Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-22 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING October 22, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Special meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Martin. Members present: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Brown Also present: Associate Planner House; Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP Areas previously zoned R-3-A to be considered for R-3 zoning. Parker moved: CASE #31-75 Jones seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #31-75 be opened. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown The motion carried. Mr. Martin stated that the Public Hearing is to consider areas formerly zoned R-3-A, Multi-family Residence District. Mr. Martin stated that the proponents of a zone district would be asked to speak first, followed by the opponents of the proposed zone district. Mr. Martin asked that, if possible, both the proponents and opponents have a spokesman to present their comments. He asked that all persons speaking come to the podium and identify themselves. Mr. Martin noted that no decisions were rendered on the Public Hearings held on the evening of October 21st, and the same might be true of decision on the matters being considered at this meeting. Mr. Martin then asked Mrs. Romans to present the background of the cases. Mrs. Romans reviewed the steps leading to the Public Hearings to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Map. The City Council, Planning Commission, and members of the community had been concerned for some time about the quality of development the City was getting in the multi-family zone districts. There has been an abundance of the three-story walk-ups, with small one-bedroom units, no landscaping, asphalt parking areas in the front of the structure, etc. The City Council directed the .. -2- Planning Commission to review the multi-family district regula-• tions, and to make recommendations for changes to ensure better quality development in these areas. The Commission determined that a committee of citizens should be appointed to consider this matter, and a committee of 14 persons was appointed with Mr. James Keller elected as Chairman, and Mr. George H. Allen serving as vice-chairman. None of the persons on the committee were actively engaged in building apartments in Englewood at that particular time, and therefore, had no vested interest in the determinations to be made by the committee. The first meeting of the Committee was on August 3, 1974; in the next six month time period, four rough drafts of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance were written. The committee considered the size of the units, traffic patterns, drainage, landscaping, open space, and all other facets of multi-family housing. The Committee developed the following goals as guidelines to follow: I. Encourage a variety of housing to meet the needs of the differing income levels and the varying family structures by emphasizing quality of development through the use of new developmental procedures that will encourage innovative well-designed developments. A. Require a development plan to be submitted for all developments; to be reviewed by a Design Review Com- mittee. B. Sensitize new high-density residential projects to the character of adjacent development . Encourage the siting of vertical structures to respect the topo- graphic features of the land. C. Require high-density residential development to be located on land parcels of sufficient size to ensure proper site design, identity, and to warrant the installation of desirable amenities. D. Minimize "through" vehicular movement within residential neighborhoods. E. Encourage the development ot a system of open space within the community that will accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational activities, possibly including pedestrian and bicycle paths, in and through the residential neighborhoods, connecting these areas with schools, parks, churches and shopping areas. F. Where possible, preserve and enhance the view of the mountains. The Committee met with the City Council and Planning Commission in the spring of this year to present their proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission • -3- subsequent ly held a Public Hearing on the proposals on June 3rd, and made recommendation to City Council that .the proposals be adopt ed. The City Council held a Public Hearing on August 4, 1975 , and adopted the R-2 Medium Density Residence District and the R-3 High Density Residence District; the R-2-A, R-2-B, R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts were repealed wi t h the enactment of the new R-2 and R-3 regulations , which became effective on September 6, 1975. Since that date, the properties formerly zoned R-2-A, R-2-B, R-3-A or R-3-B have been unzoned. It is now the responsibility o f the City to place those properties i n a zone classification, and the City must do so within 120 d a ys or a property owne r may apply for a building permit for · any permitted use in any zone district he so chooses. Mrs. Romans stated that 180.9 acr es of land were zoned R-3-A, and 275.6 acres were zoned R-3-B. There is a total of 2,913 multi-family dwelling units in the city; the size of the unit coul d not be determin ed for 594 of these units; but in the remain der of the units, there ar e only 60 efficiency units, 1,839 one-bedroom units, and 390 two-bedroom units, with 30 three -bedroom units. Mrs. Romans stated that new parking re- quirements were adopted in 1972, which increased parking re- quirements have cut down on some of the development in the City; since the new parking requirements have been adopted, there have been only four apartment complexes constructed. Mrs. Romans stated that she was sure part of the decrease in con- struction of multi-family units has been the result of the economy, also. Mrs. Romans stated that one complex constructed· prior to 1972 would have 112 units per acre, were the density project ed; those const ructed since 1972 have had 36 units or less per acre. The Larwin complex, for instance, averages 25/26 units per acre Mrs. Romans stated that the new R-3 Zone District regulations were designed to give better protect ion to people who live in the R-3 neighborhoods. Mrs. Romans then contrasted the former R-3-A Zone Distric t with the existing R-3 District. There has been an increase ·in the minimum lot area required for multi- family dwelling units from a minimum of 12,000 square feet to a minimum of 42,000 square feet; there is also a maximum of 40 units per acre permitted under the existing R-3 regulations. There is a "bonus" provision, however, whereby additional units are permitted if additional land is provided and setbacks are increased. The R-3 Regulations require that all multi-family development must have a Planned Development Plan filed and approved by the Planning Commissi on and City Council, and the Pl a n must be recorded in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's office. All development must be in accordance with those re- corded p lans, unless amended plans are presented, heard before the Commission and Council and recorded. Churches, educational institutions and public buildings are permitted as before, but must have increased lot area . Doctor's offices and other pro- fessional offices also are permitte d, as they were previously, but they must have an increased lot area of 24,000 square feet. -4- Floor areas for the dwelling units have been increased from the ~ minimum of 450 sq. fto to a minimum of 650 sq. fto for an efficienc ~ or one-bedroom unit; 750 sq. ft. for a two-bedroom unit; 950 sq. ft. for a three-bedroom unit, and for each additional bed- room, an additional 110 sq. ft. must be addedo Lot coverage was increased from 30% to 35%, and in an attempt to encourage covered parking, covered parking structures will not count against lot coverage under the existing regulationso There are included in the new regulations useable open space require- ments --25% of the lot area must be in useable open space, such as swimming pools or walks. There are also landscaping requirements --25% of the area must be in landscaping; 40% of that 25% must be provided in the front yard. Utility lines in new developments must be underground, a new requirement in the R-3 regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that the height limitations of the buildings permitted in the R-3 District is the same as previously permitted in the R-3-A Zone District: five stories or 60 feet, with a 25 ft. height limitation for a single- family and medium density useo Mrso Romans noted that the front setback does vary with the height of the structure, but the side yard and rear yard setbacks are not changedo Accessory uses such as garages are permitted; if a garage is to be entered from the alley, there is a 6 ft. setback required. There are provisions for environmental guidelines included in the R-3 regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing ~ appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel, the official City newspaper, on October 1st. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provides that the property must be posted when the Map is to be changed; the posting of the property has been done at district boundaries and on major streets, which posting procedure was approved by the City Attorney's office. Mrso Romans identified five areas previously zoned R-3-A which are being considered for R-3 High Density zoning. These areas are: 1. An area south of Belleview and east of Broadway; this area encompasses approximately 17-1/2 acres, and is virtually land-locked o It was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1964 and was zoned R-3-A; the Comprehensive Plan projects use of this area as a park. 20 An area north of West Union Avenue in the Centennial Park area; this is a three-acre site which was zoned to R-3-A in 1971. 3. An area south of Hampden Avenue, east of South Logano Mrs. Romans stated that this area is developed 44% with single- family uses; 14% with two-family uses; 26% with multi-family uses, and 4% is vacanto There are professional office • buildings and other permitted uses also in this areao • • -5- 4. An area along the east side of South Clarkson Street in the 3300 and 3400 blocks • 5, The area commonly known as the Larwin site; this site is 66% undeveloped; 34% is developed with apartment units -- a total of 384 ipdividual units. There are covenants on this property limiting development for the total site to no more than 1,500 units. Mrs. Pierson excused herself from the meeting. Mr. Martin asked if there were any individuals who wished to speak in favor of the proposed R-3 zoning? No one spoke in favor of the R-3 zoning. Mr. Martin then asked for those who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed zoning. Mr. Grady Franklin Maples 22 Viking Drive Cherry Hills Village -stated that he is not opposed to the total plan, and is aware of the work that has gone into the revision of the zone districts. Mr. Maples stated that he represents only himself, and is opposed to the R-3 Zone designation for Lot 6 of Interurban Addition; this is an area in the 300 block of West Belleview Avenue, directly west of K-Mart. Mr. Maples stated that he had pre- viously requested a B-2 Zone designation for his property, and would still like a commercial zoning on this property. Mr. Maples presented the Commission members the following letter • :I :,; ...... :;.'·· . ... I" .;, .. i•·· .. '. ·,, ;.: I ;.·· .~ .... ·ti>, ·. ·. " . ; J: 4,.. ·!: i,¥ ... 1·· ~ ... ..! .-6"."' OctQpe~ 22, 1975 CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSlON CITY Of ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110 . Subjec't;s Zoning of All of Block 6, Interurban Addition, except the West 75 feet thereof. Please pe ~dvieed that, in our opinion, your pro- posed R-3 ia not the proper zoning for this property and we hereby re~uest that the propRrty be loned1 ~-2, l3ysi,ness This communication to Members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission is being aupmitted for the ownars Grady Franklin Maples and M. R. Vandiver py Giady Fr~nklin Maples. We ~hall appreciate your consid~ration and granting Qf thi5 request to zone this property B-2 BUSINESS. Thank you v e ry ~uch • 80110 . .J • • • • -7- Mr.Ralph Chumley 3550 South Cherokee -stated he had lived in Englewood all his life; he and other property owners in the 3500 block of South Cherokee Street are interested in a B-1 Zone District for that block, and have filed a rezoning application with the office. The property owners believe the B-1 zoning will increase the value of property in the block and would add to the tax base of the City of Englewood; he stated that he would be interested in constructing a "business building''. Mr. Chumley stated he is asking for the B-1 zoning for both sides of the street. Mr. William Whipple 3501 South Corona #1 -stated that he works for Dallas Tourney, a contractor, who has done considerable work in Englewood. Mr. Whipple stated that he felt the proposed zoning "is pretty well set". He noted that Mrs. Romans had made reference to the fact that a lot of the buildings in Englewood have asphalt parking areas in the front yards; he stated he feels this is the result of the set-backs required. He noted that the buildings in the 4000-4100 blocks of South Bannock were constructed by Tourney, and they have landscaping in the front yards; the setbacks on these buildings are not as great as those normally required, and a variance was obtained to permit the construction of the units closer to the street. Mr. Whipple stated he felt this made a more functional use of the ground. Mr. Whipple noted that a lot of the apartments were constructed prior to the new parking restrictions which were adopted. Mr. Whipple stated that in order to build in the new R-3 District, which would require greater land area and larger floor area minimums, the developer would have to raise the rent levels to recoup his investment in the project. Mr. Whipple stated that the rents in the Englewood area for a 450 sq. ft. unit are between $125 to ·$145 per month. The rent levels would probably have to be raised to at least $200 per month for the new developments to be financially feasible. Mr. Whipple noted that the basic architectural style in Englewood has been brick buildings, with the exception of the Larwin de- development which makes use of wood; he noted that the cost of erecting a brick building will be greater each year. He stated the proposed regulations will bring about a different architectural style, which will make use of more wood. Mr. Whipple noted that the Larwin project, with the wood construction, isn't, in his opinion, the effect that the people of Englewood want for multi-family development. Mr. Whipple stated that he lives north of the Larwin project. Mr. Whipple stated that comparing the Larwin project to some projects he has worked on, he doesn't find the Larwin. project as aesthetic as the average three-story walk-up built in Englewood. Mr. Whipple stated that the streets around the Larwin project are "full of cars".· Mr. Whipple stated he felt the tighter zoning requirements are needed, and he wants to help create a better Englewood; the main point he objects to is the increased lot area of 42,000 sq, ft.; he stated this is "an awful large jump" from the previously per- -8- mitted 9,000 sq. ft. in the R-3-B, or the 12,000 sq. ft. in the R-3-A. Mr. Whipple stated he feels the economics of the • increased lot area will cut out some small investors and developers. Mr. Whipple stated that the new regulations may well bring in out-of-town investors with a greater financial means, and that these out of town investors "don't have the same feel for the area as local people." Mr. Whipple stated that another thing to consider is the value of the land and the sales tax to be realized from construction going on in the City; he stated he understood that the City now realizes most of its income from sales taxes, and not from property taxes, but that this might not remain the case. He pointed out that the zoning will have an effect on property values and the possible property taxes for many years to come. When the City limits the building potential in the R-3 areas, the value of the land is limited also. Mr. Whipple stated that the operating costs of the City are growing, and the administration and Council must look to the future; he cautioned against "cutting off any possible funds you may have in the future." If the R-3 regula- tions are imposed on the land, "there will be limited building in Englewood for many years to come", and it will take "creative people some time to come up with something to fit into the zoning." Mr. Whipple again stated that he is in agreement with the basic concept" of the R-3 regulations; however, he does question the practicality of the increased lot area. Mr. Parker stated that the record should reflect that Mr. Maples ~ was referring to property that was formerly zoned R-3-B, and ~ not R-3-A, and that the comments should pertain to that particular Hearing. Mr. Martin asked that a note be made of this matter. Mr. Dean Weaver 2115 South Valentia -stated he is an investor in a portion of the "Pasternak" property, which is located east of Big Dry Creek and south of Centennial Avenue. He stated the property was purchased with the intent of building on it, but they have since decided against building immediately. Mr. Weaver stated that he feels the R-3 regulations would hurt the value of the land for a later investor; the required open space, increased lot area, etc. will decrease the value of the property. On this basis, he stated he was opposed to the R-3 Zone District. Mr. Martin asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition? No one spoke further in opposition. Jorgenson moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #31-75 be closed. AYES: Martin, Parker, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Brown The motion carried. Mr. Martin asked the pleasure of the Commission on disposition of the case at hand? -9 - Tanguma moved: Smith seconded: That Case #31-75 be tabled for further con- sideration until November 11, 1975. AYES: Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Brown The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP Areas previously zoned R-3-B to be considered for R-3 zoning. Tanguma moved: CASE #32-75 Jones seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #32-75 be opened. AYES: Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Brown The motion carried. Mrs. Romans reviewed progression of multi-family zoning in the City of Englewood since the 1940 Zoning Ordinance was first adopted; also reviewed, was the annexation and physical growth of the City from approximately 1940 to present day. Mrs. Romans stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on October 1, 1975. The property was posted at zone district boundaries, and on major streets in accordance with approval from the City Attorney's office. Mrs. Romans stated that the main difference between the former R-3-A and R-3-B ,zone Districts was in the height of the building and size of the lot area. The minimum floor area of 450 sq. ft. remained the same in both districts. Mrs. Romans stated that she had reviewed the provisions of the R-3 Zone Dis t rict thoroughly when discussing the previous Hearing. Mrs. Romans then pointed out areas which were formerly zoned R-3-B throughout the City. Mrs. Romans suggested that the testimony previously given by Mr. Maples and by Mr. Chumley be noted in this Public Hearing, inasmuch as the areas they are concerned with were both previously zoned R-3-B. Mr. Martin asked if anyone wished to speak in -favor of the zoning? -10- Mrs. Janet Wren ~ 2160 E. Eastman -asked for clarification of "public facilities." W Mrs. Romans stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance states that words used in the ordinance except where specifically defined shall carry their customary meanings. The definition of "Public Building" is as follows: "A building of or pertaining to the people, which is open to common general use or enjoyment." At the time it was determined to use the term "public facilities", it was intended to incorporate the definition of public buildings in an amended definition. The amendment has not been refined at this time, but it would be a _facility maintained at public expense, under public control, open to and used by the public, and which provides essential services to the public. This is the context in which the term "public facilities" is used even though the formal definition is not finalized. Mr. Martin asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the proposed zone district? A member of the audience stated they had seen the signs in the neighborhood; they live one block north of Swedish Hospital on South Pearl. The individual asked what the advantage would be to the new regulations; would this permit the construction of "high-rises", and will people have to give up their homes? Mrs. Romans stated that the area immediately north of Swedish ~ Medical Center was zoned R-3-B. Mrs. Romans stated that it W was the feeling of the Committee, Commission, Council and staff that the new R-3 regulations would give greater protection to persons living in the areas zoned for multi-family use. The R-3 Regulations would put mor~ restrictions on "private developers"; it is much more restrictive for small developers who want to build "small" three-story units on a 100 or 150 foot site -- they cannot do ft under the new regulations. Mrs. Romans emphasized the new regulations will give residents more pro- tection, and cited the fact that a Planned Development will have to be filed and approved after Public Hearings before the Commission and Council prior to construction of any multi-family use. Landscaping and open space are now required, and a bonus will be given the developers who provide covered parking. It is felt that these new regulations will improve the quality of units that are built, and will provide more protection for the people who live and own property in the area. Mr. Parker asked if a potential developer could appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals if there were properties he wished to develop that happened to lie between existing apart- ment houses, and this property didn't meet the required lot area or frontage? Mrs. Romans stated that anyone who feels the regulations are too restrictive may appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. • -11- Ms. Maxine Morgan 3779 South Acoma -asked if motels and motor courts would be permitted in the R-3 areas? Mrs. Romans quoted the following definition of "Dwelling, Multiple-Family": "A building arranged, intended or designed to be occupied by three (3) or more families or groups of individuals living independently of each other in separate dwelling units. The term "multiple family dwelling" shall in- clude, but not be limited to, the terms "apartment house", "terrace", "apartment hotel", "apartment court", "bungalow court", "row house", "tenement house", "boarding and rooming house", "hotel", "motel", "motor hotel", "motor lodge", "motor court", "tourist court", "tourist home"." Mrs. Romans noted that motels and motor courts are built on major thoroughfares, and that this definition has been in effect since 1963, thereby permitting a motel or motor court to be constructed in a multi- family district since that time. None have been constructed since that time in an R-3 Zone District. Mrs. Morgan then referred to Page 23 of the analysis; she asked if a covered parking structure would have to be contiguous with surface landscaping? Mrs. Romans stated that in some of the newer developments where there are multi-level parking structures, the roof of the parking structure is used for a recreational area. If a parking structure should be designed that way in Englewood, they would still have to provide some landscaping on the ground level. Mrs. Morgan then questioned a provision on Page 36, which was repealed with both the R-3-A and R-3-B Districts, which pro- vided that "no structure or vehicle on th·e lot with the principal dwelling can be used for residential purposes." Mrs. Romans stated that the City does have a Mobile Home Park Ordinance, and to be occupied, a mobile home must be located in a mobile home park. Mrs. Morgan then questioned the requirements for frontage on single-family units; she stated that there are some ownerships which have only 25 ft. or 37-1/2 ft.; if something were to happen to those dwellings, could they be replaced on those frontages? Mrs. Ranans stated that the dwellings could be re- placed; she noted that just because a dwelling in a residential district is on an under-sized lot, the dwelling is not a Non-Conforming Use. Mr. Jorgenson excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Martin asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the R-3 Zone designation? No one spoke in favor.· Mr. Martin then asked for those persons who wished to speak in opposition. -12- Mr. William Whipple • 3501 S. Corona #1 -Mr. Whipple stated that if the zoning should go through, seven property owners would have to get together and sell to the same purchaser in order for a multi-family project to be developed. This will be a very difficult thing to work with. Mr. Whipple stated it has taken as long as three years to get enough property together to build 35 units under the "present" regulations; he forsees the value of the homes going down; there will not be the potential or possibility for a developer to tie up that much land to build on it. He stated he felt individual property owners would realize a much better profit on their land if the R-3 regulations did not apply. Mr. Whipple stated that another thing to consider is the re- habili t ation of older homes. He stated that the majority of R-3 ground in Englewood "has the potential to become run down", and that it won't be economically feasible to keep it up. Mr. Whipple stated that he forsees condemnation of the houses because of deterioration --there will be vacant lots or houses that will be left vacant. People won't be able to take care of them; he stated he realized the potential is there to construct a smaller number of units, but it would not be economically feasible, and that the City must consider the rehabilitation of the homes. Mr. Whipple stated that it has been said the idea of the Committee who drafted the R-3 Regulations is to create multi-family housing that would be compatible with the areas in which they are constructed; if the zoning goes through, in his opinion, the entire neighborhoods will be torn down, and a new neighborhood will be created. He stated he believes there is a need for multi-family housing to be compatible with the neighborhoods, but the R-3 Zone Distric t will destroy the neighborhoods. Mr. Bannister 3615 South Acoma -stated that he did not object to apartments, but would object to large apartment buildings on all sides of him. He stated he lived on a "hill", and isn't ready to give it up. Mrs. Myrtle Jones 5020 South Washington -stated she didn't really know how the people of Englewood feel regarding the zoning regulations, but if they want their homes or apartmen t houses, they had better let the staff know. Mr. Maples stated that he wished to resubmit his letter pre- viously submitted in the R-3-A Hearing. Mr. Maples stated that the K-Mart property is zoned B-2, Business. Mr. Maples stated that the Leisey property, 1.2 acres, is between the K-Mart property and Mr. Maples' ownership. Mr. Maples stated that by zoning his property to R-3, as is proposed, will con- tinue to create a negative economic climate as far as his use or selling of this property. Mr. Maples stated that the initial -13- cost of his property was $65,000, and he has incurred another $8,000 to $10,000 additional cost. The R-3 Zoning precludes the potential development of his property, and he is not in favor of the R-3 designation. He asked that a B-2 Zone classi- fication be granted for this property. A brief recess of the Commission was called. The meeting reconvened with the following members present: PRESENT:• AB SENT: Jones, Martin, Parker, Smith, Tanguma, Wade Brovn, Jorgenson, Pierson Mr. Martin asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed R-3. Mr. William Bashor 5250 Miramonte Road -stated that he is opposed to the proposed zoning change, in that it could possibly bring about the eventual rezoning of other properties, witness the request by Mr. Maples. Mr. Bashor stated that some years back, Mr. Maples had asked for commercial zoning for this property, and his request was denied; he urged Commission members to study the records of that case and review the reasons for the denial. Mr. Bashor stated that someone gets hurt in every zoning change, and urged the Planning Commission and City Council to take a long hard look at problems they may be generating in the future because of the proposed R-3 zoning. Mr. Bashor stated he felt "we need to put some teeth in our so-called master zoning plan." He stated that a zoning plan is needed so that people will know what the zoning is on property they buy, and they can depend that the zoning will not change. Mr. Martin asked if anyone else wished to speak? No one else spoke on the matter. Parker moved: Wade seconded: The Public »earing on Case #32-75 be closed. AYES: Wade, Jones, Martin, Parker, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown, Jorgenson, Pierson The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked what steps would have to be taken to .amend the zoning proposal? Mr. DeWitt, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he would not want to give .an "off-the-cuff" opinion at this time, and would prefer to have a specific proposal to answer; he stated that amendments would have to be reviewed by the Planning Division before it was recommended to City Council. Mr. DeWitt reiterated that he could not give a definite opinion at this time. -14- Discussion followed. Mr. Martin stated the Commission concern is to determine, from a long-range point of view, the proper • zoning districts for the areas under consideration. The Com- mission will then either recommend that an area be zoned to the specific R-2 or R-3 zone classification, or determine that it should.not be zoned to either R-2 or R-3. Mr. Parker stated that he felt the meeting this evening was a very good meeting; persons both pro and con spoke "coherently", and outlined good reasons for their feelings. Mr. Parker stated that he felt the Hearings of the previous evening were a "catastrophe". He stated that he felt that at the meeting of November 11th, it should be made clear the Planning Commission and Planning staff are not responsible for the method of re- designating the zone classification of the land; he stated that he felt it is a "failure" of the City Attorney's office that this method had to be followed, and that the people do deserve an explanation. He stated that a majority of the members of the audience the past two evenings "feel they have been hooked". Mr. Parker further stated that he disagreed with Mr. Whipple's statement about deterioration and condemnation of the older homes; these homes are being fixed up, and many are being purchased by young families. Mr. Whipple stated that he didn't mean to imply this happens every time; he stated that when the apartment buildings were constructed in the 4000 and 4100 block South Bannock, the houses in the 4000 block were condemned, and torn down to make way for the development. The people of the neighborhood felt it was to their betterment. Mr. Martin cautioned that the Public Hearing has been closed. Parker moved: Smith seconded: The matter of Case #32-75 be tabled until November 11, 1975, for further consideration. AYES: Wade, Jones, Martin, Parker, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: Nane ABSENT: Brown, Jorgenson, Pierson The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. d~ic::d~ "Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary ..