Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-25 PZC MINUTES• I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 25, 1975 CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Tanguma, at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Jones Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Martin, Wade, Brown Also present: Associate Planner House Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Tanguma stated that Minutes of November 11, 1975, were to be considered for approval. Mr. Parker questioned the following statement on Page 22, in relation to the reasons Mrs. Warden's rezoning request was denied: "No evidence has been presented that the property cannot be used under the existing zoning." Discussion followed. Parker moved: Smith seconded: The Minutes of November 11, 1975, be approved as written. AYES: Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Wade, Brown, Martin The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT. Mr. Tanguma stated that the first item to be considered is the "Findings of Fact" pertaining to the denial of the R-1-C zoning for the area bounded by East Kenyon Avenue, the Sherman/Grant alley, East Oxford Avenue, and the Broadway/Lincoln alley. Mr. Parker asked the purpose of the Findings of Fact, inasmuch as a recommendation to City Council has already been made on these matters? Assistant City Attorney DeWitt stated that the Findings of Fact are "solidifying the reasons for your recommendation." Mr. DeWitt stated this is a · formal procedure, and will give the City Council some idea of the basis for the recommendation. Mrs. Wade entered the meeting and took her place with the Commission. -2- Mr. Parker stated that he would have to vote against approval of the Findings of Fact for the same reasons he voted against • the denial of the R-1-C Zone District. Mr. Parker stated he strongly disagreed with the statement that: "The owners in the area would not be sufficiently protected, nor the property values stabilized, nor the welfare of the neighborhood continued if this were zoned R-1-C." Jones moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Conunission approve the Findings of Fact on Case #28-75, the rezoning of an area from R-2-A to R-1-C, and refer the Findings to the City Council. Mr. Tanguma is authorized to sign this document as the Vice-Chairman of the Conunission. AYES: Tanguma, Jones, Jorgenson, Pierson NAYS: Parker, Smith ABSTAIN: Wade ABSENT: Brown, Martin The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma stated that the next items to be considered are the Findings of Fact for Cases #29-75, #30-75, #31-75, and #32-75. Mr. Brown entered and took his place with the Conunission. Mr. Parker stated that he would have to vote no on approval of the Findings of Fact for the same reasons he opposed the designation of areas previously zoned R-2-A to R-2, and R-3-B to R-3. Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact for Case #29-75, the rezoning of areas from R-2-A to R-2; for Case #30-75, the rezoning of areas from R-2-B to R-2; for Case #31-75, the rezoning of areas from R-3-A to R-3, and for Case #32-75, the rezoning of areas from R-3-B to R-3, and that the Findings of Fact be referred to City Council. Mr. Tanguma is authorized to sign these documents as Vice-Chairman of the Conunission. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Pierson NAYS: Parker ABSENT: Martin The motion carried. IV. CTTY COUNCIL REFERRALS. Mrs. Romans stated that City Council has referred the matter of a rezoning request by Mrs. Tina Warden, 3001 West Bellewood Drive, back to the Conunissiono Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council did agree the requested conunercial zoning was not proper for the area, but did request that the Conunission and -3- staff work with Mrs. Warden to see if a solution to her problem can be found. Mrs. Romans stated that it was suggested at the Council meeting that Mrs. Warden's property might be rezoned to R-1-C, to allow her to work on wigs as a Home Occupation. This would allow Mrs. Warden to continue to live in her home, and make her living there also. Mrs. Romans stated the staff has contacted the State Board of Cosmetology and they have said that persons who work on wigs are not classified as beauticians or cosmetologists, both uses which are not permitted as a Home Occupation. Mrs. Romans suggested that possibly the Commission could waive the rezoning fee, and ask that Mrs. Warden again provide the posting if the Commission wants to consider the matter as suggested by the Council. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council seemed to think that the R-1-C zoning, with a home occupation, would re a solution to the matter. Mr. Jones asked if the staff was recommending the Commission .reconsider the request with an R-1-C designation rather than the B-1 business designation? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff did not recommend approval of the commercial zoning; the staff has not to this time looked at the possibility of R-1-C zoning in preparation of a staff report. Mrs. Pierson stated that one of the concerns the Commission had was changing zoning for an individual, which concern would still apply. Mrs. Pierson stated she would be inclined to think the Commission had decided the "small zoning situation" is something they didn't really want to go into. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would hate to encourage Mrs. Warden to reapply for rezoning, if the Commission is of the same opinion that rezoning should not be accomplished for the benefit of one individual. Mrs. Romans pointed out that former City Attorney Criswell's opinion of 1968 indicates that the size of the area involved in a requested rezoning is not a deciding factor in approval. One lot may be rezoned if there is sufficient reason to do so. Mrs. Romans pointed out that Mrs. Warden's property is the only parcel in the area bounded on two sides by commercial zoning. Mr. Jorgenson stated that he feared if this request were to be approved, the City would be faced with the same situation as occurred at Federal and West Union with the flower shop. If a wig shop is permitted, the proprietor of the flower shop will expect to begin his business again. Mrs. Romans stated that the R-1-C limits the businesses to a "Home Occupation", which is different than the situation with the flower shop. Mrs. Wade pointed out that at one time the flower shop "used the residence entrance", but it expanded in scope; she stated she felt the R-1-C zoning would be "down-grading", and would affect the entire area. -4- Mr. Brown stated that after discussion at the City Council level, it was felt that the R-1-C Zone designation would not e hurt the neighborhood, and they "didn't feel they would be opening up a can of worms" if the zone designation were to be changed. Mr. Brown pointed out that Mrs. Warden's property is in close proximity to the Centennial Acres Shopping Center. Under the home occupation provision, Mr. Brown stated, Mrs. Warden would be limited to this one type of business, versus the 107 permitted uses under the B-1 provisions. The City Council felt if the Planning Commission could look at it again to help one person, but not set a precedent, the Commission should do so. Mr. Brown stated that he felt at this point he would be in favor of the R-1-C zoning. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma asked if Mrs . Warden had an idea how the neighbors would feel about the R-1-C zoning? Mrs. Romans pointed out that more than 60 of the neighbors had signed a petition approving the commercial zoning. Mrs. Romans further stated that the reason this particular area is zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence, is that it was zoned R-1-A upon annexation, and there has been no further study of the area. Mr. Jorgenson stated that preservation of single-family areas has been encouraged by the Commission and the City Council. He stated that he could not see down-grading one lot to allow a business operation ; he stated that more and more requests would follow this, and that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the R-1-C designation is single- family. Mr. Tanguma asked Mrs. Warden if she would like to say anything to the Commission. Mrs. Warden explained her reasons for requesting the rezoning and stated that she did not see v.here a wig shop in her home would hurt anyone in the area; the neighbors would be part of her clientele. The business would not increase traffic at all, nor would it require additional parking. Mrs. Warden stated that she could not afford to purchase land already zoned for business, and she has had to borrow money to pay her bills. Discussion followed. Mr. Jones stated that he was sympathetic to the problem, but the request is still for only one lot, and would, he felt, still be contrary to the Master Plan. Mr. Jones stated that the Commission would have to consider the general area along South Federal Boulevard, and he could see other requests coming in; he stated he would have to be opposed to the R-1-C consideration. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan designates the area "single-family", which the R-1-C Zone classification is. Discussion followed. Mrs. Pierson again noted that she would hate to see Mrs. Warden wait another three or four months in hopes of gaining the proper zoning, only to have the request again denied, which is a possibility in Mrs. Pierson's opinion. Mrs. Warden stated that she is still going to beauty school, and would be until February. She stated that her neighbors signed the petition, and gave her encouragement to ask for zoning to permit the wig shop in the first place. -5- Mr. Parker stated that he has been a cosmetologist for almost 50 years; he asked Mrs. Warden why she didn't apply for a position in a wig shop that was already started? Mrs. Warden stated that she had done that; her wages were only $2/hour. Mr. Parker stated that he understood most beauty shops paid on a percentage basis. Mr. Parker cautioned that when a beauty shop or wig shop is opened in the home, the resident loses all "privacy" of their own. He stated that in working in other shops, the clients will follow the operator even if he changes shops. Mrs. Warden stated that the ladies whose wigs she has fixed, don't want to pay the higher prices charged in the shops. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter was referred back to the Commission in the hopes the fee would be waived if Mrs. Warden did reapply for a change of zoning. Smith moved: Parker seconded: In the event Mrs. Warden does apply for R-1-C zoning for 3001 West Bellewood Drive, the $50 fee be waived. AYES: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Parker NAYS: Jones, Jorgenson ABSENT: Martin The motion carried. Mr. Jones asked if the petitions submitted by Mrs. Warden would also apply to the R-1-C request if she files a new application? Mrs. Romans stated that in her opinion, new petitions would have to be submitted, inasmuch as the first petitions were in reference to a commercial district. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council heard an appeal from Mrs. Oldenburg regarding the denial of the R-1-C zoning for an area bounded by East Kenyon Avenue, the Sherman/Grant alley, East Oxford Avenue, and the Broadway/Lincoln alley. The City Council suggested that the Commission and staff consider an "R-2 like" district for this area. Mrs. Romans stated that the residents of this area seem to want an R-2 zoning, but do not want the three or four unit structures that would be per- mitted in the new R-2 District. The staff has, therefore, prepared a proposed R-2-C Zone District, which district does permit a two-family structure on 50 ft. frontage, rather than on 75 ft. frontage as was permitted in the R-2-A Zone District. The staff feels this is a compromise, and might be acceptable to the residents of the area . Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has not discussed these proposed provisions with any of the residents of the area; however, a copy of the proposal was sent to Mr. John A. Criswell, attorney representing some of the residents and property owners, and he las indicated that he -6- feels his clients might accept these provisions, although he could not make a definite commitment at this time. Mr. Tanguma asked how close the proposed R-2-C District was to the provisions contained in the previous R-2-A? Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed R-2-C requires a minimum of 50 ft. frontage for a duplex or single-family structure, versus the required 75 ft. frontage for a duplex in the R-2-A Zone District. The proposed R-2-C District does require larger floor area for the individual units than in the former R-2-A, and landscaping is required also. Discussion followed. Mr. Tanguma asked what happened to the area that is left "un- zoned"? Mrs. Romans stated that it would remain unzoned until the proposed R-2-C District is approved and applied to the Map. Mrs. Romans noted there have been some requests for building permits to permit carports, etc., but no permits for new de- velopment have been requested . Mr. Jones noted that a question had arisen in connection with construction of a patio in the 3600 block of Pennsylvania or Pearl; the question was on the definition of "structure". He suggested that possibly the definition should be modified. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated that she would work with the City Attorney's office on this matter . Brown moved: Wade seconded: The Commission accept the proposed R-2-C regula- tions, and set a Public Hearing on this proposed e amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for January 6, 1976. Mr. Jorgenson questioned the procedure required to reconsider the R-1-C zoning for the subject area. Discussion followed. The vote was called: AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jorgenson NAYS: Jones ABSENT: Martin The motion carried. V. WEAVER REZONING R-1-C to R-2 Mrs. Romans stated that the office is in receipt of the following letter from John A. Criswell, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Weaver in their rezoning request. LA "J OFF! CES CC:PART~~t'f OF COMMUNITY f)E VELOPr..~ENT c·:\IGL C'NC::0L1 . c~Oi_i ~1:.\!)r, CRISWELL, p,\TTERSON & BALLANTIN~ov 13 i97~) ...... ---· .. • 1n H -.. /'l • ..... l!...WCLL Gfl~" 1'"-A ~~[R S ON !1['.IL'-'L v ·., UA.LLANTINE 3790 s oi.:ii-H .. AR.DADWA>'. November 12, 1975 ENGLEWOOD. CO L ORADO 80 I 1 0 TE L EPHONE : 1303 , 761 ·0800 Department of Community Development City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Englewood, Colorado 80110 Re: Applicaticn for Rezoning of Weaver-Fergu son Property Gentlemen: There is enclosed herewith an application to rezone a tract of ground, located in the southeas t quadrant of West Union Avenue and South Decatur Street, from its present R-1-C classification to the newly adopted R-2 classification. ing: With respect to this application, you should note the follow- 1. The ground involved in this application con- stitutes the northerly portion of the tract which was involved in Case #19-75A and which the Planning Com- mission, on July 22, 1975, recommended to be rezoned to R-2-B. This recommendation was not acted upon by City Council because, before it could reach the matter, the R-2-B zone district regulations were repealed and replaced by the present R-2 zone district regulation. This rendered the former application and proceedings moot and, upon advice of the City Attorney, a new appli·- cation was required. However, the applicants in Case #19-75A originally paid an application fee and the proceedings were termi- nated through no fault on their part. The present application can, in a sense, be considered a continuation of the previous proceedings and, under these circumstances, we respectfull y request that the payment of any further fee be waived. 2. The undersigned prepared the legal description contained within the materials involved in previou s ·~~·s -8- Department of Community Development Page two November 12, 1975 proceedings. While he believes it is accurate, it is respectfully suggested that the same should be reviewed for legal accuracy prior to any official publication of any notice of hearing. In this respect, I have assumed that the 16-foot strip along the easterly boundary of the tract is dedicated and that it shall constitute the western half of South Clay. The legal description, there- fore, goes to the eastern line of the present right-of-way line. This should be verified, if possible, but I presently do not have the materials with which to do it. If there are any questions upon the application, itself, or if we can be of any aid in its processing, please contact us. JAC:kmr Enclosure cc -Mr. and Mrs. B. L. Weaver ~ly, L_ -1 1 ~ Joh~·-!.well F~;,/CRISWELL, PATTERSON // & BALLANTINE -9- Mrs. Romans stated that this area was initially considered for rezoning under an application filed by Mr. Carl Weibe, who was subsequently determined to have no "interest" in the property; Mr. and Mrs. Weaver then filed an application with Mr. Weibe for the rezoning to R-2-B. However, before the City Council could hear the matter, the R-2-B Zone District was re- pealed, and the City Attorney ruled that a Hearing could not be held. Mr. Weibe has withdrawn from the request; however, Mr. and Mrs. Weaver and Mrs. Ferguson are interested in obtaining the R-2 zoning for their properties. They have had their land on the market for some time under the single-family zoning, and have not been able to sell. Mr. Criswell is now asking that the Commission hold the Public Hearing on the Weaver - Ferguson property under the previous rezoning fee, inasmuch as the Hearings were not completed on that case. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Weaver/Ferguson properties are bounded by industrial zoning on the north and east sides. Mr. Jones asked about platting of the land or a subdivision waiver? Mrs . Romans stated that additional right-of-way is needed in the area, as are easements for utilities. The area will have to be platted before it can be developed. The matter of the rezoning was further discussed. Mr. Parker asked if this could be considered spot zoning? Mr. Smith stated he did not feel this would be spot zoning, and noted that it does encompass a fair-sized piece of property. Mrs. Romans noted that the land isn't being developed under the present zoning. Smith moved: Brown seconded: for R-2 Zoning. The application fee be waived for the rezoning application of Mr. & Mrs. Weaver, applicants Public Hearing shall be set for January 20, 1976. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Martin The motion carried. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that it is necessary for the City to go to a General Obligation Bond election to finance the 104-unit housing structure for the low-income elderly. The election will be on December 23, 1975. The City is attempting to set up a campaign committee to work on the election, and if any nembers of the Commission would be able to help, it would be appreciated. Mrs. Romans stated that Marten Lathrop has agreed to serve as co- chairman of the election committee, and it is planned that Mr. Hosanna would be asked to also serve as co-chairman. -10- Mr. Jones noted that one of the most frequent questions regarding the bond election is "will it raise my taxeso" Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would be happy to help on the election. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Parker asked if a Mrs. Mitchell, residing in the 3500 block South Cherokee, made application for rezoning? Mrs. Romans stated that the application has been made, and will be heard at Public Hearing on December 2, 1975. Mr. Jones asked the disposition of houses to be moved from Cherokee Circle? He also asked about the property on the east side of South Cherokee Street? He further noted that he understood a house on South Bannock Street in the 3400 block was to be moved. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Jones stated that he would hope the City could get plans on the proposed development for South Cherokee Circleo Mr. Brown noted that the crash gates on the north side of the Larwin property at Franklin and Floyd are down. Mr. Brown noted that the agreement at time of approval of the plans was to allow only fire trucks and other emergency vehicles through these gates. Mr. Brown stated that he understood that someone went through the gate, and the gate cannot be replaced until insurance adjustment is made; however, the City is working with the Larwin personnel and hope to get a chain across the gateway to prevent access. Mr. Brown also noted that at the time the Larwin application was being considered by the City, it was the intent of Larwin to have recreational facilities on the site for the children of this development. To this date, these have not been pro- vided, and he felt the Commission should be on record to direct the Planning Director to see what can be done to get a play area for the children on the site. Mro Brown stated that the ~hildren are now going to Romans Park unsupervised, which is not safe. Mrs. Romans stated that she had talked to a Mro George Jones of the California office; he indicated that he was not on the Larwin staff at the time the project was under consideration, but he would see that the committments which were made were lived up to. Mrs. Romans stated that Larwin now has a resident manager on the site that one must discuss these things with, but she would attempt to contact the main office in California. Mr. Tanguma asked if approval would have to be obtained for any changes in the Plan, and if so, could the City require a Planned Development for this site? Mrs. Romans stated that she hoped the City would require a Planned Development; the streets should be dedicated, and the site should be platted. Brown moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Director be directed to contact Larwin Corporation personnel regarding the recreational facilities on the site for children of that development, and the possibility of personnel from Larwin meeting with the Commission. -11- AYES: Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: Martin The motion carried. Mr. Parker asked if any progress had been made on the Halcyon Heights II project? Mr. Tanguma stated that he understood they had obtained financing for the project. Mrs. Wade discussed the RTD meeting the members of the Com- mission attended the previous evening with members of the City Council and representatives of RTD . Mrs. Wade stated that she felt even if the ART station were located at Cinderella City, we would still have the mass of cars in the area, and that most of the people who would be using the RTD facility, would be driving in to the station area to go elsewhere; they must leave their automobile parked in the vicinity of the ART station. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt satellite parking is necessary, and then bus the RTD users into the ART station site. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the concept that the center of activity should be near the center of business started shortly after the RTD discussions began. He stated that if the station is located at Cinderella City, there will be parking at the north end of the shopping center site adjacent to residential development and Cushing Park ; if the parking and station were to be located south of U .S. 285, there is industrially zoned land and development in the area. Mr. Smith stated that he is of the opinion that Mr. Von Frellick is forgetting the RTD system is to serve the entire area, and the ART station should not be located just to facilitate the sale of property and profit for an individual. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the matter of the location of the ART station should be considered from an "objective" point of view --what is the best location of the ART station for the people in Englewood. Mr. Tanguma noted that "the people of Englewood have said they want as little change as possible; the impact the ART station and the lines will have on Englewood is so great we should be looking ahead 20 years. If City Council thinks ihey have pressure now, just wait until it's in." Mrs. Wade stated that she felt if the station must be located in Englewood, it should "fit into the area"; she further stated that she felt the station should be located where there would be adequate parking facilities for the present as well as sufficient area to accommodate the possible expansion of the parking facilities in the future. Mr. Jones stated that an article in the newspaper had indicated there would be satellite parking facilities in Broomfield and at 1-25 and Hampden Avenue. He stated that he felt the City is being "put off" by the RTD personnel; he noted that one group of consultants will be phased out the first of the year, and another group will be engaged in December; there is no continuity in the program and there- fore, the decision-making process is put 0ff. Discussion followed. -12- The matter o f traffic o n U .S. 285 was discussed; it was noted that other streets would have to carry some of the heavy traffic. Mr. Jones stated "they are addressing the problem after the problem --that is the problem." Mr. &-own cautioned against overlooking opportunities to bring more people and money into Englewood, and that possibly new businesses could spring up around the ART station which would add to the financial base of Englewood. Mr. Smith agreed with Mr. Brown's statement on attracting new businesses to the City. He stated that there may be new businesses attracted to the City without locating the ART station on the Cinderella City site; he stated that he questioned whether the area in md around the shopping center could handle any more traffic and businesses. Discussion followed. Mrs. Wade stated she felt the City and particularly the Commission should take more initiative in this matter . Mr. Jones noted that the State Highway Department is involved as far as the use of U.S. 285 from Bannock to the underpass is concerned; he stated that the City does not know how extensive the use will be, and we should have this information . Mrs. Romans noted that Noise Control Officer James Libberton has taken issue with the report on noise impact, which was used as the basis for the draft Environmental Impact Analysis which was prepared for RTD. In this report, it is stated the steel-on-steel rail along the Santa Fe track alignment, elevated, will not have any impact noise-wise on the adjacent properties; Mr. Libberton has questioned this statement. Mrs. Romans discussed some of the ramifications resulting from this report. Joint use parking facilities were discussed. Mr. Parker asked about the possible use of the· parking area at the GEM store f or satellite parking? Mrs. Romans stated that she understood GEM is still paying out the lease on the building and land, but nothing appears to be being done to get a new tenant. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is working with the Horton-Cavey agency, owners of the property to the south and east of the former GEM site, in an effort to work out access to that property. Mr. Parker asked about the medical center that was proposed south of Girard between Lincoln and Sherman streets? Mrs. Romans stated that there is no further information on this matter. Mr. Parker noted that the grading which was done on the site has changed the natural water course, and that the weeds on the site were not cut at all during the summer months. Brief discussion followed . The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. n ___ ...... _, ..! --n ----..a.. ----... • -13- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: November 25, 1975 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact, Case #28-75. RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Pl a nning Commission approve the Finding s o f Fact for Case #28-75, the rezoning of an area from R-2-A to R-1-C, and that the Findings of Fact be referred to Ci t y Council. Mr . Tanguma is authorized to sign this document as Vice Chairman of the Commission. AYES: Tanguma, Jones, Jo rg enson, Pierson NAYS: Parker, Smith ABSTAIN: Wade ABSENT: Martin The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ·I ~./, __ / -i, .; •f.' I /,t,~Jt / . ../ Gertrude G . Welty Recording Secretary -14- CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE 28-75, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO PLACING A CERTAIN AREA OF ) THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD IN R-1-C ) ZONE DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO ) §22.3-2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ) ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ) OF ENGLEWOOD. ) A public hearing was commenced on October 21, 1975, at 7:05 P.M. in the community room at the Englewood City Hall. The entire membership of the City Planning and Zoning Commis- sion was present, those being: Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith and Tanguma. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the Commission makes the following findings of fact: That proper public notice was given by publishing and posting. That the area in question bounded by East Kenyon Avenue on the north, the Sherman-Grant alley on the east, by East Oxford Avenue on the south, and the Broadway-Lincoln alley on the west, legally described as: Beginning at a point on the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue at its intersection with the center- line 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 to the centerline of the Broadway/Lincoln alley; thence north along said centerline to the point of beginning. -15- That there are 144 single-family structures, 31 two- family structures, 7 three-or four-family structures and 1 eight-family structure, and two vacant sites in the area. The use of the area includes both single-family and multiple- family dwellings. That numerous property owners presently rent property which they also occupy, causing double occu- pancy. That a citizens committee was established to study the zoning classifications of R-2-A, R-2-B, R-3-A and R-3-B districts in order to eliminate unuseful, unnecessary, in- efficient and cumbersome zone districts. That the committee has recommended that the R-2-A or R-2-B areas be zoned R-2 in order to maintain its past and present nature. The Department of Community Development has recommended R-2 zoning for the area and a denial of the R-1-C zoning. Many property owners expressed the opinion that the R-2-A zoning was appropriate. That many property owners contem- plate taking in boarders or developing their property so that it will be two-family use in the future. That many of the property owners presently using their property for multiple occupancy require such use in order to maintain the properties' economic feasibility. That petitions have been filed. Upon review of the evidence, there has been no change in the area since it has been zoned for a medium-density use. The previous zoning in this district was R-2-A, allowing medium density family use. That the R-2-A zoning was in con- formance with the master plan for the City of Englewood call- ing for a medium density family buffer between single-family residential and business-commercial district; that to the west of the area in question there is a business-commercial develop- ment on the Broadway thoroughfare, and on the east there are single-family residential areas. That the residences in the area are in very good condition. That the nature of R-1-C is substantially different from R-2-A zoning, being more restrictive and of a single-family nature. -16- CONCLUSIONS That the comprehensive master plan for the City calls for this area ·to be of a medium density nature. That the property has been developed by the owners in this area as single and medium density residences. That numerous property owners have relied on the medium density zoning of this area. That numerous property owners would lose substantial vested rights by designating the area in question for single family residences. That the owners in the area would not be sufficiently protected, nor the property values stabilized, nor the wel- fare of the neighborhood continued if this were zoned R-1-C. That the fears of the residents that there would be massive apartment complexes developed under alternative pro- posed zoning are unfounded; considering the nature of the residences in the area it is unfeasible and the nature of R-2 zoning which has been considered for this area. That there have been no changes in the nature of the area since it last acquired an R-2-A zone classification. That there has been no evidence shown to indicate the prior zoning was improper; in fact, evidence shows that the medium density zoning was in fact proper, even by the proponents of R-1-C. That there is a need to rezone the area, but R-1-C would cause substantial harm to the owners of property in the area and not stabilize property values, the neighborhood, nor promote the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or community. RECOMMENDATIONS The Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the proposed zoning designation of R-1-C be denied for the area described above. -3 - -17- Upon vote at a meeting of the Commission, November 11, 1975, Those voting in favor: Pierson, Wade, Brown, Jones and Jorgenson; Those opposed: Parker, Smith, Tanguma and Martin BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION -18- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: November 25 , 1975 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact -Cases #29-75, #30-75, #31-75, and #32-75 0 RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact for Case #29-75, the rezoning of areas from R-2-A to R-2, for Case #30-75, the rezoning of areas from R-2-B to R-2; f or Case #31-75, the rezoning of areas from R-3-A to R-3, and for Case #32-75, the rezoning of areas from R-3-B to R-3, and that the Findings of Fact for these Cases be referred to City Council . Mr. Tanguma is authorized to sign these documents as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Pierson NAYS: Parker ABSENT: Martin The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission o I _,7 y ' I ----:-· '. t? . ~ 7;--?t "!~c //:;7 , Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE #29-75 ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO THE PLACING OF CERTAIN AREAS ) OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD IN AN ) R-2 ZONE DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO ) §22.3-2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ) ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ) OF ENGLEWOOD. ) -19- A public hearing was held in connection with Case #29-75, on October 21, 1975, in the Community Room at the Englewood City Hall. The entire membership of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was present, those being: Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown and Jones. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the Commission makes the following findings of fact: That proper notice of the meeting to consider the proposed zoning was given by publishing and posting. The areas in question are described as: -20- 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 Da·rtmouth 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 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 line of Delaware Heights Subdivision; thence north to the true point of beginning . -21- That the area in question has been zoned R-2-A, Two-family Residence, a medium density zone district, and that a majority of the area has been zoned for two-family use since 1940. There presently exists in the area formerly zoned R-2-A, 393 single-family structures, 74 two-family structures, six three- family structures, three four-family structures, and one six- unit and one eight-unit complex; one store, five vacant lots, and one school. That the area has been developed as a medium density district. That the repealed R-2-A Zone District required a minimum of 50-foot frontage for a single-family unit, and a minimum of 75 foot frontage for a two-family unit. That of the 74 two-family units in the area formerly zoned R-2-A, only five are on a building site with a 75 foot or more frontage, the rest being on a frontage less than the minimum required by the zoning regulations. That because the typical subdivision in Englewood is platted into 25-foot lots which generally have been sold in combinations of tw~ the requirement for a 75-foot frontage in the R-2-A Zone District was not practical. That the purpose underlying the change to R-2 is one of administration, and that two two-family zone districts caused difficulty in administration and are not necessary for the implementation of the City of Englewood Master Plan. That numerous property owners have expressed concern over improper development in the areao That a number of property owners have expressed fear of over-development. -22- That a number of property owners have purchased property in this area in reliance on the two-family zoning. That a number of people are considering developing their land in conformance with the medium-density zone district. That with respect to former R-2-A areas, the R-2 zoning allows a two-family structure on less area: six-thousand square feet as compared with 9,000 square feet for the former R-2-A. In addition, the R-2 classification has additional require- ments in open space, landscaping, underground utilities. Other differences in the classification are minor and noted in the staff report and zone district analysis. In total, the evidenc e shows but little variation with respect to the former zone district located in these areas. That numerous variances have been granted in these areas to relieve hardship now occurring with the R-2-A zone district. CONCLUSIONS That, when considering R-2-A with the proposed R-2 zone classification there is little difference in the districts. Those differences that do exist are of benefit to all in the area and are minor in nature. That proper public notice was given; that property owners in the area rely on the medium-density zoning designa- tion; that there has been no substantial change in the nature of the areas and no evidence has been brought forward to show otherwise. -23- That the previous zoning was medium-density residential and that zoning for the areas in question has not been shown to be in error; in fact, it is the proper type of zoning for this area. That the zone classification of R-2 will continue to conserve and stabilize the value of property, secure safety from fire and other danger; prevent undue concentration of population, traffic; to facilitate transportation, community utilities and services, and to promote health, safety, morals and the general welfare of all in accordance with a comprehen- sive plano RECOMMENDATION: Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City of Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of the City of Englewood that the above described areas be zoned R-2 zoning designation, as adopted by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 19750 Upon vote at a meeting of the Commission, November 11, 1975. Those voting in favor: Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Wade. Those opposed: Parker, Tanguma BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. -24- CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE #30-75 ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO THE PLACING OF CERTAIN AREAS ) OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD IN AN ) R-2 ZONE DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO ) §22.3-2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ) ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ) OF ENGLEWOOD. ) A public hearing was held in connection with Case #30-75, on October 21, 1975, in the Community Room at the Englewood City Hall. The entire membership of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was present, those being: Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown and Jones. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the Commission makes the following findings of fact: That proper notice of the meeting to consider the proposed zoning was given by publishing and posting. The areas in question are described as: -25- 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; t hence 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. Beginning at a point on· 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 1 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 Aco~a Street; thence south to the centerline of Eastman Avenue ; thence west to the centerline of the all0y east of Bannock Street; thence north to the point of beginning. · -26- Beginning at a point 130 feet, more or less, south of the ce~terl i ne t9 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 t he 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 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 cor~er 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 ~orner • 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 nort h to the point of beginning. · • ' -27- That the area in question has been zoned R-2-B, Two-family Residence, a medium density zone district, and that a majority of the area has been zoned for two-family use since 1940. There presently exists in the area formerly zoned R-2-B, 559 single-family structures, 182 two-family structures, 20 three-family structures, 9 four-family structures, and one six- unit and one seven-unit complex, several stores or businesses, 25 vacant lots, two school properties and six churches. That the area has been developed as a medium-density district. That the R-2-B Zone District required a 50-foot frontage for a single-family unit, a minimum 50 foot frontage for a two-family unit, and that an additional unit could be built on each additional 25-foot lot. That the purpose underlying the change to R-2 is one of administration, and that two two-family zone districts caused difficulty in administration and are not necessary for the implementation of the City of Englewood Master Plan. That numerous property owners have expressed concern over improper development in the area . That a number of property owners have expressed fear of over-development. That a number of property owners have purchased property in this area in reliance on the two-family zoning. That a number of people are considering developing their land in con- formance with the medium density zone district. That with respect to former R-2-B areas, the R-2 zoning allows a two-family structure on the same lot area: six- thousand square feet . -28- In addition, the R-2 classification has additional requi re- ments in open space, landscaping, underground utilities. Other differences in the classification are minor and noted in the staff report and zone district analysis. In total, the evidence shows but little variation with respect to the former zone district located in these areas o CONCLUSIONS That, when considering R-2-B with the proposed R-2 zone classification there is little difference in the districts. Those differences that do exist are of benefit to all in the area and are minor in nature. That proper public notice was given; that property owners in the area rely on the medium-density zoning designation; that there has been no substantial change in the nature of the areas and no evidence has been brought forward to show other- wise o That the previous zoning was medium density residential , and that zoning for the areas in question has not been shown to be in error; in fact, it is the proper type of zoning for this areao That the zone classification of R-2 will continue to conserve and stabilize the value of property, secure safety from fire and other danger; prevent undue concentration of population, traffic; to facilitate transportation, community utilities and services, and to promote health, safety, morals and the general welfare of all in accordance with .a comprehen- sive plan. -29- RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City of Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of the City of Englewood that the above-described areas be zoned R-2 zoning designation, as adopted by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975. Upon vote at a meeting of the Commission, November 11, 1975. Those voting in favor: Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade. Those opposed: None. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION -30- CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE #31-75, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO THE PLACING OF CERTAIN ) AREAS OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ) IN R-3 ZONE DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO) §22.3-2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ) ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ) OF ENGLEWOOD. ) A public hearing was held on October 22, 1975 at 7:00 p.m . before the City Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the above case changing the zoning of certain areas of the City from R-3-A to R-3. FINDINGS OF FACT: Upon the taking of testimony, receiving documents and reports, the Commission makes the following findings of fact. That public notice was given by publishing and posting the R-3-A areas to be zoned R-3. That the areas to be zoned R-3 are: -3:J.- 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 northerly right-of-way line of U.S. 285 to its intersection with tl1e 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 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 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. Rcginning at a point 155 feet, more or less, north of the cen- 1t"'rlinc of the interser.tion of Clarkson Street and Girard 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. · Beg inning at a point 130 feet, more or less, so.u th o~ the center- 1 ine of the intersection of Ham.pden Avenue and the alley east of Logan Street, said point being -a feet,more or less, west of no1_'thwest oorner of lot 46, block 4, Higgins Englewood Gardens; thence _east to the centerline of Emerson Street; thence south to the centerline 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 S t reet; 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. -32- 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. That a citizens study of R-3-A and R-3-B zone districts recommended a need to consolidate these classifications with some refinements and the result was the R-3 designation in order to reduce unneeded, unused and cumbersome districts. That the City has had numerous three-story walk-up type structures constructed with small one-bedroom units, no land- scaping, and asphalt parking area in front. That in the combined R-3-A and R-3-B areas there is a total of 2,913 multi-family dwelling units. Of tilese units, the nature of 594 could not be determined, 60 are efficiency units, 1,839 are one-bedroom units, 390 are two-bedroom units, and 30 are three-bedroom units. The three-story units are interspersed with single-family units often creating a crowded effect. That this hinders light and open space to adjacent owners and restricts the use of their property. -33- That the proposed R-3 zoning would not permit development of three-story walk-ups on 100-150 foot lotso In certain in- stances, a planned development will be required. That the primary difference between R-3-A and R-3 is that R-3 will require additional lot area for the construction of the same structure, additional floor space and additional open space and landscaping. That the primary need is to upgrade the standards so that the construction of a multi-family unit .will blend with the existing community and neighborhood. That there is a recurring problem in the areas of poor site planning, unscreened and extensively asphalted parking areas and a lack of landscaping. That the . need for larger family units is not being met. That there are insufficient open areas for the use of the occupants of the multi-family units being constructed. There is no evidence that there has been substantial change in the nature of the areas in question or that the initial zoning was improper. CONCLUSIONS: That the nature of the areas have not changed since they have been designated R-3-A and the original zoning has not been contested as being in error, and no evidence supports that this classification was in error o That the zone classification R-3 and the repealed R-3-A allow the same uses ; that the differences between the zone dis- tricts are generally minor, with the exception of minimum lot size, which is increased. • -34- That the areas in question need to continue with a high density multi-family-dwelling zoning to maintain the stability of the neighborhood and property values. That the areas in question need the additional regulation in R-3 designation with respect to open space, landscaping and unit floor area. Although minor, they will enhance the stability and overall nature of the area. That the purpose of this zoning change is administrative in nature, attempting to implement the recommendation of a special citizen group. Refinements in the zoning classification are necessary and will not have a harmful effect upon the property owners of the area now or in the futureo RECOMMENDATION: The Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the proposed zoning designation of R-3 be implemented and incorporated into the ordinances of the City of Englewood for the areas previously zoned R-3-Ao Upon vote at a meeting of the Commission, November 11, 19750 Those voting in favor: Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin, Parker, Pierson, Smith Those opposed: None BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORAIX> IN THE MATTER OF CASE #32-75, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO THE PLACING 0 F CERTAIN AREAS ) OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD IN AN ) R-3 ZONE DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO ) §22.3-2 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ) ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ) OF ENGLEWOOD . ) -35- A public hearing was held on October 22, 1975, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the above case, changing the zoning of certain areas of the City from R-3-B to R-3. FINDINGS OF FACT: Upon the taking of testimony, receiving documents and reports, the Commission makes the following findings of fact. That public notice was given by publishing and posting the R-3-B areas to be zoned R-3. That the areas to be zoned R-3 are: 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. • -36- 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; thence north to the point of beginning. 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. -37- 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, Beginning at. a point on the centerline of the inter~ection o~ Layton Avenue and Bannock Stre~t; thence eas~ 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 ~o ~he centerline of Grand Avenue; thence east to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point 989 feet west of the centerline of the intersection of Broadway and Belleview Avenue, said point being 30 feet north of the northeast corner of lot 6, Interurban Addi- tion; thence south to the centerline of Lehow Avenue, thence northeasterly 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 209 feet, more or less, thence east 50 feet; thence south 5 feet; thence cast 130 feet to a point on the east line of lot 1, Rafferty Gardens Subdivision; thence south to the centerline of Big Dry Creek; thence northwesterly along Big Dry Creek to a point 251 feet, more or less, north of the centerline of Lebow Avenue, said point being the southeast corner of Miramonte Subdivision; thence along the south line of said subdivision to the southeast corner of Signal Hill Addition; thence along the south line of said subdivision to the southwest corner of Signal Hill Addi- tion; thence north to the centerline of Belleview Avenue; thence east to the point of beginning. -38- That a citizens study of the R-3-B zone district recommended a need to consolidate this classification with the R-3-A classi- fication with some refinements, and the result was the R-3 designation in order to reduce unneeded, unused and cumbersome districts. That the City has had numerous three-story walk-up type structures constructed with small one-bedroom units, no land- scaping, asphalt parking area in front. That in the combined R-3-A and R-3-B areas there is a total of 2,913 multi-family dwelling units. Of these units, the nature of 594 could not be determined, 60 are efficiency units, 1,839 are one-bedroom units, 390 are two-bedroom units;and 30 are three-bedroom units . The three-story units are interspersed with single-family units often creating a crowded effect . That this hinders light and open space to adjacent owners apd restricts the use of their property. That the proposed R-3 zoning would not permit development of three-story walk-ups on 100-150 foot lots. In certain in- stances, a planned development will be required. That the primary difference between R-3-B and R-3 is that R-3 will require additional lot area for the construction of the same structure, additional floor space and additional open space. That the primary need is to upgrade the standards so that the construction of a multi-family unit will blend with the existing community and neighborhood. • • -39- That there is a recurring problem in the areas of poor site planning, unscreened and extensively asphalted parking areas and a lack of landscaping. That the need for larger family units is not being met. That there are insufficient open areas for the occupants of tile multi-family units being constructed. There is no evidence that there has been substantial change in the nature of the areas in question or that the initial zoning was improper. CONCLUSIONS: That the nature of the areas have not changed since they have been designated R-3-B and the original zoning has not been contested as being in error and no evidence supports that this classification was in error. That the zone classifications R-3 and R-3-B allow the same uses; that the differences between the zone districts are generally minor, with the exception of minimum lot size which is increased. That the areas in question need to continue with a high density multi-family-dwelling zoning to maintain the stability of the neighborhood and property ~alues. That the areas in question need the additional regulation in R-3 designation with respect to open space, landscaping and unit floor area. Although minor, they will enhance the stability and overall nature of the area. -40-• That the purpose of this zoning change is administrative in nature, attempting to implement the recommendation of a special citizen group. Refinements in the zoning classification are necessary and will not have a harmful effect upon the property owners of the area now or in tile future. RECOMMENDATION: The Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the proposed zoning designation of R-3 be implemented and incorporated into the ordinances of the City of Englewood for the areas previously zoned R-3-B. Upon vote at a meeting of the Commission, November 11, 1975. Those voting in favor: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Martin l Those opposed: Parker BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: ~_h;, ~ 4--EDITANGU~eliairman •