Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-12-02 PZC MINUTESl ) • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 2, 1975 The City Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on December 2, 1975. Neither Chairman Martin nor Vice-Chairman Tanguma were present. It was moved by Mr. Parker, seconded by Mr. Brown that Mr. Jones be appointed acting Chairman for the duration of the meeting. Mrs. Wade moved, Mrs. Pierson seconded the appointment be unanimous. I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairman Jones at 7:05 p.m. Members present: Jones, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Wade, Brown Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Jorgenson, Martin, Tanguma Also present: Assistant City Attorney DeWitt; Associate Planner Steve House II. REZONING REQUEST R-3 to B-1 Pierson moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. CASE #37-75 AYES: Brown, Jones, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson, Martin, Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Jones declared the Public Hearing open, and asked Mrs. Romans to present the staff report and review of the matter. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter under consideration is an application filed by Mary E. Mitchell for a change of zoning from the proposed R-3, High Density Residential, to B-1, Business. Mrs. Mitchell is a resident of the subject area, which is bounded on the east by the Cherokee/Bannock alley; on the south by West Ithica Avenue, extended; on the west by the Cherokee/Delaware Alley, and on the north by the south boundary of the B-2 zoning along U.S. 285. Legal notice of the Public Hearing did appear in the official City newspaper, the Englewood Herald Sentinel, and the property was posted the required number of days; certification of posting was presented to the Secretary for the file • -2- Mrs. Romans stated that this particular area was zoned for two-family use from 1940 to 1955; in 1955, the area was zoned R-3, Multi-family use, and in 1963, was zoned to R-3-B, a Multi-family Zone District. Since the repeal of the R-3-B Zone District effective in September, 1975, the area has been unzoned; on October 22, 1975, ihe Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to designate the area to R-3, High Density Residence; and on November 11, recommended to City Council that the R-3, High Density zoning be approved for this area. City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing on this matter for December 16, 1975. Mrs. Romans stated that the reasons cited on the application are:. "We believe that this B-1 zoning would increase the value of this property and would also add to the budget fund through sales tax to the City of Englewood after future develop- ment. One owner would seriously consider construction of [a] business building." Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is required to consider the following in regard to rezoning requests: 1. The possib1lity of a mistake in the original zoning of the area. 2. Any significant changes that have occurred in the area under consideration that would render another zone classi- fication more applicable. 3. Whether or not a person is denied the use of his land be- cause of existing zoning. Mrs. Romans noted that the staff is concerned about the requested rezoning; the area is totally developed --there is one 17-unit apartment house, and the remainder are single-family, two-family or three-family structures. The B-1 Zone District has no "protection" built into it --a developer could build right to the property line if he so desired. There are no provisions • for setback or screening between a commercial use and a residential use. Mrs. Romans stated that no evidence has been presented to show the original zoning of the area was in error. No evidence has been presented to show that a property owner is being denied the use of his land under the R-3 zoning. No evidence has been presented of significant changes in the area which would warrant the rezoning request. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is also concerned about the fact that South Cherokee Street isn't a major arterial street, even though it does carry local traffic to U.S. 285. A major concern of the staff is that none of the property owners affected by the rezoning request have frontage on U.S. 285. Mrs. Romans noted there were persons in the audience who were prepared to speak on the matter. • ,_ j • -3- Mr. Parker asked what would happen if the rezoning should be recommended to City Council; would Council be considering two zone classifications for the same property? Mr. DeWitt stated that even if this rezoning was recommended it could not be considered on December 16th, the date of the Public Hearings before City Council on consideration of the R-3 designation. There would not be time for proper public notice. Mr. Jones stated that he would ask those persons opposed to the rezoning request to speak first; the proponents of the request would then be given an opportunity to speak. Mrs. Jean Pearson 3536 South Cherokee -stated that she wants to live in this block; she doesn't want the commercial zoning, and she doesn't want the taxes to go up. Mr. Jones asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in opposition? No one else indicated they were opposed to the request. Mr. Jones then asked for the pr9ponents to speak. Mrs. Mary Mitchell 3565 South Cherokee -stated that she has asked for the rezoning. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she Ins con- sidered trying to sell her property, but it does not have sale value in the R-3 to enable her to buy another home somewhere else. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she felt being in the Core Area has killed the value of the property for the present. Mrs. Mitchell stated she felt the B-1 zoning would increase the value of the property. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she has lived next door to the 17-unit apartment for many years; she stated this apartment house is built approximately three feet from her property line, and there "are a lot of things that go on that make it unpleasant" to live next door, and she wants to get out of the area. Mrs. Mitchell stated that the apartment building does not have sufficient parking for the tenants, for one thing. Mrs. Pierson asked Mrs. Mitchell if she has tried to sell her property? Mrs. Mitchell stated that she has not actually tried to sell; she did have it appraised by a real estate appraiser, and the value of the property was insufficient to purchase an- other home outside of the Core Area. Mr. Smith asked when the appraisal was done? Mrs. Mitchell stated she had it appraised a couple of months ago; the la.nd was appraised at $3.50 per sq. ft., and the house wa.s not given an appraisal. Mr. Jones noted t hat on a 50 ft. site, this would come to approximately $20,000. Mr. Jones asked when the apartment house was constructed --was it constructed under the R-3-B zoning in effect since 1963? Mrs. Romans stated it was constructed prior to 1963; there are no records in the Building Department files on this structure. -4- Discussion followed. Mr. Pear son stated that at t he time it was built, he called City Hall regarding parking standards; • he was told there were indeed standards, but that "we don't enforce them." Mr. Chumley stat ed that the apartment house was constructed some time between 1958 and 1960. Mr. Pearson, 3536 South Cher okee Street, stated that he pe r sonall y wanted to see the area zoned for business use. He stated he would rather see the business useage than the high-density resi- dential use. He noted that the 17-unit apartment house has a total of six off-street parking spaces. Ralph Chumley 3550 South Cherokee -stated that he had built there in 193 9 -1940; the only other neighbor was Mr. Pearson. Mr. Chumley stated that he thinks "we could use more business in Englewood"; additional business zoning could be to the benefit of the individual property owner, and to the benefit of the entire City. Mr. Chumley stated that he owns six lots; he has talked to Mrs. Green, his neighbor to the south whose proper t y is not included in the rezoning request, regarding construction of a business built right up to the joint property line, and she "sees no objection." Mr. Chumley stated that he does not plan to build right to the property line, but that there would be no objection from his neighbor if he should decide to do so. Mr. Chumley stated that he is considering constructing a building with retail businesses on the first floor, ·and doctor's offices, A etc. on the upper floors. Mr. Chumley stated that his four ~ sons have formed a. corporation, a.nd it would be a "family" operation. Mr. Chumley reiterated that the only persons to object to t h e requested rezoning would be Mrs. Green, his neighbor to the south, and possibly the owners of the 17-unit apartment house . Mr. Chumley stated there have been many police calls to the apartment house. Mr. Chumley noted that the apartment house tenants park right next to the property line adjoining Mrs . Mitchell's house, and the exhaust fumes go right into her h o use . Mr. Chumley then discussed the are.a which fronts on South Bannock Street, saying that there a.re a couple of small apartment structures and single-family homes --most of them are older single-family frame residences, that "have not been kept u p ." Mr. Chumley then stated that he is classified as a "seven-ye ar engineer" in Denver, and knows "a little bit about zo n ing." He suggested that if the members of the Commission wished to check his work experience, they could call Cohen Construction Company. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Chumley what development was on Del aware? Mr. Chumley stated there are new apartment structures , small residences, the liquor store, and a doctor's office. • '\ • -5- Mr. Jones asked when the new apartment houses were built? Are they three-story walk-up units? Mrs. Romans stated that the apartment houses are three-story walk-up, but she didn't know 1he date the units were constructed. Mr. Chumley stated they are about three years old. Mr. Brown asked Mrs. Mitchell if she had the opportunity to sell her property at the time the apartment house next door to her was constructed? Mrs. Mitchell stated that she was made an offer on the land, but she wasn't interested in selling . at that time; things have changed, however. Mr. Chumley stated that "it isn't the residential area it was in days gone by"; he noted there was a dead end street on Cherokee and Ithica and it was a nice place to live. Mr. Chumley stated that "it's a thoroughfare today", and that he doesn't dare to back out of his driveway. Mr. Chumley emphasized that it is not a residential neighborhood; it is a poor residential area to live in, and there are many other places he would rather live. Mr. Chumley asked, if no more apartments are wanted in Englewood, why zone an area for high-density? Mr. Chumley stated that no one would pay the price for the land and construct high-density apartment houses. Mrs. Pierson asked if the property owners had been approached or attempted to put together parcels for development under the R-3 zoning or business zoning? Mr. Chumley stated no; they could not get enough .out of the land to buy decent homes under the R-3 zone classification. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Chumley if he saw any problems of access; he noted that South Delaware Street does not go through. He asked if Mr. Chumley felt the traffic situation would be conducive to a business operation. Mr. Chumley stated he did not see any problems; the primary traffic carriers now are South Cherokee .Street and South Ela ti Street, but some motorists are beginning to use other streets. Mr. Chumley noted that traffic on West Kenyon Avenue has increased greatly since South Bannock Street was stopped at Kenyon; he stated that he felt Kenyon carried more traffic now than Bannock does. Mr. Jones asked about the possibility of extending Ithaca Avenue to the east? Mr. Chumley stated that the extension would run into a single-family residence. Mr. Jones stated that the traffic pattern will be of considerable i mportance for a commercial operation, as well as for high-density use. Commercial uses will have a higher level of traffic during the entire day as opposed to peak hours for high-density uses. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she had talked to Mr. Bean, co-owner of the 17-unit apartment house; he had stated the rezoning would not benefit him, but that he would not oppose the request. Mr • Jones stated that the apartment structure would be a non-conform- ing use in the B-1 Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that as a non-conformi n g use, the apartment use could continue. The use could not expand except for additional parking space. I' -6- Mr. Smith stated that he felt the possibility of "small" businesses developing in the area might be more detrimental than high density e development. Mr. Smith stated that it would be nice to be able to sell an assemblage of land for a large business, but wondered if the property owners could get any more out of their land for small business .uses than they could for high-density uses. Mr. Chumley stated that he felt the high-density use would require much more parking area than a commercial use would re- quire. Mr. Chumley stated he felt the absence of business activity on Broadway is related to a lack of parking. Mr. Jones asked what the parking requirements were for the B-1 District? Mrs. Romans stated that the requirements are very minimal, and are, on an average, 1:1 ratio. The parking requirements are based on the square footage of the building. Mrs. Romans noted that parking does not need to be provided on the same site as the business operation; it may be located within the same block, or within an R-4 district, but must be within 400 feet of the business property. Property owners may also work out a joint parking agreement; the agreement is re- corded with the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder, and the parking must be maintained so long as the use is maintained. Mr. Parker asked if Mr. Tillnnn were present as an "interested neighbor?" Mr. Tillman stated that he is an interested neighbor; he would like to say that he does appreciate the approach the City is taking on the request. Mr. Tillman stated he realized "changes will occur in the next few years;" he felt the proper way for changes to come about is by decisions of the Commission and Council and zoning for a particular development. This pro- cedure will not displace those who now live in a given area. As property values rise, new development will occur, and this will give people who own property now an opportunity to share in the benefits. Mr. Tillman stated that he has no particular position on this particular matter that is before the Commission; they are neighbors of his; and he "would like to see them get what they want." Parker moved: Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #37-75 be closed. AYES: Wade, Brown, Jones, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson, Martin, Tanguma. The motion carried. Mr. Parker noted that the City Council has scheduled a Hearing for December 16th on the matter of the R-3 zoning designation for this area, among others. Mr. Parker asked if Council approval of the R-3 or denial of the R-3 would have any bearing on any recommendation the Commission might make this evening regarding • the B-1 designation? Mr. Jones stated that any decision the Council may make on the evening of December 16th is only on the R-3 designation; this does not preclude the reposting of the -7- property for B-1 designation, if in fact, the Commission recom- mends the B-1 zoning for the property and Council accepts the recommendation. Mr. DeWitt emphasized there is no way the B-1 zoning for this property, if recommended by the Commission this evening, could be considered by the City Council on the evening of December 1 6th. Mr. DeWitt stated there are mandatory time limits for ·p osting and legal publications, and these could not be fulfilled in time for the December 16th meeting. Mr. Parker asked if the Commission should recommend the area be considered for B-1 zoning, would this have to be held over until after the new Council members take off ice in January? Mr. DeWitt stated it would have to be acted upon by the Council in office in January. Discussion ensued. Parker moved: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described property be rezoned to B-1, Business: All of Lots 17 through 26, Block 1, Skerritts Addition, and Lots 7 through 18, Block 5, Skerritts Addition, Second Filing, and those parts of South Cherokee Street and West Ithaca Avenue which abut said Lots, described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the centerline of the Bannock/Cherokee alley and the ex- tended north line of Lot 7, Block 5, Skerritts Addition, Second Filing; thence south along said centerline a distance of 300 ft. to the intersection with the extended south line of Lot 18, Block 5, Skerritts Addition, Second Filing; thence west a distance of 163 ft. to the centerline of South Cherokee Street; thence north along said centerline a distance of 20 ft. to its point of intersection with the centerline of West Ithaca Avenue; thence west along said centerline of West Ithaca Avenue a distance of 163 ft. to its intersection with the centerline of the extended Cherokee/Delaware alley; thence north along the c enterline of the Cherokee/Delaware alley a distance of 280 f t. to its intersection with the extended north lot line of Lot 26, Block 1, Skerritts Addition; thence east a distance of 326 ft. to the point of beginning. There was no second to the motion •. Wade moved: Smith seconded: The matter of the rezoning be tabled until the next meeting of December 17th, for further consideration and study. AYES: Smith, Wade, Brown, Jones, Pierson NAYS: Parker ABSENT: Tanguma, Jorgenson, Martin The motion carried. -8- Discussion followedo Mr. Parker stated that he feels he was appointed to the Planning Commission to "go along with the e .- wishes of the people"., and if they want the B-1 zoning, he would vote to recommend that it be g.ranted to them •. Mro Jones stated that tabling the matter until December 17th would give. an opportunity fo r additional consideration; this would mean the Commission might make a decision on the evening of the 17th, and that the new Council, seated in January, . would then consider the matter. Mr. Smith stated that tabling the matter had not changed the time element for Council con- sideration; he too, felt that more consideration should be given to the matter . . Mr. Brown stated that the Planning Commission is appointed to listen to the concerns of the citizens, and take the probl.em before the professional people employed by the City; the Com~~ mission is expected t~ s t udy the information presented, the staff recommendation, and then make recommendation to the Cit'y Council on what the Commission feels is best for the City of . Englewood as a whole o· Mro Brown stated that the Commission sometimes recommends in favor of the applicant, and sometimes recommends against the .applicant's wishes; .if th~ applicant . is dissatisfied with the Commission's. recommendation, they do " have the option to appeal to the City Council. Mr. Brown stated the,' Commission follows the deinocratic process, and he realized that sometimes citizens are unhappy with the Commission's ~ recommendations; he stated that he would like to do what is . . ~ best for .the individuals and what is b~st for the City as . a whole. Mr. Parker stateq that he disagreed with Mr. Brown; and that he found 11 ·1 t 's best to listen to the majority of the people who live in a given area." Mr. Parker stated that he will probably side with the majority of . residents in ~ given area on a matter before the Commission. Discussion followedo Mr. Jones commented th.at the business zone distr.icts do not require a Planned Development (P.D.) process; the new R-3 Zone District does require that a P.D. be approved and filed. ·Mr. Jones stated that he could forsee a problem involving the assemblage of property in the area considered for B-1 zoningo Mr. Jones ·felt that the P.D. proces~, wberein the entire area would be considered, would tie the property owners down to a specific plan. Mr. Jones 'stated that he would hope the Com- mission wo~ld consider the Mixed Use District, which would re- quire a P.D. approval. Mr. Smith 'noted there . is no control over the size of structur~ in a commercial area --there are no setbacks to meet, and the only requirement. is that o.ff-s·treet parking must be provided, not necessarily on· the same site as the business. '' :'I ; i .. ' . •' •' " ·, . -9- Mrs. Pierson stated that if the area were to be rezoned to B-1, it might be doing a dis-service to the people of the area and to the rest of the City. Mrs. Pierson acknowledged that the members of the audience present seemed to be in favor of the request, but approval would be "opening it up to anything" as far as development goes. Mrs. Pierson stated she is not sure this . is what the City wants in this area. Mr. Jones pointed out for the benefit of the audience that the Commission discussion is of a general nature, and does not necessarily apply to the area that was considered earlier in the Public Hearing. Mr. Chumley stated that the majority of the property owners in the 3500 block on both sides of the street were represented at the Hearing; if they aren't going to be considered, he wants to know right now. He stated they don't expect to get everything they want. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Commission has several other cases of this nature before them, and the discussion has been centered on policies and items the Commission has to take into consideration in making a decision and recommendation to City Council. This discussion this evening does not mean everyone on the Commission is for the request, or against the request. III. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that she had nothing to present under Director's Choice. IV. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Parker stated that he had a question regarding the City Council Minutes, which mentioned "findings of fact presented by the Commission." When the Commission has a Hearing and tables it to a certain date, then discusses the matter further on that date, and makes a decision and recommendation, the findings of fact are approved at ~he following meeting. The "Findings of Fact" are a legal formulation of the reasons for approval and the findings on which the decision is based. He noted that the City Council Minutes reflect the City Council decision to deny Mrs. Warden a Hearing based on the City Planning Commission "findings of fact." Mr. Jones noted that the Findings of Fact are written by the City Attorney's office based on information presented at the Public Hearing and the action taken by the Commission, and the F indings then establish the basis for the Commission's decision. The Findings of Fact must be part of the Council's consideration of the matter. Mr. DeWitt stated that this is correct; the City Council makes the decision based on the findings of fact presented to them from the Commission; it is a formalization of the findings the Commission made. -10- Mrs. Romans .noted that if the Commission recommends in favor of a matter, the City Council must hold a Public Hearing; if ~ the Commission recommends denial of a matter, the applicant ~ may appeal the matter to City Council, and Council may or may not hold a Hearing . Mr. Parker referred to the request by Mrs. Warden for B-1 zoning . Mr. Jones stated that this was referred back to the Commission for further consideration in a.n effort to help Mrs. Warden. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.