Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-20 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 20, 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 Vice-Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade Members absent: Also present: Romans, Ex-officio Brown, Parker, Pierson Assistant City Attorney DeWitt Associate Planner House II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. Parker had called and felt that the Minutes should be amended on Pages 11 and 12, as follows: Page 11, Paragraph #1, Line 6: "that he could not think of any kind of NON-business USE that would go ••.. " Page 12, Paragraph #2, Line 3: " •.••. on Mr. Maples' REZONING request." Page 12, Paragraph #7, Line 1: AYES: "JORGENSON, Parker". Smith moved: Jones seconded: The Minutes of January 6, 1976, be approved as amended. AYES: Wade, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown, Parker, Pierson The motion carried. III. B. L. & WANNITTA WEAVER R-1-C, Single-family to R-2, Medium Density. Jones moved: CASE #3-76 Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-76 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown, Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked Mrs. Romans to give a background of the rezoning request. Mrs. Romans stated that the rezoning request was submitted by Mr. and Mrs. B. L. Weaver, for a change of zoning from -2- R-1-C , Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Resi- dence. The request encompasses their property, and property owned by Mrs. Maye Ferguson. Legal notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel, and the property was posted the required number of days prior to the Hearing. The property is situat ed on the south side of West Union Avenue, on the east side of South Decatur Street. Properties to the north and east are zoned for industrial use; properties to the west are zoned R-1 -B, Single-family Residence, and property abutting on the south is zoned R-1-C, Single- family Residence. Mrs. Romans contrasted the requirements of the R-1-B and R-1-C Zone Districts, noting that the basic difference is in minimum frontage, and minimum lot area. The area abutting the subject properties on the south is a very "open type" development --houses on acreages, and is not as closely developed as is the area to the west. There is a small area north of West Union Avenue that was zoned for R-3 High Density Residence, but it has not developed to this time. Centennial Park is also the north across West Union Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that the subject area was zoned R-1-A, Single- family Residence, upon annexation to1he City by the Simultaneous Zoni ng and Annexation Ordinance that was in effect at that time. A request was made for industrial zoning of the area that was not completed because property owne rs in the area could not agree on what they wanted, and the City Council tabled the matter until agreement was reached. In 1963, when the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the Commission and City Council felt the R-1-A Zone District did not reflect the character of the area, and the area was subsequently classified a~ R-1-C, Single-family Residence, which is less restrictive than the R-1-A, Single-family Residence Zone District. Some time ago, a meeting of the Commission and people in the area was held to discuss a traffic pattern; at this meeting, Mrs. Ferguson said she would be interested in rezoning her land to allow medium density developaent, and hopefully, that higher dens ity would make it possible for her to sell her property. Some time later, an application was made, requesting R-2-B zoning for the entire area presently zoned R-1-C; this applica- tion was filed by a Mr. Carl Wiebe. It was determined at the Public Hearing that Mr. Wiebe did not, in fact, have an interest in any of the property, and the Assistant City Attorney stated the matter could not be considered on Mr. Wiebeis request. It was suggested that a property owner within the area make appl ica- tion or join in an application with Mr. Wiebe if they did want the rezoning. ' -3- Mr. and Mrs. Weaver made application for the rezoning for the entire area, the requested change being to R-2-B, Two-family Residence. The Commission held a Public Hearing on the request, and recommended approval of the request to City Council. Be- fore City Council could hold a Public Hearing, however, the R-2-B Zone District had been repealed, an d the R-2, Medium Density Residence District enacted. Inasmuch as this applica- tion was not completed on t h e City's part , i t was determined to again waive the fee if the property owner wished to reapply. Mr. Criswell submitted the application on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Weaver, which encompasses their property and that of Mrs. Ferguson. The application requests the rezoning from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Resi- dence. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. and Mrs . Weaver and Mrs. Ferguson are interested in selling their property, and have been unable to do so under t h e present single-family zone classification . Mrs. Romans reviewed the newly adopted R-2 Zone District; she noted that this district will permit a single or two-family use on 50 ft. frontage, 6,000 sq. ft. lot area; a three-family use would be permitted on 100 ft. frontage. No more than four units may be under one roof. Landscaping and open space is required; a Planned Development is required for the construction of a four-unit structure. If the entire parcel were to be developed, the utilities would be required to be underground. Mr. Brown entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Tanguma stated that the Commission would now hear from the proponents. Mr. John A. Criswell 3780 South Broadway -presented members with a packet of 12 exhibits regarding the rezoning request. Mr. Criswell stated that the Planning Commission and City Council have never, after hearing testimony and after consideration of the matter, decided the area is appropriate for single-family development. Mr. Criswell stated that the area was annexed in 1961 under the Simultaneous Zoning and Annexation Ordinance and properties annexed to the City came in zoned R-1-A. The Commission has, stated Mr. Criswell, made at least three recommendations re- garding rezoning this site to other than single-family residence. Mr. Criswell noted that shortly after annexation, the Commission recommended the area be rezoned to M-1, Manufacturing; this request was never acted upon by the City Council, partly be- cause the residents in the neighborhood could not agree on what they wanted. In 1963, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted; at that time, the Commission recognized that the R-1-A zoning was not appropriate for that area, and again, not having agreement as to the proper zoning among the residents, the area was zoned R-1-C, still a single-family residential district, but less restrictive than the R-1-A. Mr. Criswell stated that within the past year, there have been three applications for rezoning of this area; the f irst two applications were for the entire area to be rezoned to R-2-B, Two-family Residence; this application encompasses only the Weaver/Ferguson properties, -4- and is for an R-2 Medium Density d esignation. Mr. Cr i s wel l stated that the property owners h ave dedicated a pproximate l y 1/2 of the width of South Clay Street to the City for the length of their property. Propert y owners south of the Weaver p r operty have not dedicated any right-of-way .for the s t ree .t . Mr. Criswell stated the property own e r s are not seeking per- mission to develop the property; it could not be develope d un- til the area is subdivided. Mr. Cris we l l stated that in looking at Minutes of meetings when this area h as been considered pre- viously, there seems to be considerable discussion concern ing street patterns, utility availability , etc. Mr. Criswe ll pointed out that these same problems would have to be f ace d even if the area were to develop u nder the R-1-C Zone Di strict; these problems would be addressed at t h e time the area is s ub- divided. Mr. Criswell stated that u nder the present zo nin g, approximately 25 units could be developed on the subjec t property; if the R-2 zoning is granted, approximately 49 units could be developed. Mr. Criswell stated there is 4.5 acres tot al in the area considered for rezoning; he is not sure how much o f the area would be devoted to streets and easements, but these matters would be considered at the time the area is subdivided. Mr. Criswell stated that he has b een told the Valley Sanitatio n District can accommodate an additional 50 taps on their line . Mr. Criswell noted there is a 2.7 acre site north of West Un i o n Avenue which is zoned for R-3 development; this area has not developed to this time, but if it does develop in the ne ar future, it would not make any difference if the Weaver/Ferg uson properties were zoned for single-family use or two-family use -- there would not be utilities avai lable for the developme nt . Mr. Criswell stated that his point i s that there will be problems with sewer service no matter how t he subject site deve l o ps; but it is not a problem of zoning. Mr . Criswell stated tha t he believes this land should neve r have been zoned for R-1-A u s e, a n d that it was not good planning from the beginning to do so. Mr . Criswell stated that he thinks t he Commission and i t s prede- cessor members have known the Single-f amily Dis t rict was n o t a ppropriate zoning. Mr. Criswell stated t h at if someone could afford to purchase acreage for single-family development, they mo st certainly would not purchase the s u bject p r oper ty, con- s i dering the area. The property a buts directly on i n d us trial z o ning on the east; there is indus tr i a l zoning to t he north. Mr. Criswell stated that he feels i t is good zoning and planning t o buffer between R-1 and 1-1 zone districts. He pointed out th a t the R-2 District if approved , would be imposed between the 1-1 Zone District on the eas t and t he R-1-B District on the wes t; and between the 1-1 Distric t on the north, and the R-1-C Di strict on the south. Mr. Jones stated that he believed the present dedication o n Sou th Clay Street was 16 ft., and not 30 ft., which wou ld b e 1/2 t h e require d street widt h. Mr . Criswell stated that i t cou l d well be 16 ft. dedica tion, and that additional dedic ation wou ld be require d from the We a v er property and the property to the east to realize a full 60 ft. st reet width. Mr. Criswel l ) -5- then introduced Mr. Bill Broomhall, a Broker with Sitefinders Realty, who has the property listed for sale. Mr. Broomhall stated that attempts have been made to sell the land under the present zoning; contractors are not interested in purchasing single-family sites next to industrial ground. If the property were to be rezoned to R-2, the developer could look at the per-unit cost; the R-2 District would give a developer a chance to construct more units. Mr. Broomhall agreed there needed to be a buffer betwe en the R-1 area and the I-1 area. Mr. Criswell stated that Mrs. Ferguson and Mr. and Mrs. Weaver were in the audience. He emphasized there is no developer involved in this rezoning application, and no option or con- tract has been signed on the land. Mr. Tanguma asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in favor of the reque st? No one indicated a desire to speak in favor. Mr. Tanguma then asked for those persons opposed to the re- quest to speak. Mr.Tidwell 2720 West Union Avenue -stated he wasn't really against the rezoning request. He asked if this request constituted "spot zoning?" Mr. Tidwell noted that he understood Mr. Clinger had attempted to get his property rezoned, and he was informed it would be spot zoning. Mr. DeWitt stated that the subject area and surrounding area would have to be taken into consideration; in this case, the fact of industrial zoning on one side of the property and single-family zoning on the other side must be considered. Mr. DeWitt stated that a buffer zone is a commonly accepted method to provide different uses, and in this case he didn't feel this would be "spot zoning". Mr. Tidwell asked why, if R-1-C "isn't an acceptable zoning, why is 80% of the City zone d that way?" Mr. Tanguma stated that the City is basically a residential community. Mr. Smith pointed out that the R-1-C zoning encompasses much of the older areas of the City that were subdivided with 25 ft. lots, and developed on 50 ft. lots; the R-1-A and R-1-B Districts encompass the newer developments with larger lot sizes. Mr. Smith stated that the R-1-C Zone Distric t wasn't an arbitrary zoning, but was serving as a kind of buffer between the more restrictive R-1-B to the west, and the industrial area to the east. Mr. Tidwell questioned the projected number of Mr. Criswell had indicated would be possible. stated that he felt Mr. Criswell was referring number that would be possibl e on that land. 50 units that Mr. Tanguma to a maximum Mr. Tidwell asked how a four-unit structure could -be considered a "duplex"? Mr. Tanguma stated that the medium density .district -6- would permit a four-unit struc ture only after filing a Planned Development, and after hearings and approval on that Plat, which would be recorded in Arapahoe County. Mrs. Romans stated that this is one of the reasons the citizens committee felt it was necessary to review the R-2-A and R-2-B Zone Districts --the zone districts were not accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish. Mrs. Romans stated that the R-2 District has built in controls to protect the character of the area where it is imposed. Mrso Romans stated that the permitted density in the R-2 District is the same as that in the former R-2-B District --14 units per acre. The R-2 District was designed, in part, to accommodate anticipated redevelopment of older residential areas of the City; there is economy in developing under one roof, and the R-2 District will provide flexibility in developing up to four units under one roof depending on the lot area available for the develop- ment or redevelopment. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is not implying the R-1-C Zone District is not a good district; the State Statutes provide that a City must be divided into districts to accommodate residential use, business use, and industrial use; you must provide for all types of development within a City. The R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C Zone Districts are all single-fanily districts but have varying restrictions which would permit a different type of single-family development. Mrs. Romans stated that the attempt was made to build in safe guards for the persons who would live in the area itself. Mr. Tidwell stated that he felt the provision allowing the construction of four units under one roof was unacceptableo Mrs. Romans stated that the provision requiring approval of a Planned Development for the construction of four units could preclude that type of construction. Mr. Tanguma asked if anyone else would like to speak on this matter? No one indicated they wished to speak. Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-76 be closed. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, orgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried . Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Comm i ssion recommend to City Council approv al o f the requested change from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, for the following described property: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the W 1/2, E 1/2 of Section 8, T 5 S, R 68 W, of the 6 h P. M. and the centerline -7- of West Union Avenue R. o. W.' thence west along said center- line 435 ft. +/-to the centerline of South Decatur Street· ' thence southwesterly along said centerline 506 ft. +!-; thence east 501.4 ft. +/-to a point on the east line of the W 1/2 E 1/2 of said Section 8; thence north along said east line 503.14 ft. +!-to point of beginning. The recommendation is based on the following reasons as cited in Staff Report #3-76: 1. Because of its proximity to industrial areas, and because of the agricultural nature of the development within the sub- ject area, the Single-family Residence Zoning may not have been the correct initial zoning. 2. The City has zoned an area north of West Union Avenue and west of South Decatur Street for High Density Residence use, causing a change in the area. 3. The properties within the subject area are not developing under the R-1-C Zone District, because of the proximity to industrially z01ed areas. 4. The area proposed for rezoning is more than ''one (1) City block in area", and therefore, complies with a policy previously established by the City. 5. The proposed medium-density zoning would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The maximum possible density permitted in the R-2 Zone District could be accommodated by those facilities most directly affected, such as utilities and police and fire services. 7. There are commercial, educational and recreational facilities within the immediate area that could meet those needs of the additional population that may come about because of the rezoning. Mr. Brown apologized for entering the meeting late; he stated there was another Council function he attended earlier in the evening. Mr. Brown asked if development as an R-2 District would have any effect on the drainage of the area? Mr. Criswell stated that he did not know whether the develop- ment would affect the drainage; he stated that he did know the property is not in the Standard Project Flood Plain; he stated the matter of drainage would have to be solved before the property developed, and would be considered at the time of Subdivision. Mrs. Romans stated that the drainage problem would be conditioned on the type of development that took place; she noted that the subject site is reasonably flat. Mrs. Romans also agreed that any drainage problem would have to be solved prior to develop- ment of the site. Mrs. Romans stated that the Flood Plain Ordinance pertains to property within the 100 year flood as designated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps report -·8- does not indicate this property as being within the 100-year Flood Area. The vote was called: AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Parker The motion carried. IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER I. M. Blomberg 2700 West Union Avenue CASE #6.:.76 Mr. Tanguma asked for a background of the request. Mrs. Romans noted that on Page 5 , 3rd Paeagraph of the Staff Report, 4th line, it should read "setback a minimum of 30 ft." .•.•• rather than "50 ft.". Mr. Blomberg stated that he wants to erect a building 30 ft. off the property line on the west side, and setting back 30 ft. from West Union Avenue. He needs a Subdivision Waiver to permit construction of the building. Mr. Jones noted there could be problems of access on South Clay Street if the Weaver/Ferguson property does develop in the near future before full street dedication is made. He asked if it would be reasonable to consider the possibility that Mr. Blomberg would dedicate the 30 ft. for the east side of South Clay Street. He noted that the right-of-way is needed for fire protection and to give access to other emergency vehicles. Mr. Blomberg stated that the reason for the 30 ft. setback is to provide for the future street; he does not plan to dedicate the land to the City at this time. Mr. Jones stated he wanted to raise the possibility of dedication of the land; he noted that this request is for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations, aid that the Planning Commission may condition the approval on such things as proper access, etc. Mr. Jones asked if the dedication of the land could be considered in lieu of a formal subdivision plat of the property? Mr. Blomberg stated hat he is in the process of purchasing the property, and he did not feel the Bank financing the purchase would approve of the dedication. Mr. DeWitt asked who had title to the land? Mr. Blomberg state that his wife has title to the land. Mr. DeWitt stated that the person holding the title to the land is the legal owner of the property, and could transfer any rights he or she may have in the property, such as street dedication. Mr. Blomberg stated that "the bank will have quite a bit to say about transfer of any portion of the property." Discussion followed. Mrs. Wade noted that Mr . Blomberg has p1 oposed locating the building -~ 30 ft. from the property line; if the street were to be put through in the future, this would put the street right next to the building. Mr. Blomberg agreed that the street would be immediately next to the building. He stated he didn't think a 60 ft. street would be put in that area. Mr. Jones inquired as to screening requirements for industrial property abutting a residential area. Mr. Blomberg stated that he had a 25 ft. screening strip comprised of evergreens and lilac bushes which was planted within the last two years. Mrs. Romans read the screening requirements of the 1-1 Zone District. Discussion followed. Mr. Brown asked ii the sta ff could forsee any problem in this area in the future if the street is not required now? Mrs. Romans stated that the State Statutes, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations all state that property must have adequate access prior to development. If a portion of a street is dedicated, the remaining portion must be dedicated before a Building Permit is issued. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission has had meetings with residents of the area regarding traffic p~t+~rns, and the concensus was they did not feel additional access was required at that time. Mrso Romans stated that about all that could be done is to try to get proper access at such time as development does occur. Mr. DeWitt noted that the City Engineer has stated there is need for a 60 ft. right-of-way through this area. Mr. DeWitt stated that if this matter of access is not taken care of at the time the Waiver or Plat is approved, it will have to be taken care of at a later date, and it may be much more difficult to get the access at that time. Mr. DeWitt stated he felt Mr. Blomberg should get together with his Financing officer to dis- cuss the possibility of dedication of the right-of-way. Mr. DeWitt stated he felt there would be problems arise from the lack of access to the area. Mr. DeWitt stated that a Subdivision Waiver is designed for the exceptional case, and should not become the rule. Mr. DeWitt stated that in this particular instance, there may be good reason to by-pass the procedure of filing a Plat. The reason behind the Subdivision Regulations is to protect this property and the surrounding area regarding access, drainage, utilities, etc. Mr. DeWitt stated that these items should be taken care of before proceeding further. Jones moved: Brown seconded: That actio n on Mr. Blomberg's request for a Subdivision Waiver be tabled, until it can be determined whether or not the dedication of the east 30 ft. of South Clay Street as a condition of this Waiver can be required; consideration of the dedication to be considered by the staff and by Mr. Blomberg. Mrs. Wade asked what the width of West Union Avenue is, and if there was need for widening of that street? Mrs. Romans stated -10- that West Union Avenue is 60 ft. right-of-way; it is designated as a Collector Street in the Master Street Plan. Mr. Jones stated that where an industrial street abuts a resi- dential area, a 44 ft. roadway width is usually required, with a 60 ft. right-of-way. Mr. Blomberg stated this was the reason he provided for the 30 ft. setback of the building. Mr. Blomberg noted he had only a little over one acre of ground. Mrs. Wade asked Mr. Blomberg what his future plans were for the remainder of the land? Mr. Blomberg stated that he planned to use it for storage of building materials. Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called. AYES: Jorgenson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. V. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Ambrose & Company CASE #5-76 Mr. Tanguma asked for a background of this request. Mrs. Romans stated that Ambrose & Company, represented by Mr. Joe Marx, has applied for reconsideration of a Subdivision Waiver on behalf of property owners Julien Goren, J. L. Shine, John & Marsha Bayens, and W. Lynne Vanderlaan. The area is bounded by Yale Avenue on the South, the City limits on the East, South Raritan Street on the West, and by the Northwest Englewood Greenbelt on the North. The previous subdivision waiver, approved in 1973, divided the property into three parcels, Parcel "A", Parcel "B", and Parcel "C". This reques t is for permission to divide Parcel "B" into three smaller parcels to be identified as Parcel "B-1", Parcel "B-2-A", and Parcel "B-2-B". A condition on approval of the previo us Subdivision Waiver was that no further division of the land was to take place without approval of the Planning Commission. There will be adequate access to the three parcels from West Yale Avenue. Utility services are available to the parcels at such time as the owners determine they want to develop the land. There is a 24 ft. easement on the eastern side of Parce l "B-2-B". The staff recommends approval of the Subdivision Waiver. Mr. Joe Marx stated there is a contract for purchase of pro- posed Parcel "B-2-B", for a warehouse building. There is no contract for purchase on the other two parcels. Mr. Jones asked if there were plans for a siding off the rail- road on Parcel "B-2-B"? Mr. Marx stated that there are no plans to do so at this time. -11- Jones moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Subdivision Waiver requested by Ambrose & Company in Case #5-76 be approved. AYES: Jones, Jorgenson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. VI. LARWIN MULTI-HOUSING CORPORATION Mrs. Romans stated that several weeks ago, Mr. Brown brought up a discussion of the Larwin project, and questioned the plans for development of the remainder of the site. The staff was asked to contact Larwin to see if there could be someone that might meet with the Commission to discuss the Larwin site and the possible development for the rest of the site. A letter was sent to the Larwin Corporation, and a Mr. Pogue replied that he would plan to meet with the Commission. There are residents of the development and the neighboring areas who had learned tha t a Larwin repr0 r.entative was to meet with the Commission that have contacted the office; these persons have been told that it is a public meeting, and that if they have comments they wish to make, such comments should be directed to the Commission and not to Mr. Pogue. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Brown to discuss his concerns and his reasons for wanting to meet with a representative from Larwin. Mr. Brown stated that he feels there are concerns about the development. He noted that there is a public park abutting the site, and that Larwin did give the land to the City go develop the park. Mr. Brown noted that the park is for the use of everyone, but the problem now is that small children from the Larwin site are crawling through the wrought iron bars into the park, and that the parents of the children have to go around to the Floyd Street side of the park to get them. There was a provision in the Subdivision Waiver that there would be no gate from the Larwin site into the park. Also, one of the things promised by the Larwin Corporation was that there would be play areas for the children in each phase of the development. These apparently have not been constructed, and the children are crawling through the fence to use the facilities in the Park. Mr. Brown stated he felt this could be a very dangerous situation in that a parent could not reach a child quickly if the child were in danger, and he didn't want to see any accidents happen there. Mr. Brown noted there is a pond in the park site, and small shildren should not be un- attended near the pond. Mr. Brown stated that he felt the residents of the complex would speak for themselves regarding problems they have ex- perienced in the complex. -12- Mr. Leighton Jones 1801 Ea s t Girard, #111 -stated he i s a r eside nt of Kimberly Village. The residents of the compl e x and r es iden ts of the surrounding area had a meeting on J anu ary 1 8th. Some of the conc erns voiced by attendants at the meeting c oncerned on- street parking on the periphery of th e c omplex; poor visibility at the Girard/Lafayette point of egress ; noise problems; vandalism of automobiles; illegal door-to-door salesmen in the complex; etc. Mr. Jones stated th at t enants o f the f amily area were under the impression there we r e to be recreatio n areas and play lots for the children. There are also problems with residents outside the complex attempting to use the swimming pool insid e the complex. Mr . Jones stat ed the tenants would like to know what was promised, and whose responsibility it i s t o see that these promises are f ul f illed . Mr. Tanguma asked if the City was r esponsible f or police pro- tec tion in the area? Mr. DeWitt st a t ed that the City is to provide police pro t ection for any property within the corporate l i mits. Mrs. Romans stated that th e City was told from the b eginning that the entire site would be fenced and secured; one wo uld not be able to gain access to the development except through a gate activated by a card, or security guards would be posted at points of ingress and egress. Mr . Pogue of the Larwin Corporat i o n introduced himself, and st ated he would attempt to answer questions members of the Co mm ission might have regarding t h e development. Mr. Brown stated that he is concer ned that the development wi ll c o ntinue to be a really nice development, and that good t en a nts will stay in the complex. He asked Mr. Pogue what the ir fut ure plans for the site we re? Mr. Brown stated he had a very strong interest in the s ite, and wanted people to take pride in living there; he also wants people who live in t he s u rrounding area to take pride living there. Mr. Brown st a ted h e did n o t want a slum area on t he site in ten years time . He again asked Mr. Pogue what plans were for the develop- me nt of the remainder of the site, a n d who owned the land ? Mr . Pogue stated he would respond t o direct questions. He st ated t hat the Commission "certainly has an advantage of kno wing what is going on." Mr. Pogue stated that Larwin o ff icials were not notified of the meeting of January 18th, and t ha t it seemed to be a "clandestine meeting." Mr . Brown aske d "what are you going t o dowith the land that is s till undeve lope d?" Mr. Pogue stated tha t the land is up for sale. Mr. Brown aske d if it would be possible to have recreation areas for the c hil dren? He noted th at when the Commission was i nit ially cons i dering the project , there were beautiful pla03 pr e sented which depicte d recre a t ion areas for the child- ren, a nd tennis courts, sauna, etc . f o r the adult residents. Mr. Pogue st a ted t h at he t hought tho se f ac i lities are there. -13- He stated he ''has searched t he files, and I haven't been able to find anything that anyone agreed to do." Mr. Pogue noted that the Larwin staff has b e en cut from 2,000 to 100 people, and that possibly the plans are filed somewhere. He reiterated that he has found no drawin gs or plans that depict tennis courts that were supposed to b e provided. Mrs. Romans stated there were plans for tennis courts, and for a day care center for working mothers, as well as a total recreational area for children. Mr. Brown agreed that the Commission and Larwin representatives did talk about these facilities, and there were plans presented on which were indicated the l ocation of tennis courts, the day care center, etc. Mr. Brown stated he is very concerned about the play area for the chil d ren. He asked again if a play area could be provided? Mr. Leighton Jones stated the development does have a sauna, swimming pool and workout equipment for adults. Mr. Lee Jones asked if these facilities were available in both phases? Mr. Pogue stated th ey were. Mr. Pogue referred to a plan o f the Larwin development which depicted the tennis courts, etc., and stated that he had seen nothing like this in their head office. He asked where this plan had come from? Mrs. Romans stated that this is the plan that was presented to the City and is recorded in the Office of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. Mr. Pogue asked a Ms. Shelly Weissman and Ms. Betty Breit to view the plan, and asked if they had ever seen it before. Ms. Weissman stated that she had seen a plan like it at a City meeting, but not in Larwin f i l es; Ms. Breit stated that she had not seen a plan like this one. Mr. Pogue stated that he was un aware such a plan existed. Mrs. Romans stated that this Plan was recorded, as were elevations, floor plans, etc. Mr. Pogue stated that everything that was proposed for Phases I and IV have been built. Mrs. Romans asked if the child care center is built and operating? Mr. Pogue stated that the structure is built; Larwin is not operating such a use. Members of the audience stated that a Ms. Carol Perkins and a Ms. Colleen Hudson had both st a ted there would be a day care center in the complex at the time they rented their respective units. Mr. Pogue stated that when the complex was begun, it was their intention to have a child care center, and they did in fact construct the building; how e ver , they do not now plan to have a day care center, and the buil ding is used for meetings. -14- Larwin "decided long ago they did not want to be in the business of operating a child care center". Mr. Pogue stated that the investors in the project may decide they want to operate a child care center. Mr. Pogue stated that Larwin does not own the land; they have a property management agreement; they must abide by this agreement for a period of time. He reiterated that Larwin does not own the land or the buildings . Discussion on the financial stability of the Larwin Corporation ensued. Mr. Pogue stated that Larwin secured a large amount of un- secured obligations, and fell into default. The assets Larwin had are pledged to banks. He stated that Larwin is in the process of liquidating their assets, and is selling land throughout the U.S.A. Mr. Woodward 1801 East Girard #249 -asked about the possibility of a teen center for the teenagers who live in the project. Ms. Breit stated that some of the parents have inquired about the possibility of a teen center, and the parents would have to be present for the time the building is used by the teenagers. Ms. Breit stated that the use of the building for a teen-center is on a trial basis. Mr. Pogue stated that the building was erected for the day care center, but is not used for that pur- pose, and if the tenants want to use the building from time to time, the management would have no objection. Mr. Brown asked what the hours for the teen center were? Ms. Breit stated from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. on week days; 6 p.m . to 11 p.m. on Fridays; Saturdays from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and 7 p.m. to 11 p.m., and on Sunday, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Ms. Breit stated there is a recreation room with billiard tables in the adult sections, but the management felt the teenagers needed their own recreation facilities. Mr. Brown discussed the exit gate on Floyd Avenue at Franklin Street; he stated that the gate was down for some time, and he understood the insurance company had to make the adjustment before the gate could be reinstalled. Mr. Brown stated that the gate is in place, but is not attached to the fence on the one side. Mr. Brown stated he would hope repairs such as this would be done in such a manner tha t the development would not deteriorate; he stated that these small things are part of a big problem. Mr. Pogue stated that when he learned about the gate, his in- structions were t o i nstall the gate as soon as possible , and to install it properly. Ms. Breit stated that two tot lots are proposed for the site, and po inted out the approximate locations of these play areas. She stated that she is looking into the possibility of getting play equipment for the tot lots. Mr. Pogue assured the Com- mission that something would be done to give the children a play area. A recess was c alled. The meeti ng reconvened at 9·30 pm with the following members present: Williams, Br~wn, j 0 ~;s, Jorgenson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade . Absent were Parker ~nrl p;~r~on -15- Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Pogue what action or steps Larwin would take to police and patrol the area, inasmuch as the security guards do not seem to be part of the services offered? Mr. Pogue stated there is security within the buildings. Mr. Jones asked what management company is responsible for the site? Mr. Pogue stated that the Joe Yousem Company is responsible for the management of the site. They have offices in Denver, California, and other points in the Country, and manage all of Larwin's developments. Mrs. Wade asked who the City could contact with that company? Mr. Pogue stated that the contact would be Ms. Betty Breit, who is the management officer for all Larwin complexes outside of California. Mr. Jones asked what level of occupancy Larwin has in this complex? Mr. Pogue stated it was better than 95%; he stated that the complex did not rent up quickly and it was discovered that Larwin was asking rents above the levels in the metro area; the rents were reduced, and the project rented up; there is a 10% increas e in rent levels on the board at the present; Mr. Pogue state(1 l a t the expern:;es for the project are enormous, and that the tax es on this proJect "slay" him. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Pogue if it would be possible for the Larwin representatives to get with the Department of Community Development to work on some of the problems that seem to exist with the complex as soon as possible. Mr. Pogue stated that he would arrange for a member of the management firm to meet with the Community Development Department. Mr. Jones commented that Mr. Pogue had stated the undeveloped land is for sale;he stated it is his understanding that such sale would be subject to plans being submitted on the projected use of the property. Mr. Pogue stated that everyone has been referred to the Community Development Department before they make plans to purchase the property. Mrs. Romans emphasized there is no Planned Development filed on this site. The Subdivision Waiver was required because the parcel was to be developed under the Planned Development Ordinance, but the application for P.D. approval was withdrawn. The plans for development were approved solely thru the sub- division waiver process. Mrs. Romans emphasized the City was told repeatedly the $ite would be developed as a unit with a total living environment, and that it was to remain under one ownership. She stated that the streets are not dedicated, but are private streets within the project. Mrs. Romans stated that in the early fall of 1975, the City officials met with a Mr. George Jones of the Larwin Corporation, and discussed some of these problems with him. Mr. Jones was informed the property would have to be subdivided, and a plat for the entire site will have to be filed; the streets will have to be dedicated to the City to an acceptable width. Mrs. Romans noted that because the City was told the project would remain under one ownership, and would be developed as a unit, some of the individual phases do not meet the proper setbacks as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. -16- Mr. Pogue stated that it was never intended to be under one ownership; they planned from the beginning to syndicate each phase of the development. Mr. Pogue then stated that "one owner and one developer was true at one time, but once it was developed, it's the name of the game to have investors." Mrs. Romans stated that had the City known the site was to be sold off, a subdivision plat would have been required. Mrs. Romans again stated that there was to have been a Planned Development for the site, but the request was withdrawn before it got to Public Hearing. The Commission did try to withdraw approval of the Subdivision Waiver at their meeting on December 5, 1972, but between the dates of approval of the Waiver, and the date the Commission tried to withdraw the approval, Larwin had gotten building permits. The City Attorney advised the Commission and City Council that Larwin had a vested interest in the site at that point, and the Commission could not with- draw the approval of the Subdivision Waiver. It was determined that the planning staff ·would meet with representatives of Larwin or the management agency to go over some of the problems experienced on the site. VII. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Tanguma stated that Findings of Fact regarding rezoning cases recently heard by the Commission have been presented for Commission consideration. Jones moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #1-76 be approved and recommended to City Council. AYES: Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that City Council will hold a Public Hear ing on the proposed R-2-C Zone District on February 9th; she hopes to have a Public Hearing on zoning the area between Kenyon and Oxford on Lincoln and Sherman Streets on February 18th. Williams moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on Case #2-76, the proposed R-2-C Zone District, and recommend same to City Council. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. -17- Mrs. Romans stated that City Council tabled any action on Mr. Maples' rezoning request, inasmuch as Mr. Maples was out of town. Councilman Brown brought up the possibility of a Mixed Use District being developed, and the staff will be working to draft such a district. Jones moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on Case #34-75, Mr. Maples' rezoning request, and recommend same to City Council. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Brown moved: Wade seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #37-75, Mrs. Mitchell's rezoning request, be approved and recommended to City Council. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Parker The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma asked, relative to Cases #35-75 and #36-76, if an option on property gave sufficient right to apply for rezoning? Mr. DeWitt stated that an option would give one an unexercised right in the property. Mr.DeWitt stated that a true option is the right to purchase land at a future date and that the persons the holding the option could apply for rezoning. Dis- cussion followed. Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Findings of Fact on Cases #35-75 and #36-75 the rezoning request filed by Mr. VanHeusen, be approved and recommended to City Council. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Copies of all Findings of Fact are kept on file in the Office of Community Development. -18- VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans stated that there will be a Public Hearing on the RTD Station Location on January 22nd, in the Englewood Police- Fire Building, at 4 p.m. There will be a Board meeting pre- ceeding the Public Hearing, which will begin at 2 p.m. Mr. Brown will speak on behalf of the City o f Englewood. Mrs. Romans stated that a third alternative for the station location has been proposed, that being over U.S. 285. The City Council has approved the location in the vicinity of U.S . 285 a nd Cinderella City. Mrs. Romans stated that a paragraph would be adde d t o the Statement Mr. Brown is to read regarding the new proposal, asking that this proposal be considered in the final design plan, and a study be made by the RTD staff o Mr. Brown stated that he·understood it is not the intent to request a specific location f or the ART station, but rathe r a general location will be identified. The Hearing will b e to consider several available locations and specific locations will be identi~ied in the next design stage. £~ .5!t-f1l:C Mr. Ta e g~•a asked if the Commission did go on record supporting a location for the ART? Mrs. Romans stated that the Commiss ion did approve the location of the bus terminal next to the Shamrock Mall. The bus ~rminal is then to be tied into the ART station. Mr. !a'&°iaafa stated that he could not figure out how the ART station could possibly be put in the vicinity of Cinderella City if the traffic volume were considered. Mrs. Romans stated this is why the statement is worded "in the vicinity of" Cinderella City, and not adjacent to Cinderella City. Mrs. Romans then discussed recent action of the Board o f Adjustment and Appeals. One variance that was granted wa s f or a 42 ft. sign at Azars; the intent of the Sign Code was t h a t signs in ,excess of 32 feet in height would be prohibited. Copies of the agenda of the Board of Adjustment meetings a r e sent to the Planning Staff for their review. A s tatemen t re- garding the requested variance f or the sign was prepared and submitted to the Board, which met with marked o b jection from Board members. Mrs. Romans stated that the Ch airman of the Board of Adjustment had called h e r and informed her that some of the members had asked that h e t ell her they did not appreciate receiving the memo and that everyone has a right to be he a r do If the staff makes a recommendation, it was felt that the citizens would not receive fair considerationo Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant for the sign had stated his business was poor because nobody could s ee his sign. One of the persons who was witness b efore the Board had testified that they had been a member of the Sign Code Committee, and that the Code was based on the Denver Code and t her efore was no goodo This p erson, in fact , was not a n active membe r o f the Sign Code Co mm ittee. Mrso Romans stated that she, City Attorney Berardini, and Mr. Clark, attorney assigned to the Board of Adjustment, will have a meeting to discuss this matter , i n the near future. Mrs. Romans stated there are r u les set fo rth in the Com p rehensive Zoning Ordi na nc e which a variance mus t meet before it may be granted b y t he Board ; s he st a ted she f elt very few o f the c ases -19- before the Board do in fact meet all these restrictions. Mrs. Romans stated there should be strong justification for granting a variance, and she suggested a meeting with the Board of Adjust - ment and the Planning Commission and possibly the City Council, to review this situation. Mr. Jones agreed that there is a problem. He stated that he feels that part of the problem could be due to a mis-understanding, but that this could seriously endanger the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances in effect. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans stated that in reference to Mr. Blomberg's request for a Subdivision Waiver, the Planning Department has, in the past, been told the City cannot require dedication for street purposes in an instance such as this, and if the City wants right-of-way, it must be purchased. Following these past directions, the staff asked Mr. Blomberg to set back 30 ft. with his proposed building to allow for right-of-way if it were to be needed in the future. Mr. Jones stated he moved to table the matter because he feels there is some possibility the Com- mission might decide to deny the waiver, and to require a plat be filed to get the street. Mr. Jones stated that it is obvious that Mr. and M: . Weaver will hP. required to dedicate additional land for the street when they plat their land to provide access to development that will occur on their property. Mr. Jones stated that he feels the street should go in. Mr. Jones stated that he felt granting the waiver without assurance of the street is improper. Mr. DeWitt stated that Mr. Blomberg could either obtain the Waiver, or file a Subdivision Plat for the area. Mr. DeWitt stated that he strongly feels the Subdivision Waiver should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and cited problems in the Larwin development which could be traced back to the granting of the Waiver. Mr.DeWitt stated that he felt the City should be assured of the street before the waiver is granted, if indeed, the Commission determines to grant the waiver. Mr. Tanguma agreed that "the Larwin fiasco should be a lesson to everyone in City Government", and that "we should not give away the rights of the City." Mr. DeWitt noted that even though Mr. Blomberg has agreed to set the building back 30 ft., there might be some problems if it is determined a 60 ft. right-of-way is needed. Discussion followed. IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Jones noted that he will be out of town until February 23rd. -20- Mr. Brown stated that this was h i s last meeting with the Pl anning and Zoning Commission; he stated that he has enjoyed working with the dedicated people who have served on the Commission and with the staff. Mr. Brown stated that the Commission is one of the most important Commissions in the City. He stated he knew the members of the Commission and staff were all giving their best and would continue t o do so. Mr. Brown stated t h a t Mr. Don Smith would assume his position on the Commission , an d that he, Mr. Brown, would assume a position on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Tanguma thanked Mr. Brown for his years of service on the Commission; he stated that Mr. Brown would be missed by the members of the Commission, and that he personally, had l earned much from Mr. Brown. Mr. Jones stated that he would agree with Mr. Tanguma's sentiments. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ~.I~ -OertrUCfea:ety Recording Secretary -21- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: January 20, 1976 SUBJECT: Recommended Approval of Rezoning Request RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the requested change from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, for the following described property: Beginning at the intersection of the east line of the W 1/2, E 1/2 of Section 8, T 5 S, R 68 W, of the 6th P. M. and the centerline of West Union Avenue R. O. W.; thence west along. said center- line 435 fto +/-to the centerline of South Decatur Street; thence southwesterly along said centerline 506 ft. +/-; thence east 501.4 ft. +/-to a point on the east line of the W 1/2 E 1/2 of said Se ction 8; theDc~ north along said east line 503.14 ft. +/-to point of beginning. The recommendation is based on the following reasons as cited in Staff Report #3-76: 1. Because of its proximity ~o industrial areas, and because of the agricultural nature of the development within the sub- ject area, the Single-family Residence zoning may not have been the correct initial zoning. 2. The City has zoned an area north of West Union Avenue and west of South Decatur Street for High Density Residence use, causing a change in the area. 3. The properties within the subject area are not developing under the R-1-C Zone District, because of the proximity to industrially zoned areas. 4. The area proposed for rezoning is more than "one (1) City block in area", and therefore, complies with a policy previously established by the City. 5. The proposed medium-density zoning would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The maximum possible density permitted in the R-2 Zone District could be accommodated by those facilities most directly affected, such as utilities and police and fire services.· 7. There are commercial, educational and recreational facilities within the immediate area that could meet those needs of the additional population that may come about because of the rezoning. -22- AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade , Will iams, Brown, Jones Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Parker The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ,G~f:'u~~fw.:;;/jy- Recording Secretary -23- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: January 20, 1976 SUBJECT: Approval and Recommendation of Findings of Fact RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #1-76, Mrs. Warden's Rezoning request, be approved and recommended to City Council. AYES: Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planni ng and Zoning Commission. it;{~ ,/_ .:/~- Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary -24- CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE No. 1-76, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS , ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE APPLICATION TO REZONE A ) CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY FROM ) R-1-A, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ) TO R-1-C, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ) PURSUANT TO §22.3-2 OF THE COMPRE-) HENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE ) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. ) A Public Hearing was hel d in connection with Case #1-76, on January 6, 1976, in the City Council Chambers at t he Englewood City Hall. The full membership of the City Planning a nd Zoning Commission was present, those being: Mr. Brown , Mr. Jones, Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Sm i th , Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form o f testimony, presentations,_reports and filed documents , t he Commission makes the following findings of fact: 1. That proper notice of the meeting to consider the requested rezoning was given by publishing and post ing. 2. That the area in question is descr ibe d as : Lot 30, Block 19, Centennial Acres Second Filing, Arapahoe County, Colorado, and to the centerline of the abutting rig hts-of-way designated as West Bellewood Drive and South Fe der a l Boulevard. 3. That the application was filed by Tina Cooksey Warden, 3001 West Bellewood Drive, Englewood, Colorado, the owner of the property for which r e zoning is sought. 4. That the area with which the application is con- cerned was annexed to the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1962, and was zoned R-1-A, Single-family Re s idence at that time. 5. That the area that was zoned R-1-A, S i n gle-family Residence following its annexa tion to the City of Englewood, was at that time completely dev eloped by single-family residences on lots of a size that were com p a tible with the min imum require- ments of the R-1-A Zone District , i .e., 75 foot f r ont age and 9,000 s~uare foot lot area. -25- 6. That there is a single-family residence on the site for which rezoning is requested at this time. 7. That the R-1-A Single-family Residence District is the most restrictive zone classification in the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance and areas so zoned should be protected from activities of a commercial nature. 8. That the R-1-C, Single-family Residence District permits certain Home Occupations which are not permitted in the R-1-A Zone District. 9. That the property which is the subject of this application is adjacent to commercial development on the south and on the east, but the commercial development does not front onto the subject site on the south and on the east it is set back sufficiently far from the subject property that it has no adverse effect. CONCLUSIONS 1. Tha ,. proper Public Notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. That the present zoning is R-1-A, Single-family Residence, which District does not permit Home Occupations or other uses of a commercial nature. 3. That the property owners in the area adjacent to the p~operty with which this application is concerned, have relied on the restrictions in the R-1-A, Single-family Zone District, which protect them from the encroachment of commercial development and that the proposed R-1-C, Single-family Residence District, would not give them that same protection. 4. That there has been no substantial change in the nature of the area which would warrant the change in zoning and that the R-1-~, Single-family Residence District is the proper zoning for the area. 5. No evidence was brought forth to show that the property cannot be used under the present zoning. 6. That the present zone classification will continue to conserve and stabilize the value of the property and to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of all in accordance with a comprehensive plan. 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 application of Tina Cooksey Warden, Case No. 1-76, to rezone the property hereinafter described from R-1-A, to R-1-C, both Single-family -26- Residence Zone Districts, be denied: Lot 30, Block 19, Centennial Acres 2nd Filing, Arapahoe County, Colorado, and the rights-of-way to the centerline of the abutting streets designated as West Bellewood Drive and South Federal Boulevard. Upon vote at a meeting of the Commission, January 6, 1976. Those voting in favor of the rezoning: Mr. Brown, Mr. Parker and Mr. Tanguma. Those voting in opposition to the rezoning: Mr. Jones, Mr. Jorgenson, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ~MP~~~ die TangUma;:r: Vice-Chairman -27- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWCX>D CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: January 20, 1976 SUBJECT: Approval and Recommendation of Findings of Fact RECOMMENDATION: Williams moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on Case #2-76, the proposed R-2-C Zone District, and recommend same to City Council. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Respectfully su1)mi tted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission ~~£~z ~Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary -28- CI1Y PLANNING AND ZONING C~ISSION CI1Y OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORAOO FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMvffiNDATIONS CASE NO. 2-76 IN Tiffi MATTER OF PROPOSED ZONE DISTRICT R-2-C --J\MENll.1ENT OF TI-IE ENGLEWOOD CCMJREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF 1963 FINDINGS OF FACT On the 17th day of December, 1975, notice of the public hearing in this matter was published in the Englewood Sentinel giving the date, time and place of the public hearing in this matter. The public hearing regarding this case was held on January 6, 1976 at 7:00 P.M. in the council chambers of the City of Englewood. The proposed amendment entitled R-2-C, Medium Density Residence District, was initiated by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. There are certain areas within the city in which single and two-family units can be adequately accormnodated, but the higher density development would not be compatible with the nature of these areas. TheR-2-C district is a complement to the R-2 zone district and is intended to improve the quality of development in the Medium Density Residence District. The proposed R-2-C district provides for a transition between single family areas and medium high density two-family areas for which none of the presently- existing zone districts satisfies. The proposed regulations for this district are designed to stabilize and protect essentially those areas where there is a mixture of one -and two-family units to the exclusion of dwellings in excess of a two-family use as well as to protect against encroachment of general, commercial or industrial uses. This district will promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life and prohibit those activities inconsistent with a residential district. -1 - Case No. 2-76 Continued CONCLUSIONS -29- The proposed R-2-C ordinance is in accord with the comprehensive plan for the City of Englewood, whereby it will promote good planning within the City and fulfill a need not presently being met by the existing ordinance. It will conserve the value of buildings and encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of Englewood. Such ordinance is necessary to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, panic, floodwaters and other dangers. It will protect and promote family, residential areas, the health and general welfare of the connnunity, and prevent the overcrowding of land and undue concentra- tions of populations, and there is a need for such a zone district within the City of Englewood. RECO?vMENDATION It is the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of Englewood includes a zone district classified as R-2-C, a copy of which is attached to this recommendation. Recommendation approved the 6th day of January, 1976. CITY.PLANNING AND ZONING Ca.t.1ISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Ayes: Smith, Tanguma, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Pierson, Wade and Parker. Nays: None. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission -2 - -30- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: January 20, 1976 SUBJECT: Approval and Recommendation of Findings of Fact RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on Case #34-75, Mr. Maples' rezoning request, and recommend same to City Council. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission • .ld::::.4 i ~· 'Gertrude Go Welty Recording Secretary CI TY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORAIX> IN THE MATTE R OF CASE #34-75, ) FINDINGS OF FAC T, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMME NDATIONS RELATING ) TO THE AP PLICATION TO REZONE ) A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY OF ) ENGLEWOOD FROM R-3, HIGH DENSITY ) RESIDENCE, TO B-2, BUSINESS, ) PURSU ANT TO §22-3-2 OF THE COM-) PREHE NSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ) TH E CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORAIX> ) -31- A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 3 4-75 , on December 17, 1975, in the City Council Chamb ers at the Englewood City Hall. A quorum of the City Planni n g and and Zoning Commission was present, tho se being: Mr. Brown, Mr o Jones , Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Tanguma. Mrs . Pierson, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Parker were not present a t the time of the Public Hearing; however, Mr. Park e r l istened to the t ape d proceedings in full on January 5, 1976, i n the office o f the Department of Community Development. FINDINGS OF FACT Upo n review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony , presentations, reports and filed docume nt s, t he Commission makes the following findings of fact: 1. That proper notice of the meeting to con s i der the requeste d rezoning was given by publishing and posting . 2 . That the area in question is describe d as: Block 6 , I n terurban Addition, Arapahoe County, Colorado , except the wes t 7 5 feet thereof. 3 . That the application for rezoning was file d by Grady Frank lin Maples, M. R. VanDiver, Richard Hoffschneider and Rober t Hoffschneider, owners of the property for wh i ch the rezoning is requested. 4. That the area with which this applicatio n is concerned was annexed to the City of Englewood, by Or dinance No . 13 , Ser ies of 1964. 5 0 That following said annexation, meetings were held with t he owners of property to determine the proper plan for developme nt of the area and, following proper n o t ice and Public Hea rings thereon, the zone classifications were imposed upon the l a nd to implement those plans. -32- 6. That the land with which the application is con- cerned, was zoned R-3-B, Multi-family Residence, by Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1964, and upon the repeal of the R-3-B Multi- family Residence by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1975, the land was zoned R-3, High-Density Residence, a comparable zone classification, by Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1975. 7. That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood, Colorado, adopted by Resolution No. 28, Series of 1969, does not project the expansion of the commercial develop- ment west along or adjacent to West Belleview Avenue. 8. That certain uses which are adjacent tothe subject site were permitted to be developed by Arapahoe County before the area was finally annexed to the City of Englewood, which uses still exist: (1) An ambulance service to the west of the subject site which is a Non-conforming Use in the R-3 Zone District. (2) The K-Mart Store to the east of the subject site, the west portion of which site was zoned from R-3-B, Multi-family Residential, to B-2, Business and R-4, Residential- Professional, after final annexation to the City of Englewood, the building permit for the store having been issued by Arapahoe County. 9. That a "buffer" zone, R-4, Residential-Professional, was imposed on the west 50 feet of the K-Mart property to serve as a zoning barrier between the business zoning on the K-Mart site and the multi-family residence zoning on the subject site; the R-4 Zone District not permitting uses of a commercial nature other than for accessory off-street parking. 10. That in the areas to the north and west of the land with which this application is concerned, there are uses of a residential nature, both single-family and multi-family residences and that the character of the neighborhood to the north and west is primarily of a residential nature. A Planned Development is on file in the off ice of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder for a Multi-family Residential complex to the south of the subject site, but to this date, has not been implemented. 11. That access to the property with which the applica- tion is concerned is limited to West Belleview Avenue, a heavily traveled arterial. 12. That the R-3 District is composed of high-density residential areas of the City, ordinarily located between single-and two-family residential areas and commercial areas, plus certain open areas where similar development appears likely to occur. The regulations for this District are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteristics of the District, to promote and encour age , insofar as is compatible -33- with the high intensity of l and use, suitable environment for family life, and to permi t certain professional uses of a character unlikely to develop general concentration of traffic, crowds of people and general outdoor advertising. To these ends, this District is prot e cted against encroachment of general industrial uses and certain commercial uses while the regula- tions permit high developmen t consistent with the high concentra- tion of persons and land valuation. Residential types of structures as well as variou s institutions are permitted, plus structures for professional uses conforming to the pattern of the District. Regulations are imposed upon development in this District which r equire open space a nd landscaping, underground utilities, minimum lot area and maximum lot coverage, and other similar controls. 13. That the B-2 Business Zone District is composed of uses of a retailing and service nature oriented to vehicular traffic and motorized customers, as well as residents of the City and surrounding area and that the B-2 Zone District pro- vides no safeguards to adjacent residential properties as to open space, landscaping,minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, or similar provisions other than to require a setback on that portion of the property in the B-2 District which abuts upon a Residential District "in the same block" 14. That Mr. Maples and Mr. Vandiver applied to the City for the rezoning of this area in 1972, Case #16-72, from R-3-B to B-2. The Commission recommended approval of the rezoning; however, the Council later denied the rezoning following a Public Hearing. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper public notice of the Public Hearing was given; 2. That owners of residential property in the adjacent area have relied on the multi-family residential zoning designation on the property with which the application is concerned; 3. That the Comprehensive Plan does not project further commercial development along West Belleview Avenue; 4. That the extension of the commercial zoning as proposed would not be compat i ble with existing single-family uses in the areas to the no rth and west of the subject site; 5. That it has no t been demonstrated that the original zoning was in error; 6. That no plans f o r the development of the subject site have been presented o the r than that the land is to be on the ma r k et f or sale; -34- 7o That it has not been demonstrated that the property cannot be developed under the present zoning; 8. That there has been no substantial change in the nature of the immediate area which would preclude the use of the land under t he present zoning. 9. That the zone classification of R-3 will continue to conserve and stabilize the value of property, prevent undue concentration of population and traffic, secure safety from fire, danger, noise and other effects which would be detrimental to existing residents, and to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of all in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City of Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of the City of Englewood, that the above described property not be rezoned from R-3, High Density Residential, to B-2, Business as requested by the applicants in Case No. 34-750 Upon vote at a meeting of the Commission January 6, 1976. Those voting favor of the rezoning: Parker and Jorgenson. Those opposed to the rezoning: Brown, Jones, Pierson , Wade, Smith and Tanguma. Those abstaining: Williams BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ~- Vice-Chairman • -35- MEMORANDUM TO TIIE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF TIIE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: January 20, 1976 SUBJECT: Approval and Recommendation of Findings of Fact RECOMMENDATION: Jones moved: Smith seconded: The Findings of Fact on Cases #35-75 and #36-75, the rezoning request filed by Mr. VanHeusen, be approved and recommended to City Council. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Parker, Pierson The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. L.~£.~ Gertrude G. tWei ty Recording Secretary -36- CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASES #35-75 ) AND #36-75 FINDINGS OF FACT, ) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) RELATING TO AN APPLICATION TO ) REZONE CERTAIN AREAS OF THE ) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, CX>LORADO, ) PURSUANT TO §22.3-2 OF THE COM-) PREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ) THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. ) Public Hearings were held in connection with Cases No. 35-75 and No. 36-75 on December 17, 1975; in the City Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. A quorum of the membership was present, those being: Mr. Brown, Mr. Jones, Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Sllith and Mr. Tanguma. Those members absent were: Mro Martin, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, and Mrso Wade. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, reports and filed documents, the Commission makes the following findings of fact: 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearings to consider the proposed rezoning was given by posting and publishingo 2. That the areas which are the subject of these applications are described as follows: a. CASE NOo 35-75 Commencing at a point which is the intersection of the centerline of the Cherokee/Delaware alley and the extended north line of Lot 7, Block 1 of Skerritt 's Addition, thence southerly along said centerline to a point of its intersection with the extended south lot line of Lot 10, Block 1 of Skerritt's Addition, thence westerly along said extended lot line to a point of • its intersection with the centerline of South Delaware Street, thence southerly along said centerline to a point of its intersection with the extended south line of the north 1/2 of Lot 11, Block 1, Englewood, thence westerly along said line to a point of its intersection ~ with the centerline of the Delaware/Elati Alley, thence north along said centerline to a point of its inter- section with the extended north line of Lo t 7, Block 1 , Englewood, thence easterly a long said l ine to the point of beginning, all in Arapahoe County, Colorado. • -37- b. CASE NO. 36-7 5 Commencing at a point which is the intersection of the centerline o f South Elati Street and the center- line of West Ith a ca Avenue, thence north along the centerline of South El ati Street to its intersection with the extended north lot line of Lot 26, Block 1, Englewood, thence east along said line to its inter- section with the centerline of the Delaware/Elat i alley, thence south along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of West Ithaca Avenue, thence west to the point of beginning, all in Arapahoe Cou nty, Colora do. 3. That the applic a tions for the rezoning of the two above-described areas were filed by William P. VanHeusen through hi s attorney, Tom L. Eitel, 1016 First National Bank Building, 333 West Hampden Avenue, Englewood, Colorado, and that Mr. VanHeusen has an option to purchase land within the area and makes the application on behalf of himself and other property owners in the area. 4. That the property described in Case No. 35-75 is now zoned R-3, High Density Residential; and the property described in Case No. 36-75 is now zoned R-4, Residential - Professiona l, and that the applicant requests that the property in both of the described areas be zoned B-2, Business. 5. That the land to the north of the subject properties is zoned B-2, Business; to the east and south, the land is zoned R-3, High Density Residential, and to the west, the land is zoned 1-1, Light Industrial. The land to the east being the subjec t of a consideration now before the City Council to rezone the land to B-1, Business. 6. That the land described in Case No. 35-75 is owned by the followi ng persons: a. P. E. Voorheis, who owns land which is in both the B-2, Business District (six lots, except a parcel 45 ft. x 100 ft.), and the R-3, High Densit y Residence District (two lots); b. R. L. Law, who owns two lots; c. R. & B. Campbell who own four and one-half lots. Dr. Campbell built the Medical Building to the north of the subjec t property, which building is in the B-2 District. The land described in Case No. 36-75 is shown under the ownership of the First National Bank of Englewood, and is the location of a two-level parking structure which serves tenants of an office building owned by that Bank. . i I. I. -38- 7. That property owners who now or in the past have had land which has been zoned by both R-3, a residential dis- trict and B-2, a business district, have not been able to develop their land as a unit because of the difference in zoning. 8. That the block between U.S. 285 and West Ithaca Avenue on both South Delaware Street and South Elati Street is not of the normal length of th e common block within the City, being 400 feet rather than 600 feet long. 9. That a 21-unit apartment structure has been built on both the east and west sides of South Delaware Street ad- jacent to West Ithaca Avenue, leaving the subject area isolated between the high•density units a nd the couunercial district and, because of minimum lot area requirements in the R-4 District, the subject property could be used only for single-family or medium-density development. 10. The First National Bank Building parking structure which is located on the land included in Case No. 36-75 is a Permitted Use in the R-4 Zone District, but exceeds the in- tensity of use permitted in that District and would more properly be in a business zone district, 11. That the proposed expansion of the commercial district would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUS IONS ·I CASE #35-75 ; 1. That proper public notice of the Public Hearing was ~iven. 2o The subject area adjoins the B-2 zoned commercial area :that forms a part of the strip of commercial uses on the south side of West Hampden/u.s. 285; two of the parcels in the subject area are contiguous to B-2 zoned property under the same ;ownership. 3. Property owners whose land is both in B-2, Business and R-3 High Density Residential Zone Districts, have not been able ; to develop their land as they had desired. Were the zoning to be approved as requested, the land could be used for expansion of commercial uses fronting on U.S. 285. . 4. The apartment houses which have been built on the sout~ end of South Delaware Street have isolated these lots betwten high density residential on the south and commercial uses on the north. Because of the minimum lot area requirements in t .e R-3 Zone District, the proposed R-3 zoning would limit the hse of these properties to single-family or medium density dwellings between the high-density residential development and I . the tommercial development. The B-2 zoning would allow owners to develop their land with the contiguous B-2 zoned properties. ' I I ' I • ,. -39- 5o The proposed change of zoning would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. CASE #36-75 1. That proper public notice of the Public Hearing was given. 2. The present R-4 Zone District includes this property as a "spot" zone meant to be a buffer area between residential and industrial use zones. The property is now developed as a private parking structure, a use permitted in both R-4 and B-2 Zone Dis tricts; therefore, there is no longer any reason for this isolated spot of R-4 zoning. 3. The area is adjacent to B-2 zoning on the north end of the block. B-2 Zoning for the subject property would extend this commercial zone south to include all of the east side of South Elati Street in the 3500 block. 4. The proposed change of zoning would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City of Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of the City of Englewood that the above described areas be zoned B-2, Business. Upon a vote of the City Planning and Zoning Commission at a meeting on December 17, 1975. Those voting in favor: Brown, Jones, Jorgenson, Smith and Tanguma. Those voting in opposi tion: None Those absent: Martin, Parker, Pierson and Wade. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ~w~~~ Eddie TangtlJr. /" Vice-Chairman. -40- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGAR DING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANN ING AN D ZO NING CO MM I SSION DATE: January 20, 1976 SUBJECT: Approval and Recomm e ndation of Findings of Fact RECOMMENDATION: Brown moved: Wade seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #37-75 , Mrs. Mitchell's rezoning request, be a pproved and recommended to City Council. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Brown, Jones, J orgens on NAYS: None ABSENT: Pierson, Parker The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Juul~ Gertrude G. weltY Recording Secretary CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE #37-75, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE APPLICATION TO REZONE A ) CERT~IN AREA OF THE CITY OF ) ENGLEWOOD FROM R-3, HIGH-DENSITY ) RESIDENCE TO B-1, BUSINESS, ) PURSUANT TO §22.3-2 OF THE COM-) PREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ) THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. ) A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case -41- No• 37-75, on December 2, 1975, in the City Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. A quorum of the City Planning and Zoning Commi s sion was present, those bei~: Mr. Brown, Mr. Jones, Mr. ~ar ker, Mrs. Pi erson, Mr. Smith and Mrs. Wade. Those members of the Commission who were absent were: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Martin, and Mr . Tanguma. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the Commission makes the following findings of fact: 1. That proper notice of the meeting to consider the requested rezoning was given by publishing and posting. 2. That the area in question is described as follows: All of Lots 17 through 26, Block 1, Skerritt's Addition, and Lots 7 through 18, Block 5, Skerritt's Addition, Second Filing, and those parts of South Cherokee Street and West Ithaca Avenue which abut said Lots, described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the centerline of the Bannock/Cherokee alley and the extended north line of Lot 7, Block 5, Skerritt's Addition, Second Filing; thence south along said centerline a distance of 300 ft. to the intersection with the extended south line of Lot 18, Block 5, Skerritt's Addition, Second Filing; thence west a distance of 163 ft. to the centerline of South Cherokee Street; thence north along said centerline a distance of 20 ft. to its point of inter- section with the centerline of West Ithaca Avenue; thence west along said centerline of West Ithaca Avenue a distance of 163 · ft. to its intersection with the centerline of the extended Cherokee/Delaware alley; thence north along the centerline of the Cherokee/Delaware alley a distance of 280 ft. to its inter- section with the extended north lot line of Lot 26, Block 1, Skerritt's Addition; thence east a distance of 326 ft. to the point of beginning. -42- 3. That the applicat"on for rezoning was filed by Mary E. Mitchell, 3565 South Cherokee Street, Englewood, Colorado, who is the owner of Lots 22 and 23, Block 1, Skerritt's Addition, which property is within the area which is the subject of this application. 4. That other property owners within this area are~ Skerritt's Addition, Block 5, Second Filing Pearson, Fred T. and Jean F. 3536 South Cherokee Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Lots 7 -10 York, Jake and Violet 3542 South Cherokee Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Lots 11 and 12 Chumley, Ralph J. 3550 South Cherokee Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Lots 13 -18 Skerritt's Addition, Block 1 Thorp, Adelbert L. & Jessi I 3595 South Cherokee Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Lots 17 -19 Johnson, Elsie V. 3575 South Cherokee Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Lots 20 and 21 Starkloff, Dorothy M. Bean, Donald V. 5138 South Perry Littleton, Colorado 80120 Lots 24 -26 5. That the area which is the subject of this applica- tion has been zoned for Multi-family Residence Use since 1955. 6. That there is a strip of commercial zoning to the north of the subject area which commercial zoning fronts on U.S. 285. That the areas to the east, south and west of the subject area are also zoned for multi-family use, although an area to the west is being cons idere d for commercial zoning at this time. 7. The area is now developed with a 17-unit apartmen house, one triplex, one duplex, and four single-family residences. t .· ~ I -43- 8. That some of the property owners are desirous of developing their property or selling their property and, be- cause of the minimum lot area requirements in the R-3, High Density Zone District, they are of the opinion they cannot do so because their properties are not of the minimum size. 9. The Generalized Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan could be interpreted to show a section of commercial development between U.S. 285 and West Ithaca Pvenue. 10. That the B-1, Business Zone District, does not have a minimum lot area and will not, therefore, restrict the redevelopment of the land. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public He a ring was given. 2. That because of minimum lot area re i uirements in the zone district that is now imposed on the land, any redevelopment of the area will be limited to low or medium density residential uses, which is not the proper development for the area because of its proximity to the commercial dis- trict on U.S. 285. 3. That the B-1, Business District will permit the establishment of small businesses in this area, which type of business is a desirable component of the City's commer ial development. 4. That the zone cl~ssification of B-1 , Business, will conserve and stabilize the value of property in the sub- ject area and will not cause undue concentration of population, traffic or stress upon community utilities and services, and will promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of all in accordance with a comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of the City of Englewood that the above described area be zoned B-1, Business. Upon vote at a meeting of the Commission January 6, 1976. Those voting in favor of the rezoning: Mr . Brown, Mr. Jones, Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Parker, Mr . Smith, Mr. Tanguma and Mrs. Wade. -44- Those voting in opposition to the rezoning: Mrs. Pierson Those abstaining: Mr. Williams. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONo ..