ~lmost any type of building he wanted to. He stated that he didn't feel the fire and police station located .in the area outweighed the hazards of apartments on this property. Mr. Lentsch asked if the persons in favor of the proposed rezoning would raise their hands? Twenty-six persons indicated they favored the proposed rezoning. Mr. Lentsch asked if the opponents would now raise their hands? Forty-four persons indicated their opposition to the request. Mrs. Ann Petersen 3778 South Fox St. -asked if it would be possible to see the preliminary plans filed by the proponents of the rezoning? Mrs. Henning stated that zoning must be granted on the merits of the request, and not on a set of plans that may be presented; the applicants are not bound to build what is indicated on the plans. Mr. Wm. Petersen 3770 South Fox St. -stated that he had several questions he would like to have answered in regard the rezoning. (1) What will happen to property values between Galapago/Cherokee and Ithica /Lehigh? (2) If this facility is approved and developed, and another large development is undertaken, will the water and sewer lines provide sufficient service? (3) What will happen . to the streets in the area, will they be made one-way? (4) What about .providing sufficient parking for such developments? He asked if the 1:1 ratio was the ratio that the city administration and the citizens of Englewood wanted? Patrick moved: Henning seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Lone moved: Woods seconded: The matter be tabled for further consideration. AYES: NAYS: . Woods; Mosbarger; Lentsch; Patrick; Lone; Carlson Walsh; Henning The motion carried. It was determined by the Commission that .the matter would again be considered on January 5 , 1971. It was noted that the public hearing would not be reopened, but that interested citizens were welcome to attend this meeting. V. ELKS LODGE Oxford/Fox Chairman Carlson asked for a review of the request. CASE #27-70 Mr. Supinger stated that the request is for an area on the north side of West Oxford Avenue at South Fox Street and south of the City Ditch. The request is for a change of zone from R-1-C (Single-family Residential) to B-1 (Business), and has been filed by the Englewood Elks Lo.dge #2122 to enable the Lodge to eventually constru.ct their new facilities on this site. Mr. Supinger stated that the Comprehensive Plan of the City shows this area in a medium-density residential classification of seven to 14 units per acre. Mr. Supinger pointed out that in 1961, a request for R-3-B (Multi-family Residential) was denied by the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that the Planning Department has received two petitions in opposition to the request for B-1 zoning, containing 156 signatures and representing 81 properties. Patrick moved: Mosbarger. seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Woods asked for clarification of permitted uses in a B-1 Zone District? Mr. Supinger stated the B-1 District permits 107 uses of retail and service nature. Mr. Carlson asked that the proponents present their case. Mr. Clyde Mitchell Realtor & Member of Elks Lodge -stated that the Englewood Elks Lodge began 11 years ago , and has a present membership of 750, with anticipated membership of 1500 by 1980. Mr. Mitchell discussed the charitable works the Elks participate in, such as the support of Laradon Hall, distribution of food baskets to the needy, collection of $7,000,000 for scholarships, and other charities. Mr. Mitchell stated that he felt the Page 1300 site at Oxford and Fox Street was perfectly situated for the Lodge, and that it would not be . offensive to residents in the neighborhood. He cited the fact that Oxford Avenue is a major arterial, and serves as a buffer between the site and the development to the south of Oxford Avenue, and the City Ditch to the north of the property also serves as a buffer on the north- westerly boundary of the site. He stated that circulation of petitions by the members of the Lodge was begun in September, and that they have obtained 97 signatures of property owners and tenants in favor of the construction of the Lodge and the rezoning to permit such con- struction. Mr. Mitchell stated that the present owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Wainwright, and Mr. Riddle, have consented to place a covenant on the property, and the Elks Lodge, as p:-ospective purchasers, have agreed to the covenant, which co¥enant states that the property will be used for the purpose of the Elks Lodge, and that should the Lodge not purchase the property, or should they not build their Lodge on the property, it is agreed that no other business use shall locate on this site without the wri~ten consent of 75% of the adjoining property owners within 500 ft. of the Galapago /Oxford intersection. Mr. Mitchell noted .that the Lodge must pay off the cost of the land, and of the enlargement of the present Lodge, before cons.truction of the new facilities can begin. Mr. Mitchell estimated that this could begin in four years or so. Mr. Carlson asked if any one else wished to speak in favor of the case? No one indicated they wished to speak. Mr. Carlson asked for the opponents to present their case. Mr. Harold Corah 4031 South Fox St. -stated that it was correct that members of the Lodge started circulating petitions the first of September, but that no mention was made of needing Irv Bennet 4040 South Inca - Mr. Clayton Smith a rezoning, and when the signs posting the property for the Hearing went up, and the residents found that the Lodge was requesting a B-1 zoning, they were "shocked". Mr. Corah stated that he has obtained signatures. from many people who signed the Elks' petition who would like to have their names removed from the Elks petition, as they are now opposed to the rezoning. These people were unaware there would have to be a liquor license issued to the Lodge, and that rezoning would have to be accompLished when they signed the petition in favor of the Lodge. Mr. Corah noted a map on which were indicated property owners who have signed in opposition to the rezoning request. He stated that they have not tried to obtain signatures of opponents outside the neighborhood. Mr. Corah stated that he felt that 80% to 90% of the property owners in the area were signers of the petition in opposi t .ion to the rezoning request. Mr. Corah stated that he felt the residents "have a good neighborhood, and let's keep it that way." stated that he owned property at this address, but he is now a resident of Littleton. He stated th.at he felt this request was "spot zoning". He is opposed. 4100 South Galapago -stated that he has lived there for 20+ years, and he does not feel that the request, if granted, will be fair to the people that live in the neighborhood. He pointed out that while businesses "serve" the city, it is residents who build the city. He questioned whether or not the covenant could and would be enforced. He stated that when the original petition was circulated by members of the Lodge, that there wasn't enough in- formation given to the signers; people were under the "impression that a park was to be put in there, but the park has turned into a parking lot". Mr. Smith stated that he had nothing against the Elks Lodge, and nothing against "bars" but when he wanted to go to a "bar" he . would go to a "bar area" and not in a residential area. Joyce Williams 4845 South Cherokee -stated he owns property at 760 West Nassau. He stated that he felt the granting of the zoning and the use of the land by the Lodge would depreciate the value of properties in the area; he also stated that it would destroy the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. He pointed out that a liquor license ~ould be granted to the Lodge, and he questioned how much "American patriotism the residents can put up with at 2 A.M. in the morning?" He stated that he didn't feel the number of charities supported by the Lodge is relevant in this case; he does not feel the location is "logical", and suggested that the Lodge find "some place Mr. Robertson 3972 South Fox Mr. Smith in the country." Mr. Williams discussed the "spot zoning" aspect, arrl stated that he would "most certainly seek the services of my attorney to prove that spot zoning is not permissible." He stated that the proposal of the Elks Lodge is not practical nor is it in the best interest of the City. stated he was opposed to the rezoning. He stated that the homes in the neighborhood are in good repair, are not deteriorated, and that homes in the area are selling f .or anywhere from $20, 000 to $30, 000. Mr. Robertson stated he had great respect for the Elks Lodge, but that he could not see the Lodge located in this neighborhood. 4100 South Galapago -stated that when the petitions circulated by the Elks Lodge were being circulated, he did not feel that the correct facts were given the residents. He commented that he felt the Lodge could find property that was cheaper than this, which the Lodge will pay $49,000 for. He further stated that if the Elks Lodge could not get a liquor license for their new location, they would lose members rather than adding Mr. Connley 3991 South Huron - to the membership of the Lodge. stated that he would ha.te to see a "drunk" coming down the Oxford/Huron hill. He further stated th.at he had yet to see any of these "private clubs ask a teenager for an ID before serving them liquor." I I I I I I Mrs. Friqel 4160 South Fox - Mr. Shelton 4085 South Huron - Page 1301 stated that they had ·purchased their home in this neighborhood because it was a "nice residential area". She asked what was wrong with leaving the subject site vacant as a play area for kids? She stated she did not feel residentially zoned land should be "taken away from the people and given to business." stated that he believed in the growth of Englewood, the growth of families, and in the upkeep of homes; he believes in the proper loca- tion for the Elks Lodge, and this neighborhood is not the proper loca- tion. Mr. Marvin Jones 1 4202 South Galapago -stated that he was "aghast at the idea , of a business enclave in this area." He pointed out that there is zoning along Broadway which would permit the Lodge. He stated he was concerned about the Elks desire to build in this location; he stated that they would have a "ghastly number of people, and what would it be like at 2 or 3 A. M. Sunday morning after nickel beer night?" Mr. Jones discussed the "wild hill" at Oxford Avenue and the City Ditch. He felt the development of the site for the Elks Lodge would increase the danger for the neighborhood children. He stated he was "bitterly opposed." Mr. Stanton 4135 South Fox - Jerry Ranum 4080 South Fox - stated he would like to see the vacant land turned into a park for the children. He stated that the kids needed a place to play, and he felt this would be the best solution. stated that "quite a number of people have trouble navigating the Oxford Hill in daylight while sober." He commented that if "someone drives through my living room, there will be problems." Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Mitchell if he would like to make any comments in rebuttal? Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to take issue with the statements on the "drunks" in connection with the membership of the Lodge. He commented that the area probably would have been developed with homes if the land were not so expensive. Malcolm Taylor 3776 South Acoma Street -pointed out that to maintain the name of "Englewood" Elks Lodge, they must have their lodge building in Englewood; they could not build in Littleton, or some place out in the country as was sug- gested. Mr. Taylor stated that any money the Elks take in as "profit". is given to charity. Mr. Smith commented that the property may be worth $49,000 if it is zoned B-1, but he doubted very much if the property would be valued at $49,000 if it were sold for residential purposes. Mr. Bennett stated the construction of the Elks Lodge ~n the area will erode values of surrounding properties; resale values will go down, and no FHA or . VA sales will be consummated. Mr. Carlson asked for the recommendation of the Planning Staff. Mr. Supinger stated that the Planning staff recommends denial of the rezoning request, as indicated in the staff re- port. Henning moved: Lone seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. A recess of the Commission was declared. The Commission reconvened at 10:25 P.M. Dr. Walsh asked if he had understood correctly .that the Lodge would not be constructed for four or five years? Mr. Mitchell stated that they could probably begin construction in four years after they have cleared themselves of debt for the present Lodge building, and the purchase of the land. Mrs. Henning asked what the covenant which the .property owners and the purchasers have agreed to will mean? Mr. Berardini stated that the City will not enter into any enforcement agree- ment on covenants, that they are strictly between property owners, and have no bearing on the consideration of the merits of the rezoning. Dr. Walsh asked if it was anticipated by the staf·f that there would be a change in the zoning ordinance which might permit the Lodge in a zone district other than Business? Mr. Supinger stated that he did not anticipate such a change. Discussion followed. Woods moved: Henning seconded: The rezoning request filed by Englewood Elks Lodge #2122 for change of zone from R-1-C to B-1 be denied for the following reasons: 1. It has not been established that the original zoning of the area was in error. 2. There have been no changes in the area to justify the change of zone classification from single-family residential to business. 3. The requested zone classification does not conform to the Compre- hensive Plan. 4. It has not been established that the present zone classification precludes use of the land by the owners. Page 1302 5. The application constitutes a request for "spot zoning" and is, therefore, contrary to good rezoning practice. The motion carried unanimously. ----- --- - VI. MRS. JENE M. LUNDGREEN CASE #28-70 855 West Oxford Avenue Mr. Menin, attorney for Mrs. Lundgreen, asked that the Public Hearing be delayed until the first meeting in January, 1971. Mr. Menin gave as his reason for the requested delay the fact that when the matter was considered in 1961, both this site and the site for which the Elks Lodge requested rezoning were considered, and both were denied. Both sites are again scheduled for hearing this evening, and after hearing testimony given in the previous hearing, it is his feeling that "emotions are running too high, and in fairness to Mrs. Lundgreen the hearing should be continued to another evening when possibly all the people now in attendance will not be in attendance." Mr. Carlson asked City Attorney Berardini if the Commission could delay the Public Hearing under the existing posting and publication? Mr. Berardini stated that the Commission could, if they felt the reasons advanced by Mr. Menin were sound, postpone the hearing; or, the Commission could hear the case tonight. If the case were delayed to another date, Mr. Berardini stated he would suggest that the property be again posted, and public notice given in the official paper setting forth such date. Dr. Walsh stated that in considering the points advanced by Mr. Menin, he didn't feel the emotions were "high" among the members of the Commission, and he did not feel this was a valid reason for delaying the Hearing. He commented that the fact Mrs. Lundgreen's property was only one block west of the property considered in the request by the Elks Lodge might bring forth testimony that would be of benefit to the Commission. Walsh moved: Woods seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carlson asked for the proponents to present their case. Mr. Menin stated that he did not mean to imply that the emotions of members of the Commission were "high", but it was not his intention to have the hearing on the request by the Elks Lodge and the hearing on Mrs. Lundgreen's request on the same evening. Mr. Menin stated that the application filed by Mrs. Lundgreen had copies of petitions circulated within the area and signed by businessmen, residents, and property owners stating that they had viewed the tentative plans for the redevelopment of the property, and had no objection to the request, attached as part of the application. Also attached were copies of the tentative plans for the apartment house planned by.Mrs. Lundgreen. Mr. Menin stated that they do not consider it to be "spot zoning"; he pointed out that this "use" has been in existence since 1943, and that at . the time the present owner purchased the property it did not have R-1 zoning. M~. Menin stated there are nine units on the property now in two structures, one of which is a converted chicken house. These units are old and are in need of replacement. Mr. Menin stated that Mrs. Lundgreen has spent $40,000 to attempt to bring the units up to the minimum standards of the Housing Code, and that it is n o t feasible to put more money into the units to beautify the units and attempt to keep them in safe repair. Mr. Menin noted that there are apartme,nt uses along Ox;ford .Avenue at Bannock, only five blocks to the east of the site under consideration by the Elks Lodge, and six blocks east of Mrs. Lundgreen's property. Two blocks west of Mrs. Lundgreen's property there is industrial zoning. Mr. Menin stated that he had talked to Mr. Harding at Maddox School, and was told by Mr. Harding that the school had at one time 650 to 700 pupils; the present enrollment is 320 students. Mr. Menin stated that the school is losing enrollment, and that families with children who might live in the Lundgreen apartment complex would not be overcrowding the school system. Mr. Menin stated that he felt it would be to the best interest of the neighborhood to allow Mrs. Lundgreen to improve her property, and that she could not improve the property by tearing down the nine units and replacing them with nine new units. Mr. Grant, Attorney, stated he was partner of Mr. Menin and also representing Mrs. Lundgreen. Mr. Grant stated that the units on the property are non-conforming, and that Mrs. Lundgreen has improved this non-conforming use as much as she can economically do. Mr. Grant stated that Mrs. Lundgreen has cooperated with the Building Department and complied with every sug- gestion made by the Building Inspector. Mr. Grant stated that the Building Inspector has said that he would like to have new units on Mrs. Lundgreen's property. Mr. Grant stated that he felt the willingness of Mrs. Lundgreen to cooperate with the Building Inspector has indicated her desire to improve the neighborhood, but that nothing further can be done with the present buildings. Mr. Grant pointed out that the request, if granted, would not change the "use", but would give an opportunity to improve the use. Mr. Grant stated that the tentative plans for redevelopment of the property meet the requirements for parking. He noted that s~gnatures of the neighboring owners of residential property and adjoining businesses have been obtained by Mrs. Lundgreen .stating they are in accord with the proposal. Mr. Grant stated that he felt the request should be recommended to Council because of the following reasons: 1. It will insure logical growth of the City. 2. It will conserve, enhance, and stabilize the values of property in the area. 3. It will provide facilities desirable for people working in the City and who wish to live near their place of employment. Mr. Grant submitted the original copies of the petitions signed by residents, businessmen and property owners in the area in favor of the rezoning request. Mr. Carlson asked that the opponents make their presentation. I I I I I Mr. Keith Wanklyn 4005 South Inca - Calvin Phillips 4100 South Inca - Mr. Ken Pippin 4045 South Inca - Mr. Shelton 4085 South Huron - Mr. Wm. Sharp 4065 South Huron - Mr. Connelly 3991 South Huron - Mr. Bennett 4040 South Inca - Page 1303 stated that he represented 140 property owners who are in opposition to the request, 87 of whom are residents in the immediate vicinity of 855 West Oxford. Mr. Wanklyn presented petitions containing 140 signatures of persons in opposition to the rezoning. He stated that he also had a letter with signatures of 37 people who had signed the petition circulated by Mrs. Lundgreen asking that their names be removed from Mrs. Lundgreen's petition, as they are now in opposition to the request, and feel they signed under "mis-representation". Mr. Wanklyn stated that the area residents and property owners were told that Mrs. Lundgreen planned to construct a 14 unit apartment building, but when the request for re- zoning was filed, the plans were for a 48-unit building. Mr. Wanklyn stated that the residents were also told that the City had approved the plans and that the administration was in favor of the request. He stated that he has since discovered that this is incorrect also. Mr. Wanklyn stated that the statement that "more than adequate parking" is being provided for the proposal was challenged and the residents were told "the City will take care of it." Mr. Wanklyn stated that he had contacted eight or nine of the businessmen who had signed the petition in favor of the request, and that at least one businessman had stated he "didn't even know where the property was." Mr. Wanklyn stated that the businessmen also stated that .their businesses were "stable", and that they did not anticipate hiring additional personnel, which contrasted with Mrs. Lundgreen's argument in favor of the rezoning that she would be providing housing for the population brought in by the businesses in the area. Mr. Wanklyn stated that several of the businessmen stated they signed the petition in favor of the rezoning "to get her out of their hair". Mr. Wanklyn stated that he did not feel that "spot zoning" would beautify Englewood,. and that he felt it might set a precedent in the City. Mr. Wanklyn discussed the traffic on Oxford Avenue, and stated that it has increased a great deal since the opening of the shopping complex, and that apartments in the area would compound the problem greatly. He stated that people just do not want to live next to an apartment house, and that high-rise apartment houses block the view of residents who live near them. Mr. Wanklyn asked the Commission to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood, and to deny this request for rezoning. stated that the residents of that neighborhood were very "community minded", and noted that in the last election only 12 residents in the apartments at Oxford Avenue and South Bannock were registered to vote. He stated that he did not feel the apartment residents had "community spirit". He stated that he had also talked to Mr. Harding at Maddox School, and the school enrollment this year is 520 students down from 533 when school first opened for the 1970-1971 term, pot the 320 as asserted by Menin as correct data. Mr. Phillips stated he had purchased his home in Englewood because he likes the neighborhood, and he felt this home would lose approximately $2,000 in value if the apartment house were approved. He stated he could not see sacrificing $2,000 for someone else. stated he was against the rezoning. He stated he purchased a home in Englewood 10 years ago, and purchased a second home three years ago. He stated that he did not want to raise his family across the street from 48 apartment units. stated he felt this proposal would impair the view and reduce the value of his property. stated he already looked into one of the windows of the nine units in existence, and he did not want to look into 24 more. He stated it was bad enough to have 1 /2 of his yard covered by shadow now, but the entire yard would be shaded if the proposal is approved. stated that the statement that the present units meet the "standards" means nothing. He stated that he estimated that 80% of the "slums" on Santa Fe passed "standards" also. He is opposed to the rezoning. stated that he owns this property even though he does not live there, and he is against tµe R-3-B zoning. Mr. Carlson asked if the proponents would like an opportunity for rebuttal? Mr. Menin stated that he had suggested moving the Hearing to another date to get away from the number of people present, but the Commission had determined that the Hearing should be held this evening. Mr. Menin took issue with "mis-statements" made by the opponents, citing that the petitions signed by residents of the area in favor of the rezoning clearly state that they "have reviewed the plans" for the proposed development. Mr. Menin stated that the proposed building is not a "high-rise", but a three story walk-up. Mr. Menin stated that if this property were developed with single-family units, it would not be possible for Mrs. Lundgreen to recover her original investment; he stated that it is not financially possible to replace the nine-units with nine new units. Mr. Menin reiterated that they are not asking for "spot zoning" but for zoning in conformance with the use that is in existence. Dr. Walsh asked that Mr. Menin clarify the last statement. Mr. Menin stated that the apartment use has been there since 1943. It is his understanding that the zoning ordinance in Englewood was not adopted until sometime in the 1950's and when his client purchased the property there was no zoning imposed on the property. Page 1304 Mrs. Henning noted that the material provided by the staff indicates that the property was zoned R-1-D (Single-family) when Mrs. Lundgreen purchased the property. Mr. Menin asked Mrs. Lundgreen when she bought the property? Mrs. Lundgreen stated that she purchased the property in 1959, and that it was sold for multiple family. zoning and use. Mr. Supinger stated that the property is a legal non-conforming use, even though the sale of the property as multi-family may have been in error. Mr. Wanklyn stated that VA and FHA will not grant mortgages on property f or single-family use next to apartment houses. He stated that there could be six single-family homes con- structed on Mrs. Lundgreen's land, and that the lots themselves could sell as high as $6,000 each. Mr. Corah sta.ted that in the 4000 block of South Elati Street, lots have sold for $5,200 per lot. Mr. Joyce Williams 4845 South Cherokee -stated he owns property at 716 West Nassau Way. When the property property Mrs. Lundgreen is concerned with was annexed, it was a "non- conforming use". Mr. Williams discussed the "variances" which some non-conf orming uses are given and which change the character of an entire neighborhood-. He stated that the non-conforming uses should be eliminated , and the property should revert to a single-family use. Mr. Carlson asked for the recommendation of the Planning Department? Mr. Supinger stated that the staff recommends denial of the request, as set forth in the staff report. Patrick moved: Mosbarger seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion followed. Henning moved: Lone seconded: The rezoning request filed by Mrs. Jene Lundgreen for a change of zone at 855 West Oxford Avenue from R-1-C to R-3-B be denied for the following reasons: 1. There has been no change in the area which would justify the change of zone from single-family to multi-family residential. 2. There has been no evidence submitted that the original zoning was in error. 3. The requested zone classification is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of ~nglewood. 4. The applicant maintains that the existing units cannot be economically maintained and that to replace them, it would be necessary to rebuild to a higher density. Financial hardship, if it indeed be, is not suf- ficient cause to rezone this property to a density that would not be compatible with the adjacent development and with the general land use plan for the area. The property was in a single-family zone at the time it was purchased by the applicant; a fact which was public information and available to the applicant, as was the requirement that any change of a non-conforming use be to a conforming use. 5. The property is suitable for and adaptable to development under the present zoning; the owner is not deprived of a reasonable use o f the land commensurate with that use enjoyed by the adjoining property owners. 6. The requested zoning would result in "spot zoning" of multiple-family surrounded by single-family. The motion carried unanimously. - VI. TOPICS PROGRAM CASE #29-70 Mr. Supinger stated that the Public Works Department has requested Commission approval of 1he revised TOPICS program for 1971, which encompasses four signal improvements and the bridge at South Clarkson Street and Little Dry Creek. Cherry Hills Village has agreed to participate in the construction of the bridge. Discussion followed. Woods moved: Lone seconded: Discussion followed. The Planning Commission approve the request of the Public Works Depart- ment for the 1970-71 TOPICS program, which is: Signal improvements at Broadway and Chenango; Broadway and Tufts; U.S. 285 and Downing; Federal and Union; and replacement of the bridge at South Clarkson and Little Dry Creek. The motion carried unanimously. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Lone discussed the Staff Reports prepared by the Planning Department. Mr. Supinger com- mented that he felt it was the responsibility of the staff to run the commission through a "thought process", and pointed out that the recommendation of the staff is reached without benefit of Public Hearing, and information that is obtained in the Hearing may be reason for a change in the recommendation. I I I I I I Page 1305 Mr. Berardini stated that he felt it was the duty of the staff to do research work on any subject that comes before the Commission, and to set forth the findings for the benefit of the Commission. If, after public hearing, the Commission disagrees with any one of the findings of the staff, it is the responsibility of the Commission to make a determination based on what they feel is the correct information. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger discussed the progress made on the Architectural Review proposal. He stated that he has shown the slides to the Chamber of Commerce, City Council, and others. Upon direction of the Council, a proposed ordinance has been drafted and is now ready for review and public hearings. He asked when the Commission would like to consider the matter? Mr. Patrick asked if this included the sign ordinance? Mr. Supinger stated that it did not include the sign ordinance, but that it does call for review of all signs for which permits must be obtained. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger directed the attention of the Commission to a letter to the Council of Govern- ments in regard the approval of the request for Federal Aid in the development of Belleview Park. Mr. Supinger asked if the Commission would approve the forwarding of the unapproved minutes of this meeting as it pertained to the Public Hearing for the Mid-Continent Development re- zoning hearing to Council, inasmuch as that particular request was approved by the Commission and recommended to Council. Discussion followed. It was the concensus that the minutes of the meeting as it pertains to the rezoning application of Mid-Continent Development Company should be forwarded to Council prior to approval by the Commission. Patrick moved: Woods seconded: The meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 8, 1970 SUBJECT: Lots 1 -5, Block 1, and Lots 1 -4, Block 8, Pleasant View, 2nd Filing. RECOMMENDATION: The request filed by Mid-Continent Development Company to rezone Lots 1 -5, Block 1, and Lots 1 -4, Block 8, Pleasant View, 2nd Filing, from R-1-B (Single-family Residential) to R-2-B (Two-family Residential) be approved and recommended to City Council for the following reasons: 1. Since this property was rezoned in 1963, the land to the west has been annexed to the City of Denver and has been zoned R-3 (Multi-family Residential), and is now being de- veloped with high-density residential units. 2. The R-2-B (Two-family Residential) Zone District would serve as a transition between the multi-family development to the west and the single-family residential development to the east. 3. By virtue of the subdivision of the land, the subject lots front onto South Lowell Boulevard and the rear property lines serve as a logical division between the R-2-B and R-1-B Zone Districts. 4. As a result of the introduction of high-density residential development to the west, sufficient change is shown in the area to warrant reconsideration of the present zoning. 5. The R-2-B (Two-family Residential) Zone District would permit a medium-density develop- ment which development is consistent with the Generalized Land Use Plan, 1970, as incor- porated in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood, and would be compatible with the adjacent development. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *