HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-11-27 PZC MINUTESI
I
I
Page 1603
Mr. Capesius stated that he felt it was a pretty .nice community; -he felt that most of
the people living in the neighborhood were satisfied; they have a nice scqool and good
parks. He stated that he felt if there was an attempt to impose industrial zoning west
of Tejon he felt the residents would definitely oppose it. Mr. Capesius discussed the
traffic on South Tejon Street; he noted that the street is patrolled on Sunday mornings,
but not on weekdays, and that the 7-Up trucks use it as a speedway.
Mrs. Vardeman noted an instance wherein a pickup truck had been driving over the school
lawn; the police were called, and the custodian "waited over 1-1/2 hour:s and they still
hadn't shown up."
Mr. Hayes asked "who pays for the land you take away from the property owner" if the streets
are cut through? Mr .' Supinger stated that the City takes the atti~ude that it would be a
benefit to the properties in that it would give frontage on two streets and enable the owners
to sell off the back half if they so desired. Mr. Supinger stated that the City administra-
tion feels they cannot justify spending money to improve the value of one property. Mr.
Supinger further stated that the City may pay for the additional right-of-way if the street
needs to be widened if the need is generated from outside the neighborhood. Discussion
followed.
The matter of easements for utilities and street purposes was discussed. Mr. Supinger
stated that he didn't know of any easements for roadway purposes in the Scenic View area.
A gentleman from the audience asked if weight limit restrictions would be placed on streets
following the completion of the greenbelt/parkway? Mr. Supinger noted that trucks may de-
part from a designated truck route to reach a delivery site.
The matter of a police sub-station in the area was discussed. Mr. Lentsch stated that at
the time the Capital Improvement Program was discussed, the Commission was ~ssured by Chief
Clasby that the City could be adequately covered from the one main station.
The matter of street paving, curb and gutter was then considered. Mrs. Rhodus stated that
she understood the paving, curb and gutter on their street would cost her $2,500; she stated
tha~ the way costs were rising , she would prefer to have the ~treet paved as soon as possible.
Further discussion followed.
Mr. Supinger noted that there are prese~tly 163 dwelling units in the Scenic View Area;
under the present zoning, there could be . development to a total of 470 dwelling units.
Mr. Mason asked "how much longer do we have to wait until the City says this is what we
are going to do?" Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt most of the residents at the meeting
were not in favor of a zoning change,. and asked for a show of hands of persons in favor of
a zoning change. Three persons indicated they were interested in rezoning; 16 persons in-
dicated they did not want any rezoning in the residential area.
Discussion of R-2-A vs. R-2-B zone classifications ensued.
Mrs. Perry asked if this meeting had "anything to do with HUD?" She stated that the "people
want to be left alone; they don't want to be bothered." Mr. Lentsch stated that the meeting
did not have anything to do with HUD.
The matter of street paving was again considered. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it would
be 5 or 6 years before all the streets in the area could be paved. Mrs. Henning noted that
the City had cancelled the sidewalk district for 1973 because of a shortage of concrete.
Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt the meeting had indicat~d:
1. The people do not want a change of zoning.
2. The people do not want more parks; just finish the on~s they have now.
3. The water pressure is low.
4. There is a need for a bus system, but it is wanted through the residential area.
5. The people want better police protection.
6. The people want something done about the 7-Up trucks speeding on South Tejon Street.
7. Look into paving the streets.
Mr. Mason discussed the efforts required to acquire a traffic .light at Evans and Tejon; he
noted that there had been 64 accidents and 2 deaths at that intersection before approval
for installation of a light was given.
Mr. Mock asked that the Dog Leash Law be enforced. Severa~ members of the audience agreed
that the dogs running loose in the neighborhood did present a serious problem.
The audience was thanked for coming to express their views to the Commission. The meeting
adjourned at 9:55 P.M.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
t
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Npvember 27, 1973 .
I. CALL TO ORDER.
The special meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Conqnission was called to order by
Chairman Lentsch.
Members present:
Members absent:
Tanguma; Weist; Brown; Henning; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith
Supinger, Ex-officio
None
Page 1604
Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Assistant City Attorney Lee; Planning Assistant
House.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of October 2, 1973, and November 13, 1973, were to be .
considered for approval.
Martin moved:
Smith seconded: The Minutes of October 2, 1973, and November 13, 1973, be approved as
written.
AYES: Tanguma; Weist; Brown; Henning; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried.
III. SANTA FE /UNION ANNEXATION AREA
Zoning to R-1-C (Single-family)
CASE #36-73
Henning moved:
Brown seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #36-73 be opened.
The motion carried.
Mr. Lentsch asked the staff to give the background on the zoning case.
Mrs. Romans stated that the legal notice of the hearing was published in the Englewood
Herald Sentinel November 8, 1973. The property has been posted the required 15 day period.
Mrs. Romans stated that the property to be considered for R-1-C (Single-family Residence)
zoning is that fronting on South Mariposa Drive, and one lot which fronts on West Tufts
Avenue, the address of which is 1460 West Tufts Avenue. Mrs. Romans described the R-1-C
Zone District, and then stated that the east side of South Mariposa Drive is zoned R-1-A
(Single-family Residence), which requires a 75 ft. frontage and 9,000 square foot lot area
minimum contrasted to the 50 ft. frontage, 6,000 square foot lot area minimum of the R-1-C
Zone. Mrs. Romans noted that the land west of the properties bordering the west side of
South Mariposa Drive is developed under industrial zoning, and it was felt that the R-1-C
zone classification would be an acceptable buffer between the R-1-A and I-1 zone districts.
The R-1-C classification is, the staff feels, compatible with the area, and would allow
future development of the vacant sites that would also be compatible with the existing de-
velopment. Mrs. Romans stated that there will be no non-conforming uses created by this
Zone classification.
Mr. Lentsch stated that the Commission would now listen to members of the audience who were
in favor of the R-1-C Zone classification. No one indicated a desire to speak.
Mr. Lentsch stated the Commission would hear those in opposition to the R-1-C District.
Mr. Eldon Nelson
4655 South Mariposa Drive -stated that he had been a resident of the Englewood area for
48 years, and has children in the Englewood School system.
Mr. Nelson stated that fire protection is available from the
City if it is needed, and other services are available if
needed. Mr. Nelson stated that he objected to becoming a
part of the City at this time; he stated that he wanted to
see a vote of every one who lives in the area on whether or
not they want to become a part of Englewood. Mr. Nelson stated
that the land directly west of his property is developed as
I-1, Light Industrial. He noted that on Lot 3, there is a
chemical firm, which constructed their building last spring.
Mr. Nelson stated that this building has completely obstructed
the view from their rear patio. He asked if there wasn't some
provision for screening or .a buffer between the industrial
area and the residential area? He stated that Lots 1 and 2
are screened nicely; there is a "poor fence" along the rear
line of Lot #3, and Lot #4 has provided no fencing or screening
of any kind.
Mr. Supinger asked Mr. Nelson if he objected to the R-1-C zoning that is proposed for his
property? Mr. Nelson stated that the R-1-C zoning is satisfactory; he noted that he does
have a rental in the basement of his home that has been in existence since the dwelling was
built. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Nelson would have the right to continue to use the
rental in the basement; it would become a legal non-conforming use, whiqh use goes with the
land and continue indefinitely. Mr. Supinger emphasized that the "subject of the hearing to-
night is the proposed zoning for an area that has been approved for annexation. The matter
of annexation is not the subject of the hearing this evening."
Mrs. Nelson stated that there is a piece of vacant land right to the south of their property;
she asked if there is any way industrial use could be put on that property? Mr. Supinger
stated that assuming the R-1-C zoning is approved, if the owner of the land wanted to get
the zoning changed to allow industrial development, there would have to be a hearing before
the Planning Commission and City Council on the request .. The property would have to be posted,
and public notice given in the official city newspaper. Mrs. Nelson noted that in 1961, Mr.
Bob Cummings, owner of property to the west in the industrial area, "got the. zoning changed .
very quickly and quietly." Mr. Supinger stated that he was not sure what notification require-
ments the County had for ~o ning change.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1605
Mr. Lentsc~ asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak on the proposed R-1-C zoning?
No one indicated a desire to speak.
Mrs. Henning asked about requirements for buffering between I-1 and R-1 districts? Mr.
Supinger stated that "where it abuts, generally speaking, we would require a screening or
setback of 20 ft. with landscaping, or the construction of an opaque wall or fence." Mrs.
Henning asked why this pas not been carried out? Mr. Supinger stated that he would check
into the matter. He stated that there have been problems of enforcement on this matter,
and problems of interpretation. For a time , it was . determined that it could only be en-
forced if both properties were in the City.
Henning moved:
Jorgenson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #36-73 be closed.
The motion carried.
IV. SANTA FE /UNION ANNEXATION AREA
Zoning to I-1, Light Industrial
Tanguma moved:
- ---- ---.
Henning seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #37-73 be opened.
The motion carried.
Mr. Lentsch asked the staff for backgro;und o ,f the case.
'
CASE #37-73
Mrs. Romans stated that public notice of the Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald
Sentinel November 8, 1973. The property has been posted the required 15 day minimum. Mrs.
Romans reviewed the Municipal Annexation Act, which sets forth that the annexing municipality
shall, within 90 days after the annexation becomes final, bring the property under the zoning
ordinances of that municipality. The timing is such that zoning procedures must begin in
advance of actual finalization of the annexation.
Mrs. Romans stated that the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District is proposed for the remainder
of the area to be annexed to the City of Englewood. Under Arapahoe County zoning, the are.a
to the east of Santa Fe Drive is zoned for single-family, light industrial and hea.vy industrial
uses. The City staff feels that I-1 zoning would permit more compatible development with the
residential areas to the east and the existing I-1 development to the north and south of the
subject area. Mrs. Romans stated that this would make the residences non-conforming; a non-
conforming use may continue indefinitely, and goes with the land . Mrs. Romans stated that
the staff was told some time ago by FHA in regard to property to the east of the subject
site that they would not finance single-family home construction in that area; therefore,
the staff felt that additional single-family zoning would be improper.
The area to be annexed which lies west of Santa Fe Drive is developed with a mixture of uses.
Along Santa Fe Drive , an area which has County Zoning of B-4, General Business, there are
motels, car sales, and liquor stores. These uses would be permitted under the Englewood I-1
Zone District, and would not be non-conforming. West of the B-4 zoning along Santa Fe , the
County has I-2 zoning and Flood Plain zoning. Mrs. Romans stated that the City of Englewood
Flood Plain District over-lays all zone districts in the City; all building permits are re-
viewed to determine if the site is within the 100 year flood plain. Construction may still
continue in the flood plain in Englewood, but measures to flood proof the structure must be
followed.
Mrs. Romans stated that the regional plan of the annexation area designates it as a high
density residential, employment and transportation center.
Mrs. Romans stated that some uses existing in the area will become non-conforming under the
proposed I-1 zoning, namely the auto wrecking and salvage yards. Mrs. Romans pointed out
that these uses may continue in operation; they may not expand the business. Mrs. Romans
stated that the auto wrecking yards would be asked to comply with the auto wrecking yard
ordinance. Mrs. Romans s~ated that looking at the existing development and considering the
potential development of the area, the staff is of the opinion that the proposed I-1 Light
Industrial zoning is the proper zoning .
.J
Mr. Lentsch stated that the Commission would now hear those who wished to speak in favor of
the rezoning. No one indicated a desire to speak.
Mr. Lentsch stated that the Commission would now hear those opposed to the proposed zoning.
Mr. William Myrick stated that he represents a number of property owners on the west side
of South Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Myrick stated that 11 90% of the present uses will become non-
conforming uses under the I-1 zoning", inasmuch as 90% of the land is in I-2 zoning and uses ,
such as auto-wrecking yards and gravel operations. Mr. Myrick pointed out that Englewood
does not even recognize auto wrecking yards as a permitted use in any zone district. Mr.
Myrick stated that his clients "will be deprived of their property without due process of
law." Mr. Myrick stated that he had attempted to have conferences with the Planning Division
and with the City Manager, and was informed there was no way the land would be considered
for I-2 zoning. Mr. Myrick stated that they are large tracts of land acquired over the years
by these businessmen; they do not object to regulations that may be placed on the auto
wrecking yards such as fire lanes; they object to the zoning. Mr. Myrick reiterated that
"to annex all of the land and to change tbe zoning and allow no expansion is depriving use
of the land without due process of law." Mr. Myrick asked that the Planning Commission look
at the matter from the individual property owner's point of view; he noted that "we are
talking about 90% of the land; there are no children to be educated living in the area; the
City will get the sales taxes and property taxes." Mr. Myrick stated that the Commission
must consider what the zoning action will do to the property owners of the area. Mr. Myrick
stated that "if the City wants this particular piece of ground then they should allow the
activities that are being developed in that area." Mr . Myrick pointed out that the area
is being annexed "over 100% objection from the property owners." Mr. Myrick urged that the
Commission "consider continuing the County zoning as it exists."
Mrs. Henning asked Mr. Supinger what uses were permitted in the Englewood I-2 zone District?
Page 1606
Mr. Supinger read a list of permitted uses from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and noted
that §22.5-15, Natural Production Uses, does permit sand and gravel operations with the ap-
proval of the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. Mr. Myrick stated "you are telling
these people they can't continue these businesses; there is no use by right in the City of.
Englewood for the gravel and sand ope;ration and the auto wrecking yards."
Mr. Robert Flynn stated that he was representing Peter Kiewit and Sons, who own 45 acres of
property in the annexation area. The Kiewit property was zoned I-2 in the County, and the
proposed I-1 zoning would make them non-conforming_. Mr. Flynn stated that he agreed with
Mr. Myrick's statement that the property owners were being deprived of the use of their land
without due process of law. Mr. Flynn stated that Kiewit has a sand and gravel operation;
they may use the land for concrete production; they do have a batching plant for asphalt at
the present time. Kiewit has owned and used the land for the present purposes for 20 years.
Mr. Flynn stated the thought of a beautiful greenbelt along the Platte River Valley "is a
good idea, but when you get down to practical aspects if you get any more greenbelts you
won't have enough water to keep them green and the watering and maintenance costs will ex-
ceed the cost of educating children." Mr. Flynn stated that the land has been industrial
for many years; it is developed with industrial uses. Mr. Flynn stated that if the property
owners lose the "use-by-right" status for their development,the value of the land will de-
crease. Mr. Flynn referred to the regional master plan which designates the area as an
employment transportation center; he stated that "it won't be a high density work area and
be a place for people to earn their living if the uses are restricted."
Mr. Harry Webber
1219 St. Paul Street -stated that he had been employed by Kiewit & Sons for 20 years,
since they had first started production of asphalt, sand and
gravel at this site. Mr. Webber stated that Kiewit had always
had good cooperation with the City of Englewood, and cited an
instance whereby land on the Kiewit site was used for landfill
purposes by the City. Mr. Webber stated tha~ Kiewit & Sons is
not against annexatjon by the City of Englewood; they do oppose
the I-1 Zone classification for their land. "It does take, away
options that they had for future. development." Mr. Webber sub-
mitted a copy of the County Zoning Map and an aerial photo to
the Commission for their study.
Mrs. Henning _ asked if the restrictions on sand and gravel operations were applicable to both
I-1 and I-2. Mr. Supinger stated tha~ the restrictions did apply to both districts; if the
use is there with no intention of abandonment, it may continue with no permit from the
Planning Commission. Discussion followed.
Mr. Norm Sample
2900 W. Tanforan -
Mr. Walter Soule
4784 South Moor~
stated that if the auto salvage yards were put out of business, it would
affect insurance rates by as much as 25%. He urged the Commission con-
sider a zone classification which would permit salvage yards.
stated he was. opposed to the annexation and to the zoning as proposed.
Mr. Supinger stated that the following letter had been received in the Planning Office:
City of Englewood
Planning Commission
City Hall
"November 25, 1973
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Gentlemen:
In regards to your . Santa Fe-Union annexation and rezoning proposal: First; I am completely
against the annexation proposal and second if the City of Englewood would happen to annex
the said property I believe the zoning should be left alone. I own considerable property
in the area at a large investment. We moved from Jefferson County to Arapahoe County be-
cause of non-conforming zoning for the principal reason.of being in a heavy industrial are~.
We have very little to be gained by being annexed except probably higher taxes and harassment
because of the type business we are in. We survived the 1965 Platte River flood without the
help of the City of Englewood at a considerable loss. We spent thousands of dollars building
our property and business back up to normal after the flood and would just as soon be left
alope as a heavy industrial area of Arapahoe County and not a non-conforming part of Englewood.
Sincerely yours,
Ray Koch
Property owner and business owner."
(Koch Auto & Parts
2020 West Stanford Avenue)
Mrs. Henning asked if there were members of the audience who lived in the proposed I-1 zoning
east of South Santa Fe? Four persons indicated they lived in that area.
Mr. Myrick stated that he knew the First National Bank had an interest in some of the land,
and that they were not interested in a zoning change.
Mr. Manning
1540 West Tufts -stated that he lived one block east of South Santa Fe, which is now a
residential area in .the County. Mr. Manning stated that the present
zoning would require a 50' setback between his property artd an industrial
development; the proposed Englewood zoning would provide only a 20 ft.
separation. Mr. Manning stated that he wanted the area to remain resi-
dential.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1607
Mr. Flynn noted that zoning to the north of the annexation area would still remain I-2 in
the County, as it would to the west .. The City zoning proposal would be ''taking a piece out
of the heart of the I-2 area."
Mr. Tanguma asked if there is any provision for auto wrecking yards under the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Supinger stated there are no probisions for the auto wrecking or
junk yard operation. Mr ,. Supinger stated that this matter has been considered as late as
early t ,his year, and it was determined .that .it would not be appropriate to permit such a
use in any 2one district.
Mr. Lentsch stated that autn wrecking yards had at one time been located in the Scenic
View area; "if we go ahead and change the zoning where are we putting these people?" Mr.
Supinger emphasized that the yards could continue operation even under the I-1 Zone Dis-
trict; if the owners chose to leave, they would have to locate where they would be permit~ed
by zoning or a lack of zoning.
Lester Hunter
2101 West Quincy stated that he understood there was no heavy industrial zoning in
Englewood, and asked if this. was correct?
Mr. Su pinger stated that there is some I-2 zoning in Northwest Englewood, and on -the General
Iron prop~rty.
Mr. Hunter stated that the counties surrounding Denver won't change zoning. to I-2. He stated
that he bought the properxy for the specific reason it was I-2 and allowed auto wrecking.
Mr. Hunter stated that he did not have a junk yard; he had a "salvage yard". Mr. Hunter
stated that the "1965 flood wiped me out", but that he has spent considerable time and money
to build his business back up.
Mr. Brown stated that the City would provide services to the area as soon as. possible if
the area does become part of the City. He further stated that Mr. Myrick's statement the
businesses would cease to exist is not true; they may continue in operation even though
they may be limited in expansion.
I
Mr. Supinger stated that the auto salvage yards can continue indefinitely no matter whether
they are under the same ownership or not; they would not be able to expand the size of the
business --they cannot add additional buildings. These aut~ salvage yards would be sub-
ject to the regulations of the Auto Wrecking-Junk Yard Ordinance. Mr. Supinger stated that
the businesses do have the right to continue, and the City cannot take that right away from
them. Mr. Supinger stated that he did not have a schedule on possible water /sewer service
to the area. He estimated that sewer service could probably be provided before water service.
Mr. Smith stated that he wished to have a point clarified: if a piece of ground --15 acres
or so --is used as an auto wrecking yard, and they are denied the right to expand; does
this mean no expansion beyond the 15 acres, or no expansion beyond the part of the land that
is used for the auto wrecking use?
Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the restriction would apply to the total amount of ground
owned, and reiterated that no additional buildings could be added. "Whatever· they own now,
if they are not presently using all of the land they could expand into that portion not used;
if they bought land that was not being used as auto wrecking yards, they could not expand in-
to it."
An employee of Colorado Auto Wrecking stated that in order to be a progressive company, they
must be able to expand. They have new locations for tires, wheels, and auto parts every day.
"To cut down expansion of buildings would be ridiculous."
Mr. Weist asked the attorneys for the opponents if there . is a possibility of a compromise be-
tween the opponents and the City? Mr. Myrick stated that he has been in discussions with
the staff. He stated that he was willing to meet with the staff "if -the City is interested
in developing a zone for auto wrecking yards." Mr. Myrick asked "why does the City of Engle-
wood want them if they don't want salvage yards?"
Mr. Myrick stated "if you can put it in I-2 zoning and make auto wrecking yards a conforming
use and are willing to sit down and work out a method for this· area to become a part of the
City", his clients would be willing to consider a compromise. Mr. Myrick urged that auto
wrecking yards be ma de a use--by-right in the I-2 zone District. He stated that the City
knew what they were annexing, and feels that his clients are entitled to have a "permitted
use" in the I-2 Zone District.
Mr. Lentsch asked i f , at the time of the staff discussions and Hearing before City Council,
the City had any plans on development of the area once annexed to the City? Mr. Myrick
stated "no; there was one meeting with the staff; we were notified two weeks later there
was no further need of meetings." Mr. Lentsch stated "if we annex a piece of property it
would be reasonable to assume we have an idea of what it's to be used for." Mrs. Henning
stated that zoning was not discussed at the time of annexation. She stated · that zoning
and annexation are two separate actions; the City Council felt that the area met the require-
ments for annexation and voted to annex the land. ·When the Planning Commission makes a
recommendation to City Council they will then consider the matter of zoning.
Mr. Sample stated that "this isn't the first time that the City has tried to annex the area",
~nd stated that the first attempt was defeated in Court. Mr. Sample stated that "the City
won't compromise.'' Mr. Sample referred to the fencing requirements of the Auto Wrecking
and Junk Yard Ordinance and noted that the area is "below Santa Fe and U.S. 285"; the
fencing requirements would not screen the operation from those two highways.
Ross Clinger
4620 South Galapago -stated that he was an Englewood property owner, though he does not own
property in the recently annexed area. Mr. Clinger stated that he has
a "non-conforming use", a ready-mix company in an I-1 Zone District.
He stated that he "moved in on a lease in 1970." He stated that he
"was told by the property owner and the City of Englewood that this
ready-mix company was allowed in the City of Englewood." Mr. Clinger
stated that he had expended considerable money starting what he felt
was a needed business in the area; he obtained permits from the City
Page 1608
for the initial business. When he decided to expand the business he
obtained a second electrical permit, but before the larger units could
be made operable, the City issued a cease and ~esist order and informed
him that his business was not permitted in the I-1 Zone District. He
stated that he was still attempting to get the matter resolved; he has
appeared before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, µnd hps been in-
formed they cannot grant a variance on this matte~, that it will have
to be accomplished by rezoning. Mr. Clinger stated that since 1965, he
has poured sever a 1 buildings for Colorado Au to Wre.cking Company.
Mr. Supinger stated that at the time the permits were issued to Mr. Clinger there was dis-
agreem~nt on what the permits were for. The City has not been able to come up with evidence
on the building permits to substantiate that Mr. Clinger got the permits for what he was
doing. Mr. Supinger stated that this matter had been disc~ssed with both of Mr. Clinger's
attorneys; it was felt that one possible solution would be to seek a variance from the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals; another would be to ask for rezoning to Heavy Industrial. Mr.
Supinger stated that it was explained to Mr. Clinger's attorneys that seeking a variance
"wouldn't be the best way to go" inasmuch as the staff did not feel the Board had the
authority to grant a variance in this instance. It was the decision of the Board upon hearing
the request that they did not have the proper authority to grant a variance. Discussion
followed. Mr. Clinger stated that the first electrical permit was to rebuild the electric
system in the entire plant, which he had moved in on the property. The second permit, issued
several months later, was to "house the batch plant". The permit says on it that it is for
reroofing and. repair. Mr. Clinger stated that he was told that by stating it was for reroofing
and repair it was a way to cut red tape. Further discussion followed.
Henning moved:
Martin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #37-73. be closed •.
The motion carried.
Mrs. Henning asked what would happen in the event the Commission does not agree with the
zoning as proposed by the staff, and recommends different zoning? Mr. Lee stated that at
this point in view of the posting of the property and the public notice in the paper, the
action of the Commission must be for or against the zoning as recommended by the staff. He
stated that if the Commission wanted to, informally, pass on thoughts on some other types
of zoning, they could do so. Mrs. Henning ask~d what would happen in the event the Commission
and Council determined that th~ proposed I-1 zoning was not proper, and the 90 day limit would
expire before another zone district could be imposed on the land? She asked if there was a
penalty if the land was not zoned withi~ the 90 day limit? Mr. Lee stated that he d~dn't know
of a penalty if the zoning was not completed in the 90 day time period.
Mrs. Henning questioned whether the businesses along South Santa Fe Drive would be conforming
uses in the I-1 Zone District? Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has taken the position
that the uses are conforming in the I-1 Zone District. Mrs. Henning asked "doesn't this
open up I-1 to any retail use permitted in the business zones?" Mr. Supinger stated that
he felt I-1 does permit the retail uses. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning requested a
legal opinion on the matter; she stated that she did not think it was the desire of the
Planning Commission to open the I-1 Zone District to retail uses permitted in the busines~
zone districts. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Weist stated that he could not vote in favor of the I-1 Zone District; he feels the
imposition of the I-1 zoning would be improper in this area. He stated that possibly a
zone district should be amended to permit auto wrecking yards and salvage yards as a use-
by-right.
Mr. Lentsch stated that he would also have to vote against the I-1 zoning; he stated that
the proposal was not "planned properly." Mr. Lentsch stated that he did not think the auto
wrecking yards should be eliminated. Mr. Weist commented that the Commission "is being put
in an impossible situation."
Mr. Martin noted that the area is "sitting in the back yard of Englewood"; he stated that
he feels if Arapahoe County had attempted to enforce some of the restrictions on zoning that
the City would not now be confronted with the problems we have. He stated that he agreed
some sort of compromise must be considered. Mr. Martin stated that he felt there might be
some violation of the he~lth ~nd safety standards by the auto wrecking yards. He stated
that he felt a satisfactory compromise could be worked out.
Mr. Tanguma stated that he is in favor of regulating the businesses in the area, specifically
the auto wrecking yards; he further commented that he did not think either the I-1 or I-2
zone districts would help, inasmuch as neither zone district permits auto wrecking yards or
salvage yards. He suggested that the I-1 or I-2 zone districts be amended to permit auto
wrecking and salvage yards.
Mrs. Henning n9ted that to leave the land unzoned would create problems for the City and for
the property owners. She stated .that "we can't allow an unzoned piece of land to exist for
any length of time." Mrs. Henning further stated that she did not like the I-2 Zone District
for that area; she did not feel it would be compatible with the area east of South Santa Fe
Drive, or with the proposed greenbelt area along the Platte River. Mrs. Henning suggested
that the Commission initiate a request to City Council to include auto salvage yards in the
I-1 Zone District, and to clarify the matter of quarrying and sand and gravel operations.
Mr. Myrick pointed out that the annexation will not become final until December 10th; he
stated that he did not understand the matter of the time element. "There is a provision
whereby you can con!?ider zoning and annexation at the same time." Mr. Myrick stated "if
you go from I-2 to I-1, you will open up another law suit."
Mr. Flynn stated that he was amazed and pleased at the manner in which the Commission had
considered the zoning. He stated tQat "in regard to the time limit, the Statute provides
that ~f you don't come up with zoning within 90 days, anyone can apply for a building per-
mit for any use"; he state9 there was no penalty if the land was not zoned at the end of
the 90 day time limit. Mr. Flynn reiterated that Kiewit's land should be zoned I-2; he
stated that J;ie felt there should be some "house cleaning" in the ordinances of the City.
Mr. Flynn stated that Kiewit must have a place where they can make their own concrete; he
pointed out that it is difficult to get concrete for such jobs as highways.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1609
Discussion followed. Mr. Lee stated that generally there is an obligation with annexation
for the municipality to go forward with plans for zoning of the land. Mr. Lee stated that
there seems to be some concensus of the Commission that they want to accommodate auto
wrecking yards .in some zone district; he suggested possibly the Commission could recommend
a zone district amendment even while recommending the zoning of the property to prevent its
being unzoned.
Mr. Jorgenson stated that he felt the City could not afford to leave the area unzoned; if
the City recommends the I-1 zoning, the matter of whether or not to permit auto wrecking
yards in that zone district or some other district can be worked out with the people and
the City Council.
Mr. Tanguma asked how long it would take to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? Mr.
Supinger stated about three months at a minimum.
Mr~. Henning pointed out that if eit~r the I-1 or I-2 zone districts are amended to allow
auto wrecking yards, this would apply to all areas of the city so zoned. Mrs. Henning
pointed out that the people of Northwest Englewood wer€ adamantly opposed to auto wFecking
yards, and felt going this route could present more problems.
Mr. Smith stated that the Commission had one choice at this point; to determine whether or
not the area should be zoned I-1. He pointed out that un-zoned land would not be satisfactory.
Mr. Lentsch reiterated that he "can't see the purpose of taking in salvage yards and then
making them non-conforming." He pointed out that the people in the area were against the
annexation and the proposed zoning, and that the proposed I-1 area is bounded on the north
and west by I-2 in the County, with I-1 zoning to the south and east in the City.
Mrs. Henning stated that Mr. Lentsch was trying t~ discuss an action which has taken place,
namely that the City Council did vote to annex the area.
Mr. Pryor Clinger discussed an act which was passed into State Law in June or July of 1973,
which law is concerned with the commercial mineral deposits in the State and developments
which might affect the state's economy. Mr. Clinger stated that maps depicting mineral,
sand and gravel deposits must be prepared before July 1, 1974. The Law provides further
that no jurisdiction may approve zoning or rezoning that might interfere with the future
extraction of such commercial. deposits.
Mrs. Romans then discussed the provisions of the Law referred to by Mr. Clinger. Mrs. Romans
noted that the Platte River Valley will not be mapped for some time. Mrs. Romans pointed
out that the Kiewit property has already been mined, as has much of the subject area.
Mr. Manning stated the entire area was annexed without a vote of the people living in the
area; he asked how this could be done? Mr. Supinger stated that the provision under which
the area is being annexed is what is commonly referred to as a "unilateral act". The pro-
vision states that if a jurisdiction has 2 /3 contiguous boundary with an area not within
the City, and if certain additional criteria are met, the annexation can be completed with-
out approval of the property owners. Mr. Supinger stated that if the property owners wanted
a voice in the matter at this point, it would require a law suit. He pointed out that the
City did have a Public Hearing before making a decision on the annexation, the notice of
said Hearing being published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel. Mr. Supinger emphasized
that the annexation has been accomplished according to law. Mr. Lee pointed out that it is
a State Law. Discussion followed.
Henning moved:
Martin seconded:
The motion carried.
(
The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that Lots 12 and 13,
Bell Isle Gardens Subdivision, Arapahoe County, Colorado, be zoned R-1-C,
Single-family Residential, for the following reasons :
1. It has been shown that the R-1-C Zone classification is compatible
with the land use of the subject and surrounding area.
2. There were no objections to the proposed zoning voiced at the
Public Hearing before the Planning Commission.
The zoning of the remainder of the area to I-1, Light Industrial, was again discussed. Mr.
Martin stated he did not feel it was appropriate or possible for the Planning Commission to
make a decision on the matter at this time. He felt the Planning Commission needed more in-
formation.
Martin moved: The matter be tabled until December 4th, 1973.
There was no second to the motion, and the motion was declared dead.
Mr. Martin stated he felt the interest of the people is very important. He stated be did
not feel the Planning Commission was in a position to make a decision at this time, and that
there had to be a compromise satisfactory to both sides.
Mrs. Henning asked if the Planning Commission should recommend establishment of a new in-
dustrial zone, which would include auto wrecking yards, would Mr. Lee recommend going ahead
with the proposed zoning now, and initiating rezoning procedures at such time as the new
zone district is in effect, or to hold all action in abeyance.
Mr. Lee stated that the Planning Commission at some time must make a decision on the proposed
zoning; if the Planning Commission feels it is better to zone the land I-1 and try to come
up with another zone classification, this must be the determination of the Commission, and
not a policy decision. Discussion followed.
Mrs. Henning stated it might be helpful to get staff time estimates on drafting a new zoning
district. Mrs. Romans stated that at one time, an M-3 Ordinance was proposed. This classi-
fication would have permitted auto wrecking yards --nothing else. She suggested that possibly
this proposed district could be revised. Brief discussion followed.
Page 1610
Martin moved:
Henning seconded: The ma ·tter of I-1 zoning on the annexation area be tabled until December
4, 1973. The staff is requested to work on the revision of the M-3 Zone
District, and to make available additional information concerning the
proposed zone district.
Mr. Supinger stated he recognized the "spirit" of the motion; however, when he met with the
auto wrecking yard dealers this past year, the City did attempt to come to a compromise solu-
tion. The question of whether auto wrecking yards should be a permitted use was discussed
informally with City Council and it was their determination that auto wrecking yards should
not be a permitted use.
Mr. Martin stated he felt there might be new ground on both sides where we could meet and
come up with an agreement. He emphasized he isn't saying a new zone district has to be
created, but it is a possibility. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning suggested the question
of auto wrecking yards as a permitted use be put before Council at its December 3rd meeting.
The vote was called. The motion carried.
IV. LARWIN MULTIHOUSING CORPORATION CASE #20-72
Mr. Supinger stated copies of recent correspondence between Larwin Multihousing Corporation
and the City had been submitted to the Planning Commission to keep them informed.
Mr. Brown requested that a report on the Larwin site that was prepared for City Council also
be made available to the Planning Commission.
Discussion followed.
V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Supinger stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission.
VI. COMMfSSION'S CHOICE
There was nothing under Commission's Choice.
It was moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn the meeting.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M
MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DATE; November 27, 1973
SUBJECT: Santa Fe /Union Annexation Area -Zoning
RECOMMENDATION:
Henning moved:
Martin seconded:
The motion carried.
The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that Lots 12 and 13,
Bell Isle Gardens Subdivision, Arapahoe County, Colorado, be zoned R-1-C,
Single-family Residential, for the following reasons:
1. It has been shown that the R-1-C Zone classification is compatible
the land use of the subject and surrounding area.
2. There were no objections to the proposed zoning voiced at the
Public Hearing before the Planning Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
By Order of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I
I
I