HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-06-20 PZC MINUTESPage 1430
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 20, 1972
The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was cal1-ed to order. at 8:00
P.M. by Cha.irman Lentsch.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
Ross; Vobejda; Lentsch; Henning; Brown; Weist; Stanley
Romans, Acting Ex-officio
Robins; Carlson
Supinger, Ex-officio
Mr. George Lee, Acting City Attorney
II. APPROVAL QF MINUTES.
Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of June 6, 1972, were to be considered for approval.
Stanley moved:
Brown seconded: The Minutes of June 6, 1972, be approved as written.
The motion carried.
III. GRADY FRANKLIN MAPLES
300-330 W. Belleview
CASE #16-72
Mr. Lentsch stated the request by Mr. Maples for rezoning of 300-330 Wes.t Belleview has been
scheduled for Public Hearing this evening.
Henning moved:
Weist seconded: The Public Hearing be opened.
The motion carried.
Mr. Lentsch asked the staff to present the background of the request.
Mrs. Romans stated the application for rezoning of 300 and 330 West Belleview Avenue has
been filed by Mr. John A. Criswell on behalf of Mr. Maples and Mr. Vandiver, owners of
Thoroughbred Datsun, 4651 South Broadway. Mrs. Romans filed with the Secretary a copy of
the Affidavit of Publication on the Notice of Hearing published in the Englewood Herald
on June 1, 1972. Mrs. Romans stated that certification of posting has been submitted to
the Department of Community Development by Mr. Criswell's office, stating that the property
was properly posted from May 29, 1972, to June 20, 1972. The required fee was paid at the
time the application was filed. Mrs. Romans stated that the request is for a change of
zone classification from R-3-B (Multi-family Residential) to B-2 (Commercial). Mr. Maples
and Mr. Vandiver propose to relocate their Datsun dealership from 4651 South Broadway to
this site. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff report, which should be part of the record,
was submitted to members of the Planning Commission previous to the meeting, and was avail-
able in time to afford review by the Commission members. Mrs. Romans noted that there is
a great deal of information in the office files on this particular area, copies of which
are available to tbe Commission.
Mrs. Romans explained to the Commission and members of the audience that Mr. Supinger,
Director of Community Development, and Mr. Berardini, City Attorney, are out of town. She
stated t~t Mr. George Lee, Assistant City At~orney, is attending the meeting in Mr.
Berardini's stead, and that she represents Mr. Supinger.
In giving background for the case, Mrs. Romans stated that City records show that annexation
of the area south of Belleview along Broadway was first discussed in 1957; Mayor Purce! wrote
a letter to Mr. Burt regarding the annexation of this area to the City of Englewood. Mrs.
Romans stated there is no further action on the matter recorded until 1963, at which, time
the staff was requested to gather information for dissemination to the residents and busi-
nessmen of the area. Mrs. Romans noted that this area was the subject of controversy be-
tween the cities of Englewood and Littleton, wherein it was believed by some Littleton offic~als
that an agreement was understood that Engiewood would not annex south of Belleview, and
Littleton would not annex north of Belleview.
Mr. Robins and Mr. Carlson entered the meeting, and took their chairs with the members of
the Commission.
Mrs. Romans stated that by March of 1964, six resident land owners in the area west of
Broadway had petitioned the City of Englewood for annexation to the City. After considerable
study, the Planning Commission recommended to City Council that the petitions for annexation
be accepted in April of 1964. The notice of annexation petition was published, and upon
completion of the required procedure, the area was annexed to the City of Englewood. At
about the time the annexation was final, the City of Littleton., for some of the resident
land owners in the area, contested annexation of the area to the City of Englewood. The
City of Englewood proceeded with the necessary steps to apply zoning classifications to the
area, and a Public Hearing on the zoning was held in August, 1964. Meetings were held be-
tween City of Englewood officials and property owners in the area to determine the proper
zoning for the area; the Final '.Publication of the Ordinance applying Englewood zoning
classifications to the property was November 10, 1964. Also, in August, 1964, a court suit
was filed before Judge Naugle contesting the annexation to the City of Englewood. The court
suit filed by the City of Littleton, and heard by Judge Naugle, resulted in the determination
that the annexation was invalid for the reason that Englewood employees and officials passed
petitions for annexation in the subject area. The City Attorney for the City of Englewood
filed petition with the Colorado Supreme Court asking that the City of Englewood be given
jurisdiction over the area until such time as the Supreme Court could render a decision on
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1431
the appeal of Judge Naugle's findings. The motion for stay of execution was denied in
February of 1965, and in March, 1965, the City notified property owners, residents and
businessmen that the City of Englewood was withdrawing all services which had been in-
stituted in the area, until the Supreme Court could hear and determine the appeal to Judge
Naugle's ruling .. The area was returned to the jurisdiction of Arapahoe County.
During the time the land was returned to Arapahoe .County jurisdiction, a request was submitted
to the Arapahoe County Commissioners asking that the zone classification on the southwest
corner of South Broadway and West Belleview Avenue be changed to commercial to permit the
construction of a K-Mart Store. The County Commissioners approved the requested rezoning
over the protests of the Cities of Englewood and Littleton; however, an 80 foot strip of
O Open zoning was imposed on the west portion of the K-Mart property to protect the residential
development to the west. This rezoning approved by .the County extended into the area pre-
viously zoned R-3-B (Multi 7 family Residential) by the City of Englewood.
t
The Supreme Court of Colorado later upheld the annexation of the land to the City of
Englewood. Englewood was now placed in the position of having to rezone that property on
which the K-Mart Store had begun, inasmuch as Arapahoe County had issued building permits
for foundation and footings for the K-Mart Store, and the City of Englewood was advised
that they should honor these permits. The City of Englew9od, in 1966, rezoned Lots 1, 2,
and 3, Ewiug Subdivision, and Lot 16, Interurban Addition, from R-3-B to B-2 in order that
the K-Mart Store would be in conforming Zone Districts. The west 50 feet of the land zoned
0 (Open) by the County was designated as R-4 (Residential-Professional) by the City of
Englewood; the City did not have an 0 Open Zone Classification, and it was felt that the
50 foot strip of R-4 would provide adequate buffer between the commercial on the east and
residential development to the west.
Mrs. Romans then showed several maps Qf the area and zoning that was in effect at the time
of annexation ; comparable Englewood zoning; zoning proposed by the City of Englewood;
County zoning while annexation was in court and under the jurisdiction of Arapahoe County ;
and zoning by the City of Englewood after the annexation was upheld by the Colorado Supreme
Court. This last map showed the zoning as it is today, reflecting the changes made by the
City after it was advised that zoning approved i~ Arapahoe County must be honored, and the
City bad extended the B-2 zoning .west to encompass the K-Mart Store, and the 50 ft. strip
of R-4 was imposed as a buffer between the co:qunercial and multi-family districts.
Mrs. Romans reviewed the City position on rezoning requests in the adjacent area: The
former Thompson property to the north of Belleview Avenue, at approximately 325 West
Belleview, has been considered for rezoning on several occasions. There has been consider-
able opposition from the adjacent property owners, and on February 9, 1961, a request to
rezone the property from R-1-B (Single-family) to R-3-A (Multi-family) was denied; on
February 14, 1962, a request to rezone the property from R-1-B (Single-family) to R-3-B
(Multi-family) was denied; in 1963, an application requesting rezoning from R-1-B (Single-
family) to R-2-A (Two-family) was approved. In 1969, a request for rezoning from R-2-A
(Two-family) to R-3-B (Multi-family) was denied; again, the request was strongly opposed by
persons in the area. The City has also taken official opposition to rezoning requests filed
on property on tQe south side of Belleview Avenue which is in the City of Littleton. One
request was filed in 1966 by Mr. Lininger, property owner to the west of the Englewood City
boundary, who wanted commercial zoning. TQis request was opposed on the basis of concern
that a ,strip commercial development would be started along West Belleview Avenue. In 1969,
a request by a property owner to the · west of Mr. Lininger's property for multi-family
zoning was submitted to the City of Englewood for consideration and review, and the City
again expressed concern over the effect such a development would have on the traffic on
West Belleview Avenue in the vicinity of South Huron Street; the City did not oppose the
zoning per se, however.
Mrs. Romans pointed out that there has been considerable development of the R-3 property to
the north in Carmel Park and in the B-2 Zone District along Broadway.
Mrs. Romans discussed the Ambulance Service, located immediately west of the property en-
compassed in the rezoning request to be considered this evening. She stated that there is
a letter in the off ice files from the attorney representing the owner of the Ambulance Ser-
vice in 1962, which letter was directed to the County Commissioners of Arapahoe .County.
This use was permitted in the County R-5 (Multi-family) zoning, and was permitted at its
present location. Mrs. Romans stated that the Fire Station located at West Belleview and
South Fox in Englewood is a public building, and is permitted in any zone district. The
Red Cross building at West Belleview Avenue and South Elati Street was interpreted to be
a public use, also, by former Chief Building Inspector Beryl Wallace, and was, therefore,
permitted in the R-1-A (Single-family) zone district.
Mrs. Romans stated that several articles from publications and books pointing out problems
with strip zoning have been copied and were given to members of the Commission for their in-.
formation.
Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the Commission must look at the total amount of land zoned
for commercial use in the City of Englewood at the present time, and consider how .much of
that commercially zoned land is in fact used commercially. Mrs. Romans urged that the Com-
mission consider the entire area in making their decision on the request.
Mrs. Romans submitted the staff recommendation, which is as follows: "The staff ~ecommends
that the appl~cation to rezone all of Block 6, Interurban Addition, except the west 75 feet
thereof, from an R-3-B (Multi-family Residential) to B-2 (Business) be denied for the
following ~easons:
t c •
1. The extension of the commercial zoning as proposed would not .be compatible with the
existing single-family uses in the areas to the north and west of the subject site.
~
2. The Comprebensiv~ Plan does not project further commerc~al development along Belleview
A venue.
3. It bas not been demons~rated that the or.igi:nal zoning of the site was in error.
4. It has not been demonstrated that the property cannot be developed under the present
zoning."
Mr. Lentsch thanked Mrs. Romans for her presentation, and asked if the Commission had any
Page 1432
questiops of Mrs. Romans? There being no questions expressed, Mr. Lentsch then asked pro-
ponents to present their case.
Mr. John Criswell, 3755 South Broadway, stated he was representing applicants Grady F. Maples
and M. R. Vandiver, and was in fact the signer of the application for rezoning .. Mr. Criswell
stated that his presentation would cover some of the same material as presented by Mrs. Romans.
He stated that he was the City Attorney involved in the Brookridge annexation litigation
which had been referred to earlier. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the motivation for
annexation of the area may have an important bearing on the request for rezoning filed by
Mr. Maples and Mr. Vandiver.
Mr. Criswell indicated Exhibit "1", a land use map of the subject area and surrounding area,
which had been included in the staff report. Mr. Criswell noted that he had added informa-
tion to his copy of the .map, which will be filed with the Commission. Mr. Criswell stated
that the subject property is bordered on both the east and west by "commercial" uses, citing
the Ambulance Service as a commercial use. Exhibit 11 2 11 submitted by Mr. Criswell is a copy
of the "original" county zoning at the time the area was annexed to the City of Englewood.
This map has the subject site generally located by an [X). Mr , Criswell reviewed portions
of the property that were zoned B-5 by the County eight years ago when the annexation was
undertaken. On the subject site, R-5, apartment house zoning, was in effect. Mr. Criswell
stated that the zoning in effect in t~e area in 1965 had nQ relation tq reality. Mr.
Criswell stated that there are two areas .of heavy commercial development in the City of
Englewood: (1) the Central Business District, including Cinderella City, and (2) the
Broadway/Belleview area. Mr. Criswell stated that the Core Business area has been noted
for 35 years as being a leading . retail sales area for the State of Colorado. Mr. Criswell
stated that long-time residents can recall the Core Business area being written up in
"Believe It Or Not" as being the highest per square foot retail sales area in the nation.
Mr . Criswell discussed the second retail area in the City, that of the Belleview/Broadway
development. He noted that Mr. Nate Burt moved his auto dealership from the Core Area of
Englewood to land south of the Brookridge Shopping Center while the site was still in
Arapahoe County. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Burt had been an Englewood businessman for
many years, and wanted to continue to do , business within the City limits of Englewood, and
through a "concerted effort" of City officials, the area was annexed to the City of Englewood
in 1964 , and .subsequently zoned by the City for commercial use. Mr. Criswell stated that
following the annexation by the City of Englewood, this action was contested and declared
void by the County Court. Jurisdiction reverted to Arapahoe County and during this time,
the County rezoned land to permit the .construction of a K-Mart Store. After the Supreme
Court ruled in favor of Englewood on the matter of annexation, the City zoned the land as
it is today. Substantially all of the area east of Broadway was zoned commercial but .for
a small portion designated .as R-3-A east of the GEM property; west of Broadway, the land
was designated as B-2, R-4, and R-3-B.
Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the R-4 zoning "serves no p\lrpose." He stated you "can't
tell where it starts and can't tell where ~t ends." .Mr. Criswell reported that this area
is used by trucks coming to K-Mart to lo~d and un-load.
Since the time the zoning was finalized by the City in its present designation, in the area
zoned R-3-B, no building permits have been issued for ,multi-family development. This has
been zoned for multi-family purposes for eight years, and there has been no development .
Mr. Criswell pointed out that there are three single-family structures on Miramonte Road,
which structures were built in 1951, 1953, and 1955. Mr. Criswell emphasized that there
has been "no residential development since the early '50's" in this area. Mr. Criswell
stated that the subject site concerned in the rezoning request now has two residences on it;
these residences "have been there for years."
Mr. Criswell discussed the development of the Carmel Park subdivision, noting that four
apartment houses were built on Belleview west of Broadway in 1962; two were built in 1971.
Two apartment houses were built on West Grand in 1964; two were built in 1971.
Mr. Criswell submitted Exhibit "3", which exhibit is a list of building permits in the com-
mercial area that have been issued in this immediate area:
1. Dolly Madison -1967-1969
2. Leaning Tower qf Pizza -1968
3. Vista Lincoln-Mercury -1969
4. Burt Toyota -1971
5. Big Brake -1971
6. Crouch Chrysler -1964
7. Capra Auto Supply -1966 .
8. Pancake House -1971
Mr. Criswell pointed out that this list does not include the K-Mart Store, which permit was
issued in Arapahoe County. Numbers corresponding to the developments in Exhibit "3" have
been indicated on Exhibit "l", giving the location of these improvements. Mr. Criswell again
stated that this area is a "commercial center"; he noted that there is no other development .
south of U. S. 285 along Broadw~y similar to this. Mr. Criswell stated that this is a
shopping "center" so to speak, and that this development has occurred since 1964.
Exhibit "4" was submitted; this is a map of the southern metro area , on which is indicated
by number key, the location of auto dealerships in the Littleton-Englewood area along Broadway.
Mr. Criswell pointed out tha~ there are 11 dealer~hips within this immediate area.
Exhibit "5", submitted by Mr. Criswell, is the rating of the dealerships in the area. Bob
Bundy American Motors, Burt Chevrolet, Inc., Burt Toyota, Courtesy Ford, and Thoroughbred
Datsun are all rated as the No. 1 dealer in the metropolitan area. Bill Crouch Chrysler-
Plymouth ~ Ralph Schomp's Oldsmobile are rated as the No. 2 dealers in the metro area; those
dealers rates as No. 3 include Vista Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Continental Volkswagen, Inc.,
and Dodge Country. Pansing Pontiac, Inc. is rated No. 4 in the metro area.
Exhibit "6", submitted by Mr. Criswell, is information on retail sales provided by the
Englewood Ch~mber of Commerce, both for the Englewood-Littleton area, and for the Englewood
area only. Automobile sales accounted for 34% of the total retail sales in the Englewood-
Littleton area for the first quarter of 1972, and accounted for 26+% of the total retail
sales in the Englewood area for the same period of time. Mr . Criswell suggested that one
need only look at these figures to be convinced that the "economic livlihood" is based on
the sale of automobiles.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1433
Exhibits "7" and 11 8 11 were a copy of -traffic counts taken in 1965 a,nd 1969, average week day
counts, taken by the Division of Highways, State of Colorado. The 1965 count for Broadway
south of Belleview was 21,600; for Belleview west of Broadwa~, the count was 13,100. The
1969 counts for Broadway south of Belleview were 29,300; for Belleview west of Broadway,
17,500. Mr. Criswell noted that this is a 38% increase in traffic on Broadway and a 35%
increase in traffic on Belleview in a four-ye.ar period.
Mr. Criswell emphasize~ the following points:
1. The subject property is bounded on both sides by commercial uses.
2. The subject property is somewhat isolated from the rest of the R-3-B zoning to the south,
in that it is "Belleview oriented"; the area to the west is oriented to Miramonte Road ,
and th~ portion south of the subject property is oriented to Lehow Avenue.
3. If the subject property ~ere to be zoned for commercial use, it would join two properties
now being used commercially. Mr. Criswell pointed out there would still be an R-3-B
buffer between the commercial zone district and the R-1-A District on South Elati Drive.
Mr. Criswell stated that the staff report indicates the staff had been informed there was
to be a Planned Development on the R-3-B property south of the subject property. He asked
if, indeed, such an application has been fiied? Mrs. Romans stated no application has been
filed to date. Mr. Criswell stated that the gentleman who had an option on the property
south of that which Mr. Maples and Mr. Vandiver are interested in, let the option expire
recently.
Mr. Criswell referred to the Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City in 1969, most particularly
to the Master Street Plan. Mr. Criswell noted that there are six east-west arterials in-
dicated in the City of Englewood, a?d that two of these, Yale Avenue and Dartmouth Avenue,
are in need of improvement before they can function as an arterial. The main arterial sou1h
of U. S. 285 is Belleview Avenue. The General Land Use Plan, projected to 1980, indicates
a buffer between the commercial and single-family
0
zoning. Mr. Criswell stated that the Plan
shows a medium density for the area. north of Belleview, an area that is now zoned R-1-A,
Single-..family. Mr. Criswell questioned the "incompatibility" o f a commercial use and medium
density as projected by the 1980 General Land Use Plan.
Mr. Criswell urged the Commission to consider the Comprehensive Plan, and pointed out · that
the Plan indicates a medium or high density abutting commercial in all instances but one.
Mr. Criswell then called on Mr. Maples to speak to the Commission.
Mr. Maples stated he had lived in the Eng~ewood area since 1952 ; his present address is 22
Viking Drive, Cherry Hills Village. Mr. Maples introduced Mr. Vandiver, his associate in
Thoroughbred Datsun. Mr. Maples stated that Thoroughbred Datsun was founded in October, 1966,
and he became associated with the business in 1969. In 1967, Thoroughbred Datsun became a
franchised dealer for Datsun. Mr. Maples then' reviewed the gross sales since 1967:
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
$ 734,999.
$1,324,557.
$1, 758 ,,850.
$2,354,380.
$2 '825 '221.
The 1971 payroll for Thoroughbred Datsun was $330,652.96; they have a yearly average of 35
employees. Mr. Maples stated that Thoroughbred i~ a s~all dealership, but is growing, and
they have "outgrown" their present facilities at 4651 South Broadway. Mr. Maples stated
there is no more land adjacent to that which they now have and they are being forced to
move. He stated they have been trying for 18 months to find a suitable piece of property
in the City of Englewood. Mr. Maples emphasized that the dealership wants to stay within
the City boundaries : Mr. Maples stated they want the dealership to remain successful, and
have searched for property with adequate space and good traffic flow. Mr. Maples stated
that they have "surveyed the land adjacent" to their ownership in the 4600 block of South
Broadway, and found it to be inadequate; they have considered property in the 4800 block
of South Broadway, and it is not suitable; they have' considered Dr. Tolley's proper:t;y in
the 5000 block of South Broadway, and the vacant land to the north of it, but the access
has made it unfeasible. Mr. Maples pointed out that the distributor must approve the loca-
tion from the dealership and presented Exhibit "9", a letter from Mr. R. D. Bpwer, Denver
Regional Sales Manager of Nissan Motor Corporation in U. S. A.~ da~ed June 19, 1972, setting
forth the following four reasons 5291 South Broadway was rejected as a location for the
deale!ship: '
1. The frontage on So~th Broadway is totally inadequate for proper exposure.
2. The location lies in a creek bottom and would require extensive fill and development
prior ~o being suitable for further development.
3. The creek bed itself separates the property and would preclude dev~lopm~nt in a manner
suitable for our needs.
4. Development costs to bring the loc?tion.up to minimum standards for further development
as a Datsun dealership would be prohibitive to the extent a reasonable return on capital
1nvestment could not be .realized. .
Mr. Maples stated that Director of Community Development Supinger had told him that i f the
City .opposed h1s request, it was the obligation of the City to find .other property that
would be suitable for the dealership. Mr. Maples also stated that Mr. Supinger had suggested
to him .that he contact members of the .Planning Commission to discuss the proposal with them.
Mr. Maples presented a letter dated June 19, 1972, from Mr. R. D. Bow~r, Denver Regional
Sales Manager, Nissan Motor Corporation in U. S. A. , which letter was listed as Exhibit #10,.
and set forth the following four reasons why property at 3500 South Sherman Street was not
feasible for the dealership:
1. Total square footage is totally inadequate for development for their purposes ..
2. The location would be inappropriate for development as a Datsun dealership for it is
not located on a main thoroughfare and traffic count would be minimal.
Page 1434
3.
4.
Accessibility neg.ligible. Lincoln Street on East side of the property "dead ends" at
the southwest corner of proper.ty and Sherman Stre~t is a "One Way" Street paralleling
the eas~ side of the property.
There are no other dealerships in the vicinity which also detracts from the desirability
of establishing a dealership at this location.
Mr. Maples presented a letter dated June 19, 1972, Exhibit "11", from Mr. R. D. Bower, Denver
Regional Sales Manager, Nissan Motor Corporation, U. S. A., which letter set forth three
r easons that property at 60 East Floyd Avenue would be inadequate for the Datsun dealership:
1. Total swuare footage totally inadequate for development.
2. Desirability of location poor for there are no other dealerships in the vicinity.
3. Property located on a secondary street noi a main thoroughfare.
Mr. Maples discussed the traffic counts on both Belleview and Broadway. Mr. Maples stated
that "if there were another location already zoned, we would buy it." Mr. Maples stated
that they "do.n't want to alienate the neighbors", and "hoped the members of the City
Planning and Zoning Commission won't let personalities 'af feet their decision."
Mr. Maples displayed an architectural rendering of the proposed development,·and gave an
explanation of the rendering.'
Mr. Criswell stated that the applicants recognized that a deceleration lane would be needed
along Belleview at · this point no matter what development takes place, and that the architect ·
has made provisions for this deceleration lane. Mr. Criswell stated that the architectural
rendering is displayed only to let others know what the concept of the proposed develop~ent
is. He stated that the applicants are not asking the Commission to approve or disapprove
the application on the basis of the rendering. Mr. Criswell discussed the statistics
leading up to the proposed development ; noting that the business has grown from $700,000
per year to $2,800,000 per year, and the applicants cannot continue to operate at the
present location. Mr. Criswell stated that his clients have been unable to find a site in
the City of Englewood that is zoned properly that is adequate for the needs of the dealer-
ship. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Maples has been active in the Englewood Chamber of
Commerce and other organizations, and would like to keep the dealership in Englewood. Mr.
Criswell stated that the locations in the Core Area that have been suggested were vacated
by other dealerships ten years ago, and have not proven satisfactory to the distributor.
Mr. Criswell pointed out that · if the application is approved and · the commercial zone ex-
tended to the west, there will still be a buffer of multi-family zoning between the commercial
and single-family residential along South Elati Drive. '
Mr. Brown asked Mr. Criswell to enumerate, for the benefit of the audience, how the proposed
development would be of benefit to the City.· Mr. Criswell stated that in the 1960's, the
City of Englewood spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to attract business developments
to the City. Mr. Criswell pointed out that since 1940, the core area was known as a great
retail sales area. ·The City of Englewood has the lowest ad valorum mill levy in the state;
Mr. Criswell stated that the City has been able to drop the mill levy because the efforts
to attract business · developments have been successful. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the
City could abolish the ad valorem levy completely, and still have adequate funds to operate.
Mr. Criswell stated· that we are talking about a $2,800,000 business, that might be forced
to move from the City of Englewood if a suitable location is not found. Mr. Criswell dis-
cussed the sales tax that would accrue to · the City from the sales, in addition to the valua-
tion of the $600,000+ development itself. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the City of
Englewood has encouraged this Belleview/Broadway area in development as a car sales center
in the metro area, and cited alley and street vacations approved at the request of Bill
Crouch of Bill crouch Chrysler-Plymouth at 5000 South Broadway; he also discussed the in-
stallation of a traffic light at South Broadway and Centennial Avenue.· Mr. Criswell stated
that "Centennial Avenue is a dead-end street which leads to no place except · to Burt Chevrolet."
Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Burt appealed to City Council for a traffic signal at this lo-
cation, and a signal was installed about three years ago. Mr. Criswell stated he was not
being critical of city policy which has encouraged the development of the area with automobile
dealerships.
Mr. Ross noted that Mr. Criswell had mentioned three residences developed along Miramonte
Road; he asked Mr. Criswell if he would hazard a guess as to why there has been no further
development , in the area? Mr. Criswell stated he didn't know wny the area had not developed.
He noted that the land is platted, and utilities would be available. Mr. Ross asked if it
could be because of the existing and prospective commercial development in the area? Mr.
Criswell stated he would say "yes", but for the fact that last year apartment houses were
built directly across the street from the K-Mart Store to the north. Mr. Ross noted that
Mr. Criswell had stressed the fact that there were two main commercial areas in Englewood:
the Core Area and the Belleview/Broadway area. Mr. Ross commented that it "appears to me
that the second area is the result of congestion from an off-shoot from strip zoning."
Discussion followed. Mr. Criswell stated that he didn't feel you could "really call this
strip zoning in the sense of the typical strip zone." Mr. Criswell reiterated that if the
subject site were to be approved for commercial use, there would still be a buffer between
the commercial and single-family residential zoning. Mr. Criswell further reiterated that
the subject property is oriented to Belleview. Discussion followed. Mr. ·Lentsch asked Mr.
Criswell if his clients had considered property south of K-Mart? Mr. Criswell stated that
his clients did have an option on property south of Lehow Avenue, but because of the creek
it could not be used for a development of the kind proposed by Mr. Maples and Mr. Vandiver:
Further discussion followed.
Mr. Lentsch asked if anyone wished to speak further in favor of the proposal? No one in-
dicated a desire to speak.
Mr. Lentsch asked the opposition to present their case.
Mr. Ron Loser stated he was an attorney representing the opponents of the proposal, who live
south of West Belleview Avenue in Signal Hill, and Mr. Bashor, who is owner of the Miramonte
Sub di vision. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1435
Mr. Loser stated that he would like to commend the Commission on the efficient manner in
which the request has been handled, and would also like to compliment the staff for the
job well done on the staff report. Mr. Loser stated that he felt Mrs. Romans had given an
excellent presentation before the Commission.
Mr. Loser presented 23 petitions that have been circulated in the area to Mr. Lentsch. Mr.
Loser stated that the petitions represent 239 residents of the area that would be affected
if the request were to be granted. Mr. Loser stated that Mr. Bashor would present a map
locating the signatures of the signers on the petitions.
Mr. Bashor
5250 Miramonte Road -displayed the map. mentioned by Mr. Loser, said map being color-coded
according to zone classifications, with properties marked with a red
square which are owned by persons opposed to the requested rezoning.
Mr. Bashor stated that he felt it was important for the members of
the Commission to have the point of view of residents living in the
area, and he felt it has been amply demonstrated by the petitions and
the indication of the signers on the map that the area residents are
opposed to the gr.anting of the rezoning request.
Mr. Lentsch questioned the address of some of the signers; for instance, signatures at 3067
South Elati Street, 2726 South Lincoln, etc.? He asked what possible interest this request
for rezoning could be to residents living in the northern part of Englewood? Mr. Bashor,
stated that he felt people interested in the total zoning of the City of Englewood could well
be concerned with the proposal. Mr. Bashor stated that he felt the residents on South Elati
Drive and Miramonte Road and in the residential area just to the north of West Belleview
Avenue were much more vitally concerned about the rezoning than persons living at a more
distant address, however.
Mr. Icks
5156 S,. Elati Drive -stated that signatures on the petitions were obtained by residents on
South Elati Drive going door-to-door. Mr. Icks stated that the petition
forms were furnished by Mr. Loser's office at their request. Mr. Icks
stated that persons carrying the petitions carried wixh them a small
map of the area indicating the area encompassed by the request, and
circulators also gave persons contacted a notice of the date, time and
place of the meeting at which xhe request would be considered.
Mr. Loser, in answer to a question from Mr. Lentsch on the wording of the petition head,
stated that the language was taken from the Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.3-1,
which reads: "Whenever the public necessity, convenience, health, safety, morals, general
welfare, or good zoning practice justifies such action, and after having been submitted for
consideration by the Commission, the City Council may change the zone or the regulations
established by this Ordinance after Public Hearing has been held on the proposed change."
Mr. Loser stated that he felt it appropriate to use this wording on a petition opposing a
zoning change.
Mr. Loser. stated that he appreciated the fact that this would be a difficult decision to be
made by the Commission and Council, inasmuch as Mr. Maples was a friend and respected citizen
of the City; also, there was the "threat" of losing this source of tax revenue if the dealer-
ship should be moved from the City. Mr. Loser stated that this must be seriously considered
by the Commission. Mr. Loser stated that he realized that commercial development was advan-
tageous and stated that he felt the City of Englewood has been fortunate in the way such de-
velopment has been handled and encouraged. Mr. Loser stated that the proponents case was
based on the tax revenue to be realized from the development and the increased employment
benefits to residents. Mr. Loser stated that if zoning were based entirely on economic con-
siderations,. then there would be no argument; but · this is not the case. Mr. Loser stated he
felt the City had a good Comprehensive Plan and a good Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He
stated that the reasoning behind tbe .imposition of the R-4 strip west of K-Mart was to pro-
vide a buffer between the commercial and residential zone districts. Mr. Loser pointed out
that the subject property is surrounded by residential zoning on the south, west, and north,
with R-4 (Residential-Professional), zoning immediately on the east. The commercial zone
district is east of the R-4, and does. not adjoin the subject site. Mr. Loser stated that it
would appear to have been the intent of the City that the K-Mart zoning was as far west on
Belleview as the commercial zone was to extend, and the R-4 was imposed as a buffer between
the commercial and residential.
Mr. Loser quoted from the statement of intent for the R-3-B Zone District, §22.4-8: "This
District is composed of high-density residential areas of the City, ordinarily located be-
tween single-family and two-family residential areas and commercial areas, plus certain
open areas where. similar development appears likely to occur. The regulations for this
District are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the District,
to promote and encourage, inso£ar as is compatible with the high intensity of land use,·
suitable environment for family life, and to permit certain professional uses of a character
unlik~ly to develop general concentration of traffic crowds of people and general outdoor
advertising. To these ends, this District is protected against encroachment of general com-
mercial or industrial uses while the regulations permit high development consistent with the
high concentration of persons and land valuation. Residential types of structures as well
as various institutions are permitted, plus structures for professional uses conforming to
the pattern of the District." Mr. Loser stated that he felt the R-3-B Zone District is
properly placed between the R-1-A Zone District to the west and the B-2 Zone Distric~ along
Broadway. Mr. Loser discussed "Police pow..er" cities may exercise, and noted that a compre-
hensive zoning plan is allowed and any change to that comprehensive plan "has to have a
reason."
Mr. Loser stated that he had reviewed the City Planning and Zoning Commission Handbook, and
referred specifically to Page 16 of the Handbook, which sets forth requirements that apply
to rezoning applications. These requirements are:
II a•
b.
c.
The area must complete at least one city block of compatible zone classification, or
must consist of at least one city block and be contiguous to like or compatible zoning
classification.
Proof must be presented that there is a demand and need for enlarging the existing
zone classification.
There must be compliance with all of the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
Page 1436
Other factors to be taken under consideration by the Commission in the process of examining
an application for rezoning include:
a. The possibility of a mistake in the original zoning of the area.
b. Any significant changes that have occurred in the area under consideration that would
render another zone classification more applicable.
c. Whether or not a person is denied the use of his land because of existing zoning."
Mr. Loser stated that the opponents maintain that the rezoning request filed by Mr. Maples
is insufficient to meet any one of the above items. Mr. Loser pointed out that the subject
site does not complete one block of compatible zone classification; he stated that the B-2
Zone District to the east of the subject site covers three full city blocks, and if the
subject site were to be rezoned, it would be an "appendage" to the B-2 . area, and would
stick out like the proverbial "sore thumb". Secondly, proof presented by the applicants
is that they desire the rezoning to accommodate the Datsun dealership, and that there is
no other suitable location in the Broadway/Belleview area for the dealership. Mr. Loser
stated that comprehensive. zoning is not amended to accommodate a specific use, and that it
would not be logical to do so. Mr. Loser stated that the request, if granted, would not be
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City in 1969. Mr. Loser stated
that Page 5 of the staff report indicates that the City presently has an excess of commercial
zoning, and also referred to Page 90 of the Land Use Study, Paragraph 2, which reads: "Strip
zoning along the City's major arterials generally results in more acres zoned than that actually
used for the intended purpose, and additional land in the District would, at this time, only
serve to stagnate development of the present commercial zones." Mr. Loser suggested that a
review of the Land Use Study, pages 83 through 95, might be in order, and summarized these
pages, stating that at that time, it was recommended that the City not. continue to zone
land B-2, as there was no need to expand the commercial districts. Mr. Loser stated that
the opponents maintain there was no error in the original zoning of the property to R-3-B,
in that it meets all the criteria of the statement of intent for the R-3-B Zone District,
and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Loser stated there have been no changes
in the area subsequent to 1966 other than deveJopment in accord with zoning classifications
applied by the City. The fact that there has been building in the area in accord with the
zoning district does not constitute "change" of conditions. Mr. Loser stated that the ap-
plicant has not raised, nor could he do so, the argument that the subject property cannot be
used under Xhe present zone classification. Mr. Loser stated that the property may not be
used as "profitably" for residential purposes as for a commercial use, but this is not a
justification for change of zoning. Mr. Loser noted that there are new apartments being
constructed south of Belleview about three blocks from the subject site, and there are a
number of apartment structures to the north of Belleview in the Carmel Park Subdivision.
Therefore, he felt there could be no argument that the R-3-B zoned property could not be
developed under the present zone classification.
Mr. Loser discussed the case of Clark v. City of Boulder, which he felt was similar to the
request under the consideration, in that the City of Boulder rezoned a residentia~ly zoned
area to commercial to allow the construction of a filling station. The area was surrounded
by residential zoning but for a shopping center directly east of the subject property. The
Court stated that the City Council of Boulder was in error in granting the zoning with the
following statement:
"In the instant case there is no indication that the zoning change wa$ iptenQed to further
the comprehensive general plan. Rather, it has all the earmarks of a special act enabling
the intervenors to build a filling station on property previously zoned as residential •..•.
In determining whether spot zoning is involved, the test is whether the change in question
was made with the purpose of furthering a comprehensive zoning plan or de~igned merely to
relieve a particula~ property from the restrictions of the zoning regulations ...... That the
property ~ay not be used as profitably for residential purposes as for commercial use,
furnishes no justification for special treatment thereof ...•. One of the difficulties with
the intervenors' position i~ that it fails to recognize that unless a line is drawn some-
where there can be no zoning at all. Property owners have the right to rely on existing
zoning regulations when there has been no material change in the character of the neighbor-
hood which may require rezoning in the public interest •..•• In addition, the development
and growth of a comprehensively zoned area in accordance with the uses permitted under the
plan, does not permit emasculation of such plan ~nder the guise of 'changed conditions' as
defendants here content."
Mr. Loser stated that zoning is based on law, and questioned whether the request for change
of zoning would "enhance the health, welfare, safety, morals" etc. of the people of the
City of Englewood. Mr. Loser stated that he has studied the car dealerships up and down
Broadway, and he felt this use wou~d not be compatible with a residential area. Mr. Loser
pointed out that the dealerships have loud speakers, lights, fencing, and promotional
penants, flags, etc., and on the whole are "rather unattractive". Mr. Loser pointed out
that if the request were granted, it would have a drastic effect on the residential area
to the south, west and north, and if there were plans for the development of the R-3 area,
they would most surely change with the imposition of the auto dealership on the subject
site. '
Mr. Loser stated that in summary, the opponents feel that the applicants have been unable
to show justification for the requested change of zoning, anQ reque~t that the application
be denied.
Mr. Lentsch noted that the R-3-B property has been so zoned for at least eight years, and
asked if Mr. Loser would have any idea as to why it had not developed? Mr. Loser stated
there could be many reasons the property has not developed, and reiterated that it has not
been pro~ed that the land cannot be developed as presently zoned. Mr. Loser pointed out that
the area to the north is developing with apart~ents. Mr. Loser also stated that a property
owner may not want to develop his property, regardless of zone classification and sug-
gested that possibly Mr. Bashor would want to make a statement in this regard:
Mr. Bashor stated that his family owns the Miramonte Subdivision, and he has lived on
Miramonte Road since 1950. Mr. Bashor stated that at that time, the entire. area was un-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1437
developed but for a filling station on th~ corner of Broadway and Belleview, and a hamburger
stand just to the west of the filling station. Three homes were built on Miramonte Road in
the 1950's and built in accord with the zoning. Mr. Bashor stated that "it has been in-
dicated that the B-1 and B-2 zoning would stop at Acoma Street," and would not extend west
on Belleview. Mr. Bashor discussed the economic situation in relation to development of
the Miramonte Subdivision as multi-family. He pointed out that the three single-family .
homes would have to be moved, and the cost of moving, etc •. would have to be prorated on the
entire five acre tract; he stated that it has been only in the last few years that it has
been economically sound to develop the property for multi-family use. He noted that in
1960 or so, the apartment market fell off, and as their property was partially developed
for single-family use, they were not concerned with immediate multi-family development on
their property. Mr. Loser asked Mr. Bashor if the property could be developed economically
under the present zoning at ·the present time?. Mr. Bashor: stated that it could be.
Mr. Lentsch discussed the proposed core area redevelopment. Mr. Loser stated that U. S. 285
was a big change in the core area, and dictated a different course of development; but, in
the subject site, there are no changes but for some increase in traffic. Mr. Loser stated
that he didn't feel the zoning should be changed just on the basis of increased traffic,
and noted that the area along Speer Boulevard from University Boulevard to Broadway was
primarily residentially developed; if the zoning were changed to commercial just because
of the increase in traffic, he felt it would be "terrible". Mr. Loser cautioned the Com-
mission that if the rezoning request is approved, "You will have requests on the north and
south, and you will start something you didn't intend.'' Mr. Loser pointed out that many
uses are permitted under the B-2 Zone District, and as the application was not filed under
the Planned Development regulations, the applicant cannot . be required to build to the
architectural rendering presented. Mr. Loser emphasized that the Commission should not,
under any circumstances, consider the architectural rendering as the development if the
zoning ·is granted, nor should the Commission consider granting the zoning on the basis of
Mr. Maples' friendship. Mr. Loser suggested the Commission consider "is this a proper
change in the Comprehensive Zoning of the City?" He stated that he did not feel it is.
Mr. Weist asked if the residents represented by Mr. Loser feel that high traffic volume on
Belleview Avenue presents a detriment to living in the area? Mr .• Loser stated "they haven't
said so to me." Mr. Weist asked if they considered the .proposed dealership more of a
detriment to them than the traffic? Mr '. Loser stated that it very definitely would be a
detriment: the lights, loud-speakers, fencing, ~tc. He stated that people don't want to
live next door to an operation of that type ·. ·Mr. Weist asked if the K-Mart rezoning by
the County was a "special use rezoning?" Mr. Loser· stated that he had very little recol-
lection of the K-Mart rezoning. Mr. Loser stated that his clients feel the requested
change is wrong; he stated that residents do have some rights, and felt that the Commission
could appreciate the feelings of those residents who signed petitions in opposition to the
request. Mr. Loser stated that the proposal would not be a logical extension of the com-
mercial zoning.
Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Loser if he felt the K-Mart rezoning was wrong? Mr. Loser pointed
out that the K-Mart request did complete a three block area; this request, on the other
hand, would not meet the criteria of one full block as set by the Planning Commission and
City Council. Mr. Loser stated that the City had imposed a "buffer zone" between the com-
mercial and residential when the 50 ft. strip of -R-4 zoning was approved; now, for no
reason but to enable a businessman to remain within the city limits, the City is being
asked to extend the commercial zoning. The approval of the request would violate the
buffer pl~ced on the west side of the K-Mart property by the City. Mr. Loser emphasized
that there have been no material changes to justify the approval of the request.
Mr. Ross asked .if Mr. Loser would comment as to whether the subject site is "looked in" be-
cause it is between two commercial uses? Mr. Loser stated that he "wouldn't say so." Mr.
Loser pointed out that there is a 6' to 8' high bank between the K-Mart property and the
subject property. He also pointed out that the R-3-B zoned area across the street has de-
veloped within the past year. Mr. Ross stated that the ambulance service is a commercial
use. Mr. Loser stated that the ambulance service is a non-conforming use in the R-3-B Zone
District and cannot be expanded or changed, and that residents living next to this ambulance
service do not find it obnoxious. Mr. Ross asked if Mr. Loser felt this request, if granted,
would be "special zoning" in view of the fact there is commercial next to it? Mr. Loser
stated that he felt it would be. Mr. Loser stated that the ambulance service is being
operated out of a residence, and this is not a true commercial use joining the subject
property.
Mr. Louis Cangilla
5000 S. Delaware -
Mr. Roy Hankle
5050 S. Delaware
stated he lived one block north of the subject property. Mr. Cangilla
stated that the Crouch Chrysler-Plymouth agency is located at .Broadway
and Belleview, on the north side of Belleview, and that residents
living four blocks away to the west can hear the loud-speakers used by
this agency; further, mechanics use Grand Avenue as a raceway road-
testing cars at excessive speeds. Mr. Cangilla stated that his residence
isn't as close to the property under consideration for rezoning, as some
other residents, but he is still opposed to it. He pointed out that if
approved, the residents will have loud-speakers blaring from two sides.
stated that the ambulance service was directly down the street from
him, but that "if you don't look very hard, you can't determine it's
such a service." When the ambulance does go out "it'·s just like the
fire truck leaving the station", and the residents in the area do not
consider the ambulance service as a commercial use.
Mr. Lentsch asked if the proponents would like to make a rebuttal?
Mr. Criswell stated that he disputed that a ·"threat" had been made that the dealership would
move out of the city unless the zoning were approved. Mr. Criswel·l stated that this was a
fact of the request that no other property had b.een found to be satisfactory but he didn't
feel it should be regarded as a "threat". Mr. Criswell poi<nted out that the
1
City has violated
the :equirement that a rezo~ing must complete a full city block on other occasions, notably
portions of the 4000 and 4100 blocks of South Bannock Street. Mr. Criswell discussed ·the
matter of increased traff0 ic as a justif.ication for rezoning· and mentioned the KLZ Site as
an instance. Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant's are ~ot saying that the present
Page 1438
zoning is denying the property owner use of his land. Mr. Criswell stated that they ''are
saying that good zoning practice would justify the Planning Commission recommending extension
of B-2 Zoning to this property."
Mr. Richard Ducker
5090 S. Delaware -stated his residence was on the ~orner of South Delaware Street and West
Belleview Avenue h and is directly across from the proposed car sales lot.
He stated that he wished to make several points that have not been brought
out:
1. 1 • The difference between the fire station and the ambulance service
is negligible as far as land use, and he didn't think they had a
great affect on the area.
2. The K-Mart Store is oriented to Broadway, even though there is acce~s
from Belleview Avenue. He stated that the proposed dealership would
be the first commercial use that will be facing directly on Belleview
Avenue.
3. He felt the traffic on Belleview was a major problem, and the dealer-
ship lQcateq on Belleview with the traffic generated by such a use
won't decrease the traffic problem. He stated that if the City was
concerned about preservirg the integrity of the Comprehe~sive Plan,
increasing traffic isn't going to protect the R-1-A Single-family
Residential area. '
. .
4. The Comprehensive Plan of Englewood has been approved, in 1969,
shows no commercial use in the vicinity of the subject property.
He stated that he felt the Plan should be defenqed.
5. The proponents have presented their case based on the monetary
benefit that will a~crue to the City if the request is approved,
yet Mr. Criswell has stated that the mill levy is the lowest in
the State. Mr. Ducker stated that if the City were in poor
financial condition, there might be some justification from such
a request being granted, but by tqe proponents statements alone
there appears to be nq reason to make the decision of approval
based on fiscal benefits ~o the City.
Members of the audience in favor ,of the request were asked to stand; four persons in addition
to the applicants stood. Members of the audience in opposition to the request were asked to
stand; approximately 30 persons stood.
Henning moved:
Vobejda seconded: ~he hearing be closed.
The motion carried.
Mr. Lentsch stated that the matter should be tabled for ,further consideration, approved and
recommended to Council, or rejected. He asked the Commission pleasure .
.
Mr. Brown asked Mr. Cri~well if the Commission were to table the matter this evening, what
effect this might have on the plans of the proponent? Mr. Criswell stated that they want io
get everything approved as quickly as possible, but will not do too much until they have the
final decision. He stated that the proponents would not withdraw their request.
Brown moved;
Vobejda seconded: The matter be tabled for further consideration until the next regular
meeting of July 11th.
AYES:
NAYS:
Brown; Weist; Carlson; Vobejda; Stanley; Robins
Henning; Lentsch; Ross
The motion carried.
-- ---- --- - -- -- -- - -- --- --- -- -- - -
Mr. Lentsch declared a 10 minute recess of the Commission at 10:55 'p.m. The meeting w,as
called to order at 11:15 p.m.
-- --- ----- -- --- -- - ---- --- --- ---
IV. KEITH A. DRYDEN CASE #17-72
2800 Block South Sherman Street
Mr. Lentsch stated that the request by Mr. Keith A. Dryden for rezoning of the 2800 block
from R-2-A (Two-family Residential) to R-2.-B (Two-family Residential) was to be considered
by Public Hearing.
l
Hen~ing moved:
Ross seconded: The Public Hearing be opened.
The motion carried.
< Mr. Lentsch asked Mrs. Romans to present the background on ~he request by Mr. Dryden.
Mrs. Romans presented the affidavit of publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, which
was published in the Englewood Herald on June 1, 1972. Mrs. Romans stated that the attorney
representing the applicant will present the affidavit of posting.
Mrs. Romans stated that the applicants are Keith A. & Nellie M. Dryden, owners of property
at 2853 South Sherman Street. The ar.ea en.compassed in the application is bounded on the
north by th~ centerline of East Amherst Avenue, the centerline of the Lincoln/Sherman alley,
the centerline of East Bates Avenue, and the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley. The
present zoning of this block is R-2-A, a two-family classification, which requires a minimum
of 75 ft. frontage and 9,000 sq. ft. lot area for a two-family use. This zone district will
permit a single-family use on 50 ft. frontage, 6,000 sq. ft. lot area.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1439
Mrs. Romans stated t .he request was for a change to an R-2-B Zone District, which zone classi-
fication permits a single-family or two-family use on 50 ft. frontage, 6,000 sq. ft. lot area.
Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission has received a staff report on this application, which
report should be made a part of the record.
Mrs. Romans noted that the P.lanning Commission recommended and the City Council approved,
an amendment to the R-2-B District some few months ago, by which .development in the R-2-B
District was granted flexibility. The base fr.ontag.e and lot area is the 50· ft. frontage,
6,000 sq. ft. lot area; but, for each additional 25 ft. frontage, 3000 sq. ft. lot area,
an additional unit may be constructed. All units must be under one roof. This gives the
developer who wants to build a tri-plex on 75 feet the approval to do so. Before the Dis-
trict was amended, tri-plexes and four-plexes were not permitted. There is a maximum of 14
units per acre in the amended R-2-B District. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Dryden owns 100
ft. frontage at 2853 South Sherman; a small house in good condition is located on the north
50 ft. of this ownership, and Mr. Dryden wants to build a duplex on the south 50 ft.
Mrs. Romans stated that the R-2-A District is not functional, and the staff questions whether
this district should be continued. Chances of redevelopment are quite restricted in this
zone district, and activity has been very limited.
Mrs. Romans stated that the subject block, presently zoned R-2-A,. has several existing two-
family uses on 50 ft. frontage; Board of Adjustment records show a variance was issued for
the construction of one of these two-family units not too long ago, and another was constructed
by variance several years earlier. This block has been zoned R-2-A since 1955. Mrs. Romans
noted there appears to be no possibility of developing this block as R-2-A (Two-family use
on 75 ft. frontage); since most of the ownerships (14 out of 20) are 50 ft. ownerships, and
it would necessitate the purchase of two separate ownerships to construct one duplex. This
is not economically feasible. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Dryden is interested in developing
the 50 ft. of his prop~rty which is vacant, but cannot construct a duplex on 50 ft.. Mr ..
Dryden could have appealed to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for a variance, but was
advised against this procedure. Mrs. Romans state d that the small house on Mr. Dryden's
property has been inspected for compliance with the housing code, and is found to be sound.
It has only 660 square feet of floor area, and probably could not accommodate a family, but
there is no structural reason for demolition of the house at this time.
Mrs. Romans stated ~hat the staff report suggests that the present zone classification does
not permit the highest and best use of .the land and recommends that the request be recommended
to City Council for approval.
Mr. Tom L. Eitel
4301 South Broadway -stated he represented the applicant and would present his case. Mr..
Eitel presented Exhibits "A" through "D", which ex hi bi ts were a ffida vi ts
of posting for each of the four signs required to properly post the
block. Mr. Eitel stated that Mr. Dryden's property has on it a small
house in good condition, and an old carriage house on the rear which
will be razed. The south 50 feet of the ownership is landscaped. Mr.
Dryden wants to constr.uct a. duplex on this south 50 feet, and under
.the present zone classification cannot do so. Mr. Eitel noted that
this problem is not unique to Mr. Dryden's property; the R-2-A Zone
throughout the City of Englewood is not developing. Many properties
are deteriorating in this District, but because of the economic situation,
whereby a deve,loper. must purchase at least two properties for redevelop-
ment with a duplex, the District is "dead". Mr. Eitel noted that for
the most part, the City of Englewood is developed with 50 foot frontage
lots, with some development on 37-1/2 ft., and a fe~ on larger lots.
Mr. Eitel stated that the applicant is of the opinion that the zoning
classification was erroneously applied to this area. Mr. Eitel noted
that the Comprehensive Plan for the City indicates this area should
be redeveloped into a heavier density, but this deve~opment is stymied
by the zone regulations. Mr. Eitel stated that the applicant is of
the opinion that the R-2-B classification would be the proper classifi~
cation for this area. Mr. Eitel noted that the R-2-B classification
CQUld extend on South Shermaq Street from Yale south to Eastman Avenue,
then enabling the entire area to redevelop. Mr. Eitel stated that to
the applicant's knowledge, there has been no new development in the
R-2-A District for some time. Mr. Eitel presented a petition, Exhibit
"E" to Mr. Lentsch, which petition is signed by property owners within
the block asking that the change of zoning be approved. Mr. Eitel
stated that this petition represented nine properties in the block.
Mr. Eitel stated that there are some absentee owners in this block,
and obtaining signatures was rather difficult for this reason. Mr.
Eitel stated that there was no effort made to collect signatures from
persons residing outside of this subject block. Mr. Eitel noted that
the request, if granted, would not be· incompatible with the area; there
is R-2-B zoning along the east side of South Lincoln Street from Yale
Avenue south to Dartmouth Avenue, and this would be an extension of
that District. Mr. Eitel closed his presentation by asking favorable
recommendation to City Council by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lentsch asked the opponents to-present their case.
Mr.Richard Graham stated he was representing resident property owners within the subj~c~
block who are opposed to the requested zoning change. Mr. Graham present~d three petitions
signed by residents in the 2800 block South Sherman, 2700 block South Sherm~n! and_2800
South Grant, opposing the rezoning reques.t. Mr. Graham stated that the petition circulated.
in the 2800 block south Sherman-is signed by 11 out of 20 property.owners, a total.o~ 55%
opposition. Mr. Graham stated that there is some duplication of signatu:es ~n petitions for
the request and those in opposition, as some property owners changed their min.ct afte.r
signing the petition in favor. Mr. Graham stated that upon investigation of ~he block,
there appear to be two actual tw.o-family uses; there are three other houses w.i th basement
apartments that have been used as such .since World War II. Mr. Graham sta ·te~ th~t the
houses in the 2800 block south Sherman are "working men's homes," and are primarily owner-
Page 1440
occupied. The homes are kept in good condition and well cared for. Mr. Graham stated there
are very few tenants in the block. Mr. Graham stated that the opponents ask that the rezoning
request be denied; they do not see need for change at the present time. Mr. Graham stated
that the R-2.-B Zone District is a "transition" from single-family to a higher density resi-
dential use. Mr. Graham stated he concurred with the staff report which states that the de-
velopmen~ hoped for when the area was zoned R-2-A has not taken place, but that does not mea.n
that the R-2-A Zone is bad. Mr. Graham stated that when it is no longer practical to con-
tinue the homes as single-family homes a change will take place. Mr. Graham stated that the
opponents "aren't quarreling with the 0ther duplexes that are there, they just don't want
change to take care of the few." Mr. Graham stated that the people are concerned; they
don't feel the change is needed at this time. Mr. Graham expressed the thought that when
Mr. Dryden bought the .property he knew what the zone classification ~as, and what deveLop-
ment was permitted under that particular classification. .Mr. Graham stated that there are
a few non-resident owners now, and the owner-occupants want to keep the block basically
owner-occupied.
Mrs. Henning asked Mr. Graham to address himself to why the opponents are opposing a change
from 75 ft .. frontage to 50 ft. frontage, when the permitted uses would be the same. Mr. .
Graham stated that the opponents don't want that many more duplexes coming in that rapidly.
They feel the required 75 ft. frontage permits more open space; there is now some problem
with parking and the residents don't want any additional parking problems to be created.
' Mrs. Henning commented that she didn't understand how the signers from Grant Street, 2800
block south, would be affected. Mr. Graham stated that the Sherman-Grant alley is the
division between the R-2-A Zone District and the R-1-C Zone District; these people on the
west side of South Grant wouid be within 16 feet of the R-2-B development. These resi-
dents are concerned that such change of zoning would cause more change and would affect
their block.
Mr. Lentsch commented that at one time lived in the 2800 block of South Sherman. He stated
that Mr. Dodrill, a resident of the 2800 block also, wanted to develop his property as two-
family .. Mrs •. Dodrill stated that the zoning at that time required 75 ft. frontage for a
duplex, and it was their intention to build on 50 ft. Their request was denied.
Mr. Dumbauld
2825 S. Sherman
Mr. Chase
2805 S. Sherman -
stated he has lived there since 1928. He noted that "someone sneaked
in a .duplex a few years ago" and discussed at some length the problems
that have occurred with the tenants in that house. Mr. Dumbauld stated
there have been "drug-users" and "hippies" living there. He stated that .
the owner cannot control the tenants. Mr. Dumbauld stated he was op-
posed to the approval of the request.
further discussed the problem with the one duplex; he noted that the
Building Dep~rtment had it condemned at one time for four months. Mr.
Chase stated that a variance was granted to enable this duplex to be
built.
Mr. Weist asked Mr. Graham if he felt the application was based on economic grounds, and if
this was a prope~ basis for a rezoning request. Mr. Graham stated that if he personally
owned the property, he would .probably come in with the same request as Mr. Dryden has. He
stated that he would construct a duplex for economic reasons. Discussion followed. Mr.
Graham stated that he felt the area could be redeveloped now if need be. He pointed out
that it might take three 50 ft. parcel~ to construct two duplexes under the present zone
classification, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Mr. Graham noted that the majority
of this zone classification is .in areas of older homes ~ and redevelopment is feasible;
however, Mr. Graham noted, the homes in this particular block are in good shape and are
being well-maintained.
Mr. Brown commented that if the residents of the 2800 block keep their homes in good shape
they need not be concerned. He stated that he did not feel approval of the request would
harm the area at all, and that the new development will add to the neighborhood.
Mr. Eitel stated that he felt the "need" has been determined by the City when the area was
zoned for two-family development; the problem in development is one of economics, and the
75 ft. frontage is not feasible for a duplex. Mr. Eitel stated that Mr. Dryden will be a
resident occupant at least part of the time of the proposed duplex. Mr. Eitel stated that
he had been informed that the force of opposition had been created by one person living in
the block, and that this person had at one time wanted to develop his property and could
not do so because of the zoning restrictions, and was now opposing this request.
Mr. Keith Dryden stated that he felt much of the opposition in the block to his request was
because there is one duplex owned by a person who lives out of town, oµt of the state in
fact, and there have been problems with tenants in this duplex. Mr. Dryden stated that he
has sold his home in the 3000 block South Pearl, which he built about 18 years ago. Mr.
Dryden noted that a lot of the older homes in Englewood are decreasing in value, and that
his home on Pearl Street had done so. He poi_n.ted, o~t tti:;t t there is li.ttle property for the
City to annex. Mr. Dryden stated that the land is priced too high to build one duplex on
100 ft. frontage. He stated that he has found a few 50 ft. lots with a "shack" on them for
$10,000, but it is not economically feasible to purchase two of these parcels, pay the
cost of razing ~he shacks and the cost of new construction. Mr. Dryden stated that he did
purchase the property at 2853 South Sherman for an investment property and he felt at the
time he purchased it that he would be able to get it rezoned.
Mr. Graham stated that his cliends do not feel the necessity for change of zone classification
has been established.
Mr. Brown asked why the property was zoned fo~ 75 ft. frontage in the first place? Mrs.
Romans stated that under the 1955 Zoning Ordinance, a new zoning classification was created
for two-family development, and applied by the consultants who were hired to draft the
ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that at the present time, land use information is being
used t~ attempt to correct past errors, and again noted that 14 of 20 ownerships in the
block have 50 ft. frontage or less. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross suggested that there
must have been a reason for zoning the block for 75 ft. frontages to begin with.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1441
Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Dryden if he could purchase a parcel of land having 75 ft. frontage
immediately next to his, could he construct two duplexes on this property and would it be
economically feasible if he could get the property for $9,000 or $10,000. Mr. Dryden
stated that it would not; that a developer could have in the neighborhood of $45,000 tied
up in the land. Mr. Dryden pointed out that construction costs for a duplex today are
approximately $30,000. He stated that if the request is approved, he plans to build a
unit that would rent for around $180. Mr. Robins asked Mr. Dryden why he didn't purchase
R-2-B property to begin with? Mr. Dryden stated that he had attempted to find such property,
but could not find what he wanted.
Mr. Duane Jarred stated that under the present ordinance, Mr. Dryden could construct a
duplex on 100 ft. frontage; he asked why there was a request to change the zone classifica-
tion unless Mr. Dryden was planning to build a four-plex? Mr. Jarred noted that nearly
every property owner has lived there for 10 years. Mr. Jarred also discussed the parking
situation. He stated that while a development may provide parking for the tenants, you
cannot force them to use that parking.
Mr. Chase stated that the 2800 block of South Lincoln is zoned for R-2-B, and it has "gone
down-hill", and there "hasn't been one bit of improvement."
Ross moved:
Weist seconded: The Public Hearing be closed.
The vote was called:
AYES:
NAYS:
Brown, Carlson, Henning, Lentsch, Ross, Stanley, Vobejda, Weist
Robins
The motion carried.
Ross moved:
Robins seconded: The request for rezoning of the 2800 block South Sherman Street from
R-2-A to R-2-B be denied.
Mr. Brown stated that he felt we should look to the future of the City; he stated that he
was concerned that the City would be a place where fami+ies will want to live and attract
young people who will raise families. Mr. Brown noted that the school enrollment is dropping,
and he feels that when this situation happens, it does not make for a good community. Mr.
Brown stated he could "see all kinds of things that will be hurt if we vote no on this."
By contrast, if approved, he stated that he could see up-grading of the area, with an elimma-
tion of the small little house that may not be large enough to accommodate a family. Mr.
Brown stated he could not vote in favor of the motion to deny.
Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Lee what affect approval or denial would have on other applications?
Mr. Lee stated that the decision on each application must be made on the merits of the
individual application. Mr. Lee stated that points to be considered were what the Compre-
hensive Plan indicated for future development for the area; if there has been material change
in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning, etc. Mr. Lee stated that if a request is ap-
proved, the City will have made a "change" upon which future applications can be based. Mr.
Lee pointed out that if the Commission did recommend approval of the request they must es-
tablish a reason for the change.
Mrs. Henning stated that she did feel the application of the R-2-A zoning was an error, and
pointed out that the Commission has also discussed the fact that most apartment developments
will not allow children, and that also, most apartment developments were the ''three-story
walk-up". Mrs. Henning stated that she would be in favor of most of the R-2-A Zone District
being changed to R-2-B to encourage redevelopment with the hope that units allowing young
children would be constructed. Mrs. Henning stated that the City did not need more one-bed-
room apartments.
Mr. Lentsch discussed efforts of other cities to up-grade older deteriorating parts of their
cities. He stated that this application is for a small area, but he felt the R-2-A must be
up-graded all over town.
Mr. Robins pointed out that a majority of the residents of the block are opposed to the
application. Mr. Robins also pointed out that Mr. Dryden stated he purchased the land with
the intent of asking for rezoning. He stated he could not approve the request for these
reasons.
Mrs. Vobejda commented that she does not think it has been demonstrated that more than 1 /2
of the people do not want the rezoning.
Mr. Ross stated that he felt Englewood was becoming nothing more than a "bedroom" for Denver;
he stated that he felt it was in the best interest of the City to preserve as much open space
as we can and to use the land to the best advantage. Mr. Ross stated that he felt the area
would be redeveloped, but he would rather see the zoning remain as it is.
Mrs. Henning pointed out that a rezoning would not change the character of the neighborhood
very drastically, and that she felt "quality" is more important than the extra 25 ft. frontage.
Carlson moved:
Stanley seconded:
The vote was called:
The matter be tabled until July 18th to give opportunity for further
consideration by the Commission.
AYES: Carlson; Stanley
NAYS: Henning; Brown; Lentsch; Ross; Robins; Weist; Vobejda
The motion failed.
The vote was called on the motion by Mr. Ross to deny the rezoning request:
AYES: Ross; Stanley; Robins; Carlson
NAYS: Vobejda; Weist; Brown; Lentsch; Henning
The motion to deny failed.
Page 1442
Henning moved:
Brown seconded:
The vote was called:
The Planning Commission recommend to City Council tbat the rezoning
a~plication file~ by Mr. Keith Dryden, Case #17-72, for a change of
zone in the 2800 block South Sherman Street from R-2-A to R-2-B be
approved for the following reasons:
1. The subject ~rea has been zoned R-2-A, a two-family residential
district, since 1955, yet, because o~ the requirements in that
zone District that a two-family unit ~an be constructed on no less
than a 75 foot frontage, 14 of the 19 owners are precluded from
constructipg ~two-family unit, should they desire to do so, becausa
they have less than 75 foot frontage.
2. There are at leapt twp existing two-family units within the subject
area which would conform to the minimal requirements of 50 foot frontage
as set forth in the R-2-B Zone District, which do not conform to the
minimal requirements of 75 foot frontage in the R-2-A Zone District.
3. Further develppment of at least one site within the area could take
place were the zoning to be changed from R-2-A to R-2-B.
4. There would be a greater possibility of redevelopment of older,
single-family units, at such time as redevelopment may be necessary,
were the area to be zoned R-2-B inasmuch as most of the ownerships
are 50 ft. rather than 75 ft. sites.
' 5. The present zoning does not permit the highest and best use of
the land.
AYES:
NAYS:
Weist; Vobejda; Brown; Lentsch; Henning
Robins; Ross; Stanley; Carlson
The motion carried.
Mrs. Henning was e~cused from the meeting.
V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
Amendment of §22.4-11 b.
'
. CASE #14-7·2C
June 6, 1972
May 16, 1972
May 2, 1972
Mr. Lentpch stated that this matter had been tabled at the last regular meeting and the ,
staff asked to obtain additional information. Mr. Lentsch entertained a motion to raise
the matter from the table.
Weist moyed:
Vobejda seconded:
The motion carried.
The matter of amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-11 b,
be raised from the table.
Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had attempted to get additional information for the Com-
mission. The staff is in receipt of several brochures "on loan" that the Commission may re-
view if they wish to do so; however, the brochures were not received in time to have copies .
made available for each member pri9r to the meeting. It would appear from a brief review
by the staff, that the toxicity of perchloroethylene is not as severe as first believed, and
that new regulations will require a structure of any size to be sprinklered when flammable
liquids are to be used in the structure. Mrs. Romans also submitted members with a copy of
a memorandum submitted by Fire Chief H~milton .and Captain Grayson Hartley which memorandum
states that it is the responsibility of the Fire Department to keep the City as safe as
possible and it is their opinion that the introduction of flammable liquids as a permitted
use in the B-2 Zone is a hazard.
Mr. Ralph Taylor, counsel for Mr. Roberts, Applicant, st~ted that he was in receipt of a
letter from International Fabrics Institute, and submitted copies of this letter to the
Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that if the Commission would read the letter, they would
find that it says substantially the same as Mr. Taylor has stated to the Commission at pre-
vious meetings.
Mrs. Stanley left the meeting.
Mr. Taylor stated that he and his client are not opposing the use of perchloroethylene;
they are asking that the Stoddard Solvent be permitted in the B-2 Zone District.
Discussion followed. Mr. Carlson stated that he felt that it has not been proved the
Stoddard Solvent was a hazardous liquid; if .it is as hazardous .as supposed, the City should
exclude its use from all zone districts. Mr. Carlson stated he could not go along with ex-
cluding the use of the Stoddard Solvent on the grounds that the insurance rates were higher
on structures where this solvent was used, and noted that insurance rates vary according to
the type of business. Mr. Robins pointed out that the insurance rates were "way higher" on
the Stoddard Solvent than on dry cleaning establishments making use of the Perchloroethylene;
"it's a hazard or they wouldn't raise the rates." Mr. Carlson stated that he felt "if it's
dangerous in commercial why isn't it dangerous in the industrial district."
Mr. Ross noted that the letter to Mr. Taylor for International Fabricare Institute states:
"We consider the fire hazard from Stoddard Solvent to be quite minor. With proper operation
of a Stoddard Solvent plant, there is little danger of a fire. It has been our experience
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1443
that most fires in Stoddard .solvent plants are caused by failure of the operator to clean
out the lint trap in the .tumbler or to keep the exhaust duct free of lint. Anything that
interferes with the air flow will prolong the drying time and ·increase the solvent vapor
concentration in the air. In normal operation of a Stoddard solvent tumbler, the air flow
is so high that an explosive mixture in the tumbler is never reached. In other words, a
spark in the tumbler wil1 not ignite the vapor so long as the air flow is maintained at
the proper level." Mr. Ross pointed out that the cause of fires is the fault of the operator,
and not the solvent itself. Mr. Robins pointed out that the solvent is heated, there is a
danger of static electricity setting it off, the possibility that lint won't be cleaned out
properly, etc. He further pointed out that while Mr. Roberts of Quincy Cleaners may run a
"clean operation" as stated by .Chief Hamili;on, this amendment would apply to the entire B-2
Zone District. Mr. Weist stated that any operation has an element of hazard in it. Mr.
Ross stated that rre didn't feel the fact that the insurance companies raised insurance rates
was a true measure of the hazard involved. Mr. Ross.pointed out that the policy of insurance
companies is to "eliminate risk". Mr. Ross stated that just because something is flammable
doesn't mean it is hazardous if it is used properly. He pointed out that all operations
must meet the requirements of the Fire and Building Codes. Discussion followed.
Ross moved:
Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-llb, be amended to pe~mit dry cleaning establish-
ments using flammable liquids in a B-2 Zone District •. It does not appear
that operations involving use of the Stoddard solvent are exceptionally
hazardous.
AYES: Ross; Carlson; Vobejda; Weist
NAYS: Robins; Lentsch; Brown
ABSENT: Stanley; Henning
The Chairman ruled that the motion carried.
VI. OFF-STREET PARKING LOT
2820 South Zuni Street
CASE #19-72
Mr. Romans stated that members of the Commission have the proposed parking layout before
them. Mrs. Romans stated that the request is for approval of a 90 space off-street parking
lot. The proposed office building will be an addition to the Natkin complex at the above
address. Mrs. Romans stated that the plans were referred to the various City Departments;
a list of corrections as set forth by Director of Public Works Waggoner is also before the
Commission. This list of corrections has been submitted to the Olson Construction Company,
and a letter from Mr. Goodman of that Company has been received, which letter states agree-
ment with changes #2 thru #8 as noted in Mr. Waggoner's memorandum. In referring to Mr.
Waggoner's first comment, Mrs. Romans noted that the address of 2820 South Zuni was given
to ~he Natkin building many years ago, even though this structure is in the 2700 block; it
was emphasized that the matter of address has no bearing on the approval of the parking lay~ut.
The staff recommends that the parking plan be approved, incorporating changes #2 thru #8 of
fue memorandum by Mr. Waggoner. Mrs. Romans stated that tbe staff had anticipated that the
meeting might be rather lengthy, and had suggested that the applicant need not be present.
Discussion followed. Mr. Carlson asked if this was to be a "permanent type parking lot?"
Mrs. Romans stated that it would be, and that paving specifications have been submitted by
the applicant) and are attached to the parking plan which each Commission member received
last Fl(iday.
Weist moved:
Brown seconded: The Planning Commission approve the off-street parking layout as re-
quested by Olson Construction Company for Charter Page, Inc., 2820
South Zuni Street and as recommended by the staff in Staff Report
#19-72. It is recommended that this approval be subject to the following
specifications being met by the applioant.
1. The curb and gutter on West Yale Avenue shall have a four-foot
attached walk. The flow line shall be 18 feet north of the south
R.O.W. line.
2. The curb and gutter on South Zuni Street shall be adjacent to the
east line of South Zuni Street.
3. The intersection radius shall be 15 ft.
4. The curb cuts shall be limited to a maximum width of 31 feet (3'0"
transitions, 25'0" throat).
5. No radii shall be permitted on curb cuts.
6. All drainage shall be contained on the property until discharged
onto Yale Avenue or South Zuni as required by the Director of Public
Works and City Engineer.
7. The curb cut adjacent to the intersection of the csouth leg of West
Yale Avenue and South Zuni Street shall be moved northward to
minimize a potential traffic hazard with the curb cut to private
property located directly across from a dedicated street.
The vote was called; the motion carried.
VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mrs. Romans stated that she received the impression that the Commission members apparently
felt that they had not received the proper information on the matter of the flammable
Page 1444
liquids in dry cleaning establishments in a B-2 Zone District. Mrs. Romans reviewed the cai-
tacts she had made in .an effort to obtain all the information possible, and pointed out that
opinions expressed by these contacts were based upon the business the person was in whether
Perchloroethylene qr Stoddard was the better cleaning agent. It was pqinted out that the
toxicity of Perchloroet-hylene isn't great if "used proper]c,y", just as Stoddard Solvent is
not hazardous if "used properly." Mrs. Romans again apologized for no~ having been able to
obtain more information as requested at the last meeting; she noted that what ~nformation
was received was l not received in time to formulate into a staff .report or to have copies
available for members, but that it was available at .the meeting, should the members wish to
review it. Mrs. Romans stated that it was .the staff position that the Stoddard. Sqlv~nt is
flammable and exposes adjacent buildings to a haz3trd, and should, therefore, not be approved.
Discussion fqllowed. Mr. Lentsch stated that the staff had given a very gooq report. He
stated "!think we have taken a step backward tonight", and questioned the thoughts of Council
when the Commission "takes a step backward."
Mrs. Romans reminded the Commission that th~ next regular meeting of the Commission was
scheduled for July 11th, at which time a representative of Voorhees Associates will be
present to discuss the traffic study recently completed.
Mrs. Romans reminded Commission members that there will be a meeting on June 26th, 7:30
P.M. between the City Council, Planning Commiss~on, and RTD Board in the City Hall. Members
were urged to attend.
The meeting adjourned at 12:45 A. M., Wednesday, June 21, 1972.
GERTRUDE G. WELTY
Recording Secretary
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
Henning moved:
Brown seconded:
The vote was called:
June 20, 1972
Dryden Rezoning Request -2800 block South Sherman
The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning ap-
plication filed by Mr. Keith Dryden, Case #17-72, for a change of zone
in the 2800 block South Sherman Street from R-2-A to R-2-B be approved
for the following reasons:
1. The subject area has been zoned R-2-A, a two-family residential
district, since 1955, yet, because of the requirements in that
Zone District that a two-family unit can be constructed on no
less than a 75 foot frontage, 14 of 'the 19 owners are precluded
from constructing a two-family unit, should they desire to do so,, ~
because they have less than 75 foot frontage.
2. There are at least two existing two-family units within the subject
area which would conform to the minimal requirements of 50 foot
frontage as set forth in the R-2-B Zone District, which do not con-
form to the minimal requirements of 75 foot ~rontage in the R-2-A
Zone District.
3. Further development of at least one site within the area could take
place were the zoning to be chang~d from R-2-A to R-2-B.
. .
4. There would be a greater possibility of redevelopment of older,
single-family units, at such time as redevelopment may be necessary,
were the area to be zoned R-2-B inasmuch as most of the ownerships
are 50 ft. rather than 75 ft. sites.
5. The present zoning does not permit the highest and best use of the
land.
AYES:
NAYS:
Weist; Vobejda; Brown; Lentsch; Henning
Robins; Ross; Stanley; Carlson
The motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
- - ------ - --
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1445
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE: Ju~e 20, 1972
SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-11 b
RECOMMENDATION:
Ross moved:
Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that ~he Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-11 ~be amended to permit dry cleaning establish-
ments using flammable liquids in a B-2 Zone District. It does not appear
that operations involving use of the Stoddard Solvent are exceptionally
hazardous.
The vote was called:
AYES: Ross; Carlson; Vobejda; Weist
NAYS : Robins; Lentsch; Brown ·
ABSENT: Stanley; Henning
The Chairman ruled that the motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.
GERTRUDE G. WELTY
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1972
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00
P. M. by Cha irma·n Lentsch. ·
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Henning; Vobej da ;· Stanley; Carlson; Robins ; Ross; Lentsch ; Weist
Brown
James L. Supinger, Ex-officio
D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development
B. V. Bsrardini, City Attorney
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Chairmap 'Lentsch stated that Minutes of the regular meeting of June 20, 1972, are to be
considered for approval.
Vobejda moved:
Weist seconded: The Minutes of June 20 ; 1972, be approved as written.
The motion carried.
III. KEITH A. DRYDEN
2800 Block South Sherman Street
CASE #l 7-72A
June 20, 1972
Mr. Supinger s t ated that Finding s and Conclusions have been prepared on the request by
Mr. Keith Dryden to rezone the 2800 block of South Sherman Street from R-2-A (Two-family
Residential) to R-2-B (Two-family Residential).. These "findings and conclusions" will be
referred to City Council after approval by the City Planning Commission.
Mrs. Henning stated that she felt more emphasis should be given to the fact that tbe original
zoning was in error, and suggested that the findings be revised to place this particular fact
as #1. Discussion followed.
Henning moved:
Vobejda seconded:
The motion ca r ried.
That the statement set forth as #6 be numbered #1, and the subsequent
statements renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Brown entered the meeting and took his place with the Commission.
Further discussion followed. The findings, as amended, were approved.