The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1975-11-11 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 11, 1975 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Martin at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: City Attorney Berardini, Assistant City Attorney DeWitt, Associate Planner House II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Martin stated the Minutes of October 21, 1975, and of October 22, 1975, were to be considered for approval. Mrs. Pierson noted that on Page 14 of the October 22nd Minutes, it should be noted that Mr. Brown, Mr. Jorgenson, and she were absent, and did not vote Nay on tabling of Case #32-75. Pierson moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Minutes of October 21, 1975, be approved as written, and the Minutes of October 22, 1975, be approved as corrected on Page 14. AYES: Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP An area previously zoned R-2-A considered for R-1-C zoning. CASE #28-75 10/21/75 Mr. Parker asked for explanation of what the Commission may or may not consider regarding the zoning matters. He noted the Public Hearings on each zoning case was held and closed, and subsequently tabled for further consideration at this meeting; he stated he understood that some rezoning applications were to be filed in areas that have been considered for redesignation to either the R-2 or R-3 classifications. He ·stated that he understood these applications could not be considered at this time, and asked if this was correct. Mr. Martin stated that the Public Hearings were held on October 21st and October 22nd, to consider the zoning of certain areas proposed to be designated either R-1-C, R-2, or R-3, and that the Hearings were closed. Action on the cases was tabled for -2- further study and consideration; Mr. Martin stated that the Commission has considered each one of the zoning cases, and • he would hope will reach a decision and make recommendation to the ·City Council at this meeting. Mr. Martin noted there would be no further opportunity for the public to be heard before the Commissio~ on these particular matters; however, the City Council will hold Hearings on the Commission recommendations, and the citizens will have an opportunity to express their opinions at that time. Mr. Martin stated that the only items to be considered by the Commission at this meeting are listed on the Agenda. A lady in the audience asked when they could expect to meet with the City Council? Mr. Martin stated that recommendations made to the City Council at this meeting would have to be acted upon by the current City Council prior to the first of the year. Mr. Berardini stated that after the Council received the recommendation from the Commission, the Council would set a date for Public Hearing; the Hearing might be set for December 16th, or on a later date prior to January first. Mr. Berardini advised the citizens to watch the Englewood Herald Sentinel, call their Councilman, or the City Hall, for confirmation on the date of the Public Hearing. A gentleman in the audience stated he did not understand the difference between an R-2-B Zone District, and the R-2 Medium Density District? Mr. Martin pointed out that this matter had been gone into in great detail at the Public Hearing of October 21st; the R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts have been repealed, and the R-2, Medium Density District, enacted. The City is now in the process of applying that district to the areas previously zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B. Mr. Martin stated that if the gentleman desired further detailed informa- tion, he should call the Community Development Department. Jones moved: Wade seconded: That Case #28-75 be raised from the Table. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. Parker asked if it was correct that the subject area had been zoned R-2-A at least since 1963? Mrs. Romans stated this is correct. Mr. Parker stated the area has been about the same zone classification since it came into 1he City 30 some years ago. Mr. Parker stated that he was, at first, going to vote to recommend the area be designated as R-2, Medium Density Residence, because he didn't feel the neighborhood actually needs more restrictive zoning, and he felt the R-2 would give persons who purchased their property to use for two-family -3- property, the right to use their property for that and still give protection to the single-family homeowner. However, he has done quite a bit of "homework" on the matter and feels the preponderance of the citizens prefer the R-1-C designation. Parker moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the area bounded by the Broadway/ Lincoln alley on the west, East Kenyon Avenue on the north, the Sherman/Grant alley on the east, and East Oxford Avenue on the south, be zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence; 87% of the property owners in the area are in favor of the R-1-C designation. Mr. Jones discussed some problems with the R-1-C zoning for this area: the area has been used as two-family for 30 years or more; the Comprehensive Plan projects the area as two-famil~ or medium density, use; and persons have acquired property in this area for rental income, and their rights have to be considered also. Mr. Jones reiterated the proposed R-1-C zoning would be in conflict with the Master Plan and the zoning would be subject to many problems and possible litigation; therefore, he would have to vote against the motion. Mr. Tanguma stated he would have to agree with Mr. Parker; the people in the area were informed they had the right to apply for the R-1-C zoning, and it is their right to have that zoning even if it does lead to litigation . The vote was called: AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Martin, Parker NAYS: Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Pierson The motion failed. Brown moved: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the area bounded by East Kenyon Avenue on the north; the Sherman/Grant alley on the east, East Oxford Avenue on the south, and the Broadway/Lincoln alley on the west, be zoned R-2. Mr. Berardini stated that the only question before the Commission is whether to recommend approval of the R-1-C classification, or to recommend denial of the R-1-C classification. At some later date, a determination may be made on the proper zone classification for the area; but at this particular meeting, the only thing to be determined is the merits of the R-1-C zoning. Mr. Brown withdrew his motion. -4- Pierson moved: Brown seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the R-1-C, Single-family Residence, zone classification requested for the following described property be denied: Beginning at a point on the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue at its intersection with the centerline of the Broadway/Lincoln alley; thence east along the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue to the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley; thence south along the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley to its intersection with the centerline of East Oxford Avenue; thence west along the centerline of East Oxford Avenue to the centerline of the Broadway/Lincoln alley; thence north along said centerline to the point of beginning. AYES: NAYS: Pierson, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson Parker, Smith, Tanguma, Martin The motion carried. Mr. Martin announced that the motion to recommend the R-1-C zoning approval had failed, and the motion to deny the R-1-C zoning did pass; he stated that a recommendation will be sent to Council at some time in the future on the zoning of this area. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP Areas formerly zoned R-2-A to be considered for R-2 zoning. Brown moved: CASE #29-75 10/21/75 Wade seconded: The matter of Case #29-75 be raised from the Table. AYES: Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None The motion carried. Jorgenson moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the following described parcels formerly zoned R-2-A, Two-family Residence, be zoned R-2, Medium Density District. -5- Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and the alley east of Delaware Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence south to the centerline of Cornell Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence south to the centerline of Dartmouth Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence south along the extended center- line of said alley 1234 feet, more or less, to a point; said point being the southeast corner of 3270 South Bannock Street; thence west 163 ft. more or less, to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence south 91 feet more or less, to a point, said point being on the extended south line of lot 14, Abbott's Subdivision, Second Filing; thence west to the centerline of the alley east -0f Cherokee Street; thence north to the centerline of Eastman Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Fox Street; thence north to the centerline of Dartmouth Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Elati Street; thence north to the centerline of Cornell Avenue; th ence east to the centerline of the alley east of Delaware Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and the al~ey east of Lincoln Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Sherman Street; thence south to the centerline of Amherst Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence north to the point o~ beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection 'of Bates Avenue and the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Sherman Street; thence south to the centerline of Eastman Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Delaware Street; thence east 144 feet, more or less, to the ,true point of beginning; thence east 165 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being on the extended west line of Carmel Park Subdivision; thence south to the centerline of Belleview Avenue; thence west 165 feet more or less, to a point, said point being on the extended east lin~ of Delaw7re. Heights Subdivision; thence north to the true p~1nt of beg1nn1ng. -6- This recommendation is made based on the following findings: 1. In order to upgrade the standards and requirements of the two-family, or medium density zone districts, the Englewood City Council, upon the recommendation of a Citizens Com- mittee and the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and after Public Hearings thereon, determined that the needs of the commµnity could best be served by repealing the regulations which were in effect at that time and adopting new regulations. To this end, the R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts were repealed by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975, and a new R-2 Ordinance was enacted. By this action, the land within the City of Englewood which was zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B on the official Zoning Map of the City was rendered unzoned, a state which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.* 2. Because the land formerly zoned R-2-A is now unzoned, it is mandatory to take the legal steps necessary to place that land in a zone classification, which process requires that a Public Hearing be held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 3. The R-2 Zone District, enacted by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975, corresponds with and is similar to the repealed R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts. It permits the same uses under more restrictive regulations, such as but not limited to: increased minimum floor areas have been established for two or more units, useable open space, and landscaping has been required, Planned Development approval is required for the construction of four or more units and utility service to buildings in new developments must be underground. 4. Those areas which were zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B were previously placed in those classifications following Public Hearings thereon and the determination that those were the proper zone classifications, and there have been no changes in those areas which would necessitate those areas being zoned other than R-2 at this time. 5. Being no changes in the areas which are the subject of this Hearing, and determining that the original zoning was proper, it is determined that the R-2, Medium Density District is the proper zoning and offers the highest and best use of the subject land. *§22.1-5 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance -7- Mr. Parker stated that if he understood correctly, the Commission could make no other suggestions or recommendations to Council beyond what the Public Hearings have been concerned with. Mr. Berardini stated this was correct. Mr. Parker discussed the "Caskey" property north of West Belleview Avenue just west of South Cherokee Street, extended; he stated he did not know what this property could be used for; the people to the west of this property do need a buffer between the single-family district and the apartment development east of South Cherokee extended. He stated he would have to vote against the motion as stated which includes this property. ' The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Jorgenson, Martin, Pierson, Smith, Wade, Brown, Jones Parker, Tanguma The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP Areas formerly zoned R-2-B to be considered for R-2 zoning. Wade moved: CASE #30-75 10/21/75 Smith seconded: The matter of Case #30-75 be raised from the Table. AYES: Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown NAYS: None The motion carried. Jones moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described areas formerly zoned R-2-B be designated as R-2, Medium Density District: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and the alley east of Elati Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Delaware Street; thence south to the centerline of Cornell Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Elati Street; thence south to the centerline of Dartmouth Avenue; thence west to the center- line of the alley east of Fox Street; thence south to the centerline of Eastman Avenue; thence west 667 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being on the extended rear lot line of lot 1, block 1, Luna's Subdivision; thence south to the centerline of Floyd Avenue; thence west 324 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the southwest corner of block 2, Frantzmann Folkert's Subdivision, Amended; thence north to the centerline of Eastman Avenue extended; thence cast 263 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 61 feet, more or less, west of and 30 feet north of the northwest -8- corner of block 1, L u na's Subdivi.sion; thence north to the cen- terline of Dartmouth Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Hu r on Street, extended; thence north along said line 534 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 8 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 45, block 1, Taylor's Addition; thence east to the centerline of Galapago Street; thence north to the centerline of Cornell Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Fox Street; thence north to the centerline of Bates Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Elati Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and the alley east of Bannock Street; thence east to the centerline of Acoma Street; thence south to the center- line of Cornell Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of be- ginning. Beginning at a point o~ the centerline of the ~ntersection of Yale Avenue and Lincoln Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the center- line of Amherst Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Sherman Street; thence south to the centerline of Bates Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the centerline of Dart- mouth Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Lincoln Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Dartmouth Avenue and the alley east of Bannock Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Eastman Avenue; thenc"e west to the centerline of the all~y east of Ba nnock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. · Beginning at a point 130 feet, more or less, south of the centerline of the intersection of Hampden Avenue and Emerson Street, said point being 30 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 5, block 3, Higgins South Broadway Heights; thence east to the centerline of Downing Street; thence south to the centerline of the alley south of Hampden Avenue; thence east to the cen- terline of Marion Street; thence north 17 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 38 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of lot 3, Jones Subdivision; thence east to the centerline of the . vacated alley· e as;t of Marion Street; thence south A to the centerline of U.S. 285; th ence southwesterly and westerly ,_, along said centerline to the c ent erline of Emerson Street; thence north to the point of beginning . -9- Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of U.S. 285 and Sherman Street; thence southeasterly along the centerline of Jefferson Drive to the centerline of Logan Street; thence north to the centerline of Little Dry Creek; thence south- easterly along Little Dry Creek to the centerline of Kenyon Ave- nue extended; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence north 330 feet, more or less·, to a point, said point being 8 .feet west of the northwest corner of lot 36, block 2, Wynetka Heights Subdivision; thence east to the center- line of Sherman Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Kenyon Avenue and the alley east of Bannock Street; thence east to the centerline of Acoma Street; thence south to the center- line of Lehigh Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Layton Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Oxford Avenue and the alley east of Broadway; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the centerline of Chenango Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Broadway·; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point 330 feet ~orth · of the centerline of the intersection of Lowell Boulevard and Tufts Avenue, said point being 30 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 1, block 1, Pleasant View, Second Filing; thence east 157.5 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the northeast corner of lot 1, block 1, Pleasant View, Second Filing; thence south to the cen- terline of Tufts Avenue; the east 10 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet north of the northeast corner of lot 1, block 8, Pleasant View, Second Filing; thence south 330 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the south- west corner of lot 4, block 8, Pleasant View, Second Filing; thence west to the centerline of Lowell Boulevard; thence north to the point of beginning. · • This recommendation is made based on the foilowing findings: -10- 1. In order to upgrade the standards and requirements of the two -family, er medium density zone districts 9 the Englewood City Council, upon the recommendation of a Citizens Com- mittee and -the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and after Public Hearings thereon, determined that the needs of the community could best be served by repealing the regulations which were in effect at that time and adopting new regulations. To this end, the R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts were repealed by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975, and a new R-2 Ordinance was enacted. By this action, the land within the City of Englewood which was zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B on the official Zoning Map of the City was rendered unzoned, a state which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.* 2. Because the land formerly zoned R-2-B is now unzoned, it is mandatory to take the legal steps necessary to place that land in a zone classification, which process requires that a Public Hearing be held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 3. The R-2 Zone District, enacted by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975, corresponds with and is similar to the repealed R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts. It permits the same uses under more restrictive regulations, such as but not limited to: increased minimum floor areas have been established for two or more units, useable open space, and landscaping has been required, Planned Development approval is required for the construction of four or more units and utility ser- vice to buildings in new developments must be underground. 4. Those areas which were zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B were previously placed in those classifications following Public Hearings thereon and the determination that those were the proper zone classifications, and there have been no . changes in those areas which would necessitate those areas being zoned other than R-2 at this time. 5. Being no changes in the areas which are the subject of this Hearing, and determining that the original zoning was proper, it is determined that the R-2, Medium Density District is the proper zoning and offers the highest and best use of the subject land. AYES: Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None The motion carried. *§22.1-5 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance • -11- VI. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP Areas previously zoned R-3-A to be considered for R-3 zoning. CASE #31-75 10/22/75 Wade moved: Brown seconded: The Matter of Case #31-75 be raised from the Table. AYES: Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. Wade moved: Jones seconded: The P~anning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described areas formerly zoned R-3-A be designated as R-3, High Density District: Beginning at a point where the centerline of South Lafayette Street intersects the south line of Section 35, T4S, R68W, said south line of Section 35 being the approximate centerline of East Hampden Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of South Lafayette Street to its intersection with the centerline 01· East Floyd Avenue: thence easterly along the centerline of East Floyd Avenue to its intersection with the east line of the SW 1/4~ SE 1 /4, Section 35; thence southerly along said cast line of the SW 1/4, SE 1/4, Section 35 to its intersec- tion with the northerly right-of-way line of U.S. 285, said northerly right-of-way line being also the southerly boundary of the City of Englewood and lying 90 feet more or less north of the south line of Section 35; thence westerly along said norther!~ right-of-way line of U.S. 285 to its intersection with t11e centerline of Section 35; thence southwesterly on the arc of a curve to the left, the chord of which bears south 78 -57' west, the radius of which equals 783 feet, for an arc dis ta nee of 301. 4 feet; thence south· 89 ° 57' 52" wes·t for a distance of 337.5 feet to a point where the north right-of-way line of East Hampden Avenue intersects the east right-of-way line 01· South Lafayette Street; thence southerly along the extended east line of South Lafayette Street to its intersec- t ion with the south line of Section 35; thence westerly along said south line of Section .35 to the point of beginning, except the north 180 feet of the east 1292. 46 feet thereof. Re~: inning at a point 155 feet, more or less, north of:·-.the cen- 1f'l'1 inc ot the in terscr.t ion of Clarkson Street and Girard Avenue, said point being 30 feet west of the northwest corner of Lo~ 21, Block 44, Evanston's Broadway Addition; thence east to the cen- te1·line of the alley east of Clarkson Street; thence south 685 feet, more or less to a point, said point being 8 feet east of the ·southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 45, Evanston's Broadway Addition; thence west to the centerline of Clarkson Street; thence north to point of beginning. -12- \." .\ ~. Beginning at a point 130 feet, more or less, so.uth o~ the center- line of the intersection of Hampden Avenue and the alley east of Logan Street, said point being =B feet,more or less, west of northwest rorner of .lot 46, block 4, Higgins Englewood Gardens; th~nce east to th~ centerline of Emerson Stree~; thence south to the ceriterline of U.S. 285; thence west to the centerline of Clarkson Street: thence south to the centerline of· Little Dry Creek: thence northwesterly along the centerline of Little Dry Cr~ck to the centerline of Logan Street; thence north to the centerline of .U.S. 285; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Logan Street; thence north to the point of be- ginning. A parcel of land lying wholly within the NE 1/4 of Section 15 T.5S., R.68.W. bounded on the north, east and south by the Englewood city limits and on the west by the centerline of Big Dry Creek and the east line of Burt Chevrolet at 5200 South Broadway. Beginning at a point where the extended south line of lot 7, block 1, Centennial Industrial Park intersects the centerline of Decatur Street; thence west 456 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the southwest corner of lot 6, block 1, Centennial Industrial Park; thence north 275 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the northwest corner of lot 6, block 1, Centennial Industrial Park; thence east and northeast- erly along the extended north line of lot 6 to the centerline of Decatur Street; thence east and southeasterly along said centerline to the point of beginning. This recommendation is made based on the following findings: 1. In order to upgrade the standards and requirements of the m~lti-fami~y, or high density zone districts, the Englewood City Council, upon recommendation of a citizens committee and the City Planning and Zoning Commission and after Public Hearings thereon, determined that the needs of the co~unity c~uld best be served by repealing the regulations w~ich were in.effect at that time and adopting new regula- tions. To this end, the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts were repealed by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975 and a new R-3 Ordinance was enacted. By this action the land within the City of Englewood which was zoned elther R-3-A or R-3-B on the official Zoning Map of the City, was rendered unzoned, a state which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.* *§22.1-5, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. I ! e · • -13- 2. Because the land formerly zoned R-3-A is now unzoned, it is mandatory to take 'fhe legal steps necessary to place that land in a zone classification, which process requires that a Public Hearing be held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council. 3. The R-3 Zone District, enacted by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975, corresponds with and is similar to the repealed R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts. It permits the same uses under more restrictive regulations, such as but not limited to: increased minimum floor areas have been established for two or more units, useable open space and landscaping has been required, Planned Development approval is required for the construction of four or more units, and utility service to buildings in new developments must be underground. 4. Those areas which were zoned either R-3-A or R-3-B were previously placed in those classifications following Publi.c Hearings thereon and the determination that those were the proper zone classifications, and there have been no changes in those areas which would necessitate those areas being zoned other than R-3 at this time. 5. Being no changes in the areas which are the subject of this Hearing, and determining that the original zoning was proper, it is determined that the R-3, High Density Residence District is the proper zoning and offers the highest and best use of the subject land. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. VII. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP Areas formerly zoned R-3-B to be considered for R-3 zoning. Jones moved: CASE #32-75 10/22/75 Tanguma seconded: The matter of Case #32-75 be raised from the Table. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jo~genson, Martin, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None The motion carried. -14- Mr. Parker stated that he had viewed every area that has been considered by the Commission in these zone classifications, ~ and that he cannot see any reason for the R-3 designation of ~ Block 6, Interurban Addition; Mr. Parker noted this property is immediately to the west of the K-Mart Store; there is no screening between the B-2 and the formerly zoned R-3-B area. On the west side of the subject Block 6, is a non-conforming ambulance service, which was in existance at the time the area was annexed to the City of Englewood. Mr. Parker reiterated he could see no reason at all for the R-3 zoning on this particular parcel, and that he felt a B-2 or possibly a B-l zoning would be warranted. Mr. Parker then discussed the 3500 block on South Cherokee, and noted that persons have applied for a change of zoning to B-1, Business for that particular block. He stated he would suppose these people who are interested in the rezoning of their property would have to repost their properties for Public Hearing, which might or might not be completed this year. Mr. Berardini stated that the Commission might well be able to hear the rezoning requests this year, but that the recommendations should probably go to the City Council in January, inasmuch as the present City Council would not have adequate time to complete the posting and publica- tion processes and hold the Hearing before their terms expire. Mr. Brown noted that the matter of rezoning on Mr. Maples' property, Block 6, Interurban Addition, has been considered previously; there was considerable opposition from the home- owners in the area to the request for commercial zoning on this site. Mr. Brown stated that he felt the reason more persons seem to be in favor of the R-3 designation, is they feel they will have more protection under the R-3 regulations than were available to them under the R-3-B regulations. Mr. Brown stated he did not feel that the homeowners would want the protection available to them changed. He stated that he feels the areas formerly zoned R-3-B should be designated R-3, and also noted that persons unhappy with such a recommendation would have an opportunity to speak at the City Council Hearing. Mr. Parker stated he brought the matter up because it is his . understanding the Off ice has previously been approached for business zoning on the property referred to earlier as the "Caskey" property, and it seems there will be other applications for commercial zoning. Mr. Jones stated that at this time, the matter before the Commission is whether or not to recommend to City Council the areas previously zoned R-3-B be zoned R-3. Any future changes of zoning would have to be by separate application. • -15- Jones moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described areas formerly zoned R-3-B be designated as R-3, High Density District: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Cornell Avenue and Bannock Street; thence east to the center- line of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Dart- mouth Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Dartmouth Avenue and the alley east of Broadway; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the centerline of Eastman Avenue; thence west to the center- line of the alley east of Broadway; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Eastman Avenue and _the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Grant Street; thence south to the .centerline of Girard Avenue; thence east to the centerline of Pearl Street; thence north to the centerline of Floyd Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Clarkson Street; thence south 530 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 8 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 21, block 44, Evanston Broadway Addition; thence west to the centerline of Clarkson Street; thence south to the centerline of Hampden Ave- nue; thence west to the centerline of Pennsylvania Street; thence north 135 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 29, block 5, West View Addi- tion; thence west to the centerline of Logan Street; thence north 50 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 31, Block 8, Premier Addition; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Sherman Street; thence north to the centerline of Floyd Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence north to the point of beginning . -16- Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Girard Avenue and the alley east of Clarkson Street; thence east to the centerline of Lafayette Street; thence south 530 feet, more or less, to.a point, said point being 30 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 29, block 50, Evanston Broadway Addition; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Clarkson Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point 430 feet, more or less, south of the north- west corner of the SE 1/4, Section 35, T.4.S. R.68.W.; thence east to the centerline of University Boulevard; thence south to the centerline of U.S. 285; thence west to the southwest corner of the SE 1/4, Section 35; thence north to the point of 0 beginning. ~ Beginning at a point 180 feet south of the centerline of the intersection of Hampden Avenue and the alley east of Elati Street, said point being 8 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 7, block 1, Englewood Subdivision; thence east to the center- line of Bannock Street; thence north to the centerline of U.S. 285; thence along said centerline to the centerline of the vacated alley east of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of City Ditch; thence northwesterly along the centerline of City Ditch to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence south to the centerline of Jefferson Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Lehigh Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Acoma Street; thence north to the centerline of Kenyon Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Galapago Street; thence north to the centerline of Jefferson Avenue; thence east to the centerline of Elati Street; thence north to the centerline of Ithaca Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Elati Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the inte~section of Broadway and Jefferson Avenue; thence east to the centerline of Sherman Street; thence south 200 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 36, block 2, Higgins .Broadway Addition; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the center- line of Kenyon Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Broadway; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point 380 feet, more or les~, north ot the center- line of the intersection of Oxford Avenue and Bannock Street, said point being 30 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 11, • Block 15, Jackson's Broadway Heights; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence south 660 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 8 feet east of the northeast corner of lot 10, block 18, Jackson's Broadway Heights; thence west to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. ... -17- Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Layton Avenue and Bannock Street; thence east to the centerline of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Chenango Ave- nue; thence west to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline Qf the intersection of Acoma Street and Grand Avenue; thence south to the centerline of Belleview Avenue; thence west 670 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet south of the southwest corner of lot 9, Carmel Park Subdivision; thence north to the centerline of Grand Avenue; thence east to the point of beginning. ~eginning_at a point 989 feet west of the centerline of the int~rsection of Broadway and Belleview Avenue, said point being 3? f~et north of the northeast corner of lot 6, Interurban Addi- tion, thence south to the center l ine of Lehow Avenue, thence nort~easter~y along said centerline 270 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 39 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of lot 2, Rafferty Gardens Subdivision· thence south along the east line of said lot 2 a distance of 2o9 feet more or less, thence ~ast 50 feet; then~e south 5 feet; thence ' cast 130 -feet to a point on the east line of lot 1 Rafferty Gardens Subdivision; thence south to the centerlin~ of Big Dry Creek; thence northwesterly along Big Dry Creek to a point 25~ fee~, mor~ or less, north of the centerline of Lehow Avenue, said point being the southeast corner of Miramonte Subdivision· thence alon~ the south line of said subdivision to the southea~t co:ner of_s:gnal Hill Addition; thence along the south line of s~id subd1v1sion to the southwest corner of Signal Hill Addi- tion; thence north to the centerline of Belleview Avenue· thence east to the point of beginning. ' This recommendation is made based on the following findings: 1. In order to upgrade the standards and requirements of the multi-family, or high density zone districts, the EnglewooG City Council, upon the recommendation of a citizens committee and the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and after Public Hearings thereon, determined that the needs of the community could best be served by repealing the regulations which were in effect at that time and adopting new regulations. To this end, the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts were repealed by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975, anq a new R-3 Ordinance was enacted. By this action, the land within the City of Englewood which was zoned either R-3-A or R-3-B on the official Zoning Map of the City, was rendered unzoned, a state which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.* t§22.1-5 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance -18- 2. Because the land formerly zoned R-3-B ·is now unzoned, it is mandatory to take the legal steps necessary to place that land in a zone classification, which process requires that a Public Hearing be held before the City Planning and Zoning .Commission and the City Council. 3. The R-3 Zone District, enacted by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975, corresponds with and is similar to the repealed R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts. It permits the same uses under more restrictive regulations, such as but not limited to: increased minimum floor areas have been established for two or more units, useable open space and landscaping has been required, Planned Development approval is required for the construction of four or more units, and utility service to building in new developments must be underground. 4. Those areas which were zoned either R-3-A or R-3-B were previously placed in those classifications following Public Hearings thereon and the determination that those were the proper zone classifications, and there have been no changes in those areas which would necessitate those areas being zoned other than R-3 at this time. 5. Being no changes in the areas which are the subject of this Hearing, and determining that the original zoning was proper, it is determined that the R-3, High Density Residence District is the proper zoning and offers the highest and best use of the subject land. AYES: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin NAYS: Parker The motion carried. VIII. REZONING REQUEST R-1-A to B-1 3001 W. Bellewood Dr. Pierson moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. CASE #33-75 AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. Martin asked Mrs. Romans to review the request. • • -19- Mrs. Romans stated that the property has been posted for the required 15 day period, and legal notice of the Hearing did appear in the official City newspaper, the Englewood Herald Sentinel. The property included in the request is one lot on the northwest corner of West Bellewood Drive and South Federal Boulevard; the application was submitted by Mrs. Tina Warden, owner of the subject property at 3001 West Bellewood Drive. The request is for a change of zone classification from R-1-A, Single-family Residence, to B-1, Business. Mrs. Romans noted that the legal description of the area included in the request includes right-of-way to the centerline of West Bellewood Drive and to the centerline of South Federal Boulevard. Mrs. Romans stated that this particular area was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1962, and was platted in 1956 while still under the jurisdiction of Arapahoe County; development of the area took place between 1956 and 1962. At the time the area was annexed to the City of Englewood, all of the property was automatically zoned R-1-A; if it was determined that the R-1-A designation was not proper, the property was rezoned at a later date. Mrs. Romans stated that the area, when annexed, was developed with single-family homes with the exception of the west side of the 5000 block of South Federal Boulevard, which was developed with commercial uses, and which was sub- sequently zoned as B-2, as outlined above. There have been no other changes in the area since that time. Mrs. Romans stated there is a single-family residence on the property at the present time; Mrs. Warden has stated she wants to use her property for a retail commercial use. Mrs. Romans stated that the B-1 Zone District, which is requested, does not permit drive-in type operations; however, there are 107 permitted uses listed in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. At the time Mrs. Warden filed her application, a petition with 57 signatures of persons living in the immediate area was presented; there were also signatures of seven persons who do not live in the immediate area. All these persons indicated they were in favor of the rezoning request on Mrs. Wardenvs property. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has studied the requested rezoning; there are certain criteria set forth which must be met to warrant a rezoning, which include evidence that the property cannot be used under the existing zoning, establishment that the present zoning was improper at the time it was enacted, substantiation of changes that have occurred in the area to warrant the change in zoning, demand and need for enlarging the requested zone classification, and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The staff has been unable to find that any of these criteria have been met in this application, and recommend that the rezoning request be denied~ -20- Mrs. Tina Warden 3001 West Bellewood Drive -stated she would like to thank her neighbors and friends who signed her petition, and also expressed her appreciation to the Com- mission for their time. Mrs. Warden expressed thanks and appreciation to Mrs. Romans for her aid to Mrs. Warden in preparing her rezoning request. Mrs. Warden stated she did not feel the rezoning request would cause any trouble for any of the neighbors; she stated that she would not live on the premises if the rezoning were granted, but would convert the residence into a wig shop, and rent living quarters elsewhere. Mrs. Warden stated that with the price of land, she cannot afford to purchase land that is already zoned for business for her wig shop, and for her to make a living, she must have her home rezoned to accommodate the commercial use. Mrs. Warden reiterated she could see nothing wrong with having a business at this location; she noted with a wig shop, the ladies drop the wigs off to be cleaned and set, and pick them up when they are ready; therefore, there would be no problem with parking for this particular use. Mrs. Warden stated that her property is a corner lot, and there is a great deal of traffic on that particular corner at the present time; across the street to the south and east, there are business operations, some of which do not have enough parking, and they park in front of her residence. Mrs. Warden stated that she is alone, and does not have any help; her people are in Greece, and she does not have any help from relatives or friends here. She stated that she did not want to go on welfare; she has worked in a wig shop for $2 per hour, and could not make a living and pay her bills working for someone else. To make a living for herself, she will have to do something on her own; she noted that she suffered injuries in an accident some time ago, and cannot stand for long periods of time. Mrs. Warden stated she is attending beauty school, and hopes to obtain her license very shortly. Mrs. Warden stated that she is not employed at the present time, and has had to borrow money to pay her bills. Mr. Martin asked if there were anyone else who wished to ·speak? Mrs. Lola Braughton 3773 South Grove -stated that she lives in Englewood, and would like to see Mrs. Warden's rezoning request approved ; she stated that "Mrs. Warden is a fine person." Mrs. Virginia Adams 5057 South Hawthorne -stated that she did not see how the re- zoning could damage the neighborhood; ther~ isn't a lo t of traffic in and out of this type of business, and she didn't think it could cause any trouble to any of the neighbors. She stated that persons should be given the chance to earn their own living. Mrs. Carol Purdee 3702 South Old Mill Road -stated that Mrs. Warden "deserves a chance to do her best." • -21- Mr. Martin as~ed if there was anyone present who wished to speak in opposition to the request? No one spoke in opposition. Smith moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Wade asked when Mrs. Warden purchased her home? Mrs. Warden stated that it was purchased in April, 1972. Mr. Parker asked if the neighbors immediately to the west and north of Mrs. Warden's property had signed the petition? Mrs. Warden stated they had signed; there was only one objection voiced to her, and this was from an elderly lady. Mr. Jones questioned the validity of amending the Comprehensive Zoning Map when the request involves only one parcel; he noted that an opinion had been given by former City Attorney Criswell in 1968, and asked if City Attorney Berardini concurred with this opinion? Mr. Berardini stated that he does concur with Mr. Criswell's opinion of 1968, and that recent cases in the Colorado Supreme Court would seem to support this opinion. Mr. Berardini stated this particular request is basically for the economic advantage of one individual. Even though there is business zoning to the south of this property, the Compre- hensive Plan did not envision expanding the business zoning to the north of Bellewood Drive . There has been no change in the principle of the law, and he therefore concurs with Mr. Criswell's opinion. Mr. Tanguma asked if the zoning would run with the land, or with the individual? Mr. Berardini stated that the zoning goes with the land. Mr. Brown stated that he felt Mrs . Warden is to be commended for her desire to earn her own living, and that if the decision was based on personal need alone, he felt sure the Commission would recommend her rezoning request. However, there are criteria that must be met, and the Commission must try to recommend what is best not only for the applicant, but for the City as a whole. Mrs. Pierson asked if the property was in joint tenancy, or in Mrs. Warden's name alone? Mrs. Warden stated that the property is in her name alone. Mrs. Pierson stated that she is in sympathy with Mrs. Warden's request, and asked if there is any manner in which the zoning could be granted to an individual and the zoning would become null and void when that individual leaves the premises occupied when the rezoning was granted? Mr. Berardini stated he knew of no way the zoning could be approved on that basis. Mr. Berardini stated that the Com- -22- mission is required to look at the standards for rezoning of the property itself, devoid of any personal aspects. Mr. Berardini reiterated he knew of no way that "contractual" zoning could be approved. Discussion followed. Mr. Jones stated that he felt the request, if granted, would be contrary to the validity of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance. Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning request filed by Mrs. Tina Warden, for property at 3001 West Bellewood Drive, for a change of zoning from R-1-A, Single-family Residence, to B-1, Business, be denied for the following reasons: 1. No evidence has been presented that the property cannot be used under the existing zoning. 2. It has not been established that the present zoning was improper at the time it was enacted. 3. No changes have occurred in the area which would warrent the change of zoning. 4. No evidence is available to demonstrate that there is a demand and need for enlarging the existing commercial zone classification. 5. The Comprehensive Plan does not project an expansion of the commercial zoning north of West Bellewood Drive on the west side of South Federal Boulevard. AYES: Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Romans noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provides that an applicant who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission does have the option to appeal the decision to the City Council; City Council must then review the recommendation and report of the Planning Com- mission and may or may not hold a Public Hearing on the matter . IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council has invited members of the Commission to meet with the Council and representatives of RTD on the evening of November 24th. -23- X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE There was nothing discussed under Commission's Choice. It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried; meeting declared adjourned at 8:20 p.m. -d'r~Mltt~£v Recording Secretary -24- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: Novemb~r 11, 1975 SUBJECT: Denial of Zone Classification Recommendation: Pierson moved: Brown seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the R-1-C, Single-Family Residence, Zone classification requested for the following described property be denied: Beginning at a point on the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue at its intersection with the centerline of the Broadway/Lincoln alley; thence east along the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue to the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley; thence south along the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley to its intersection with the centerline of East Oxford Avenue; thence west along the centerline of East Oxford Avenue to the centerline of the Broadway/Lincoln alley; thence north along said centerline to the point of beginning. AYES: NAYS: Pierson, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson Parker, Smith, Tanguma, Martin The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. J/u/4!0 JI ~ Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secretary e . --- '' • -25- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: November 11, 1975 SUBJECT: Recommendation of R-2 Medium Density Zoning for Areas Previously Zoned R-2-A. RECOMMENDATION: Jorgenson moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the following described parcels formerly zoned R-2-A, Two-family Residence, be zoned R-2, Medium Density District. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and the alley east of Delaware Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence south to the centerline of Cornell Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence south to the centerline of Dartmouth Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence south along the extended center- line of said alley 1234 feet, more or less, to a point; said point being the southeast corner of 3270 South Bannock Street; thence west 163 ft. more or less, to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence south 91 feet more or less, to a point, said point being on the extended south line of lot 14, Abbott's Subdivision, Second Filing; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Cherokee Street; thence north to the centerline of Eastman Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Fox Street; thence north to the centerline of Dartmouth Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Elati Street; thence north to the centerline of Cornell Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Delaware Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Sherman Street; thence south to the centerline of Amherst Avenue; thence we~t to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence north to the point o~ beginning. Beginning at ~ point on the centerline of the intersection of Bates Avenue and the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Sherman Street; thence south to the centerline of Eastman Avenue;· thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence north to the point of beginning. -26- Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Grand Avenue and .Delaware Street; thence east 144 feet, more or less, to the ,true point of beginning; thence east 165 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being on the extended west line of Carmel Park Subdivision; thence south to the centerline of Bellev i ew Avenue ; thence west 165 feet more or less, to a point, sa i d point being on the extended east line of Delaware Heights Subdivision; thence north to the true point of beginning. This recommendation is made based on the following findings: 1. In order to upgrade the standards and requirements of the two-family, or medium density zone districts, the Englewood City Council, upon the recommendation of a Citizens Com- mittee and the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and after Public Hearings thereon, determined that the needs of the commµnity could best be served by repealing the regulations which were in effect at that time and adopting new regulations. To this end, the R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts were repealed by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975, and a new R-2 Ordinance was enacted. By this action, the land within the City of Englewood which was zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B on the official Zoning Map of the City was rendered unzoned, a state which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.* 2. Because the land formerly zoned R-2-A is now unzoned, it is mandatory to take the legal steps necessary to place that land in a zone classification, which process requires that a Public Hearing be held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 3. The R-2 Zone District, enacted by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975, corresponds with and is similar to the repealed R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts. It permits the same uses under more restrictive regulations, such as but not limited to: increased minimum floor areas have been established for two or more units , useable open space, and landscaping has been required, Planned Development approval is required for the construction of four or more units and utility service to buildings in new developments must be underground. 4 . Those areas which were zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B were previously placed in those classifications following Public Hearings thereon and the determination that those were the proper zone classifications, and there have been no changes in those areas which would necessitate those areas being zoned other than R-2 at this time. *§22.1-5 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance • -27- 5. Being no changes in the areas which are the subject of this Hearing, and determining that the original zoning was proper, it is determined that the R-2, Medium Density District is the proper zoning and offers the highest and best use of the subject land. AYES: NAYS: Jorgenson, Martin, Pierson, Smith, Wade, Brown, Jones Parker, Tanguma The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary -28- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: November 11, 1975 SUBJECT: Recommendation of R-2 Medium Density Zoning for Areas Previously Zoned R-2-B. RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described areas formerly zoned R-2-B be designated as R-2, Medium Density District: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and the alley east of Elati Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Delaware Street; thence south to the centerline of Cornell Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Elati Street; thence south to the centerline of Dartmouth Avenue; thence west to the center- line of the alley east of Fox Street; thence south to the centerline of Eastman Avenue; thence west 667 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being on the extended rear lot line of lot 1, block 1, Luna's Subdivision; thence south to the centerline of Floyd Avenue; thence west 324 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the southwest corner of block 2, Frantzmann Folkert's Subdivision, Amended; thence north to the centerline of Eastman Avenue extended; thence east 263 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 61 feet, more or less, west of and 30 feet north of the northwest corner of block 1, Luna's Subdivision; thence north to the cen- terline of Dartmouth Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Huron Street, extended; thence north along said line 534 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 8 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 45, block 1, Taylor's Addition; thence east to the centerline of Galapago Street; thence north to the centerline of Cornell Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Fox Street; thence north to the centerline of Bates Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Elati Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and the alley east of Bannock Street; thence east to the centerline of Acoma Street; thence south to the center- line of Cornell Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of be- ginning. -29- Beginning at a point o~ the centerline of the intersection of Yale Avenue and Lincoln Street; thence east to . the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the center- line of Amherst Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Sherman Street; thence south to the centerline of Bates Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the centerline of Dart- mouth Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Lincoln Street; thence north to the point of ·beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Dartmouth Avenue and the alley east of Bannock Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerl·ine of Eastman Avenue; thenc"e west to the centerline of the all0y east of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point 130 feet, more or less, south of the centerline of the intersection of Hampden Avenue and Emerson Street, said point being 30 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 5, block 3, Higgins South Broadway Heights; thence east to the centerline of Downing Street; thence south to the centerline of the alley south of Hampden Avenue; thence east to the cen- terline of Marion Street; thence north 17 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 38 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of lot 3, Jones Subdivision; thence east to the centerline of the .vacated alley ea@t of Marion Street; thence south to the centerline of U.S. 285; thence southwesterly and westerly along said centerline to the centerline of Emerson Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of U.S. 285 and Sherman .Street; thence southeasterly along the centerline of Jefferson Drive to the centerline of Logan Street; thence north to the centerline of Little Dry Creek; thence south- easterly along Little Dry Creek to the centerline of Kenyon Ave- nue extended; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence north 330 feet, more or less·, to a point, said point being 8 _feet west of the northwest corner of lot 36, block 2, Wynetka Heights Subdivision; thence east to the center- line of Sherman Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Kenyon Avenue and the alley east of Bannock Street; thence east to the centerline of Acoma Street; thence south· to the center- line of Lehigh Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Layton Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. -30- Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Oxford Avenue and the alley east of Broadway; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the centerline of Chenango Avenue; thence west to the centerline o~ the alley east of Broadway; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point 330 feet north· of the centerline of the intersection of Lowell Boulevard and Tufts Avenue, said point being 30 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 1, block 1, Pleasant View, Second Filing; thence east 157.5 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the northeast corner of lot 1, block 1, Pleasant View, Second Filing; thence south to the cen- terline of Tufts Avenue; the east 10 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet north of the northeast corner of lot 1, block 8, Pleasant View, Second Filing; thence south 330 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the south- west corner of lot 4, block 8, Pleasant View, Second Filing; thence west to the centerline of Lowell Boulevard; thence north to the point of beginning. · • This recommendation is made based on the foilowing findings: 1. In order to upgrade the standards and requirements of the two family, or medium density zone 0i~tricts, the Englewood City Council, upon the recommendation of a Citizens Com~ mittee and the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and after Public Hearings thereon, determined that the needs of the community could best be served by repealing the regulations which were in effect at that time and adopting new regulations. To this end, the R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts were repealed by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975, and a new R-2 Ordinance was enacted. By this action, the land within the City of Englewood which was zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B on the official Zoning Map of the City was rendered unzoned, a state which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.* 2. Because the land formerly zoned R-2-B is now unzoned, it is mandatory to take the legal steps necessary to place that land in a zone classification, which process requires that a Public Hearing be held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. *§22,1-5 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance -31- 3. The R-2 Z~ne District, enacted by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975, corresponds with and is similar to the repealed R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts. It permits the same uses under more restrictive regulations, such as but not limited to: increased minimum floor areas have been established for two or more units, useable open space, and landscaping has been required, Planned Development approval is required for the construction of four or more units and utility ser- vice to buildings in new developments must be underground. 4. Those areas which were zoned either R-2-A or R-2-B were previously placed in those classifications following Public Hearings thereon and the determination that those were the proper zone classifications, and there have been no changes in those areas which would necessitate those areas being zoned other than R-2 at this time. 5. Being no changes in the areas which are the subject of this Hearing, and determining that the original zoning was proper, it is determined that the R-2, Medium Density District is the proper zoning and offers the highest and best use of the subject land. AYES: Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ';-f~/ · ... ?~· £ :fl~·~ Gerfrude G. WeITy ' Recording Secretary -32- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: November 11, 1975 SUBJECT: Recommendation of R-3 High Density Zoning for Areas Previously Zoned R-3-A RECOMMENDATION: Wade moved: Jones seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described areas formerly zoned R-3-A be designated as R-3, High Density District: Beginning at a point where the centerline of South Lafayette Street intersects the south line of Section 35, T4S, R68W, said south line of Section 35 being the approximate centerline of East Hampden Avenue; tl1ence northerly along the centerline of South Lafayette Street to its intersection with the centerline ot· East Floyd Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of East Floyd Avenue to its intersection with the east line of the SW 1/4, SE 1 /4, Section 35; thence southerly along said cast line of the SW 1/4, SE 1/4, Section 35 to its intersec- tion with the northerly right-of-way line of U.S. 285, said northerly right-of-way line being also the southerly boundary of the City of Englewood and lying 90 feet more or less north of the south line of Section 35; thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line of U.S. 285 to its intersection with the centerline of Section 35; thence southwesterly on the arc of a curve to the left, the chord of which bears south 78 -57' west, the radius of which equals 783 feet, for an arc distance of 301. 4 tee t; thence sou th· 89 ° 57' 52" west for a distance of 337.5 feet to a point where the north right-of-way line of East Hampden Avenue intersects the east right-of-way line of South Lafayette Street; thence southerly along the extended east line of South Lafayette Street to its intersec- tion with the south line of Section 35; thence westerly along said south line of Section 35 to the point of beginning, except the north 180 feet of the east 1292.46 feet thereof. Beginning at a point 155 feet, more or less, north of ~the cen- terline of the intersection of Clarkson Street and Gir~rd Avenue, said point being 30 feet west of the northwest corner of Lot 21, Block 44, Evanston's Broadway Addition; thence east to the cen- te1·line of the alley east of Clarkson Street; thence south 685 feet, more or less to a point, said point being 8 feet east of the ·southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 45, Evanston's Broadway Addition; thence west to the centerline of Clarkson Street; thence north to point of beginning. · '.:.,. -~·· ' • • -33- ··~·~ Beginning at a point 130 feet, more-or less, so.uth o~ the center- line of the intersection of Ha~pden Avenue and the alley east of Logan Street, said point being ·s feet,more or less, west of northwest corner of lot 4o, block 4, Higgins Englewood Gardens; th~nce east to the centerline of Emerson Street; thence south to the ceriterline of U.S. 285; thence west to the centerline of Clarkson Street: thence south to the centerline of· Little Dry Creek: thence northwesterly along the centerline of Little Dry Creek to the centerline of Logan Street; thence north to the center! ine of .U.S. 285; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Logan Street; thence north to the point of be- ginning. A parcel of land lying wholly within the NE 1/4 of Section 15 T.5S., R.68.W. bounded on the north, east and south by the Englewood city limits and on the west by the centerline of Big Dry Creek and the east line of Burt Chevrolet at 5200 South Broadway. Beginning at a point where the extended south line of lot 7, block 1, Centennial Industrial Park intersects the centerline of Decatur Street; thence west 456 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the southwest corner of lot 6, block 1, Centennial Industrial Park; thence north 275 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the northwest corner of lot 6, block 1, Centennial Industrial Park; thence east and northeast- erly along the extended north line of lot 6 to the centerline of Decatur Street; thence east and southeasterly along said centerline to the point of beginning. This recommendation is made based on the following findings: 1. In order to upgrade the standards and requirements of the multi-family, or high density zone districts, the Englewood City Council, upon recommendation of a citizens committee and the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and after Public Hearings thereon, determined that the needs of the community could best be served by repealing the regulations which were in effect at that time and adopting new regula- tions. To this end, the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts were repealed by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975, and a new R-3 Ordinance was enactedo By this action, the land within the City of Englewood which was zoned either R-3-A or R-3-B on the official Zoning Map of the City, was rendered unzoned, a state which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.* *§22.1-5, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. -34- 2. Because the land formerly zoned R-3-A is now unzoned, it is mandatory to take 1he legal steps necessary to place that land in a zone classification, which process requires that a Public Hearing be held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council. 3. The R-3 Zone District, enacted by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975, corresponds with and is similar to the repealed R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts. It permits the same uses under more restrictive regulations, such as but not limited to: increased minimum floor areas have been established for two or more units, useable open space and landscaping has been required, Planned Development approval is required for the construction of four or more units, and utility service to buildings in new developments must be underground. 4. Those areas which were zoned either R-3-A or R-3-B were previously placed in those classifications following Public Hearings thereon and the determination that those were the proper zone classifications, and there have been no changes in those areas which would necessitate those areas being zoned other than R-3 at this time. 5. Being no changes in the areas which are the subject of this Hearing, and determining that the original zoning was proper, it is determined that the R-3, High Density Residence District is the proper zoning and offers the highest and best use of the subject land. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission ertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • • .. -35- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: November 11, 1975 SUBJECT: Recommendation of R-3 High Density Zoning for Areas Previously Zoned R-3-B RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described areas formerly zoned R-3-B be designated as R-3, High Density District: Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Cornell Avenue and Bannock Street; thence east to the center- line of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Dart- mouth Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Dartmouth Avenue and the alley east of Broadway; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the centerline of Eastman Avenue; thence west to the center- line of the alley east of Broadway; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Eastman Avenue and _the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Grant Street; thence south to the centerline of Girard Avenue; thence east to the centerline of Pearl Street; thence north to the centerline of Floyd Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Clarkson Street; thence south 530 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 8 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 21, block 44, Evanston Broadway Addition; thence west to the centerline of Clarkson Street; thence south to the centerline of Hampden Ave- nue; thence west to the centerline of Pennsylvania Street; thence north 135 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 29, block 5, West View Addi- tion; thence west to the centerline of Logan Street; thence north 50 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 31, Block 8, Pr~mier Addition; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Sherman Street; thence north to the centerline of Floyd Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thenc·e north • to the point of beginning. -36- Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Girard Avenue and the alley east of Clarkson Street; thence east to the centerline of Lafayette Street; thence south 530 feet, more or less, to :a point, said point being 30 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 29, block 50, Evanston Broadway Addition; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Clarkson Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point 430 feet, more or less, south of the north- west corner of the SE 1/4, Section 35, T.4.S. R.68.W.; thence east to the centerline of University Boulevard; thence south to the centerline of U.S. 285; thence west to the southwest corner of the SE 1/4, Section 35; thence north to the point of 0 beginning. ~ Beginning at a point 180 feet south of the centerline of the intersection of Hampden Avenue and the alley east of Elati Street, said point being 8 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 7, block 1, Englewood Subdivision; thence east to the center- line of Bannock Street; thence north to the centerline of U.S. 285; thence along said centerline to the centerline of the vacated alley east of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of City Ditch; thence northwesterly along the centerline of City .. Ditch to the centerline of the alley east of Bannock Street; ~ thence south to the centerline of Jefferson Avenue; thence east ~ to the centerline of the alley east of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Lehigh Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Acoma Street; thence north to the centerline of Kenyon Avenue; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Galapago Street; thence north to the centerline of Jefferson Avenue; thence east to the centerline of Elati Street; thence north to the centerline of Ithaca Avenue; thence east to the centerline of the alley east of Elati Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Broadway and Jefferson Avenue; thence east to the centerline of Sherman Street; thence south 200 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 36, block 2, Higgins .Broadway Addition; thence west to the centerline of the alley east of Lincoln Street; thence south to the center- line of Kenyon Avenue; thence west to the centerline of Broadway; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point 380 feet, more or less, north o~ the center- line of the intersection of Oxford Avenue and Bannock Street, said point being 30 feet west of the northwest corner of lot 11, Block 15, Jackson's Broadway Heights; thence east to the centerline • of the alley east of Bannock Street; thence south 660 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 8 feet east of the northeast corner of lot 10, block 18, Jackson's Broadway Heights; thence west to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. • -37- Beginning at a point on the centerline of the intersection of Layton Avenue and Bannock Street; thence east to the centerline of Acoma Street; thence south to the centerline of Chenango Ave- nue; thence west to the centerline of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point on the centerline Qf the intersection of Acoma Street and Grand Avenue; thence south to the centerline of Belleview Avenue; thence west 670 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 30 feet south of the southwest corner of lot 9, Carmel Park Subdivision; thence north to the centerline of Grand Avenue; thence east to the point of beginning • • ~eginning_at a point 989 feet west of the centerline of the 1ntersection of Broadway and Belleview Avenue, said point being 3? feet north of the northeast corner of lot 6, Interurban Addi- t1on; thence south to the centerline of Lebow Avenue thence nort~easter~y al~ng sa~d centerline 270 feet, more o; less, to a point, said point being 39 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of lot 2, Rafferty Gardens Subdivision· thence south along the east line of said lot 2 a distance of 2o9 feet more or less, thence east 50 feet; then~e south 5 feet; thence ' cast 130 feet to a point on the east line of lot 1 Rafferty Gardens Subdivision; thence south to the centerlin; of Big Dry Creek; thence northwesterly along Big Dry Creek to a point 25~ fee~, mor~ or less, north of the centerline of Lebow Avenue, said point being the southeast corner of Miramonte Subdivision· thence alon~ the south line of said subdivision to the southea~t co~ner of.S~g~al Hill Addition; thence along the south line of s~id subd1v1s1on to the southwest corner of Signal Hill Addi- tion; thence north to the centerline of Belleview Avenue· thence east to the point of beginning. ' This recommendation is made based on the following findings: 1. In order to upgrade the standards and requirements of the multi-family, or high density zone districts, the Englewooct City Council, upon the recommendation of a citizens committee and the City Planning and Zoning Commission, and after Public Hearings thereon, determined that the needs of the community could best be served by repealing the regulations which were in effect at that time and adopting new regulations. To this end, the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts were repealed by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975, and a new R-3 Ordinance was enacted. By this action, the land within the City of Englewood which was zoned either R-3-A or R-3-B on the official Zoning Map of the City, was rendered unzoned, a state which is contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.* t§22.1-5 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance -38- 2. Because the land formerly zoned R-3-B is now unzoned, it is mandatory to take the legal steps necessary to place that land in a zone classification, which process requires that a Public Hearing be held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 3. The R-3 Zone District, enacted by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975, corresponds with and is similar to the repealed R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts. It permits the same uses under more restrictive regulations, such as but not limited to: increased minimum floor areas have been established for two or more units, useable open space and landscaping has been required, Planned Development approval is required for the construction of four or more units, and utility service to building in new developments must be underground. 4. Those areas which were zoned either R-3-A or R-3-B were previously placed in those classifications following Public Hearings thereon and the determination that those were the proper zone classifications, and there have been no changes in those areas which would necessitate those areas being zoned other than R-3 at this time. 5. Being no changes in the areas which are the subject of this Hearing, and determining that the original zoning was proper, it is determined that the R-3, High Density Residence District is the proper zoning and offers the highest and best use of the subject land. AYES: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin NAYS: Parker The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • • • -39- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • DATE: November 11, 1975 SUBJECT: Denial of Rezoning Request RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning request filed by Mrs. Tina Warden, for property at 3001 West Bellewood Drive, for a change of zoning from R-1-A, Single-Family Residence, to B-1, Business, be denied for the following reasons: 1. No evidence has been presented that the property cannot be used under the existing zoning. 2. It has not been established that the present zoning was improper at the time it was enacted. 3. No changes have occurred in the area which would warrent the change of zoning. 4. No evidence is available to demonstrate that there is a demand and need for enlarging the existing commercial zone classification. 5. The Comprehensive Plan does not project an expansion of the commercial zoning north of West Bellewood Drive on the west side of South Federal Boulevard. AYES: Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones NAYS: None The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission .