Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-02 PZC MINUTES' CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 1976 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Williams, Jones, Don Smith, Tanguma, Wade Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, Ed Smith Also present: Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Tanguma stated that Minutes of February 18, 1976, were to be considered for approval. Williams moved: Wade seconded: The Minutes of February 18, 1976, be approved as presented. Discussion followed as to whether or not there were sufficient members present at this meeting who were present at the previous meeting to approve the Minutes. The matter was extended on the agenda in order that it could be discussed with Attorney DeWitt. III. ALLEY VACATION West leg of the Downing/Marion alley. CASE #10-76 Mr. Tanguma asked Mrs. Romans to give a background to this request. Mrs. Romans stated that the portion of the alley under considera- tion is the west leg of the alley which runs east and west in Block 1 of Yeager's Subdivision of Verona Place, and is south of East Hampden Avenue between South Downing and South Marion Streets. This alley serves as a dividing line between the B-2, Business, and R-2, Medium Density Residence zone districts. The applicant is a Mr. Gus Lambros, who owns property at 3540- 42 South Downing, and at 3517 South Marion. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Lambros is represented by Mr. Chris Diamond, and both are present this evening. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has notified all property owners in the block and invited them to attend this meeting if they have questions regarding the request, and to voice their opinions. -2- Mrs. Romans stated that one of the property owners had asked what effect the vacation, if approved, would have on property taxes for those properties abutting the alley? She stated she had discussed this with County Assessor Wallace, who stated there would normally be no increase in the assessment if an easement were to be retained; the vacated area would be of in- sufficient value to the property owner inasmuch as it could not be built upon. Ed Smith entered and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans sketched the block as it was originally platted in 1909. There was a 30 ft. street through the center of the block running east and west named Verona Court, which has now been vacated. There were two 15 ft. alleys running east and west, one on either side of Verona Court, as well as the 18 ft. alley running north and south between the east/west alleys. The southernmost east/west alley has been vacated and the north- south alley extended south to intersect with U.S. 285, creating the "T" shaped alley which is now in existance. Mr. Parker entered and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has referred the request to vacate the west leg of the east/west alley to the City Depart- ments and the utilities companies for their comments. The Public Works Department has indicated the alley is needed to carry run-off from the properties to the north, namely the Pizzeria and the veterinarian clinic. The north/south alley is narrow, and if the west leg were to be vacated, the staff is concerned that trash trucks and other large equipment could not maneuver the "L" turn, without a radius being dedicated from adjoining property, in this instance the northwest corner of the property at 3517 South Marion. Mr. Smith asked if the Fire Department had voiced any objection to the proposed vacation? Mrs. Romans stated that no objection was voiced by the Fire Department. The main objection to the vacation was voiced by the Public Works Department; the Utility Department had asked for an easement to accommodate the sanitary sewer line. Mr. Parker noted that if the vacation were approved, the Fire Department could not maneuver the "L" shaped alley. Mrs. Romans again voiced staff concern on the proposed vacation of the alley. Mr. Tanguma called on Mr. Diamond, representative of Mr. Lambros. Mr. Diamond stated that he is an attorney-at-law and does represent Mr. Lambros. Mr. Diamond stated that Mr. Lambros owns property abutting the subject alley, and the house is within 5 ft. of the alley line. Mr. Lambros has erected a step for the side entrance to the house, which extends out 3'2" into the 5 ft. side yard. Mr. Diamond discussed the ,. ' -3- I I drainage lwhich flows from the property on the north into the alley and across Mr. Lambros' property. He stated that Mr. Lambros has called the City Engineer regarding the matter of drainage and was told it "would cost the City a great amount of money to correct the problem." Mr. Diamond stated that the front of l ~r.1 Lambros 1 property is being washed away by the run off and ~tiat j if Mr. Lambros were to construct a fence on his property j lin~ as was suggested in the staff report, it would have the effect of "closing him in." Mr. Diamond stated there was considerable traffic using the alley to get to the rear of the Pizzeria and to the Veterinarian's clinic. Mr. Diamond stated that if the alley were to be vacated, Mr. Lambros could construct a fence 7-1/2 feet into the alley or a total of 12-1/2 feet from the side of the house. The fence could be constructed to channel the run-off water into South Downing Street, and not onto Mr. Lambros' property. Mr. Diamond stated that Fratelli's Pizza Parlor does have access onto Hampden Avenue, as does the Veterinary Clinic; furthermore, Fratelli's Pizza Parlor had in- dicated in their plans to expand their building that they in- tended to open a curb cut onto South Downing Street which would provide a traffic circulation pattern for their business. However, the curb cut has not been opened, and persons are using the alley abutting Mr. Lambros' property. Mr. Diamond stated that Mr. Lambros' property has been damaged by gravel kicked up by motorists, windows in the house have even been broken as a result of this, and Mr. Lambros has lost tenants from this structure because there is a traffic way within 5 ft. of the rear entrance of the tenant's home. Mr. Diamond stated that Mr. Lambros does not want to deprive the business people of access to their property, but he in turn does not want to be deprived of the right to retain tenants in his income property. Mr. Diamond pointed out that Mr. Lambros lives in the South Marion Street property, and rents one unit there and the two units at 3540-42 South Downing. Mr. Diamond noted there are approximately three trash bins to be served from the alley area; there are others which could be served from either South Downing or South Marion Streets. Mr. Diamond noted there is a small planter on the alley line of the Veterinary Clinic site, and that Mr. Lambros would agree to an "angle" of vacation to provide access to the doctor's property from the north/south alley. Mr. Diamond reiterated that the Pizzeria was to develop a curb cut onto South Downing Street but this has not been done; they too, then, rely on the north/south and east/west alleys for a second point of access. Mr. Diamond asked why the curb cut has not been installed? Mr. Diamond stated he could not understand the need to protect access for the properties to the north; he asked why these businesses should have access from the rear as well as from Hampden to the detriment of another land owner, which is the case in this situation. Mr. Diamond stated that if the curb cut on the Downing Street frontage were installed, the Pizzeria would have good traffic circulation on their own property and would not have to rely on the alley. Mr. Diamond noted there is no fence or division between the Pizza Parlor property and the veterinary clinic; therefore, the curb cut on Downing could aid in traffic circulation for both properties. Mr. Diamond asked that the -4- Commission give serious consideration to vacation of the alley as requested. He stated he felt the Commission would under- stand the situation much more clearly if they viewed the site. Mr. Tanguma stated that a display of pictures of the area is available for the study of the Commission, and that some of the members have indeed viewed the site. Mr. Jones asked if it would be possible to have a retaining wall on the north property line of the subject property line with a fence atop the retaining wall and still have 5 ft. be- tween the retainin g wall and the house? Mr. Diamond stated that only five feet between the fence and the house would be "enclosing Mr. Lambros' property"; there would be two feet be- tween the steps and the fence. Mr. Ed Smith asked how long Mr. Lambros had owned the property? Mr. Diamond stated Mr. Lambros purchased the property in July of 1975. Mr. Jones stated that he did view the site earlier in the day; the drainage problem has been aggravated by the blacktopping and slope of the parking area to the north. Also, the alley is a gravel alley; in the past some of the water was absorbed in the parking area to the north. Discussion followed. Mr. Diamond stated he knew of no rule or legal document requiring that access be provided at the front and rear of businesses. Mr. Ed Smith stated that he felt there is a definite need to provide access and maneuverability for fire equipment. He pointed out there is commercial development just to the north of Mr. Lambros' property. Mr. Smith noted that the commercial uses could change, and it could prove to be a serious matter to cut off through access. Mr. Diamond reiterated that the commercial uses have access from Hampden Avenue; he further pointed out that Mr. Lambros has agreed to provide an easement if the alley were to be vacated. Mrs. Wade asked what provisions there were for parking for the rental units? Mr. Diamond stated there were places for two cars to park in the rear at 3540-42 South Downing. Mr. Jim Plummer Fratelli's Pizza Parlor -stated that they had proposed the installation of a curb cut onto South Downing, but have not had the time to put it in, and they are waiting until they have better weather to do it. Mr. Plummer stated they have to provide one parking space for each 50 sq. ft. of dining area. If a fence were to be erected after the alley was vacated, they would install parking along the fence. Mr. Plummer stated they have to have two exits for their business. Mr. Plummer pointed out they have provided adequate parking for their business. Mr. Plummer stated that "everybody cuts across their parking lot and spins out around the corner ." He stated that he can understand Mr. Lambros' problem, and stated he would have no objection if the alley were to be vacated. -5- Mr. Plummer stated there is a run off proble m caused by the required slope of the asphalt parking area. He noted there is a bad drainage problem in the area. Dr. Makens 1220 E. Hampden -stated that he owns the veterinary clinic abutting the Pizza Par lor and just north of the alley. He stated that the proposa l , as stated, would seem to have every advantage to him; he does not need access out the rear of his property. Dr. Makens stated that he had installed a small planter abutting his eas t property line, which extends west for some 20 feet; the corner has been knocked off this planter several times by motorists maneuvering past the planter into the alley. Dr. Makens stated that persons who live in the rental units and other residents of the block cut through his property from the alley to East Hampden Avenue. Dr. Makens stated this is a dangerous si t uation. Dr. Makens stated he had considered installing a fence the entire width of his rear property line, but realized i t would only be knocked down also. He stated it would be to his advantage were the alley to be vacated. Dr. Makens noted there is a problem with ice building up in the alley in the winter time, and that it can be difficult to drive in the alley while it is icy. Dr. Makens reiterated that it would be to his advantage if the alley were to be vacated. Mr. Don Smith asked Dr. Makens what the distance was between his building and his property line? Dr. Makens stated that he has 56 ft. frontage on Hampden Avenue; the building abuts the east property line, and is 32 ft. wide, leaving an 18 ft. access between the building and the west property line. Dr. Makens stated that motorists are using his property as access to the alley; people cut through his property, and at times people who live in the rental units use the parking that is pro- vided for his business use. Dr. Makens stated he did not want people cutting through his property; he wants the alley closed at the rear of his property . Mr. Diamond stated the only reason the diagonal vacation of the alley was proposed was to give Dr. Makens access to the alley if he wanted; it would please his client just as much if the alley were vacated across the entir e length of his ownership at 3540-42 South Downing Street. Mr. Anderson 3560 South Downing Street -discussed ac c ess to his garage from the alley; he noted that he cannot turn his head to make backing maneuvers, and must drive in his garage from one way and out the other. He noted that it would be a hazard to turn into the Downing/Marion alley from U.S. 285 because of the speed o f the traffic; there are cars parked along the alley which make it difficult to maneuver. Mr. Ande r son stated he would like to see this portion of the alley remain open. Mr. Anderson stated that he has seen some trash haulers back into Dr. Makens' planter and break part of the planter. -6- Mr. Tanguma asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak? No one else spoke on the matter. Jones moved: Williams seconded: The matter of the alley vacation be tabled until the next regular meeting to review th~ possible needed turning radius for emergency equipment, and that the staff of the Planning Division, Public Works Department and Fire Department review this matter. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jones, Parker, Don Smith, Ed Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Jorgenson, Pierson The mot ion carried. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that Findings of Fact on Case #4-76, amend- ment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on Temporary Structures, were to be considered for approval. Wade moved: Williams seconded: The Planning Commission approve and recommend to City Council the Findings of Fact on Case #4-76, proposed amendnent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance ~ regarding "Temporary Structures." • AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jones, Parker, Don Smith ABSENT: Jorgenson, Pierson The motion carriedo Mrs. Romans stated that Findings of Fact on Case #7-76, zoning an area bounded by Kenyon and Oxford Avenues, the Broadway - Lincoln alley and the Sherman/Grant alley, to R-2-C were to be considered for approval. City Council did set a Public Hearing date on this matter for March 22nd, at their meeting on March 1, 1976. Ed Smith moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission approve and recommend to City Council the Findings of Fact on Case #7-76, proposed designation of the area between East Kenyon Avenue and East Oxford Avenue, the Broadway/Lincoln alley and the Sherman/Grant alley as R-2-C, Medium Density Residence District. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Don Smith, Jones, Parker ABSENT: Jorgenson, Pierson The motion carr i ed. -7- Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. Jorgenson was reappointed to the Planning Commission for a four-year term. City Council referred the matter of rezoning an area in North- west Englewood from R-1-C, Single-family Residence to R-2-C, Medium Density Residence, to the Commission. The Council intent was that the City would initiate the rezoning procedures. The Commission must now set a Hearing date for the matter, and Mrs. Romans suggested that possibly the Public Hearing could be set for April 13th. Mrs. Romans noted there have been several meetings with the residents of the area who have or- ganized into the Northwest Englewood Action Committee or the Scenic View Action Committee. The people are asking that the City assist them to get the rezoning in an effort to show the School Board they are making an effort that will possibly in- crease the school enrollment in the area. Petitions have been circu!ated in the area by residents, and 79 signatures were collected asking for the R-2-C zoning. Mrs. Romans stated that every effort is being made to keep the issues of rezoning and right-of-way dedication for street purposes separate. There have been some individuals who have given right-of-way recently on their own initiative who had previously indicated they would not. Discussion followed. Don Smith moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing April 13, 1976, at 7:00 p.m., to consider the rezoning of an area in Northwest Englewood from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium Density Residence. AYES: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jones, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Jorgenson The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that City Council did approve the Weaver Re- zoning request for change of zoning from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, at their meeting of March 1, 1976. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council approved the VanHeusen rezoning request for a change of zoning from R-3, High Density Residence, and R-4, Residential Professional, to B-2, Business. Mrs. Romans stated that Councilman Sovern is concerned about the need for review of the Comprehensive Plan and that this is a matter which must be considered by the Commission as soon as possible. Mrs. Romans stated there were several items she wants to bring to the Commission very shortly, among them the proposed Mobile Home Park Planned Development District, and a proposed amendment to the off-street parking standards. I -8- V. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Williams suggested that approval of the Minutes be con- sidered at this time. Williams moved: Wade seconded: The Minutes of February 18, 1976, be approved as written. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Parker, Don Smith, Jones ABSENT: Pierson, Jorgenson The motion carried. Mr. Don Smith stated that he would not be able to attend the next meeting; he would be in Washington D. C. attending a conference. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 porn. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * A study session of the Commission convened in Conference Room B, at 8:30 p.m., March 2, 1976. Assistant City Attorney DeWitt discussed the recent Supreme Court Decision in the case of Schneider vs. City of Lakewood, wherein it was determined that in some instances a Planning Commission does serve as a quasi- judicial body. Mr. DeWitt discussed changes that may have a bearing on the conduct of the Planning Commission meetings, and referred to the Planning Commission Handbook, which was revised in 1971. Included in this Handbook is the order of procedure for conducting a meeting. Mr. DeWitt stated he felt it is very important that proper procedure be followed in conducting the meetings. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated there were some changes she would suggest be made in the Handbook, which are really of the "housekeeping" order. It was determined that Mr. DeWitt and Mrs. Romans should work together on the revision of the Handbook, all pro- posed revisions to be considered by the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated she ielt the Commission should review the goals which were adopted by the Commission and City Council in 19730 • -9- The matter of regular work sessions or a regular meeting de- voted to a working meeting was discussed at length. It was determined that a work session would be scheduled for Tuesday, March 30, at 7:00 p.m. The study session disbanded at 9:35 p.m. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary -10- MEMORANDUM TO TIIE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 2, 1976 SUBJECT: Findings o f F act -Case #4-76 RECOMMENDATION: Wade moved: Williams seconded : The Planning Commission approve and recom- mend to City Council the Findings of Fact on Case #4-76, proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding "Temporary Structures." AYES: Ed Smith, Ta ng uma, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jones, Parker, Don Smith ABSENT: Jorgenson, Pierson The motion carried . By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION City of Englewood, Colorado IN THE MATTER OF CASE #4-76, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO AN AMENDMENT TO §22.5, ) SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS AND ) §22.8, DEFINITIONS, OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ) OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ) COLORADO. ) A Public Hearing was held in connection with -11- Case No. 4-76, on February 18, 1976, in the Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the Commission were present: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade, and Mr. Williams . The following members of the Commission were absent: Mr. Jones, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Don Smith. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: 1. That proper notice of the meeting to consider the requested rezoning was given by publication in the Englewood Herald Sentinel, the official City Newspaper. 2. That the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance were initiated by the Planning Commission as a result of concern about the lack of a clear definition as to what a temporary structure is and the time period within which a structure may be considered temporary. 3. That from time to time, it is necessary for persons to have a structure within the City which is not in- tended for permanent use and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance should include sufficient information about such use upon which the Code Enforcement Division and the applicant can rely. 4. That to this time, the Code Enforcement Official reviewing an application for a permit for a structure intended to be used only on a temporary basis has relied on the definition given in the Englewood Fire Code, which definition is applicable only in Fire Zones · No. 1 or No. 2 --the central business area and the other commercially zoned areas in the City. -12- 5. That the proposed amendment would be applicable to any temporary structure in each of the Zone Districts. 6. That it is proposed that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: was given. a. To be added to §22.8 Definitions: 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 NONPERMANENT USE OR OCCUPANCY. b. To be added to §22.5, Supplementary Regulations: Structures, Temporary -use and term: ALL TEMPORARY STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO THE OCCUPANCY OR USE FOR THE ZONE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED. SUCH TEMPORARY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXIST FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX CONTINUOUS MONTHS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper Public Notice of the Public Hearing 2. That it has been determined that the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance does not adequately define the term "temporary structure" nor establish the time frame within which a temporary structure can exist. 3. That it is necessary that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended to include a definition of a "temporary structure" and a provision which will restrict temporary structures to those occupancies and/or uses which are permitted in the zone district in which it is to be located and which will set forth the time frame in which the temporary structure may exist. 4. That the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as proposed 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, as well as ~ establish the time period during which the temporary structure ,_, may exist. -13- RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: 1. To be added to §22.8, Definitions: A structure which is built of such materials and in such a way that ft 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 NONPERMANENT USE OR OCCUPANCY. 2. To be added to §22.5, Supplementary Regulations: Structures, Temporary -use and term: ALL TEMPORARY STRUCTURES SHALL CONFORM TO THE OCCUPANCY OR USE FOR THE ZONE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS TO BE LOCATED. SUCH TEMPORARY STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXIST FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX CONTINUOUS MONTHS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS. Upon a vote taken at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18, 1976, those persons voting in favor of the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance were: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. No persons voted in opposition. Those persons who were absent were: Mr. Jones, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Don Smith. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ~" ~d ._.i-<-=--~Z-Ed 1e Tan umat:: r. 7 Chairman. gw -14- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 2, 1976 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact -Case #7-76 RECOMMENDATION: Ed Smith moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission approve and recommend to City Council the Findings of Fact on Case #7-76, proposed designation of the area between East Kenyon Avenue and East Oxford Avenue, the Broadway/Lincoln alley and the Sherman /Grant alley as R-2-C, Medium Density Residence District. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Don Smith, Jones, Parker ABSENT: Jorgenson, Pierson The motion carried . By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. I J ~ ertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION City of Englewood, Colorado IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 7-76, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE PLACING OF CERTAIN AREAS OF ) fHE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD IN AN R-2-C ) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE ) DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO §22.3-2 OF ) THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ) OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO.) -15- A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 7-76 on February 18, 1976, in the Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. The following members of the Commission were absent: Mr. Jones, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Don Smith. 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 posting and publishing. That the area being considered is described as that area bounded on the north by the centerline of East Kenyon Avenue, on the east by the centerline of the Sherman/Grant alley, on the south by the centerline of East Oxford Avenue and on the west by the centerline of the Broadway/Lincoln alley. That the area being considered was previously zoned R-2-A, Two-family Residence, which zone district was repealed by Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975. That the land to the north of the area which is being considered is zoned R-3, High Density Residence and R-2, Medium Density Residence; to the east of the subject area, the land is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence; to the south, the land is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence and R-2, Medium Density Residence; and to the west, the land is zoned ~-2, Business . -16- That the subject area includes eight blocks and is situated between a single-family residential development on the east and a business district on the west. Flood Junior High School and a small area of medium-density residential development is to the north, and the area to the south is a development of primarily single-family houses with some two- family residences interspersed throughout. That the subject area was largely developed with single-family residences more than thirty years ago; how- ever, there were some residences designed for two-family use throughout the area. That within the subject area, there are now approximately 144 single-family units, 31 two-family units, seven three or four-family units, and one eight-family unit. That there are approximately three undeveloped sites within the subject area at this time. That the single-family and two-family units would be permitted uses and would meet the requirements of the R-2-C, Medium Density Zone District, and the units in excess of that density could continue to be used as Non-Conforming Uses. That consistent with accepted Planning practice, the R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence District zoning would serve as a "buffer" between the business district to the west and the single-family residence district to the east. That the proposed R-2-C Medium Density Residence District would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS That proper public notice of the Public Hearing was given by both posting the property and publishing in the official City newspaper. That the area which was the subject of Case No. 7-76, which area is proposed to be zoned R-2-C, Medium-Density Resi- dence, is one in which single-family and two-family units are and can be adequately accommodated, but a higher density develop- ment would not be compatible with the existing development. That the proposed R-2-C, Medium Density Residence District zoning would provide a suitable transition between the Business District to the west of the subject area and the single-family residential area to the east. • • • • • -17- That the proposed R-2-C, Medium Density Residence District would have a stabilizing and protective effect on the existing residential development and, were the vacant sites within this area to be developed under this zone classification, the uses would be compatible with the existing development. That the proposed R-2-C, Medium Density Residence District would exclude the construction of new dwellings in excess of a I two-family density and would protect against encroachment of general commercial or industrial uses. That the proposed R-2-C, Medium Density Residence Zone District will continue to conserve and stabilize the value of property, secure safety from fire and other danger, prevent un- due concentration of population and traffic and promote the health, safety, morals and the general wel f are of the public and would implement the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood, Colorado, which plan was adopted by Resolution No. 28, Series of 1969. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Englewood, Colorado, to the City Council of said City of Englewood, Colorado, that the above described property be zoned R-2-C, Medium Density Residence, the zone classification adopted by Ordinance No. 6 , Series of 1976. Upon the vote of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18, 1976. Those members of the Planning Commission voting in favor: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. Those members of the Planning Commission voting against the motion: None Those members of the Planning Commission who were absent: Mr. Jones, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Don Smith. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. gw