Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-21 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 21, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Martino Members present: Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Assistant City Attorney DeWitt; Associate Planner House. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Martin stated that the Minutes of September 30, 1975, October 7, 1975, and October 14, 1975, were to be considered for approval. It was noted that the Minutes of September 30, 1975, should be amended on Page 4, to reflect that Mr. Jorgenson was absent. Parker moved: Pierson seconded: The Minutes of September 30, 1975, be approved as amended on Page 4; and the Minutes of October 7, 1975, and October 14, 1975, be approved as written. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker Pierson, Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP An area previously zoned R-2-A to be considered for R-1-C zoning. Brown moved: CASE #28-75 Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #28-75 be opened. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None The motion carried. -2- Mr. Martin outlined procedures to be followed during the ~ Public Hearing. He asked that persons wishing to speak come ~ to the podium and speak into the microphone so that all could hear their comments, and also that the recorder would pick up their comments; he then asked that all persons wishing to speak identify themselves by name and address. Mr. Martin stated that he would first ask the proponents of the matter to present their case, and the opponents would then be given an opportunity to speak. Mr. Martin expressed the hope that repitition would be kept to a minimum, and that each group would have a "spokes- man" to present their case. Mr. Martin then asked Acting Director of Community Development Romans to discuss the back- ground of this matter. Mrs. Romans stated there are three public hearings scheduled for this evening relating to properties previously zoned R-2-A or R-2-B. Mrs. Romans stated that over one year ago, the Planning Commission, City Council and others became concerned about the three-story walk-up type apartment structures and the size of individual units in these structures that were being constructed, as well as in the other multi-family units. Be- cause of this concern, the City Council asked the Planning Commission to give serious study to the multi-family zone dis- tricts. Since "multi-family" is defined as three or more units, the R-2-A, R-2-B, R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts were included in the consideration. The Planning Commission then appointed a committee of citizens of varying occupations and professions to study these zone districts in depth. Mr. James Keller was elected Chairman of the Committee, and Mr. George H. Allen was elected Vice-Chairman. The Committee met regularly for over a year. Because of Englewood's rather limited area, the Committee questioned the need for two two-family zone districts, and for two multi-family zone districts. Considerable effort was spent by the Committee in developing more restrictive regulations for one R-2, Medium Density District, and for one R-3, High Density Residence District, which would replace the existing R-2-A, R-2-B, R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts. The R-2 Medium Density District regulations provide for in- creased floor area for units, the required floor area based on the number of bedrooms proposed for each individual unit; and if a developer plans to construct more than three units, he must first file a Planned Development Plan. An amendment to the R-2 Medium Density District which has been recommended to City Council, provides that a developer may not construct more than four units under one roof. Landscaping is required for all new developments, as is useable open space and the undergrounding of utility lines to serve the development. Mrs. Romans stated that the Committee had written four drafts of the proposed restrictions within the first six months of meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that in the R-2-A District, which covered 121 acres of land, there were only eleven two-family units on the required frontage of 75 feet. There were, on the other hand, quite a few two-family units on a 50 foot lot, a frontage which is below the required minimum for the R-2-A District. -3 - There has been no new development of two-family units in the R-2-A areas for some time, and the Committee felt that a serious look should be taken at this particular Zone District. There is very little vacant land in the areas formerly zoned R-2-A, and any new development would come primarily as a result of "redevelopment" --that is, removing existing houses which cannot be rehabilitated to construct new two-family uses. The Committee met with the C~ty Council and Planning Commission and recommended that the new R-2 Medium Density District regula- tions be adopted. The Hearing on the new regulations was held before the Planning Commission on June 3, 1975, and the Hearing before the City Council was held August 4, 1975. As part of the procedure for adopting the new Ordinances, the City Council repealed the previous R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts, and en- acted the new R-2 Medium Density District regulations by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975. The R-2 regulations became effective on September 6, 1975, and since that date, the land previously zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B has been unzoned. It is the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that all land in the City should be within a zone classification; therefore, the land must be zoned by the City as soon as possible. Mrs. Romans stated that the Committee appointed by the Commission tried to up-grade regulations governing the areas zoned for two-family use, and the staff feels that the R-2 Medium Density District regulations are both more restrictive, yet more practical than in the former R-2-A or R-2-B Zone Districts. Mrs. Romans stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance con- sists of both regulations for the various zone districts and a zoning map. The zoning map could not be amended at the time the regulations were amended, but had to be amended separately; therefore, this Hearing is part of the process the City must go through to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Map. Mrs. Romans stated that properties have been posted at the boundaries of the districts, and on major streets; legal notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel, the official City Newspaper, on October 1st. Mrs. Romans stated that on September 11, 1975, at the suggestion of City Council, some 72 citizens who live in the area on both sides of South Lincoln and South Sherman Streets between Kenyon Avenue and Oxford Avenue, met with the staff. This area was formerly zoned R-2-A. These residents asked the City to post this area to be zoned to R-1-C, Single-family Residence, rather than to R-2, Medium Density Residence. Mrs. Romans compared the requirements of the R-2-A District with the requirements of the R-1-C District, noting areas of difference between the two districts. Mrs. Romans stated within the area previously described, there are 144 single-family units, 31 two-family units, seven three or four unit structures, and one eight-unit building. There are two vacant sites. If -4- the area were to be recommended for R-1-C zoning, all of the units that are rented on the date the Ordinance zoning that area to R-1-C became final, could continue to be rented. Those units not rented, or units which the owners are not attempting to rent at the effective date of the Ordinance, could not be used for rental property in the future. The units that were rented would be classified as Non-Conforming Uses, which status would go with the land, and not with the owner; thus, if the property were sold, the purchaser could continue to rent the unit. A property owner with a Non-Conforming Use could not expand the use, nor increase the size of the unit; the units could be kept up to Code, however, and if a fire or other calamity not caused by the owner occurred, the Non-Conforming Use could be rebuilt within a given period of time. Mr. Martin opened the hearing to comments from the audience. Ms. Ruth Shepherd 3261 South Galapago -referred to an area north of Floyd Avenue and asked why the boundary is as indicated? Mr. Martin stated this area would be considered in a subsequent hearing, and the Commission would discuss it at that time. Mrs. Oldenberg 3776 South Lincoln -stated that at one time, she thought it was stated that if the area were to be rezoned to R-1-C, persons who own a two-family unit have to have the units rented at the time the ordinance becomes law or they could not continue to rent both units. Mrs. Romans verified that the second unit must be rented or the owner must be attempting to rent the unit at the time the Ordinance becomes effective in order to continue the two-family use in the R-1-C Zone District. Mrs. Oldenburg stated that at the City Council meeting of August 4, 1975, a motion was made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Clayton wherein the City Council recommended that the Planning Commission consider changing the area between the Lincoln/Broadway alley and the Sherman/Grant alley between Kenyon and Oxford from R-2-A to R-1-C. The motion was passed. Mrs. Oldenburg stated that residents of the area ''never wanted to be rezoned in the first place; they would like to have kept the R-2-A zoning." However, they chose to be zoned to R-1-C when they learned the R-2 Medium Density District could permit multi-units up to 14 per acre. Mrs. Oldenburg stated the area has been called "a slum or blighted" area, and that this is not true. She stated this particular neighborhood is "one of the nicest low-density areas in Englewood." She stated that some of the properties that have been sold and are being held by rental agencies aren't being kept up as they should be. -5- Mrs. Oldenburg continued that most of the people who live in that area, bought their property because they felt they could live there the rest of their lives. If the area is rezoned to R-2 Medium Density, the density will increase, traffic will increase, and the noise situation will increase. Mrs. Oldenburg said that in her opinion, there will be parking lots for the four-unit apartment houses if the area were to be zoned R-2 and on Lincoln, the businessmen from Broadway are already trying to get parking areas for their businesses. The neighborhood would "go down the drain", Mrs. Oldenburg stated, and added t hat there is plenty of land in Englewood already zoned for multi-family units, and asked "why pick on this area; why not build apartments in the areas that are zoned for it, and leave us alone?" Mrs. Oldenburg presented copies of petitions in support of the R-1-C zoning to the Commission. She stated that the original of the petitions would be submitted on October 22nd t o the City Clerk. Mr. Stacy 3900 South Sherman -stated that he had questions he wanted answered. First, he "is wondering why they decided to complicate matters by the elimination of R-2-A" Zone District? Mrs. Romans stated that she had attempted to explain this in her opening remarks. The Commission, Council and members of the citizens committee appointed by the Planning Commission, felt the former regulations were not restrictive enough, and they did not feel it was necessary to have two two-family zone districts. It was felt the people of the City would be better served with one two-family district with more restrictions, and the former R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts were repealed at the time the new R-2 regulations were enacted. Mr. Stacy asked why the Committee, Commission and Council couldn't have come up with better regulations, and retained the former Zone Districts? Mr. Stacy stated he has plans for his property he owns in the neighborhood and he "intends to go through with the plans even if [he has1 to circulate petitions to repeal the decisions that are being made without much notice." He stated he is opposed to the repeal of the R-2-A Zone District, and feels the R-1-C Zone District will be too restrictive for persons who own properties with rental units. Mr. Stacy stated that "some people will be destroyed" by the R-1-C Zone District. He stated he did not want the R-1-C Zone District or the R-2 Zone District, and felt it would be better if the City could place additional restrictions on the R-2-A Zone District. Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. Stacy owns 75 ft. frontage ; under the former R-2-A District, he would have been ·permitted a two-family use; under the R-1-C, he would be permitted a single-family use; under the R-2 District, Mr. Stacy would be.permitted a three-unit use. -6- Mr. Martin stated this particular public hearing is concerned with a change of zoning to R-1-C for an area previously zoned R-2-A. Mr. Stacy asked if the R-2 would be considered for this area. Mr. Martin stated not at this time. Mrs. Oldenburg.asked why "were we zoned from R-2-A?· None of us really want R-1-C; we just want to be the way we were." Mrs. Romans reiterated that the R-2-A Zone District has been repealed, and there is no such zone classification any more. Mrs. Romans stated that if the residents want the R-2-A zoning, it would be up to the Planning Commission and City Council to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to reinstate an R-2-A District. Mr. Martin asked if anyone present from this area would oppose an R-2-A District? No one indicated they would be opposed. Mr. John Criswell, Attorney at Law, stated that since there is no R-2-A Zone District contained in the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, it would have to depend on what the proposed R-2-A regulations provided. Mr. Virgil Thomas 3810 South Lincoln -stated he has lived in Englewood for 35 years, and thinks it is very important for us to preserve the single-family dwelling unit neighborhoods. Mr. Thomas stated it is important to have single-family dwelling units close to schools; this area is close to a high school and a junior high school, as well as a grade school. Mr. Thomas stated he understood the position of persons who have invested money in the rental units, but he thinks it is time we think in terms of single-family dwelling units and preserve and up-grade those areas that can be preserved and up-graded. Mr. Thomas stated he is in favor of the R-1-C Zone District. Mr. Lou Cangilla 5000 South Delaware -stated that a lot of persons missed the procedure followed when the R-2-A and R-2-B districts were repealed. Why wasn't the City required to post the property at that time? He stated that he never saw any notice the City was going to repeal those two districts. Mrs. Romans stated to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regulations, it is required to have a legal notice published in the official City Newspaper. To amend the official Zoning Map, properties must be posted in addition to the legal notice in the official City Newspaper. It was the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the properties did not need to be posted when the R-2-A and R-2-B Districts were repealed, but the properties did need to be posted at such time as the map was to be amended, which is the procedure underway. Mr. Cangilla stated. he felt the procedure that has been followed is "backwards"; the idea of City Government is for the people to advise what they want done; if they don't know what is going on, they cannot advise the governmental body. Mr. Cangilla • -7- asked that "the Assistant City Attorney give a 'bona fide' ruling why the Hearings are taking place tonight", and why the property wasn't posted on the repeal of the previous zone districts. Mr. Brown stated that Mrs. Romans has discussed the procedure the Commission is following, and the City Attorney's opinion regarding this procedure. Mr. Brown further noted that the Commission accepts the legal advice given by the City Attorney's office, and that the present Assistant City Attorney has been with the City only three weeks, and had nothing to do with the matter. It was stated that City Attorney Berardini is on vacation; Mr. Cangilla stated that he "thinks maybe the City Attorney could have foregone his vacation for something as important as these Hearings." He felt the Commission "does need bona fide legal counsel here." Mr. John Criswell 3780 South Broadway -stated that he would speak in · opposition to the proposal before the Commission later this evening. He would now like to indicate his feelings that if the Hearings continue on the route they have taken thus far, there will be problems. ¥r. Criswell again pointed out there is no R-2-A Zone District, and the question to be addressed is whether one is in favor of the R-1-C zoning, or opposed to the R-1-C zoning. Mr. Criswell pointed out the fact that the lands previously zoned R-2-A or R-2-B are now unzoned; unless some decision is made on zoning these lands within 120 days, a property owner may apply tothe Building Division for a Permit for any use they so please, such as a service station, for in- stance. Mr. Criswell stated that "with all due respect, the criticism isn't getting us anywhereo" ,He stated that the only decision to be made is whether to zone the properties R-1-C or R-2; to talk about adequate notice on the repeal of the R-2-A or R-2-B Zone Districts is beside the point. Mr. Criswell stated he would like to hear the comments in favor of or opposition to the R-1-C Zone District. Mrs. Campbell 3865 South Lincoln -stated that since the R-2-A District is no longer in effect, she pointed out there were 150 signers to the petitions for R-1-C Zone District. Mrs. Campbell stated there are many single-family homes in the area, and she stated she wished "the City would leave us alone." Mr. Duffey 3895 South Sherman -stated that he has three units on his property, and the R-1-C Zone District worries him; if one of his units is empty at the time the Ordinance would be effective he would be "stuck". He stated he is heavily mortgaged on the property, and the rental income pays the mortgage payment. He stated that today, housing costs have virtually prohibited young people from purchasing homes • -8- Mr. Martin stated that as long as Mr. Duffey was renting or attempting to rent the units, he could continue to do so, and there would be no problem should the area be zoned to R-1-C. Mr. Duffey asked what the effect would be if he should want to sell his property? Mr. Martin stated that the non-conforming use status goes with the land, not with the individual; the new owner would have the right to continue the non-conforming use. Mr. Ed White 160 East Dartmouth -asked for clarification of a "Non-Conforming Use." Mrs. Romans stated that a non-conforming use is a use which goes with the land and not with an individual property owner. Mr. Smith stated he wanted t o r eassure the members of the audience that the continuance of Non-Conforming Uses is fact; he stated that he has owned some rental property, and the Building Division sends a card to the property owners each year asking whether or not the Non-Conforming status of the property is still applicable; the property owner answers on the card if he still wishes to retain the Non-Conforming Use. If the card is not answered immediately, there is still a period of time in which the Non-Conforming Use status may be reinstated on the property. Mr. Smith stated he wanted to assure people that it does work. Ms. Yvonne Naudack 3997 South Lincoln -asked if persons would have an opportunity to vote on the matter of the R-1-C Zoning? Mr. Martin stated that the petitions that have been presented will have some bearing on the decision of the Commission, as will the comments heard this evening. Mr. Martin again asked that those persons in favor of the R-1-C Zoning and those persons opposed to the zoning have a spokesman to present their statements if possible. Mrs. Oldenburg stated that while there are 150 signatures on the petitions presented to the Commission asking for the R-1-C zoning, not all persons who had indicated they were in favor of the R-1-C zoning signed the petitions. Mr. Martin asked for a show of hands of individuals in favor of the R-1-C? Sixty-five (65) persons indicated they favored the R-1-C zone classification. Mr. Martin asked for a show of hands of persons opposed to the R-1-C zone classification? Nine (9) persons indicated they opposed the R-1-C Zoning. Assistant City Attorney DeWitt stated that the petitions presented will be read by the members of the Commission, and · -9- will be taken into consideration in making their determination. Mr. DeWitt stated it is entirely up to the individual Commission members what weight is given the petitions and comments in their deliberations. Mr. Jim Allen 3815 South Sherman -stated that he purchased his property as an investment; the house is old, and if he wanted to replace this unit with a two-unit structure, he could not do so under the R-1-C zoning. He stated the R-1-C zoning isn't fair to persons who have bought property in the area for investment purposes. Mr. Allen suggested that the zoning should "go back the way it was." Mr. Stacy stated that he would submit if the Commission is really concerned about the citizens, they would have the people stand to indicate the number who would like to have the R-2-A zoning reinstated. He stated he felt the Commission would try "to come up with something realistic", if they were really concerned about the people. Mr. Martin noted that this hearing is limited to consideration of the R-1-C Zone District proposed for the area. Mr. Stacy stated he felt the Commission would be very narrow minded if they didn't hear what the citizens in the area wanted. Mr. Stacy stated he felt proceedings were probably illegal on this matter up to this point. Mr. Mal Atkins 3814 South Sherman -stated that he works in the Code Enforce- ment Division and that "it will be a cold day in hell before [he] gives approval for a filling station in this residential area." Mr. Atkins stated he would suggest postponement of the Hearing until such time as a better pro- posal is made. He stated there are too many people unhappy with the zone district that is proposed. Mr. Burkett 4108 South Inca -stated it appeared to him there was but one choice, and that is to "vote" against the R-1-C Zone classification; "if you are unhappy with the choice presented, you defeat what is before you and petition to get what you want." Mr. John Criswell stated that the concensus is that everybody was reasonably happy with the R-2-A Zone classification. He stated that, as an attorney, it is his honest view the City doesn't have the authority to change the zone district. He stated there has been no change in the neighborhood to warrant a change of zoning. Mr. Criswell stated he has been retained by opponents of the proposed R-1-C Zone District. Mr. Criswell stated that the only thing that has happened in the neighborhood since the 1963 City-wide zoning, is the designation of South Sherman as a one-way street. Mr. Criswell stated that it is true that property rented on the effective date of the R-1-C Ordinance, if approved, could continue to be rented; and that it is true a person could replace a Non-Conforming Use if -10- destroyed by natural causes; but persons who have purchased property for investment purposes and who plan to remodel the properties to accommodate two units could not do so under the R-1-C zoning unless such remodeling would be completed prior to the effective date of the R-1-C zoning. Mr. Criswell stated that if the area is recommended for R-1-C zoning, persons who have purchased their property for investment purposes will be deprived. If, on the other hand, the R-2 classification were to be recommended, this would allow the property owners of rental units to realize their investment, and would not make owners of single-family units non-conforming. Mr. Criswell discussed the differences between the previous R-2-A zoning and the existing R-2 Zone District. Mr. Criswell noted there is very little vacant land, and anyone wanting to build would have to replace existing older structures. Mr. Criswell noted that under the R-2 Zone classification, persons wanting to build four units would have to apply for a Planned Development and get approval from the Commission and from City Council; these Planned Development plans would have to be recorded in the County, and construction would have to conform with the Development Plans. Mr. Criswell stated there is no way one could construct apartment buildings in this area under the R-2 zoning. Mr. Criswell stated that approval of the R-2 Zone classification would allow those people who bought property in reliance of the zoning the opportunity to go ahead and use their property as R-2. Mr. Criswell urged that the City not deny right to use their property to those persons who have purchased the property for rental use. Mr. Criswell presented members of the Commission a memorandum setting forth statistics for the areas of the City that were zoned to R-2-A; it was noted in this memorandum there are a greater number of multi-family or more than single-family units in this particular area than in the other areas of the City which were previously in the R-2-A District. Mr. Criswell stated he did not understand how the Planning Commission, City Council or any person in the City administration could urge that this area be down-zoned to R-1-C, while other areas pre- viously zoned R-2-A are still being considered for R-2, particularly in view of the fact there is great concentration of two-family uses in this particular area. Mr. Schwayder 3826 South Lincoln stated he had been canvassing the area for the last few days, and he knows most of the people in the area want the R-1-C zoning, and that this is the only hope they have for this area. He stated he had lived there since 1940, and he does know what he is talking about: the people want the R-1-C zoning. Mrs. Oldenburg stated that in her block alone, one individual owns three lots --three 50 foot sites; some of the people are getting older, and as these properties come on the market, they are being bought by developers, who don't care anything • -11- about the City of Englewood. She reiterated that the majority of the people want the area left as it is. Mrs. Oldenburg reiterated that the only persons present at the Council meeting of August 4th regarding the zoning, were individuals from this subject area, and that is why only this particular area is being considered for R-1-C zoning. Mr. Farmer 3998 South Sherman -asked what effect the R-1-C zoning would have on the value of his property if the zoning is approved; he stated that he has a two-family dwelling on his property. Mrs. Romans stated that she did not know what effect the zoning would have on the price of his property. Mr. Farmer stated he understood that two-family properties would have to be registered as Non-Conforming Uses if the R-1-C zoning is approved; he asked if there were any other restrictions that would be in effect? Mr. Martin stated no. Mrs. Oldenburg stated she had asked three different realtors what difference there would be in property values in this area if the R-1-C zoning is approved; they all said the difference would be none or very negligible. Wade moved: Jones seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #28-75 be closed. AYES: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. Martin asked the pleasure of the Commission on the disposition of this matter? Jones moved: Tanguma seconded: The matter of Case #28-75 be tabled for further information and consideration. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith , Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: Martin The motion carried. Mr. Martin asked the date of the next Planning Commission meeting? Mrs. Romans stated the next scheduled meeting is November 11th. Mr. Martin asked about the possibility of a special meeting? Jones moved: Pierson seconded: Case #28-75 shall be considered at the next regular meeting of November 11th, at 7:00 p.m • AYES: Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None The motion carried. -12- A recess of the Commission was called. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. with all members present. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP An area previously zoned R-2-A to be considered for R-2 zoning. Wade moved: CASE #29-75 Brown seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #29-75 be openedo AYES: Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on October 1st. Mrs. Romans stated that this Hearing is concerned with areas that were previously zoned R-2-A, Two-family Residential, which areas are now proposed to be zoned R-2. Areas previously zoned R-2-A which are now considered for R-2 include an area west of Broadway and north of Eastman Avenue, and an area east of Broadway north of Eastman Avenue along both sides of South Sherman Street. Mrs. Romans stated that in the area west of South Broadway, there are 240 single-family units, 39 two- family units, three three-family units, two four-family units, and one six-unit complex. There is one store, and three vacant lots, and one school in this subject area. Mrs. Romans noted there are 38 two-family units in this area which do not meet the minimum land requirements of the R-2-A Zone District. Mrs. Romans noted there are two 50 ft. vacant sites, and one 75 fto vacant site in the area. Mrs. Romans stated the R-2 Zone classification was not developed with the idea of "hurting" any property owner, but rather with the idea of ensuring better development by tightening the requirements and raising the standards for development. The height restrictions will re- main the same --two stories or 25 feet. The staff feels the new regulations will give property owners protection for their neighborhoods; if someone wants to construct a four-unit structure, they would have to file a Planned Development Plan, which would necessitate hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, and would have to be recorded in Arapahoe County. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on October 14th, and recommended to City Council a provision to prohibit construction of more than four units under one roof in the R-2 Zone District. Mr. Cangilla stated that he was not interested in the property located in the north part of the City, but was interested in a small piece of property at Belleview and South Cherokee, ex- tended. Mrs. Romans stated that this property is bounded by • • -13- West Belleview Avenue on the south, South Cherokee extended on the east, by West Grand Avenue on the north, and by the rear property line of structures fronting on South Delaware on the west. The property is not platted, and has, at this time, one two-story structure with an apartment on the upper level and garage facilities on the lower level, and a detached house on it. Mrso Romans stated that the staff feels the existing R-2 Zone District is an improvement over the previous R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districtso She noted that two separate structures on one site not under one roof and sharing a party wall will no longer be permitted; they must be under one roof and must share a party wall to qualify as a two-family unit. Mrs. Romans stated the R-2 District does not permit apartment houses, nor high-rise buildings. Churches, schools and public buildings will have to have a minimum of one acre before they can be constructed. Floor area requirements have been increased; the maximum percentage of lot coverage remains the same. Under the new provisions, garages and covered parking are not in- cluded in maximum lot coverage computations. Developers must have 50% of the lot in useable open space, 15% of which must be in landscaping. Utility lines in new developments must be placed underground. Day care centers have been included as permitted uses in the new R-2 provisions, rather than as conditional uses which required specific approval by the Com- mission. Day care centers must meet State requirements, the Fire Code and Building Code. Mrs. Romans stated there has been no change on requirements for front, side or rear yards; no change in permitted home occupations, etc. There are the usual provisions to control noise, smoke, etc. which might ex- tend beyond the property line. Mrs. Romans stated that the new R-2 provisions are more flexible for persons who have less than a 75 ft. frontage in their ownerships. Mrs. Romans out- lined other areas previously zoned R-2-A which were to be considered for the R-2 zoning, and stated that possibly the Commission would want to consider these areas at the same time. Mr. Marshall asked if the 3200 block of South Bannock Street was zoned R-2-A? It was noted that this block was previously zoned R-2-A, and is now unzoned. Mr. Martin asked persons in favor of the R-2 Zone District to speak. No one indicated a desire to speak. Mr. Martin then asked for persons opposed to the R-2 designation to speak. Mr. Norman Kasch 3290 South Bannock Street -stated that he is· a partner of Marshall-Kasch & Associates at the aforegiven address. He stated their business is right next to the Yellow-Front Store. Mr. Marshall purchased the property in 1972, and the property was zoned B-1 at that time. Mr •. Kasch stated that their off ice building was constructed in 1972 and occupied in 1973, and is used solely as an architect's office. -14- Mr. Kasch stated that early this year, they were approached by a property owner immediately to the north of their building, • who asked if he and Mr. Marshall were interested in purchasing this property. There are six dwelling units on this property which are very old and very small. Mr. Kasch stated they have purchased.this property, and a single-family property at 3260 South Bannock, which is just north of the property with the six units. They purchased the additional property on South Bannock "to have control" of the property so that nothing which would depreciate their office use would go in on it. Mr. Kasch stated that be and Mr. Marshall are asking to be excluded from the proposed R-2 zoning; they want to make application for zoning on their own. Mr. Martin asked if anyone else wished to speak? Ms. Ruth Shepherd 3261 South Galapago -asked why the boundaries of the R-2 zoning north of Floyd and Eastman Avenues are as depicted on the Map? Mrs. Romans stated that the City at this time is considering only those areas which were previously zoned for two-family use; the City is not trying to change zoning on any other areas. Mrs. Romans stated that if the people of this area just north of Floyd Avenue applied for rezoning, the City would have to consider it. The City did agree at the time of the election to sell the former City Park for development of Cinderella City Shopping Center, that the City would do nothing to prevent this area from continuing as a single-family area. The people who live north of Floyd Avenue and south of Eastman Avenue want to retain the single-family zoning of their area. Mrs. Romans stated that most of the area considered for the R-2 zoning has been zoned for two-family use since 1940, or since annexation to the City, and there are two-family uses in these areas. Mr. Cangilla 5000 South Delaware -stated that when he built his home in 1960, the Carmel Park apartments were zoned R-3; the property west of Carmel Park and abutting his property on the east was zoned R-1 --single-family. Mr. Cangilla stated that over the years, persons living in the single-family area on Delaware and to the north and west of the subject site have had to fight zone changes proposed for the property which is bounded by Grand Avenue on the north, Belleview on the south, Cherokee extended on the east, and the rear property lines of properties fronting on Delaware Street on the west. Persons living in the single-family areas feel they will be hurt by any zone change on the subject property, but they did agree to an R~2-A zoning which they felt was a natural buffer between the single-family on Delaware Street and the multi-family development in Carmel Park. Mr. Cangilla stated that the single-family area is a very nice residential neighbor- hood. Mr. Cangilla stated that the property abutting his property on the east is approximately 2-1/2 acres; this would -15- allow, under the proposed R-2 zoning, approximately 28 to 35 units on that lando Under the previous R-2-A zoning, approxi- mately 16 units could have been developed on this land. Mr. Cangilla stated that the proposed zoning would increase the density to a greater extent than what the area calls for. Mr. Cangilla stated that "the type of city [he] wants is some protection from City government." Mr. Cangilla reiterated that when he bought his land, the property abutting to the east was also zoned R-1. Mr. Cangilla stated that he feels the proposed R-2 Zone District is less restrictive than the former R-2-A Zone District. Mr. Cangilla asked why the land had not developed? Mrs. Romans stated that persons who have come to the office to inquire about the subject land have said they cannot pay the price asked for the land and develop it to the density permitted under the R-2-A. Mr. Cangilla stated that the City of Englewood made an error when Carmel Park was built in not requiring dedication of Cherokee Street. He stated he feels this is the reason the land has not developed; the property owner could not afford to give the land for the street and cut down on the land area left for development. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the subject land is under the third ownership since Mr. Cangilla purchased his land abutting on the west. Mrs. Romans further pointed out that when the Carmel Park De- velopment was underway, Mr. Lopata, the property owner, offered to dedicate the east 1/2 of the street, but Mr. Thompson, property owner to the west, refused to do so. Mr. Thompson subsequently sold the property to Mr. Schleglemilch, who then offered to dedicate the west 1/2 of South Cherokee Street, and the property owners of Carmel Park were no longer interested in dedicating the east 1/2 of the street. Mrs. Caskey now owns the property, and inquiries regarding commercial zoning on the property have been received by the Department of Community Development. Mrs. Romans reiterated that the City has tried to get dedication of the street, but the involved property owners have not been interested in dedication at the same time. Mr. Cangilla asked why the City didn't accept the dedications at the time they were offered? Mr. Cangilla stated that 1he school immediately to the north of the subject site has a swimming pool, tennis courts and handball courts, and other recreational facilities, plus the 11 12 apartment houses." He stated that if the City feels justified in adding a greater density to this part of town, he firmly disagrees. Mr. Cangilla stated that the City should exert every effort to preserve the single-family homes. He referred to an "analysis" of the pre- vious R-2-A, R-2-B, and existing R-2 Zone Districts; which members of the audience picked up at the door; he stated that the term "existing" is in error. Mrs. Romans·stated 1hat the R-2 Zone District regulations are existing. Mrs. June Hively asked how the architectural business on South Bannock Street in the 3200 block was permitted there; it is a residential area, and the residents are very much opposed to any :further expansion of the commercial uses in that area. -16- Mr. George Noffsinger stated he had been around town for a long time, and has been in construction. There are a lot of ~ elderly people who have been planning for years to fix up a basement apartment to supplement their income after retirement; if these individuals do not have sufficient land area to meet the requirements for a two-family use, do they have the right to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance? Mrs. Romans stated that if there is no other land abutting their land that is available for purchase to bring their ownership up to the requirement, the individual may apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Mrs. Romans cautioned that conversion of basements into apartments would have to meet the Building Code, also. Mr. Roy Hank.le 5050 South Delaware -stated there were only eight families living in the 5000 block of South Delaware whose properties abut the proposed R-2 zoning. Mr. Hank.le stated that the increased density that would be possible under the proposed R-2 zoning would be "very difficult to live with", and he asked that a different zone category be considered for 1his abutting area, or that the R-2-A Zone District be left as it was. There were no further comments from the audience. Brown moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #29-75 be closed. AYES: Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown NAYS: None The motion carried. Pierson moved: Jones seconded: The matter of Case #29-75 be tabled for further consideration until November 11, 1975. AYES: Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP An area previously zoned R-2-B to be considered for R-2 Zone District. Jones moved: CASE #30-75 Jorgenson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #30-75 be opened. AYES: NAYS: Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma None The motion carried , • • • -1 7 - Mrs. Winnie Watkins 2701 South Acoma -stated that one of the signs notifying residents of the meeting is placed in front of her house; however, she thought the sign said the area was to be considered for business zoning. Mrs. Romans stated that the area was posted for consideration as R-2 zoning, and was formerly zoned R-2-B, which is a two- family residence district. Mrs. Romans then reviewed the regula- tions of the former R-2-B District, which are very similar to the existing R-2 Zone District. Mrs. Romans noted that an amendment to the R-2 District has been recommended to City Council, which amendment would limit the number of dwelling units per- mitted under one roof to no more than four; this provision was not contained in the R-2-B Regulationso The height provisions of the two districts are the same --25 feet. The staff is of the opinion the existing R-2 Zone District regulations are more restrictive than the previous R-2-B Zone District regula- tions. Mr. Martin asked if there was any member of the audience who wished to speak either in favor or opposition to the proposed zone district? No member of the audience indicated a desire to speak. Parker moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #30-75 be closed. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. Jones moved: Wade seconded: The matter of Case #30-75 be tabled for further consideration until November 11, 1975. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. Martin thanked members of the audience for the interest in the matter, and for attending the meeting. VI . DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that Assistant Director of ·community Develop- ment Brokate had called to her attention that Majestic Savings has advertised for bids for a structure at 5095 South Broadway • -18- VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE There was nothing discussed under Commission's choice. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary •