Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-04 PZC MINUTES\ CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 4, 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: Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Tanguma, Williams. Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Ed Smith, Wade Also present: Associate Planner House Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Tanguma stated that Minutes of April 20, 1976, were to be considered for approval. Jones moved: Parker seconded: The Minutes of April 20, 1976, be approved as written. AYES: Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, D. Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pierson ABSENT: Wade, E . Smith The motion carried. III. ZONING DESIGNATION Proposed I-1, Light Industrial Lot 6, Bell Isle Gardens (1590 West Tufts Avenue) Parker moved: CASE #14-76 Jorgenson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case No. 14-76 be opened. AYES: Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Wade, E. Smith The motion carried. Chairman Tanguma asked Mrs. Romans for a background of the case. -2- Mrs. Romans stated that the property the Commission is con- sidering is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Leon Mardesen, located at the southeast corner · of West Tufts Avenue and South Windermere Street, which was annexed to the City by Ordinance approved by City Council at their meeting of May 3, 19760 The Annexation Act of 1965 requires the City to zone all property annexed to the City within 90 days of the final action on the annexationo The responsibility to zone the annexed property is the City's, not the property owner. Mr. Mardesen's property was zoned I-1, Light Industrial, in Arapahoe County; the property abutting to the east is zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, in Arapahoe County. To the west, across South Windermere Street, the land is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial by Arapahoe County, and there is also I-2 zoning to the north of West Tufts Avenue in the unincorporated areao The property has been posted the required number of days, and public notice of the zoning procedure did appear in the Engle- wood Herald Sentinel. The Mardesen property was part of the Santa Fe/Union Annexation area, which annexation was invalidated by the Court. Mr. and Mrs. Mardesen supported attempts to annex to Englewood at that time, and they also supported the zoning classifications given to the properties in this annexation areao Their land was pro- posed for I-1, Light Industrial, during the time it was in the City of Englewood. Mrs. Romans noted that a new I-1 Zone District had been adopted by the City in 1974; Mrs. Romans then reviewed the I-1 Zone District, noting prohibitions contained within the District regulations, as well as uses that are permitted. There is a provision in the I-1 District that where an industrial site abuts, adjoins, or is adjacent to a residential zone district, a set back of 10 feet must be provided, and that the develop- ment must be screened. There are also limitations imposed on external effects such as noise, heat, glare, radiation, etc. Mrs. Romans ,further reviewed the screening requirements; there must be landscaping within the 10 ft. setback if the portion of the lot which abuts the residential zone district is built upon; if that portion of the lot which abuts the residential zone district is used for storage of materials, then the in- dustrial property owner must construct a six foot high solid wall or closed-face fence; it may be of concrete, brick,block or decorative wood, and may be built on the property line. Mrs. Romans noted that in the former I-1 Zone District, a 25 foot setback was required, but this setback was seldom maintained, and seemed to be a catch-all for weeds, trash, etc. It was felt the 10 ft. setback would be easier to maintain than the 25 ft. setback, and would still provide visual protection to the residential property. \ ' -3- Mrs. Romans stated that the area to the south and southeast of .the subject property is zoned I-1 in the City of Englewood. There is a mixture of residential and industrial development in the area south of Thomas Avenue, as there is in the area north of West Tufts Avenue. Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. Eitel, counsel for Mr. and Mrs 0 Mardesen, is present. Mr. Parker asked if the applicant had petitioned for sanitary sewer service? Mrs. Romans stated that sewer service is available through tile South Englewood Sanitation District. Mr. Tom Eitel 1016 First National Bank -stated that he represented Mr. and Mrs. Mardesen. Mr. Eitel asked that the staff report be made a part of the record. Mr. Tanguma so ordered. Mr. Eitel stated that Mr. and Mrs. Mardesen have owned the subject property for some period of timeo The property has been zoned I-1, Light Industrial, in Arapahoe County, which zone classification provides that a 50 ft. setback shall be provided where an industrial site abuts a residential zone district. This provision, if applied to the subject property, would only leave the west 37.3 ft. of the property for Mr. Mardesen to build on. There have been two applications to the County Board of Adjustment for a variance to this provision, both of which have been denied. This property was part of the area the City attempted to annex in 1974, known as the Santa Fe/Union Annexation area. Mr. Eitel stated that Mr. and Mrs. Mardesen supported both the annexation effort, and the zoning designations placed on the property. Mr. Eitel stated that Mr. Mardesen was unaware of the Court decision voiding the annexation effort, and came into the City to obtain a Building Permit. Following denial of this request because the area was not within the City, Mr. Mardesen appealed to the County Board of Adjustment for a variance to the 50 ft, setback requirement, which was denied. Mr. Mardesen in- vestigated the possibility of a Planned Development for his property, but discovered he would have to form his own water district to provide water service. This would be extremely costly. Mr. Eitel pointed out that the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Mardesen is on the hub of the industrial zoning and development in both the County and the City. With the exception of two or three homes immediately to the east of the subject land, it is surrounded by industrial land --zoned and developed industriallyo Mro Eitel stated that to attempt to obtain financing for a single-family home on Lot 6, Bell Isle Gardens, would be "ridiculous", and in all probability, financing could ~ot be obtained for residential development in this area. Mr. Eitel pointed out that the subject property could not economically be developed for single-family use. I -4-, Mr. Eitel introduced Mr. Mardesen, and viewed several photo- graphs taken of Mr. Mardesen's property and from Mr. Mardesen's ~ property viewing the surrounding areao The photos indicate ~ the industrial development in the area, as well as the residential areas. Mr. Mardesen testified as to what each picture repre- sented, and also testified that he personally took the pictures. Mr. Mardesen stated that he feels these pictures do represent the true character of the neighborhood. Mr. Eitel asked Mr. Mardesen if he felt the industrial develop- ment in the area is increasing or decreasing? Mr. Mardesen stated that the industrial development is increasing; he stated that he had inquired about property located one block to the east of his property which is under consideration this evening; he was informed the property would be sold for industrial development. Mr. Mardesen noted that in the last year, it has cost him $14,000 just to be waiting and having to go through the procedure of appeals, annexation, and zoning. Also, the cost of constructing a building now will be higher than it would have been a year ago because the cost of materials has increased greatly. Mr. Eitel asked if Mr. Mardesen could have obtained water and sewer service in the County? Mro Mardesen stated he would have had to form his own Water District, and would have had to join the sanitation district. Mr. Mardesen stated that he has not yet made application to join the sewer district, which he will have to do whether he is under County jurisdiction or within the City of Englewood. Mr. Mardesen stated that he is using his property for industrial storage at the present time, and if an opportunity arises to develop his property, he would like to be able to do so. Mro Mardesen stated that he did have a tenant who was interested in the land for an auto body shop; however, the tenant wanted the site by a certain date, and Mr. Mardesen could not meet that deadline. He now has no tenant for the property, but wants to have the zoning approved so that the property can be used for industrial development. Mr. Mardesen stated that he feels it would be to his advantage to be annexed to the City; water and sewer service are available, and the City has a "better tax base" than the County. Mr. Eitel asked Mr. Mardesen if he knew of any residential development in the area in recent times? Mr. Mardesen stated that there had been no new residential development for years. Mr. Eitel asked Mr. Mardesen how long he has owned the subject property? Mr. Mardesen stated he purchased the property in 1972 or 1973. Mr. Mardesen stated that he did not realize the problems that would be involved in attempting to develop the site at the time he purchased it. He was told the land was ~ industrially zoned, and could be used for storage of materials, which was what he wanted to do at that time; the idea of develop- ment of the site came later~ -5- Mr. Eitel asked Mr. Mardesen if he understood the requirements of the I-1 Zone District as explained by Mrs. Romans, and if he understood he would have to comply with these requirements? Mr. Mardesen stated that he did understand. Mr. Smith asked it Mr. Mardesen's proposed development would have faced on West Tufts Avenue? Mr. Mardesen stated the development that he considered when he had a tenant for the site, would have been on the north end of the property facing west; the development would have had access from Tufts Avenue and from South Windermere. Mr. Jones asked if the development of this property would re- quire the removal of the residential use on the south end of the property? Mr. Mardesen stated that at some future time they planned to remove the residence; at the present time, however, removal of the residence would "tear down the only income on the property." Mr. Parker stated that he thought there was an Ordinance in effect which requires the City to provide water and sewer to annexed properties? Mrs. Romans stated that water service is available to Mr. Mardesen; he will have to make application to the Sanitation District for sewer service. Mr. DeWitt noted that Mr. Mardesen will have to pay tap fees for water and sewer service. Mr. Jones stated that the matter of water and sewer service would have to be determined prior to issuance of a building permit. He asked if the residence on the south end of the property is on a septic tank? Mr. Mardesen stated the residence is on a septic tank and is on its own well. Mr. Tanguma asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the request? Mrs. Mardesen indicated she was in favor of the I-1 Zone designation. Mr. Tanguma then asked for those in opposition to speak. Mr. William Malone First National Bank Building -stated that he represents Mr. and Mrs. W. K. Manning, 1540 West Tufts Avenue. Their property is directly to the east of Mr. Mardesen's property. Mr. Malone presented a drawing of the immediate area showing the proposed I-1 area and stated that this drawing was presented at the last hearing on the matter before the Arapahoe County Board of Adjustment. Mr. Malone stated that he did feel the staff report did not take into consideration the full background and history of the subject property. Mr. and Mrs. Manning purchased their home in 1956, and have lived there since that time; and,Mr. Malone stated, they have made it into a "real garden spot" of the area. Mr. Malone stated that the possibility of a solid block wall right on the property line "ran chills down my spine"; he stated that he felt the Mannings were entitled to better treatment than a six foot high block wall on their property line. When Mr. and Mrs. Manning purchased their property, the -6- owner of the subject property was a Mr. Hayes, and he ran Hank's Gun Shop on this site. The property was zoned for residential use in the County at that time, and when it came to the attention of the Arapahoe County officials that Mr. Hayes was using the site for a gun shop, the property was rezoned to I-1, Light Industrial, to permit the gun shop use. Mr. Hayes sold the property to a Mr. Stroebel, who "was sold a bill of goods by Mr. Hayes", and in 1972, Mr. Stroebel appealed to the Board of Adjustment in Arapahoe County, asking for a variance to build an industrial building three feet from the property line, which variance was denied. Mr. Stroebel then sold the property to Mr. and Mrs. Mardesen. Mr. Mardesen asked for a variance before the Board of Adjustment on October 9, 1975, which variance was also denied. Mr. Mardesen had asked for a variance to permit a 10 ft. setback. Mr. Malone stated that ·· there was a reason the 50 ft. setback was instituted in the Arapahoe County Zoning Ordinance, and he feels this rationale applies before the Englewood Planning Commission as well as before the Arapahoe County Boards and Commissions. Mr. Malone noted that Mr. Mardesen has stated he cannot use his property if the 50 ft. setback must be provided; Mr. Malone pointed out that the 50 ft. setback is required on only that portion of his property that abuts the Manning's property. The south one-half of Mr. Mardesen's property abuts industrially zoned property in Englewood, and the 50 ft. setback would not apply on this portion of the lot. This portion is useable as it is presently zoned in the County. Mr. Mardesen could remove the existing dwelling unit at the south end of the property, which residence is presently used as a rental unit. The north end of the property is used for storage of construction materials, and Mr. Malone noted that Mr. and Mrs. Manning have never com- plained about the storage of the construction materials. Mr. Malone noted there have been problems with the property since 1968, and yet Mr. Mardesen stated he knew of no problems until after he purchased the land. Mr. Malone stated that Mr. Mardesen "created a hardship for himself, and now wants you to get him out of it." Mr. Malone stated that he felt Mr. Mardesen should have investigated more thoroughly before he purchased the site. Mr. Malone noted that Mr. Mardesen has stated he has no specific use in mind for his property at this time; "instead of coming in and saying he has a use, he is asking you to give him a use which he can speculate on in the future." This is not the proper basis on which to ask for rezoning, Mr. Malone stated, and added that the Commission must find 'need' and determine if the present use of the land and the use that is proposed justify the rezoning request. Mr. Malone stated that Mr. Mardesen wants to use the property for economical gain to him- self, and wants to continue the non-conforming dwelling unit on the south end of the property in addition to the industrial development on the north end of the property. -7- Mro Malone stated that Mr. Mardesen is attempting to use the City of Englewood to accomplish his very personal goal, and that he feels this is a very improper approach to this problem. Mr. Malone stated that at the last hearing before the Arapahoe County Board of Adjustment, he offered the compromise that the south end of 1he property be developed for industrial use, and the north end of the property be used for parking and storage; but, Mro Mardesen did not want to go along with this proposalo Mr. Malone stated that Mr. Mardesen's only reason for annexing to the City and appearing before the Planning Commission on the zoning, is to ask for the 1-1 District to enable him to cut down on the amount of setback required. Mr. Malone noted that this annexation will be a "finger" sticking up to Tufts, and will make for a very irregular boundary. Mr. Malone stated that he felt the construction of a warehouse or industrial building on the north end of this site, plus the storage of construction materials, could create a very serious traffic hazard at Tufts and Windermere. He stated that there will be big trucks making turning movements at that intersection and he felt this would be a serious problem. Mr. Malone stated he felt it would be more appropriate to zone Mr. Mardesen's property for residential use, which is the use of the land at the present time. Mr. Malone stated he felt the 1-1 zoning should be considered on its own merit at such time as Mr. Mardesen has a prospective development for the site. Mr. Malone introduced Mr. William Manning, of 1540 West Tufts Avenue. Mr. Malone asked Mr. Manning how long he has lived at this address? Mr. Manning stated that he has lived there 20 years, and that he retired in February, 1976. Mr. Malone asked Mr. Manning what plans he had for his retirement in regard to this property? Mr. Manning stated that he wanted to keep his home in the best condition he could, and that he and Mrs. Manning planned to spend their retirement in this house. Mr. Malone asked about the height of the fence on the west side of Mr. Manning's house, and the distance of the fence from the house? Mr. Manning stated that it is a chain-link fence six feet in height, with slats woven into tne fence for a privacy effect. Mr. Malone then asked how high the picture window in Mro Manning's house was? Mr. Manning stated that his floor in the house is two feet above ground level. This enables him and Mrs. Manning to overlook the six foot fence and see the mountains on the west sideo Mr. Manning stated the mountain view is very important to them; the picture window is 16 ft. long by 6 ft. or 7 ft. high. Mr. Malone asked what would happen to the value of the Manning's property if the industrial building were to be built within 10 ft. of his property line? Mr. Manning stated that he felt the value of his home would depreciate approximately $3,000 to · $5,000 if he were to put it on the market. Mr. Manning stated there were residences across Tufts Avenue, to the northeast of his property, as well as residential_ develop- ment immediately east of his home. Explaining the development -~ to the west of South Windermere Street, Mr. Manning said there is a residential use at the southwest corner of the Tufts - Windermere intersection, vacant land south of the residential use on the corner, then there is a second residential use, and then light industrial developments. Mr. Malone asked if Mr. Manning had noticed any new industrial developments within a one block radius of his home? Mr. Manning stated there has been very little industrial development recently, and the closest development would be at the east end of Thomas Avenue, which is a dirt street that dead ends further east of Mr. Manning's property. Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Manning wouldn't experience the same obstruction of view if a residence were to be built on the north one-half of the Mardesen property? Mr. Manning acknowledged that he would be faced with the lack of view of the mountains. Mr. Manning stated that his property extends 125 ft. south of West Tufts Avenue, and Mr. Mardesen's property extends south 250 feet from Tufts Avenue. Mr. Jones pointed out that if Mr. Mardesen's property were to be zoned for residential use, there is sufficient land to enable Mr. Mardesen to have at least two residential uses on his property. Mr. Don Smith inquired regarding the setback requirements in I-1? Mrs. Romans stated the setback in I-1 is ten feet; in an R-1-C residence district, the minimum setback is three feet ~ from the property line. Mrs. Romans noted that she had contacted ,_, FHA on property north of Tufts Avenue and slightly to the west of the subject site, and was told at that time, that residential development would not be financed by FHA in this area. Mr. Don Smith asked about the possibility of R-4 zoning on this property? Mrs. Romans noted that the R-4 District permits single and two-family residential on 50 ft. frontage; it will also permit off-street parking lots, and professional office buildings. Mr. Jones inquired as to the zoning of land west of Windermere Street? Mrs. Romans verified that the zoning of this land was I-2, Heavy Industrial, in the County. Mr. Jones stated that the Light Industrial could serve as a buffer between the I-2, Heavy Industrial, and the R-1, Residential zoning. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Malone to explain the allegations of personal profit regarding Mr. Mardesen's request? Mr. Malone stated that his client does not object to the owner of the land in the I-1 zoning to realize a reasonable return on his investment; he does object to the realization of a large return to the detriment of the neighboring property owner. Mr. Williams stated he did not understand Mr. Malone and Mr. Manning's objection to the I-1 zoning; inasmuch as the property , was zoned I-1 in the County. Mr. Malone stated that he felt there was a very serious change in zoning even though both zone districts are classified as light industrial.· He stated • -9- that the change in setback requirements between the two dis- tricts constitutes a great change. Mr. Williams asked "do you want to see the property sit there vacant and grow weeds?" Mr. Malone stated he did not feel they needed to worry about that, that Mr. Mardesen is making use of the land for storage of his equipment. Mr. Williams noted that Mr. Mardesen has been unable to develop the land under the County restrictions, and Mr. Malone replied that Mr. Mardesen could develop the land "if he wasn't so greedy." Mr. Williams noted that "you are bringing the matter of finances in and I don't like it." Mr. Malone pointed out that "you have to realize that he is asking for the zoning to change the setback requirements where it abuts residential property; the land is useable as 1-1 under the County zoning." Mr. Williams noted that the land is no longer under County jurisdiction, that the property has been annexed to the City of Englewood, and the property owner wants to develop his property. Mr. Malone stated that he feels it is not fair to the Mannings, who have lived at 1540 West Tufts Avenue for 20 years. He stated that they felt they had the right to use their property and not have a building right next to them. Mr. Malone stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Mardesen can use his land for 1-1 development as it is presently zoned in Arapahoe County; but that Mr. Mardesen is asking to change the zoning to a different classification in order that he can make better use of his land. Mr. Williams again emphasized that this land is not now in the County. Mrs. Pierson asked if it was felt that the Mannings had pro- tection with the 50 ft. setback? Mr. Malone stated that they did feel the 50 ft. setback provided protection. Mrs. Pierson asked if there is any way that greater setback provisions could' be imposed with this zoning designation? Mr. DeWitt stated there was no way that greater requirements could be im- posed through this action. Mrs. Pierson noted there are two widely divergent uses contemplated here, and that the 50 ft. setback does provide nice protection for the residential use. She stated that she felt the interests of both parties could be served with a compromise. Mr. Malone stated that greater restrictions may be agreed upon by private treaty between both parties. Mr. Don Smith stated that he felt part of the problem with the 50 ft. setback, is that it would leave only 37 ft. on the property for development --"you don't have anything left to build on." Mrs. Pierson asked what the 50 ft. setback could be used for? Mr. Malone stated that parking could be in the setback. Mrs • . Pierson asked what the height restrictions were in the 1-1 and R-4 Zone Districts. Mrs. Romans stated that the height limitation in the 1-1 Zone District is governed by gross floor area, which may be two times the total size of the lot. The R-4 height restriction is 25 feet. -10- Mrs. Pierson noted that the mountain view Mr. Manning wants to preserve would be subject to obstruction with either zone dis- trict. Mrs. Pierson stated that she was not sure that preserva- tion of the mountain view is a valid reason for denial of the I-1 classification, but asked what would happen in the event the I-1 classification were to be denied? Mrs. Romans stated that the burden is on the City to place this land in a proper zone classification. Discussion followed. Mr. Williams stated that he felt the only zone classification under consideration was the I-1 District, and that discussion must center on the merits of that designation. Discussion followed. Mr. Manning stated that he would have no objection to the granting of the I-1 Zone District if the proposed industrial building was built to the south of his property, and tha~ Mr. Mardesen continue to use the north end of the lot adjacent to Mr. Manning's property in the manner it is now being used -- for storage of materials. Mr. Manning did indicate, on questioning, that he would pre- fer to look at the "backside of a dwelling unit", even if it were multi-family, than at an industrial development. Mrs. Pierson questioned the screening provisions. Mrs. Romans clarified that if a structure is erected next to Mr. and Mrs. Manning's property, Mr. Mardesen would have to provide 10 ft. of landscaping in the setback; if the north one-half of Mr. Mardesen's property is used for storage of materials, the six foot solid-face fence must be erected. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Eitel if he wished to make a rebuttal? Mr. Eitel emphasized that Mr. Mardesen is not asking for a variance to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; his property is in the City of Englewood and has no zoning designation at this time. Mr. Eitel asked the Commission to consider the condition or character of the neighborhood in which the property is located; Mr. Eitel stated that you cannot take a step back- ward and call it progress. Mr. Eitel stated that good zoning practices dictate that Mr. Mardesen's property be zoned industrial for industrial use. Mr. EitelHemphasized that this is industrial land. He stated that there is nothing before the Commission at this time to justify a change to residential zoning for this area. Mr. Eitel stated he felt discussion should have centered on the use of the land --industrial, residential, commercial, or what have you, rather than on the matter of the setbacks required. Mr. Eitel emphasized that this property is surrounded on three sides by industrially zoned land . Mr. Smith asked whose fence was in place now, with the slats woven through the chain-link? Mr. Eitel stated this fence • was Mr. Manning's. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Mardesen understood t~at to continue to store construction materials on the north one-half of the lot would require construction of a six foot • -11- solid fence? Mro Eitel stated that Mr. Mardesen did understand this requiremento Mr. Malone stated that Mr. Eitel has urged that this property be zoned as it is used; he submitted that the property is residentially used, not industrially used. He stated that the appropriate zoning would be of a residential charactero At such time as Mr. Mardesen comes in with a plan for development, it would be appropriate to consider industrial zoning at that time. Mr. Malone noted that even though much of the surrounding land is zoned industrial, it is either vacant, or used for residential purposes. Mro Malone urged the Commission to wait until there is a specific plan presented for industrial development. Parker moved: Pierson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Wade, Ed Smith The motion carried o Brief discussion ensued • Don Smith moved: Parker seconded: The Commission adjourn into Executive Session for approximately 15 minutes to discuss the case before it. AYES: Tanguma, Jones, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith NAYS: Williams, Jorgenson ABSENT: E. Smith, Wade The motion carried. The meeting was reconvened, with the following members present: D. Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson. Members absent were: E. Smith, Wade Mr. Tanguma stated that a quorum was present, and that Case #14-76 was still under consideration by the Commission. Williams moved: Jones seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that Lot 6, Bell Isle Gardens (1590 West Tufts Avenue) be zoned 1-1, Light Industrialo Mr. Jones stated that in connection with this issue, he would have to vote to approve the I-1 District; he finds upon e~amina­ tion of the matter that the property was zoned I-1 under the -12- County Zoning Regulations, and even though the conditions of the two zoning districts are different, the area is still predominately an I-1 area. The land immediately to the west of the subject site, across South Windermere Street, is in the County, and is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial; south of the subject site, in the City of Englewood, the land is zoned 1-1, Light Industrial; and north of the site is R-3, Residential, which area, in his opinion, is in a state of transition. Mrs. Pierson stated that she has a great deal of sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Manning, but she would also have to vote to approve the 1-1 zoning, for the very reasons cited by Mr. Jones. Mr. Don Smith stated he, also, would have to vote in favor of the motion; he stated he does not feel it is a change in zoning --both classifications, City and County, being 1-1, Light Industrial. He stated that the main problem seems to be the setback requirements, which vary in the two jurisdictions. Mr. Smith stated that he felt there is only one other zone classification that could be considered for this area, and it would not change the setback requirements which Mr. and Mrs. Manning object too Mro Smith stated that he feels the land is used for 1-1 now, and he would have to vote in favor of the motion o Mr. Jones asked that the staff prepare findings of fact as related to this case, noting discussion and facts that have been presented at this meeting. The vote was called: AYES: Pierson, Don Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Ed Smith, Wade The motion carried. Mr. Jones noted that this recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, and that the matter will be heard at a Public Hearing before City Council. Mrs. Romans stated that the recommendation would be received by the City Council at their meeting on May 17, 19760 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT R-1-C, Single-family to R-2-C, Two-family CASE #13-76 Mr. Tanguma asked if there were any discussion of the Findings of Fact relative to the rezoning of the residential area in Northwest Englewood fr o m R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence? • • -13- Don Smith moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Commission adopt and recommend ·to City Council, the Findings of Fact on Case #13-76, rezoning an area in Northwest Englewood from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium Density Residence. AYES: Don Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pierson ABSENT: E. Smith, Wade The motion carried. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that she had nothing to discuss under Director's Choice. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Jorgenson complemented Mrs. Romans on her memorandum reviewing her trip to Washington, D.C., to attend the ASPO/AIP Conference. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m . ********** The following members met in study session in Conference Room A: Parker, Tanguma, Jones, D. Smith, Jorgenson, Pierson. Staff members: Romans, DeWitt, House New edition of the Commissioner's Handbook was given to members, and Mrs. Romans discussed changes that had been made in the most recent edition. A bus tour of the City set for May 8, 1976, 7:30 A.M., was discussed. Mr. Parker indicated he could not attend this tour. Other members indicated they would make every effort to go on the tour. The Study Session disbanded at 9:50 p.m. / Gertrude G. ty /Recording Secretary -14- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION CF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: May 4, 1976 SUBJECT: I-1 Zoning Designation -Lot 6, Bell Isle Gardens RECOMMENDATION: Williams moved: Jones seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that Lot 6 , Bell Isle Gardens (1590 West Tufts Avenue) be zoned I-1, Light Industrial. AYES: Pierson, Don Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker NAYS : None ABSENT: Ed Smith, Wade The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. / / d '' l · ·'~ ~-/.-" I-~ C.Gertrude"<f .4 .Wel ty . ~ecording Secret~ry > • • r • -15- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 0 DATE: May 4, 1976 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact -Case #13-76. RECOMMENDATION: D. Smith moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Commission adopt and recommend to City Council, the Findings of Fact on Case #13-76, rezoning of an area in Northwest Englewood from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium Density Residence. AYES: Don Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pierson ABSENT: Ed Smith, Mae Wade The motion carriedo By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission ,' ,, /' Ge,lf;~~i 1t. ~~ ty > <? Recording Secr~tary / _-,~'d{ -== :;> .