Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-07-02 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2, 1974 I. CALL TO ORDER o The regular m~eting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Martin. Members present: Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch ; Martin ; Tanguma; Wade Members absent: Brown; Smith; Weist Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Planning Assistant House II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Lentsch moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Minutes of June 18, 1974, be approved as written. AYES: Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma; Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist; Brown; Smith The motion carried. Mr. Brown entered and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans apologized to the Commission for the late delivery of the Commission notebooks, explaining that the method of delivery had been changed without the department's knowledge. III. CHEROKEE CIRCLE VACATION CASE #20-74 Mrs. Romans stated that the application for vacation of Cherokee Circle has been filed by Mr. William Malone, representing the First National Bank of Englewood, and Mr. & Mrs. Ray C. Ludwig. Mrs. Romans stated that this block was platted in 1949, as part of the McKinley's Subdivision, 2nd Filing, for residential development. Cherokee Circle provided access to lots in both Blocks 1 and 2 within the Subdivision off of South Cherokee Street, which street dead-ended at what is now West Girard Avenue. The southern leg of Cherokee Circle was extended through to South Elati Street in 1970, and was renamed West Hampden Place. The property abutting on Cherokee Circle was rezoned to B-1 (Business) in 1969. The First National Bank now owns the entire area abutting the "circle" with the exception of the one lot owned by Mr. & Mrs. Ludwig . Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommends the vacation of Cherokee Circle and the retention of the necessary easements for utilities. • • • -2- Mr. William Malone stated that he was the representative for the applicants. The applicants do own all of the property abutting on the Circle. Mr. Malone stated that the Bank did acquire the property north of Hampden Place for use as a parking lot several years ago, and did dedicate 10 ft. from that property to.facilitate widening of the street, which is now designated as West Hampden Place. Mr. Weist entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Malone stated that he understood there is a private water- line in the street, which is being used by Ludwig Florists; but there would be no problem with the line. Mr~ Martin noted the staff report indicates there is also a gas line in the street. Mr. Malone stated that the gas line "doesn't go any place", but was installed just to serve the houses in this subdivision. Mr. Malone added that this matter can be handled at such time as development of the area is imminent. Mr. Martin stated that he felt the development of this area as a "package" was a good idea; however, he stated he would like to see the dedication of the 125' x 125' parcel for parking for City Hall and Library patrons, as suggested by Director of Public Works Waggoner. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Malone if the possible deeding of such a parcel presented any problem? Mr. Malone stated that this was two separate matters: first, the vacation of Cherokee Circle, and secondly, the matter of parking for the City. Mr. Malone stated that the matter of making land available for parking for the City is under con- sideration by the Bank as a result of a meeting with Acting City Manager Waggoner and the Planning staff earlier in the day. This will have to be considered by the Bank Board. Mr. Lentsch stated that he didn't feel the matter of parking for City Hall and the Library had any bearing on the question before the Commission. He asked how the property is used now? Mr. Malone stated that the center portion of the property is used for parking for the Bank; the perimeter has some homes on it; these homes are in the process of being removed. Mr. Malone pointed out that none of the homes were occupied. Mr. Lentsch asked where the access to the parking lot would be? Mr. Malone stated that the access wou~be on the vacated street; it is owned totally by the Bank and they would be giving access to the lot. Mr. Malone noted that there are no specific plans for development of the site at this time. Mr. Lentsch asked if there was need for additional right-of-way on the "alley" .in back of City Hall? Mrs. Romans stated that the driveway to the east of City Hall is not a dedicated alley, but is part of the City Hall property. • • • -3- Mr. Jones asked if the applicants had an estimate on the date the property will be cleared? Mr. Malone stated they did have a time schedule, but had run into difficulties with the house- moving company. Mr. Ludwig has made contact with another company for removal of the remainder of the houses. Mr. Ludwig stated that it had been his responsibility to enter into a contract with a house-mover to have the homes removed by July 15, 1973; however, the house-mover ran into a number of problems, and the contract was severed. Mr. Ludwig stated that they have contracted with another company who is to have the houses removed by September. Mr. Jones stated that he was concerned about the general appearance of the area. Lentsch moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the vacation of Cherokee Circle in the 3400 Block south, for the following reasons: 1. There is no further public need for South Cherokee Circle for purposes of traffic flow between West Hampden Place and South Cherokee Street, nor for purposes of traffic circulation in the area. 2. There is no further need for South Cherokee Circle for the purpose of providing access to the residences along the street, inasmuch as those that remain are now vacant and are to be removed. In the future, the land will be developed as a unit, with frontage on South Cherokee Street and on West Hampden Place. 3. The street vacation would not be in conflict with subdivision regulations as set forth in the Municipal Code, Title XII, Chapter 3. 4. The street vacation would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the Master Street Plan. AYES: Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Curry, president of the First National Bank, to report back to the Commission whether or not an agreement on the parking area for City Hall can be reached. Mr. Curry agreed to do so . IV. SANTA FE -UNION ANNEXATION R-1-C, Single-family Residence CASE #15-74 Mr. Martin stated that this matter had been tabled at the last meeting. • • • -4- Brown moved: Wade seconded: The Commission raise Case #15-74, R-1-C, Single-family Residence Zoning of a portion of the Santa Fe-Union Annexation Area, from the table for consideration. AYES: Jone~; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. Mr. Martin stated that the Commission had delayed some time in attempting to arrive at the proper zoning for this area. He expressed his appreciation to the attorney's for the citizens for the cooperation given the Commission. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to see a recommendation to City Council zoning this area south of West Tufts Avenue and east of South Windermere, to R-1-C, Single-family Residence, with the additional recommendation, based on testimony at the Public Hearing, that the property at 1590 West Tufts Avenue be zoned to I-1, Light Industrial. Mrs. Wade asked if it was proper to "piece-meal" the zoning, or if the entire area should go to light industrial? Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the property at 1590 West Tufts Avenue was zoned I-2 Heavy Industrial, while in the County. The County I-2 zoning regulations require a 50 ft. setback where industrial property abuts residential property; Mrs. Romans stated that she felt this requirement is unrealistic. The City of Englewood I-1 zoning does call for screening, and the property owners would have to install an opaque wall on the east property line. Mr. Brown asked Mrs. Romans if she saw any problems zoning the residential property to light industrial? Mrs. Romans pointed out that the initial staff recommendation was that the entire area should be zoned I-1; it was not felt to be an area f or residential development. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated that in discussion with City Attorney Berardini, he indicated that if the Commission so desired, they could recommend the R-1-C zoning from the Mardesen property line (1590 West Tufts Avenue) east, and state that they do not feel the R-1-C is proper for the Mardesen property. Council could then refer the matter of zoning for that property back to the Commission for another hearing to zone the land to I-1. Mr. Martin asked about the timing on this procedure. Mrs. Romans stated that it is difficult to complete a zoning matter in less than 90 days. Mrs. Wade asked if there was great urgency on the zoning? Mrs. Romans stated that the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance states that it is the intent that every piece of property be within a zone classification; the City is given 120 da'ys following annexation to complete such zoning action. If the property is not zoned within that 120 days, the property owner may obtain a building permit for any use permitted in any zone district. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the property owners in the area have been most patient • • • -5- with the City, and that if there are to be modifications to the zoning as proposed, it could be done after the land is placed in a zoning classification. Mrs. Wade noted that if residences would become continue to rive there. if there were residents to the I-1 zoning? the property were to be zoned I-1, the non-conforming, but the residents could Discussion followed. Mr. Brown asked in the area who had strong objections Mr. Manning stated that they had no voice on whether they were to be designated R-1-A, R-1-B, or R-1-C; he asked why the R-1-C classification was chosen for that property? Mrs. Romans stated that the R-1-A Zone District is extremely restrictive; she cited the minimum floor area requirements, the minimum lot area requirements, and stated that the staff felt the R-1-C Zone District was more compatible with the area as it exists. Mr. Manning pointed out that if the property to the west of him is zoned light industrial, and the screening wall is required, this wall would be "six feet from my view of the mountains I have cherished for 18 years." Mr. Goggin, who stated that he is not an attorney, stated that he was advised by Messrs. Dransfeldt, Stohn and Manning to speak to the Commission. He stated that it appears the City Council and Planning Commission view ordinances and statutes as superceding the Constitution of the United States. It was pointed out that the Constitution grants to citizens the right to the type of government they want, and immunity from the type of government they do not want; the property owners in the Santa Fe-Union Area did not want to become a part of the City of Englewood, and therefore, their Constitutional rights were violated. Tile following amendments to the U.S. Constitution were referred to by Mr. Goggin: 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 13th, and 14th. The Colorado Constition, Article II, §1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, and 28 were also referred to by Mr. Goggin. He stated that a trial by jury is guaranteed citizens, and the property owners have not been granted a "trial by jury", even though the matter is in Court. He stated that 180 cases have found that incorporation into a municipality involves involuntary servitude, which again violates the constitutional rights of the citizens. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Goggin had attended any of the previous meetings. The reply was that the members of the Commission are personally liable in actions in Civil Courts • Mr. Martin asked of Mrs. Romans if the Colorado Annexation Law has been tried in Court? Mrs. Romans stated that she was of the opinion it has been tried, and pointed out that the matter of annexation was not the question before the Commission. • • • -6- Further discussion between the speaker and the Commission ensued • Mr. Lentsch asked if Messrs. Dransfeldt, Manning and Stohn were opposed to the I-1 zoning? Mr. Goggin stated that they were opposed to any zoning at this time, until such time as the annexation question is settled. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt the Commission wanted to zone the land to the people's advantage. Mr. Dransfeldt stated that he wants the same zoning he had in the County. Mr. Dransfeldt's property is proposed to be zoned I-3, Heavy Industrial. Mr. Granbush, member of the audience, stated that he felt it was obvious the Commission was "out of order if the annexation isn't a matter of fact," and asked if the consideration of zoning at this time wasn't "rather superfluous or a waste of time?" Further discussion followed. Mr. Brown pointed out that the Commission has the authority and responsibility to represent the citizens of Englewood, and to make recommendations to the City Council. In regard the annexation and zoning, Mr. Brown stated that if Mr. Goggin had been present at the previous meetings, he would realize the depth of the discussions the Commission has had. Mr. Brown stated that it is up to the Court to rule on whether or not the property is indeed within the City of Englewood, but at the present time, the Commission has a responsibility to zone the land. Mrs. Manning stated that they wanted a right to vote on the zoning. Mr. Martin pointed out that this meeting is for the purpose of discussion on the zoning by the Commission and an ultimate recommendation to Council on zoning for the land. Mr. Martin stated that the matter of annexation will be determined in a Court of Law, and that the Commission can do nothing about the annexation at this point. Further discussion followed. Mr. Martin reiterated his recommendation that the property south of West Tufts and east of South Windermere, with the exception of 1590 West Tufts, be zoned R-1-C, and that 1590 West Tufts be zoned I-1. Discussion on the screening required between the property at 1590 West Tufts and 1540 West Tufts ensued. Mr. Lentsch stated he would prefer to see a good fence installed rather than a block wall. Mr. Brown agreed with Mr. Lentsch and suggested that the Mardesen's install a closed-face wooden fence on the east side of their property at the time of development • • • • -7- Brown moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the properties south of West Tufts Avenue and east of 1590 West Tufts Avenue be zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence. AYES: Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. SANTA FE-UNION ANNEXATION AREA I-1, Light Industrial Wade moved: CASE #16-74 Tanguma seconded: The matter of Case #16-74, I-1 Light Industrial Zoning, be raised from the table. AYES: Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried . Mr. Martin stated that the Commission would now consider the properties posted for I-1, Light Industrial, zoning. Mr. Martin stated that he has made personal evaluations of the area based on six months of discussions. Mr. Martin stated that he would recommend the Commission proceed with the im- position cf the I-1 and I-3 Zone Districts, but, based on testimony presented at the Public Hearing, that the I-3 Dis- trict be amended to include any use included in the I-2 District. Discussion ensued. Permitted uses in I-2 vs. Permitted uses in the I-1 District were discussed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he would like to see a 300 ft. strip of commercial zoning along South Santa Fe. Mr. Martin asked if I-1 zoning didn't include business uses? Mr. Lentsch stated he felt the business zoning would be "cleaner". Mr. Lentsch then stated that he felt the property owned by Mr. Soule should be zoned I-3 rather than I-1. Mr. John Gollub 1439 Court Place -stated he represented the office of Mr. Myrick, and that the strip along Santa Fe, as pre- viously discussed, was 100 ft. in depth. Mr. Martin asked what a 300 ft. depth would do to some properties, such as Mr. Svigel's, along South Santa Fe? Mr . Svigel stated he felt the 300 ft. might be too far back; he felt the present depth was more like 100 ft. •• • • -8- Mr. Ivy Hunt stated that he owned the Corn Husker's Motel; he is trying to improve his property, and will eventually phase out the motel in favor of mini-warehousing. He stated that he had already gotten one building permit; if this was zoned to commercial, would mini-warehousing be permitted? Mrs. Romans· noted that the commercial depth imposed by the County scales out to 300 ft. Mr. Jones stated that he felt the zoning on Santa Fe must accommodate the property owners abutting Santa Fe; he asked if the B-2 zoning would permit the uses the I-1 zoning per- mitted? Mrs. Romans stated the B-2 zoning does not permit mini-warehousing, nor does it permit greenhouses. Mrs. Romans noted that the I-1 District had recently been amended, and at the time the amendment was drafted, uses along Santa Fe had been included so that in the event these properties were zoned to I-1, they would not become non-conforming. Further discussion with Mr. Hunt ensued. Mr. Martin questioned whether an ownership should be divided into two zone districts, as would happen if a "buffer" strip is placed along South Santa Fe. Mr. Sample stated he didn't feel the property owners would object to a buffer zone along Santa Fe. Further discussion followed . Mrs. Romans suggested the possibility of recommending zoning as it was posted, and initiating rezoning at a later date, if this were necessary, to the classification favored by the property owners and/or Commission. Mr. Lentsch reiterated that the property owned by Mr. Soule should be zoned I-3. going to recommend the Mr. Gollub asked if the Commission was property proposed as I-1 be zoned I-1? as of the moment, that was the thought. out that his clients had opposed the I-1 have I-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning. Mr. the I-1 zoning would reduce the property land. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Gollub pointed zoning, and desire to Gollub stated that values of his clients' Mr. Weist stated that the Commission has discussed the zoning of this area for the past six months; he stated that no matte r how far the Commission compromises on the zoning, he does not feel it will solve the problems. Mr. Weist noted that the Commission hasn't agreed with the staff recommendation of I-1 for the entire area, and are, infact, leaning in the opposite direction with the suggestion of amendment of the I-3 Ordinance to permit the I-2 uses. Mr. Weist stated that the previous City Council initiated the annexation on a unilateral basis, and at that time one of the goals was the elimination of the heavy industrial uses. Mr. Weist stated that he felt the unilateral annexation and subsequent zoning action would have forced many landowners to leave the area. Mr. Weist stated • • • -9- that the I-2 zoning is directly opposite to the previous Council and staff recommendatbns when this action was initiated. Mr. Weist stated that he felt compromise zoning was wrong. Mr. Weist stated that he would like to recommend the entire area be zoned as near to the former County zoning as possible. Mr. Martin stated he felt the City was making every effort to equal the County zoning as closely as possible. Mr. Martin stated that he felt the City was "bending over backwards to accommodate the land owners". Mr. Lentsch stated that he did not feel the City was accommodating anybody. Discussion followed. Mr. Jorgenson stated that he felt the nearest compatibility in zoning could be realized by the 300 ft. of strip zoning along Santa Fe, and the remainder of the land zoned to I-2 and I-3, with the amendment to the I-3 Zone District to allow I-2 uses. Lentsch moved: Brown seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the zoning of the land west of South Santa Fe be accomplished thusly: A 300 ft. strip of I-1, Light Industrial, zoning shall be designated along South Santa Fe Drive; all properties with the exception of that owned by Mr. Soule proposed for I-1 zoning shall be designated I-2, General Industrial . The properties east of South Santa Fe Drive and north of West Tufts Avenue shall be designated as I-1, Light Industrial. The properties east of South Santa Fe Drive and south of West Tufts Avenue east to and including 1590 West Tufts Avenue, shall be designated I-1, Light Industrial. Discussion followed. AYES: Martin; Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. SANTA FE-UNION ANNEXATION I-3, Heavy Industrial Lentsch moved: CASE #17-74 Wade seconded: The matter of Case #17-74 be raised from the table. AYES: Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. • • • -10- Lentsch moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the properties advertised and posted for I-3, Heavy Industrial zoning be so zoned; it is also recommended that property owned by Mr. Soule be zoned to I-3, Heavy Industrial. It is further recommended that §22.4-15 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the I-3, Heavy Industrial Zone District, be amended to include any use permitted in the I-2 General Industrial Zone District, rather than any use in the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District. AYES: Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. V. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission has reviewed the sub- mission by the Department Heads of Capital Improvement requests. Mrs. Romans reminded the members that Mr. Supinger had pre- sented an additional list of improvements for their considera- tion at the last Commission study session • Mrs. Romans discussed a mobile planning unit, which is one of the requests. She stated that she felt the current City Council is very sensitive to citizen input, and that this unit would be one way of seeking that input on the "neighborhood" basis. Mrs. Romans stated that this vehicle could also be used by other departments, such as the Parks Department, the Utilities Department, etc. Mr. Lentsch suggested that possibly this vehicle could also be used to pick up citizens thatmight not have any other way to attend Council meetings, or other city meetings. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans reviewed the Capital Improvement Program as approved in 1973, and noted that a great deal of the projects had at least been begun, and some of them completed. Mr. Lentsch suggested that the Departmental requests be out- lined or "charted", in order to facilitate discussion and con- sideration for the Commission. Mr. Lentsch noted that Parks & Recreation Director Romans has also suggested that funding for the Community Center be advanced to 1975. Mr. Brown stated that he felt the River Redevelopment project should have top priority; he reviewed discussions with the City of Sheridan regarding the golf course, and what these projects will mean to the Platte River Valley. Mr. Brown stated that some of the monies have been appropriated, and the Council hopes to get some Federal funding, also. Further discussion followed. • • -11- VIo DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that on the agenda for the next meeting will be a request for the Planning Commission to request that the 100 year flood plain be designated on all water ways in the City of Ehglewood. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there is a Flood Plain Ordinance in existance, but the flood plain areas for the waterways have not been mapped. Discussion followedo Mr. Jones stated that one of the items on the Capital Improvement Program was the Little Dry Creek conduit; he stated that this conduit is very important, and should have one of the higher prioritieso Mrs. Romans stated that in the 1975 Budget, the staff has re- quested funds for two persons to attend the ASPO Conference. She asked if this was satisfactory? Mr. Lentsch stated that he did not feel funds for two members of tre Commission in addition to one staff member was necessaryo Mr. Martin stated he would agree that funds for one member attending was sufficient. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has requested funds for CML attendance in Colorado Springs for two members. This met with the approval of the Commission • Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has requested funds for attendance of all members at the Boulder Planning Conference. Mrs. Romans asked if the Commission felt there should be radio announcements regarding the Larwin Public Hearing on July 9th? She noted that there have been several newspaper articles regarding the meeting. Mro Brown stated that the people of the area are aware of the meeting. Mr. Lentsch asked that the City Attorney be in attendance. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to see all Councilmembers present, all Department Heads, and the City Attorney's staff, in addition to all Planning Commission members at the meetingo Mr. Jones asked if it would be possible for members of the Commission who haven't had an opportunity to view the Larwin project to have a tour of the site. Mr. Martin stated that he felt this was a very good suggestion. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to see all Planning Commission members go on the tour if such could be arranged. It was decided that if such a tour could be arranged, to have the tour on Monday, July 8, at 5:30 P.M. Mrs. Romans stated that the 1975-76 State Highway Work Program would be presented to the Commission at the next meeting • The City Council has requested a dinner meeting with the Com- mission on August 5th o • • • -12- VII . COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Martin noted that RTD has a meeting regarding the Broadway- Santa Fe corridor on July 9th. The meeting ·adjourned. ertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • • • -13- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 2, 1974 SUBJECT: Vacation of South Cherokee Circle -3400 Block South RECOMMENDATION: Lentsch moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the vacation of Cherokee Circle in the 3400 Block South, for .the following reasons: 1. There is no further public need for South Cherokee Circle for purposes of traffic flow between West Hampden Place and South Cherokee Street, nor for purposes of traffic circulation in the area. 2. There is no further need for South Cherokee Circle for the purpose of providing access to the residences along the street, inasmuch as those that remain are now vacant and are to be removed. In the future, the land will be developed as a unit, with frontage on South Cherokee Street and on West Hampden Place • 3. The street vacation would not be in conflict with sub- division regulations as set forth in the Municipal Code, Title XII, Chapter 3. 4. The street vacation would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the Master Street Plan. AYES: Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission . • • • -14- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 2, 1974 SUBJECT: Santa Fe-Union Annexation Zoning Designation -R-1-C. RECOMMENDATION: Brown moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the properties south of West Tufts Avenue and east of 1590 West Tufts Avenue be zoned R-1-C, Single-family residence. AYES: Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Ger rude G. We y Recording Secretary • • • -15- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 2, 1974 SUBJECT: San-ta Fe-Union Annexation Zoning Designation: I-1. RECOMMENDATION: Lentsch moved: Brown seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the zoning of the land west of South Santa Fe be accomplished thusly: A 300 ft. strip of I-1, Light Industrial zoning shall be designated along South Santa Fe Drive; all properties with the exception of that owned by Mr. Soule proposed for I-1 zoning, shall be designated I-2, General Industrial. The properties east of South Santa Fe Drive and north of West Tufts Avenue shall be designated as I-1, Light Industrial. The properties east of South Santa Fe Drive and south of West Tufts Avenue east to and including 1590 West Tufts Avenue, shall be designated I-1, Light Industrial. AYES: Martin; Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission • • • • -16- MEMORANDUM 'IO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 2, 1974 SUBJECT: Santa Fe-Union Annexation Zoning Designation: I-3 RECOMMENDATION: Lentsch moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the properties advertised and posted for I-3, Heavy Industrial zoning be so zoned; it is also recommended that property owned by Mr. Soule be zoned to I-3, Heavy Industrial. It is further recommended that §22.4-15 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the I-3, Heavy Industrial Zone District, be amended to include any use permitted in the I-2 General Industrial Zone District, rather than any use in the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District. AYES: Tanguma; Wade; Weist; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith The motion carried Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission .