Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-02-18 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 18, 1976 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Williams, ~orgenson, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Jones, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith Also present: Councilman Brown Planning Associate House Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Tanguma stated that Minutes of February 3, 1976, were to be considered for approval. Mrs. Wade noted that on the bottom of Page 1, it is noted that she was voting "Aye", and also noted that she was absent. Mrs. Wade stated that she was absent at that meeting. Jorgenson moved: Williams seconded: The Minutes of February 3, 1976, be approved as corrected. AYES: Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Ed Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Jones, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith The motion carried. III. CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION. Chairman Tanguma presented Councilman Brown with a certificate expressing appreciation for his service to the City on behalf of the members of the Planning Commission and other citizens of Englewood. Mr. Brown thanked the Commission and citizens present for the certificate of appreciation, and stated that he had enjoyed working with the Commission members. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS §22.5 -Supplementary Regulations §22.8 -Definitions Smith moved: CASE #4-76 Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-76 be opened. -2- AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Ed Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Jones, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked Mrs. Romans for background on this case. Mrs. Romans noted that legal notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel, the official City newspaper. Mrs. Romans stated that this matter has come be- fore the Commission as a result of concern expressed by this body on the length of time a "temporary" structure may be in existance, and the lack of definitions and other statements governing the "temporary" structure. To this time, the primary control over "temporary" structures has been in the Fire Code, which relates to temporary structures in Fire Zones #1 and #2, the Central Business District, and the other commercial areas in the City. Mrs. Romans stated that the Fire Code referred to temporary structures such as sheds, canopies and fences, and did not encompass a temporary structure or building which may be used until such time as a permanent structure is completed, such as is the case of a temporary structure at Broadway and Belleview. Mrs. Romans stated that 1he proposed amended defini- tion was prepared by the City Attorney's Office, and reads: §22,8 Definitions: Temporary Structure -A structure which is built of such materials and in such a way that it would commonly be expected to have a relatively short life, or is built for a purpose that would commonly be expected to be relatively short, OR ANY STRUCTURE INTENDED FOR NONPER ~ENT USE OR OCCUPANCY. Mrs. Romans stated that Assistant City Attorney DeWitt felt it was necessary to also amend the Supplementary Regulations of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to include the following: §22.5 Supplementary Regulations: STRUCTURES, TEMPORARY -USE AND TERM: ALL TEMPORARY STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO THE OCCUPANCY OR USE FOR THE ZONED DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED. SUCH TEMPORARY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXIST FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX CONTINUOUS MONTHS UN- LESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS, Mrs. Romans stated that the members of the Commission had ex- pressed concern regarding a time limitation for the existance of a temporary structure, and also that the temporary structure must conform to the zone district in which it is to be located . I e l • 1 • -3- Mr. Tanguma asked if any member of t h e a udience wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment? No one indicated they wanted to speak on the matter. Ed Smith moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Public Hear i ng be closed. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Will i ams, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Don Smith, Jones, Parker, P i erson The motion carried. Discussion ensued. Williams moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Commission approve and recommend to City Council the following amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance: §22.8 Definitions: Temporary Structure -A structure wh i ch is built of such materials and in such a way that it would commonly be expected to have a relatively short life, or i s bu i lt for a purpose that would commonly be expected to be relatively short, OR ANY STRUCTURE INTENDED FOR NONPERMANENT USE OR OCCUPANCY. §22.5 Supplementary Regulations: STRUCTURES, TEMPORARY -USE AND TERM : ALL TEMPORARY STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO THE OCCUPANCY OR US E FOR THE ZONED DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED. SUCH TEMPORARY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXIST FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX CONTINUOUS MONTHS UN- LESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS. This recommendation is based on the f ol l owing reasons: 1. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinanc e does not adequately define the term "temporary struct u re ", nor establish the time frame within which a tempor a ry st r ucture can exist. 2. The proposed amendments to the Com prehensive Zoning Ordinance will adequatay define the term "temporary structure" and restrict the occu p ancy or use of a temporary structure to one that is permitted in the zone district in which the temporary s tructure is to be located, and will establish the time period during which the temporar y structure may exist. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Will i ams, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Don Smith , Jones, Parker, P ie rson The motion carried. -4- V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP R-2-C Designation Wade moved: CASE #7-76 Ed Smith seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Don Smith, Jones, Parker The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked Mrs. Romans for a background on this case. Mrs. Romans stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing did appear in the official City newspaper. She presented Certificates of Posting to the Secretary for the record. Mrs. Romans stated that this action was initiated by the City after working with the residents of the area who had indicated they did not want the R-2, Medium Density Residence Zone District designation, and the R-1-C, Single-family Residence Zone District designation was not approved by the Commission. The area to be considered for the R-2-C Zone District is bounded by East Kenyon Avenue on the north, by the Sherman/Grant alley on the east, by East Oxford Avenue on the south, and by the Broadway- Lincoln alley on the west. Mrs. Romans stated that the R-2-C Zone District is a new zone classification, which permits a single-family or two-family use on 50 foot frontage, and with 6,000 square feet of lot area. Also permitted are schools, churches and public facilities which are permitted in all z ' ';stricts. Mrs. Romans pointed out that in addition to the single and two-family uses, the R-2 Zone District permits three-family structures on a 75 foot frontage, and a four-family unit may be permitted on a 100 ft. frontage. Because of this, the residents of the area felt that the R-2 Zone District permitted a density they did not want in this area. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the area is developed, and that a zone classification to be imposed on the land should conform with the existing uses if at all possible. There are 144 single-family units in this area; 31 two-family uses; seven structures with three or four units in each structure, and one structure with eight units. Mrs. Romans stated that the uses with more than two units would be non-conforming un- der the proposed R-2-C Zone District, but the right to use the units would continue so long as the owners wished. The non- conforming designation would go with the land and not with the individual property owner. The staff recommends that the R-2-C Zone designation be applied to the subject land. The staff report has been submitted to the members of the Commission and is to be made a part of the record of the Hearing. Mr. Tanguma asked if any member of the audience wished to speak in favor of the proposed R-2-C Zone Designation? I , I -5- Mr. Virgil Thomas 3810 South Lincoln -stated that he felt the staff report and Mrs. Romans' explanation has covered all points. Mr. Thomas discussed the reasons for the denial of the R-1-C Zone District previously proposed, and stated that he feels the R-2-C Zone District takes care of any objections that were voiced at the Hearing on the R-1-C designation. Mr. Thomas stated he hoped the Commission would take the appropriate and necessary steps to get the area zoned to R-2-C. Mr. Tanguma asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposed R-2-C designation. No one spoke in opposition to the proposed zone designation. Ed Smith moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson NAYS : None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Jones The motion carried. Wade moved: Smith & Williams seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council favorable passage of the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Map to designate the following area as R-2-C: Beginning at a point on the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue at its intersection with the centerline of the Broadway - Lincoln alley; thence east along the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue to the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley; thence south along the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley to its intersection with the centerline of East Oxford Avenue; thence west along the centerline of East Oxford Avenue to the centerline of the Broadway/Lincoln alley; thence north along said centerline to the point of beginning. This recommendation is based on the following reasons: 1. The area proposed for zoning is one in which single and two-family units can be adequately accommodated; but any higher density development would not be compatible with the existing development. For this reason, it would appear to be in the best interest of the public and the residents of this area to zone the subject area R-2-C, Medium Density Residence District . 2. The proposed R-2-C District zoning would provide a suitable transition between the Business District to the west and the Single-family District to the east. -6- 3. The proposed R-2-C District zoning would have a Jtabi lizing and protective effect on the existing residentia~ mix of one and two-family units in this area. The proposed zoning for this area would exclude dwellings in ~xcess of a two-family use, as well as to protect against encroach- ment of general, commercial or industrial uses. AYES: Jorgenson, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Jones The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma stated that he was glad people living in the area had worked with the City until they got a zone classification with which they are satisfied. Mrs. Oldenburg asked when this matter might be considered by the City Council? Mrs . Romans stated that the Council would receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission at their Meeting on March l; the Hearing could possibly be set for April 5th. Mrs. Oldenburg expressed the appreciation of the residents in the area for the efforts of the Commission and staff. A recess of the Commission was called. The meeting reconvened ~· with the following members present: Jorgenson, Ed Smith, Tanguma, ~ Wade, Williams. Absent were Jones, Parker, Pierson and Don Smith. VI. ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION Use Not Mentioned: Van Conversion. CASE #8-76 Mr. DeWitt pointed out what he feels is a conflict in the pro- visions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as to the body responsible for a decision on this matter. Mr. DeWitt cited Page 13, §22.2-Gd, Interpretation, which reads: 11 The Board is authorized to interpret the provision of this Ordinance, and when deemed necessary by the Board, submit reports to the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council sug- gesting amendments to the Ordinance to clarify the intent and purpose of any article, section or paragraph on which it has occasion to rule. The Board may request information from the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning any article, section, or paragraph on which the Board has occasion to rule." He then cited Page 70 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-10b(l07), which reads: "Any similar lawful use which, in the opinion of the Commi~sion is not objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare or vibration or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of fire or explosion." Mr. DeWitt stated that he felt this particular situation might be ~ outside the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and might more properly be determined by the Board of Adjust- • -7- ment. Mr. DeWitt stated he had looked through the Application for Interpretation filed by the applicant; it i s his feeling that unless this use is similar to the other 106 uses listed in §2214-lOb, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain this application. Mr. DeWitt stated that if the proposed use "does fall clearly into another zone district, it should be referred to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.'' Mrs. Romans stated that 106 permitted uses in the B-1 Zone District have been listed; and subsection 107 authorizes the Planning Commission to permit uses that a.re similar to the listed permitted uses, but which are not specifically listed. Mrs. Romans stated that this provision has been in effect and utilized in this manner since 1963. Mrs. Romans referred to a provision on Page 136 ,of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.5-19, which reads: "Uses not Mentioned. Upon recommenda- tion of the Planning Commission, a Building Permit may be issued for any lawful use not provided for in this Ordinance, when, in the opinion of th~ Commission such use is compatible with and not objectionable 1to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare or vibra- tion or is not hazardous to the health and property of the surrounding areas through danger of f i re or explosion." Mrs. Romans stated that if l there is a use that is not mentioned in the Ordinance, on the recommendation of the Planning Commission a building permit may be issued for that use. It was noted that this provision has be~n followed for 12 years, and this particular case was brought before the Commission on this basis. The van conversion use is proposed for 3550 South Broadway. The staff is of the opinion this use is not listed as a permitted use in the B-1 Zone District , and would be a use which is not similar to other uses in the B-1 Zone District and should not, therefore, be permitted. Us e s permitted in the B-1 Zone District, the Central Business Dis t rict, are those which are oriented toward pedestrian type traffic; not the ,, drive-in type operations which could c onflict with pedestrian traffic. Mrs. Romans noted that the proposed van conversion business at 3550 South Broadway would require the addition of double doors to the front of the struc ture, with the entrance off of South Broadway. There is no rear access to the structure. Broadway is one of the most heavily traveled streets in the City at this time, and in addition, this use would be located just north of the off-ramp from U.S. 285, a situation which could create additional traffic problems. Mrs. Romans stated that there is concern on the condition of the building itself; there would have to be considerable wo rk on the building to bring it up to Code . Mr. DeWitt again cautioned this might not be within the jurisdic- tion of the Commission. He stated that it must be determined if this particular use is indeed similar to the other 106 uses listed in the B-1 Zone District; he stated that he feels it clearly properly belongs in another z o ne district. Mrs. Romans -8- noted that this is the request before the Commission --to determine li, indeed, the use is similar to the uses listed in B-1, Business Zone District. Mr. Tanguma asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Frey #9 Niblick Lane -stated that the structure at 3550 South Broadway is about 100 yards north of U.S. Highway #285. He stated that his sales and warehousing business is now occupying 3554 South Broadway. He noted there is very little walking traffic in this particular section on Broadway. Mr. Frey also noted there are two curb cuts for entrances to parking lots in this immediate area --one to the Surplus Store parking lot, and another to the H. Salt Eq. parking lot. Mr. Frey stated if the request is approved, he hoped to get a loading zone in front of the garage so vans wouldn't be in the traffic area on Broadway. Mr. Frey stated that in his opinion, their business would n ot add to the congestion on Broadway. Mr. Smith asked if this location could be used for the proposed business without street access? Could there be access from the rear of the build ing? Mr. Frey stated there is no way access could be provided from the rear; because of Little Dry Creek, the building is on a triangular shaped piece of property. There is a Public Service Station to the back of the building, and he again emphasiz ed there is no way to have access to the 41 rear of this property. Mr. Tanguma asked exactly what was done in the business? Mr. Frey stated they build interiors for vans of four-wheel drive vehicles . This might consist of carpeting and cutting holes in the top or sides o f t he vehicles to install windows. There would be no welding or painting carried on in this business, but there would be use of air and electrical tools. Mr. Williams asked the staff if the proposed loading zone would alleviate some of the traffic problems that would occur in the area? Mrs. Romans stated that it would not, in her opinion. Mrs. Romans stated she felt this was a use that is clearly not intended to be in the B-1 Zone District, but rather in the B-2 or industrial districts. Mrs. Wade asked if this was a fa ctory-type operation? Mr. Frey stated that they would pick up an empty van, put in carpeting, paneling, etc. There would probably be one vehicle per day moved in or out of the building. Mr. Frey stated they have leased the building at 3554 South Broadway for one year, and they would like to keep their operation together if possible. The van conversion business is now at 1835 West Union Avenue. Mr. Williams asked how many vehicles are stored on the street • or site? Mr. Frey stated that none are stored there; the vehicles after completion range in value from $10,000 to $25,00 0 19 • -9- and could not be left on the street. Mr. Frey stated that they do most of their work for dealers --at least 85% is for dealers. Mrs. Wade asked how they would propose to get the vehicles in- side the shop? Mr. Frey stated that the center window on the structure was a garage door at one time --the structure was a taxi garage many years ago; the window would be replaced with a garage door. Gerald Stacy 3900 South Sherman -stated that the use sounded like an auto upholstery shop. Mr. Frey stated that he felt this location was "cut off from the downtown business area of Englewood, because of the creek." He noted that the building was vacant until one month ago. Mr. Frey noted that one block to the south on the other side of West Kenyon Avenue, there is a car lot. It was noted that this is in the B-2 District, rather than the B-1 District. Mr. Jorgenson asked what action has been taken to bring the building up to Code. Mr. Frey stated he had discussed the matter with the property owner , and there have been contractors in to look the building over, and he understood it would not be a major expense. Mr. DeWitt stated he did not feel this proposed use is one that should be permitted in the B-1 Zone District. He stated he still felt the request might belong before another Board. Discussion followed. Mr. Smith stated that he thinks the determination is within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and that the Commission would not be assuming their responsibility if it were not considered by them. Mr. Williams asked if the matter could be delayed long enough to get a written opinion from the City Attorney's Office as to whether the Commission would have jur isdiction in this matter. Mr. DeWitt stated that he had given the Commission all the information that can be given at this meeting; he again cited Page 13 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.2-Gd. He again stated that he feels it is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. Mr. Smith asked if there is a similar use in the B-2 Zone District? Mrs. Romans stated that the B-2 District permits any use in the B-1 District, plus garages, filling stations, and other drive-in type operations. Mr. Stacy stated he didn't think the proposal could be classified as a garage or as a mechanical shop; he would say that it is an auto upholstery shop, or a recreation vehicle service area. Mr. Stacy asked if this use would enhance the downtown area; would it help keep the downtown area from "sliding backwards." Is it -10- something that would usually not be al l owed except to keep the downtown area from dying? Mr. Tanguma stated that the Commission is trying to determine where this type of use best fits. Mr. Tanguma asked if Mr. Stacy were affiliated with the business or if he was speaking as an interested citizen? Mr. Stacy stated that he resides in the area; that he had a ttended the meeting i n regard to the R-2-C consideration. Mr. Smith noted this was not a Public Hearing; the Commission is concerned and understands the concern o f others in the area; he pointed out that t he Commission is now trying to determine if they have jurisdict i on on the matter. Mr. O'Keefe stated he was Mr. Frey's partner, and pointed out that this type of business is a fairly new operation, and that this is possibly why the Ordinance does not make mention of such a use. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the proposed use falls into an auto-repair-type business, and that a great deal of it may be done by new car sales dealerships. Mr. O'Keefe stated that their business is conce rned with adding equipment to vans and other vehicles, and is not an automotive repair shop. Mr. Williams stated he felt it was similar to an upholstery business. Mr. Tanguma noted that the operation goes beyond upholstery, in that they are cutting roofs for sun windows, e tc. Mr. Smith stated that part of the process of customizing vans is working with carpeting, cabinetry, installing stereos, etc . Further discussion f ollowed. Mr. DeWitt noted that the appli- cants have the right of appeal to the Board of Adjustment in the event the Commission would deny the request. Mr. DeWitt stated he felt it was clearly outside the scope of the B-1 District. Discussion followed. Williams moved: The Planning Commission determine that this matte r is within the jurisdiction of the Com- mission and assume the responsibility for making a decision in the matter, and proceed. Mr. Williams' motion was seconded, and carried unanimously. Mr. Williams asked what the approximate investment is in the business at this point? Mr. Frey stated they have approximately $50,000 invested at this point; they do approximately $150,000 worth of business per month, 15% of which is retail sales. Mrs. Romans stated tha t the staff is concerned that this is a use that should not be permitted in the Central Business District, and the B-1 District is not the proper classification for this use. In addition, the use is being considered at a specific location and the subject building is condemned and will take some major repair to bring it up to Code. The Fire Department • • -11- has placed the lower level of the building off-limits to fire- fighters in the event they are called to the building to fight a · fire • Mr. DeWitt cautioned that the status of the building is not under discussion; whether or not the use would be permitted in the B-1 District is under discussion. Discussion followed. Mrs. Wade stated that she felt the lack of a rear access is one of the major concerns inasmuch as the B-1 District is oriented to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Frey pointed out the driveways to two businesses along Broadway are within a short distance from his proposed business. Mrs. Wade stated that these driveways have caused problems, and she does not feel the problem should be compounded. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt it would be out of line to allow this type of business in this zone district, when there are other zone districts designed to allow such a use. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith stated that the Commission and Council want to see more business come into Englewood, and it is unfortunate that this particular zone district will not accommodate this pro- posed business. Mr. Frey stated that the proposed use is not unsightly; there is no noise connected with the use. There is no fire hazard from the use. Mr. Frey pointed out they work on new vehicles, and the oldest van they have worked on was one year old . Jorgenson moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Planning Commission find that the "van conversion" use proposed is not similar to those uses permitted in the B-1 Zone Dis t rict, and the request is denied. AYES: Tanguma , Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Ed Smith NAYS: ."None ABSENT: Jones, Pierson, Don Smith, Parker The motion carried. Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith and Mr. Tanguma stated that they voted to approve the motion rather reluctantly, and Mr. Tanguma pointed out to Mr. Frey that he may appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans sta t e d that the DRCOG Ann u al Dinner meeting is scheduled for March 17th, at the Holiday Inn Southeast, I-25 and East Arapahoe Road. There are funds budgeted for Commission members to attend. Mr. Tanguma stated that he wouli attend the the dinner meeting . -12- Mrs. Romans stated that the Englewood School Board has told the people in the Scenic View Elementary School area that they will close the elementary school unless the residents can take steps to ensure an increase in school enrollment. Mrs. Romans stated that some residents are now carrying petitions to gain support for a proposed change of zoning from R-1-C, Single- family Residence, to R-2-C, Two-family Residence. The residents and staff feel there is a possibility for new development in the area, as well as redevelopment . If street rights-of-way are acquired, additional building sites will be available. The petitions ask that the City initiate the zoning procedure. In conjunction with this, the City Council asked that the Commission members give two or three alternate dates convenient to the Commission when they might be available for a meeting with City Council and with residents of the area. The School Board has indicated the residents must present some concrete plans by March 8th. Mrs. Romans stated that the acquisition of street rights-of-way is proceeding. Alternate dates of February 24th, February 26th, and March 2nd were suggested to the City Council. Mrs. Romans expressed concern over the South Broadway Twin theater, which has recently begun featuring pornographic films. When the request for a Subdivision Waiver was before the Com- mission, the City was assured it would be a Jerry Lewis family- type theater. Discussion ensued. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Gertrude G. Welty ;; Recording Secretary I I I I I 1• I i I I -13- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: February 18, 1976 SUBJECT: Amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance §22.5, Supplementary Regulations §22.8, Definitions RECOMMENDATION: Williams moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Commission approve and recommend to City Council the following amendments to the Comprehensive Ordinance: §22.8 Definitions: Temporary Structure -A structure which is built of such materials and in such a way that it would commonly be expected to have a relatively short life, or is built for a purpose that would commonly be expected ~ relatively short, OR ANY STRUCTURE INTENDED FOR NONPERMANENT USE OR OCCUPANCY. §22.5 Supplementary Regulations: Structures, Temporary -use and term: ALL TEMPORARY STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO THE OCCUPANCY OR USE FOR THE ZONED DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED. SUCH TEMPORARY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXIST FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX CON- TINUOUS MONTHS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CODE ENFORCE- MENT DIVISION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS. This recommendation is based on the following reasons: 1. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does not adequately define the term "temporary structure", nor establish the time frame within which a temporary structure can exist. 2. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will adequately define the term "temporary structure" and restrict the occupancy or use of a temporary structure to one that is permitted in the zone district in which the temporary structure is to be located, and will establish the time period during whi h the temporary structure may exist. -14- AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Don Smith, Jones, Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty I Recording Secretary I I • -15- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: February 18, 1976 SUBJECT: Approval of R-2-C Zone Di strict Designation RECOMMENDATION: Wade moved: Smith & Williams seconded: The Plann i ng Commission recommend to City Council favorable passage of the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Map to designate the following area as R-2-C: Beginning at a point on the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue at its intersection with the centerline of the Broadway - Lincoln alley; thence east along the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue to the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley; thence south along the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley to its intersection with the centerline of East Oxford Avenue; thence west along the c .ent e r l i n , of E a st Oxford Avenue to the centerline of the Broadway/Lincoln alley ; thence north along said centerline to the point of beginning . This recommendation is based on the following reasons: 1. The area proposed for zoning is o n e in which single and two-family units can be adequatel y accommodated; but any higher density development would not be compatible with the existing development. For this reason, it would appear to be in the best interest of the public and the residents of this area to zone the subject area R-2-C, Medium Density Residence District . 2. The proposed R-2-C District zoning would provide a suitable transition between the Business District to the west and the Single-family District to the east. 3. The proposed R-2-C District zoning would have a stabilizing and protective effect on the existing residential mix of one and two-family units in this area. The proposed zoning for this area would exclude dwellings in excess of a two-family use, as well as to pro t ect against encroach- ment of general, commercial or industrial uses. AYES: Jorgenson, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Jones The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commissil. I . " ""' // 11..' .· l · /_,-·. • .• I /C 'i: ,(It ~--e-A /~ _/j~, Recording Secretary ~