Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-04-05 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Pierson at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Tanguma, Wade, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Williams, Ed Smith I Also present: .Assistant Director Romans; Associate Planner House; Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that Minutes of March 22, 1977, were to be considered for approval. Wade moved: Owens seconded: The Minutes of March 22, 1977, be approved as written. AYES: Wade, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jorgenson, Tanguma ABSENT: Ed Smith, Williams The motion carried. III. AUTO WRECKING YARD/JUNK YARD ORDINANCE Proposed Amendments CASE #33-76 Mrs. Pierson stated that this matter had been considered at Public Hearing on March 22, 1977, and, in the draft of the Ordinance which the Commission members received April 1st, the staff has made an effort to clarify points brought out at the Public Hearing. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were further comments and corrections to be made to the proposed amendments? Mr. Wanush stated that there was a question raised at the Public Hearing pertaining to the use of "adjoining or adjacent property"; another question was raised regarding the pro- vision of off-street parking for those improvements that may occur on the site of the auto wrecking yards. Mr. Wanush stated that any new construction or expansion of existing buildings in the auto wrecking yards would be re- quired, under the present Ordinance, to meet whatever off- -2- street parking requirements would pertain to that use. If the use is for a rental facility, the auto wrecking yard owner would be required to provide an off-street parking area equal to one-half the area of the retail facility. If the use were for storage and warehousing, the parking requirements would be based on the number of employees. Mr. Wanush pointed out that in the case of those yards which presently have provided off-street parking, additional off-street parking would not be required unless the retail portion of the use is increased over and above what is there now, or unless the number of employees increases for those yards dealing in storage and warehousing. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this would be assuming the auto wrecking yards and junk yards are providing the required amount of off-street parking at the present time. Mr. Wanush agreed that this is based on the assumption that these businesses now meet the off-street parking requirements that are imposed; if the uses do not provide the required off-street parking, they do not conform to the Ordinance requirements. Ed Smith entered and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans pointed out that a Non-conforming Use, the present status of automobile wrecking yards and junk yards, may be "expanded" to provide required off-street parking. Discussion ensued on the difficulties that may be experienced by retaining the designation of auto wrecking yards and junk yards as Non-conforming Uses. Mr. Wanush pointed out that the proposed amendments are an attempt to legislate for a specific problem, and the staff feels that these uses should be made Conditional Uses in the Industrial Zone Districts. Don Smith pointed out that "this isn't the desire of the Commission at this time." Don Smith asked if he understood that a Non-con- forming Use could expand for the purpose of providing required off-street parking? Mr. Wanush stated that this is correct. Mr. DeWitt questioned whether the proposed Ordinance will accomplish what is wanted, or whether it is a "mutation that does not meet the problem." Under the approach of a Conditional Use, the Commission would have a great deal of supervision on the auto wrecking yards and junk yards. Mr. Parker stated that it did not appear to him that the Ordinance as it is now written would cause too much problem, and asked, "as it is proposed now, the auto wrecking yard and junk yard owners may upgrade within their own perimeter, is this correct." Mro Wanush stated that under the proposed Ordinance, improvements may be made as long as it is within the physical boundaries of the existing siteo Mr. Wanush asked the Commission how they felt about the use of adjacent land for a retail outlet? Mr. Parker stated that he • -3- did not feel this matter should be of concern to the Commission, adding "all you have to do is open it up next door under another name", and this is nothing the Commission should worry about. The question of whether or not a retail outlet permitted next door to an auto wrecking yard or junk yard was in fact increasing the area of the auto wrecking yard or junk yard was discussed. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the retail outlet would be limited by the size of the base operation. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Wade pointed out that the purpose of the amendment is to assist these businessmen to improve their operation. Lee Jones, a member of the audience, asked if a retail outlet adjoining an auto wrecking yard would have to meet all the standards for a retail outlet? Would it have to meet all the conditions of business zoning as opposed to a structure within the yard? Mr. Jones stated that he felt there might be some problems in this area on those auto wrecking yards or retail outlets located adjacent to residential property. Mr. Jones was assured that the retail outlets would have to conform to all codes and ordinances, as would any new con- struction in the area. Parker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the proposed amendments to the Automobile Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance be accepted and approved as set forth in the draft dated March 28, 1977. AYES: Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. IV. HAMPDEN PROFESSIONAL PARK SUBDIVISION Findings of Fact CASE #31-76 Mrs. Pierson stated that the next item on the agenda is the Findings of Fact on the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision. At the meeting on March 22, 1977, the Planning Commission re- considered the action taken relative to this case at the meeting on March 8, 1977, and voted to approve the final plat, and recommended approval of the final plat to the City Council. Mrs. Pierson stated that she has been informed that the City Council did set a Public Hearing for May 9th regarding this proposed subdivision plat. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any comments or changes pertaining to the Findings of Fact as prepared by the staff? Mrs. Romans stated that on Page 6, an additional Finding should be added, which reads: -4- 28. That Mr. John Welles' testimony reveals that there would be a substantial increase in traffic as the Subdivision is pro- posed and Mr. J. D. Willis indicated that it would be essentially unfeasible to develop structures in excess of two stories in view of the off-street parking requirements. On Page 8, an additional Conclusion should be added to read: 12. That in order to alleviate traffic problems, the City Planning and Zoning Commission finds it necessary to reduce the height of buildings to be constructed within the Sub- division to two stories. Don Smith moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division, Case #31-76, as amended and attached. Mrs. Pierson questioned Conclusion #8; she stated that she remembered no discussion pertaining to waiving the Restrictive Covenants. Don Smith pointed out that the development plans of the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation were aborted and there was nothing in the Covenants or the Subdivision Waiver Resolution limiting the development to residential use only; if the site were de- veloped for residential purposes, then the density would be limited to a maximum of 1,500 dwelling units. Discussion en- sued. Mr. DeWitt stated that by the motion of the Commission approving the Subdivision Plat, they have waived the Restrictive Covenants. Ed Smith questioned that the Covenant was valid, and whether the Covenants could be recognized. Mr. Wanush stated that the Findings of Fact make the assumption that the Covenants were valid, but that the Planning Commission does have the right to waive, amend or otherwise change them. Mr. DeWitt agreed that the Covenants are binding Covenants, but the Commission does have the authority to modify, amend or waive them, and by accepting the Subdivision Plat, the Commission did modify, amend and change the covenants. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Jorgenson, Owens, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: Parker, Pierson ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Mrs. Pierson stated that there has been discussion about an orientation meeting of the various review committees to lay -5- the groundwork for the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Pierson asked how many of the committees could be ready for a meeting on April 20th? Mr. Tanguma stated that his committee to review the residential aspects of the City would be ready. Ed Smith stated that he doubted he would have his committee ready by that time •. Mrs. Wade stated that the Parks and Recreation review committee would be ready by April 20th, and Mr. Jorgenson stated that the Public Facilities and Drainage review committee would also be ready by that date. Mrs. Pierson asked that Mr. Williams be notified of the date so that he may in turn notify his Transportation committee members. Mrs. Romans stated that names submitted by I.C.E. and some representatives of the real estate business have been sub- mitted for membership on the review committees. There are still some organizations and City boards and commissions that have not responded to this time. Mrs. Pierson asked for a report by the staff. Associate Planner House discussed growth data and trends of the City as compared to surrounding jurisdictions. In terms of population, the City of Englewood is pretty well stabilized, and there has been no significant increase in growth since 1960. Arapahoe County as a whole has experienced a 20% to 30% increase in population. The City of Denver has experienced a lower growth rate, while the metropolitan area has increased greatly. Mr. House stated that in retrospect, population projections for the City of Englewood seemed rather "liberal" as cited in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. House pointed out that the population in the 1970 Census was 33,695, while in the Comprehensive Plan, the 1970 estimated population was 43,500, with a projected growth to 58,000 by the year 2000. The Denver Regional Council of Governments projects a 45,900 population figure for the City of Englewood by the year 2000, and it is now felt that this may be closer to reality than the projected 58,000 figure. Mr. House discussed other methods of making population projections, such as the "straight line projection". Based on the growth rate for the past six years, the straight line method would project the population to approximately 48,000 by the year 2000. CH2M-Hill, Consulting Engineers for the Utilities Department, have projected a population of 52,750 by the year 2000 for the City of Englewood. In 1970, the population of Arapahoe County was given as 162,000; the projected growth of Arapahoe County to the year 2000 is 420,000. The metropolitan area had a population of 1.2 million in 1970; by the year 2000, it is pro- jected that this figure will be doubled in the metropolitan area. The City of Englewood has the highest median age of any munici- pality in the metro area; the median age being 28.8 years, an increase of 0.2 from that given in the 1960 Census. The Denver median age dropped from 31.0 in 1960 to 28.6 in the 1970 Census. The Arapahoe County median age increased from 24.9 in 1960 to 25.6 in 1970, while that of the metropolitan area dropped from 28.1 in 1960 to 26.4 in 1970. -6- The median income figures for Englewood were $6,744 in 1960 and increased to $9,999 in 1970. Denver had a median income of $6,361 in 1960, which rose to $9,654 in 1970; while Arapahoe County had a median income of $7,695 in 1960, and a median in- come of $12,063 in 1970. The median income of the metro area rose from $6,551 to $10,777 during the decade from 1960 to 1970. HUD figures indicate that the median income for the metro area is presently $16,000, but there is no current data on the median income of Englewood itself o The poverty level in 1970 was listed as $3,000; in Englewood, this meant there were 552 families at or below the poverty level in 19700 Mr. House discussed the school enrollment. From a peak year in 1961-1962, when there was a 7,325 enrollment figure, to a low of 4,515 enrollment in 1976-1977, there has been a drastic drop in the Englewood school population. The projections for the next school year are even lower --an enrollment of some- where between 4,450 and 4,250 studentso In 1970, 22% of Englewood's population was of school age, a figure which has dropped to 12% in the 1976-1977 school year. Denver has dropped from a 19% figure in 1970 to 14% in 1976; Arapahoe County had a 27% school-age figure in 1970, and the metro area had a 24% school-age figure in 1970. There are no later figures on the percentage of school age population in Arapahoe County or in the metropolitan area. In 1973, the dwelling unit yield was 0.47 students; it is felt this figure may be a little high today. The birth rate has dropped from 25.9/1000 population in 1962, to 14.2/1000 population in 1972, and is -- estimated to be lower yet today. Housing construction trends were then discussed by Mr. House. Mr. House noted that new construction of single-family housing has dropped from about 30 units per year in 1960 to 10 units last year. In terms of apartment construction, there was an increase in the years from 1969 thru 1972; there has been no new apartment construction since 1974. In the years 1960 thru 1969, 237 units were moved or demolished and from 1970 thru 1976, 194 units were demolished or moved. Mr. Parker asked if Englewood was more or less integrated than it was 10 years ago? Mrs. Romans stated that there is still a low percentage of minorities in the City. The age of the housing stock in Englewood was discussed. The number of houses constructed in the period between 1960 and 1969 was 1,665 units; in the period between 1950 and 1959, 4,575 units were constructed; from 1940 to 1949, 2,098 units were constructed and 3,363 units were constructed in 1939 or prior to that year. In other words, 47% of Englewood's housing stock was built prior to 1959. Eighty percent of Denver's housing stock was constructed prior to 1959, and the figure for the metro area is 43%. Substandard-unit figures for 1968 and 1969 were given as 10.5% for Englewood, compared to 7 to 10% in 1974; Denver had a 17.7% figure for 1968 -1969, and -7- no later figures were available. In 1968-1969, Aurora had 3.8% of the housing stock in substandard condition, Colorado Springs had 13.9% substandard and Pueblo had 14.9% substandard units. Mr. House summed up his presentation by saying that Englewood has the highest median age in the metro area, and a low median income. There is considerable old housing stock and a high percentage of substandard units in the City. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were figures on the percentage of senior citizen population in the City? Don Smith stated he understood it to be between 11% to 12%. Mrs. Pierson asked if there had been any projection on the trends 10 years from now? Mr. House stated that he anticipated that childless couples would settle in Englewood in the housing presently occupied by the senior citizens. The cost of housing was discussed. Mr. Ed Smith pointed out that many of the homes in Englewood are very small, as well as being old. These homes do not have sufficient room to accommo- date families with children, and it is difficult to get loans on small homes. Mr. Owens discussed a very small home in marginal condition that had recently been sold for $16,000. Mr. Wanush asked if people are more reluctant to sell their homes now? Mr. Owens stated that he felt this is true, particularly in an older community such as Englewood. There is no incentive to move and where will the people go when they do sell? Mr. Owens stated that he felt there are many things that need to be done to improve the housing stock, and questioned that subsidization of the repair of older homes is the way to go about it. Ed Smith stated that there is a lot of improvement of older homes going on, and that people are putting a lot of money into this improvement. He stated that he knew of at least 1/2 dozen houses which are being improved within a six block area of his residence. He noted that a lot of these homes are adding an- other bedroom or otherwise increasing the size of the house. Financing the purchase of homes, as well as the financing of repair and rehabilitation of homes, was discussed. The process which has been implemented in the Capitol Hill area of Denver was discussed. Mr. Owens noted that this program has been very successful in drawing people back into the central part of the City. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma questioned how the review of the Comprehensive Plan was to be presented to the public? He noted that he had heard rumors this was a revision of the Core Area Plan, and that there is opposition gathering even now. He stated that he felt there must be some way that the program can be presented to the public to encourage positive reaction. Mr. DeWitt pointed out that ''not until it is adopted by the City Council is it a Plan." Further discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt stated that the Commission is here to develop a plan, but not just one plan. He again cautioned that until it is voted upon by City Council, -8- it is not a "Plan". Discussion ensued. It was determined there should be as wide-spread citizen participation as possible in the Comprehensive Plan review, and that the orientation meeting would be a way to do it. It was determined that the agenda for the April 19th meeting appears to be rather light at this time, and that the orientation meeting would be scheduled following the regular business of the Commission. VI. PLATTE RIVER VALLEY Mr. Wanush stated that there have been several discussions on the proposed automobile shredder at West Oxford Avenue and the South Platte River. These discussions have centered around the possibility of preventing the construction of the auto shredder. Mr. Wanush stated that he felt one of the main reasons for prevention of this construction is that it will set the standard for development for the next five, ten or fifteen years; by permitti n g this kind of large investment in this area, it could reduce the chances in the near future of redeveloping and beautifying the Platte River Valley. The City has developed a nine-hole golf course in the immediate vicinity of the proposed auto shredder, and has plans for de- velopment of the second nine-holes in the next few years. The Army Corps of Engineers has plans for the channelization of the river except for that area under the jurisdiction of the City of Littleton. The City of Littleton is purchasing land along the river that will accommodate the 100-year floor plain, and it is their intent to leave this area as a "natural area". The Army Corps of Engineers plans to channel a 300 ft. wide strip along the river and uses such as the auto shredder could prohibit this. Mr. Wanush pointed out that the County Com- missioners did issue a permit for the construction of the auto shredder, and the land is properly zoned for this use. Mr. Wanush presented several suggestions that might be pursued: (1) The City of Denver could be asked to agree to an extension of time for the relocation of the Denver Metals plant. (2) The City of Englewood and other concerned parties could search for an alternate site for the location of the auto shredder. (3) An effort could be made to reimburse Denver Metals for their unrecoverable expenditures if another site is found and if Denver Metals would agree to move to another location. Mr. Wanush stated that it would be a considerable task to find the money to cover these expenditures, and that he would assume that possibly Sheridan, Littleton , and the Corps of Engineers would have an interest in this matter as well as the City of Englewood. ROMCOE has indicated there might be some funds available through some environmental organizations for this purpose. Mr. Wanush estimated that the funds expended by Denver Metals that would be unrecoverable might be as high as $500,000. Mr. Wanush pointed out that this $500,000 would be spent to assure the type of development on only a 28-acre site . If this kind of money is to be spent, steps should be taken to make sure another proposal such as the auto shredder does not happen somewhere else along the River Valley. Mr. Wanush sug- -9- gested that Sheridan, Littleton, Arapahoe County, Denver and Englewood should get together to make long range plans for the development and beautification of the Platte River Valley. Mr. Wanush stated that he felt such things as zoning, the Capital Improvement Plan, Comprehensive Plan, etc., should be considered as a means of controlling the development along the river. Mr. Wanush stated that zoning alone is a negative land use control --it can prevent some particular use, but cannot implement a planned development by itself. Further brief dis- cussion ensued. A recess of the Commission was called at 9:05 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 P.M. with the following members present: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Jorgenson. Absent: Mr. Williams. In review, Mr. Wanush pointed out that Denver Metals is under a time limit from the City of Denver to relocate their plant. He indicated he felt there should be negotiations with Denver to determine if there can be an extension granted on the re- location of the plant. He stated he felt there should be an effort expended to locate an alternate site for the auto shredder, and that efforts should be directed toward amassing funds to reimburse Denver Metals for their unrecoverable ex- penses in the event an alternate site is located that will meet the needs of the operation. Mr. OWens asked if Denver Metals has been approached on a possible relocation from the Oxford Avenue site? Mr. Wanush stated that Denver Metals does not want to move, but no definite offer has be~n made to them at this point. He stated that he feels Denver Metals would listen to a specific offer if one were to be made. Mr. Tanguma asked if there has been any effort made to locate another site at this time? Mr. Wanush stated that no effort has been made to this time. The plant will need to be lo- cated near a rail line, but also needs to be located fairly "close in." The possibility of annexation of the land by Englewood or Sheridan was briefly discussed. It was pointed out that there will be all new equipment in the proposed auto shredder at the Oxford Avenue location. Mr. Wanush stated that all restrictions suggested by both Englewood and Sheridan were accepted by the Arapahoe County Officials, and were agreed to by Denver Metals prior to issuance of the Building Permit. Mr. Don Smith and Mr. Wanush discussed a meeting before 1he Arapahoe County Commissioners on April 4th. Mr. Wanush stated that the State Statute governing solid waste disposal requires that such a process must go through Public Hearing before they may be allowed to operate. The Attorney General's Office has issued an opinion that states the proposed operation is in fact covered by the solid waste disposal Statute, and that there must be a Public Hearing on this matter before the plant can begin operation. Mrs. Wade asked if the Public Hearing must be held before construction or before the plant goes into operation? Mr. Wanush stated that this is a point of question; -10- the County has asked for clarification of the matter through the Courts to determine if this auto shredder does in fact fall under the jurisdiction of the State Statute on solid waste disposal. The matter of annexation was again discussed. It was pointed out that Englewood could not annex this site at the present time, but that the City of Sheridan could do so. Englewood can annex quite a bit of land in the area unilaterally, and did attempt to do so at one time; the matter went to Court, and City Council directed that the matter not be pursued following a lower Court decision returning the land to Arapahoe County. The matter of an Environmental Impact State- ment was brought up . Mr . Wanush stated that the auto shredder complies with all existing County regulations. The possibility of a time limitation on the existance of the auto shredder at this location was discussed. Mr. Wanush stated that negotiations might be made with Denver Metals, in the event the operation should remain on the Oxford Avenue site, requiring that they would relocate the operation after the amortization of the new equipment. This route could take a period of several years; but the surrounding area could be down zoned to prevent any further installation of such intense industrial uses until the auto shredder could be relocated. Don Smith stated that he understood the Corps of Engineers ~ intends to start their project in the Englewood area in about ~ three years~ which would coincide with further development of the golf course. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Wade questioned that funds to reimburse Denver Metals for their unrecoverable expenditures should be spent for that purpose. She suggested that perhaps land along the river should be purchased for recreational purposes, with the hopes that an agreement could be reached with Denver Metals to vacate the site when the cost of the equipment has been amortized. Further discussion en- sued. Tanguma moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following alternatives be considered in the search for a solution to the shredding operation on West Oxford Avenue: 1. The City of Englewood should petition the City of Denver to grant Denver Metals an extension of time for the opera- tion of its shredding plant in Denver. 2. During this extension period, the City of Englewood, with other interested jurisdictions, search for an alternate location for the auto shredder. -11- 3. That an effort be made to locate funds to reimburse Denver Metals for their unrecoverable costs expended in the con- struction of the Oxford Avenue site. 4. That to prevent similar problems from arising along the South Platte River, there be a joint effort by the various jurisdictions to develop long range plans and implementation programs for the joint development of the Platte River Valley. 5. That in the event the shredding operation continues at its present location, there be negotiations with Denver Metals on the possibility of a specified length of time they will occupy the subject site. Ed Smith stated that he felt alternative five is the only feasible solution, and that we should work from that point of view. Don Smith stated that if funds to reimburse Denver Metals are located, he did not feel they should be government funds. It was suggested that funds might be solicited from the Bureau of Recreation and the Corps of Engineers, and other possible funding sources. Mr. Owens stated that he felt the chances of preventing the operation of the auto shredder are very remote, and that the amortization time limitation is the only answer; he suggested that this alternative be given great emphasis. The vote on the motion was called. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Jorgenson, Owens NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. G rtrude G. We~ty ,Recording Sectetary -12- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 5, 1977 SUBJECT: Automobile Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance Proposed Amendments RECOMMENDATION: Parker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the proposed amendments to the Automobile Wrecking Yard/Junk Yard Ordinance be accepted and approved as set forth in the draft dated March 28, 1977. AYES: Jorgenson, Owens, Par ker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried . Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. /;· L ~ .-----; ) ( . .v I j f-....-1'~ // ( _,...t... " ,Gertrude G. Welty .,,· Recording Se.cretary SECTION 6-2-1 6-2-2 6-2-3 6-2-4 6-2-5 6-2-6 6-2-7 6-2-8 6-2 ... 9 6-2-10 6-2-11 March 28, 1977 -13- AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS AND JUNK YARDS SUBJECT Definitions General Provisions Requirements to Operate Business Permit to Make Certain Improvements Procedure Inspection of Automobile Wrecking Yards and Junk Yards Location, Space and General Layout Sanitation and Fire Provisions General Regulations Management and Operation Variances and Modifications -1 -3 -4 -4 -5 -6 -7 -9 -11 -12 -13 -14- §6-2-1 Definitions For the purposes of this Chapter, the succeeding words and phrases shall have the following meaning: (a) Access Road: shall mean that area privately owned and maintained and set aside within an Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard for use as a fire lane er AND an interior road system providing vehicular access throughout the Auto- mobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard. (b) Adjacent: shall mean separated by an alley or street. (c) Adjoining: shall mean contiguous, or separated only by a rear, ±e~ ±~ne FRONT, or side lot line. (d) Automobile Wrecking Yard: shall mean an area with such accessory buildings and structures as provided for in this Chapter, where the process of automobile wrecking AND/OR dismantling, or the storage, sale or dumping of dismantled, ob- solete, or wrecked vehicles er ~er~s ~fieree~ prevails. This term does not include automobile sales areas where used cars in a functional con- dition, or new cars are stored prior to saleo Also, the term shall not include any public place of impoundment of abandoned or impounded automobiles. (15) -2- (e) Board: shall mean the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Englewood. (f) Building Inspector OR INSPECTOR: shall mean the 8hie~ Bttildin~ fne~ee~er CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER of the City of Englewood, Colorado, or his authorized representative FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OR FIRE DEPARTMENT. (g) "Junk" shall mean goods or materials which are no longer usable for their original purposes or serviceable in their original state. (h) Permit: shall mean A written permit issued by the Building Inspector to construct o_r alter any building, structure, or other improvement in or upon any Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard. (i) "Junk Yard" shall mean an area with such accessory buildings and structures as provided for in this Chapter, where the junk waste, discarded or sal- vaged materials are bought, sold, exchanged, store d, baled, packed, disassembled or handled. (J) Purchase Register: shall mean A written record, on forms furnished by the City, on which is kept an accurate account and description of each and all of the articles purchased, the price paid therefor, and the time of purchase and the names -16- 6-2-2 and residences of the persons from whom such purchases were made. GENERAL PROVISIONS -3- ALL AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS AND JUNK YARDS EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE 1962 ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE, ARE RECOGNIZED AS NON- CONFORMING USES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS FOR NON-CONFORMING USES IN SECTION 22.6 OF ~HiS THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THEREIN HBRBiN, AND ARE SUBJECT TO ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. NOT WITHSTANDING THOSE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 22-6-3 OF ~HiS THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, THOSE AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS AND JUNK YARDS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AS A NON- CONFORMING USE AS OF , SHALL BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT ENTRANCES TO PARKING LOTS, TO SURFACE ANY AREA, TO MOVE, ALTER, CONVERT, EXTEND, ENLARGE, OR REPAIR ANY EXISTING STRUCTURE OR TO CONSTRUCT A NEW STRUCTURE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS HEREIN. SUCH ACTION SHALL BE PERMITTED IF ITS PURPOSE IS TO INCREASE THE DEGREE OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE COM- PREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OR WITH THIS ORDINANCE, OR TO CON- STRUCT BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES FOR OFFICE, WAREHOUSE OR OTHER USE, SUCH USE BEING PERMISSABLE IN THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION IN WHICH THE AUTO WRECKING YARD OR JUNK YARD IS LOCATED IF SUCH USE WERE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A NON-CONFORMING USE. ALL CON- STRUCTION OF EVERY NATURE AND SORT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL ORDINANCES AND CODES PRESENTLY IN EFFECT OR IMPLEMENTED CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION, HEALTH, SAFETY AND WRTYAR~ 6-2-3 (17) -4- (a) UNDER NO CONDITION OR INTERPRETATION SHALL ANY CONSTRUCTION INCREASE THE PERIMETER BOUNDARY OF THOSE AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS OR JUNK YARDS IN EXISTANCE AS OF ~~~~~~~- ( b) UNDER NO CONDITION OR INTERPRETATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL AUTOMOBI LE WRECKING YARDS OR JUNK YARDS BE PERMITTED. c%€BNSB REQUIREMENTS to Operate Business. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate an AutoMOBILE Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard within the City of Englewood, Colorado, without first having obtained an AutoMOBILE Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard license ~e de ee AS REQUIRED BY TITLE IX OF THE '69 E.M.C. 6-2-4 Permit ~e Bxpeftd REQUIRED TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS. It shall be unlawful to excavate or construct any build- ing or other structure, including accessory structures, in or upon any Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard er ~e e~ere mft~eria~e, or to construct entrances to parking lots or to surface any area, commence the moving, structural alteration~ conversions, extensions, enlargements, alteration or repair of structures, in or upon any Automobile Wrecking Yard o r J u nk Yar d until the Btiiidiftg %He~ee~er CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION has issue d a Building Permit therefor. (a) NO BUILDING PERMIT SHALL ISSUE UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS OBTAINED A CURRENT AUTO WRECKING YARD OR JUNK YARD LICENSE AND ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID. -18- 6-2-5 -5- Procedure. (1) ~ft THE application for a Building Permit shall be accompanied by two (2) copies of a plan or plat drawn to scale showing the following in sufficient detail to enable the Building Inspector to ascertain whether the proposed excavation, construction, re- construction, er conversion, moving or alteration is in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter o (a) THE LOCATION OF THE AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARD OR JUNK YARD. (b) A VICINITY MAP SHOWING ADJACENT STREETS AND THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE AD- JACENT AREAS. (c) The actual shape, proportion, dimensions, and topography of the site where such proposed changes are to be made and all public easements and rights-of-way; and satisfactory evidence that actual corners of the lot are shown and are established on the ground by a certified survey made by a registered land surveyor or engineer, such established corners to be marked in pins set in concrete. (d) 6eHePft~ SftH~~ftP~ ftfttt THE PROPOSED storm drainage system which shall be subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. (e) The shape, size and locations of all buildings or other structures to be erected, altered or moved and any buildings or other structures existing on the lot and of the storage areas. 6-2-6 (19) -6- (f) The existing and intended use of all such buildings, or e~her structures and land. information concerning the lot or adjoining lots as may be essential for determining that the provisions of this Chapter are being ob- served. (h) The location and width of the access road(s). (i) THE PLAN FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. (j) Any other information as may be required by the Uniform Building Code or Fire Prevention Code. Inspection of Automobile Wrecking Yards and Junk Yards. ~he f ne~ee~or ehaii make regttiar mon~hiy ine~ee~~ens IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND ANY OTHER CODE, ORDINANCE, LAW OR STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARD .QR JUNK YARD. (1) -A-ti.-t.fte¥i-t.,."": ·'l1~:e -i~ct'M' 'S'ft11-i-i i'!."ft"\f"e -t-b.-e -a'ttt~-t;r -t-e me.k-e ".'i.~-ie-fte '&'f 'ft'tt't'OlftOM-i:e ~-1.'ftg ;r-a~ -20- 6-2-7 -7- w~~h aftd shaii ha~e att~her~~Y ~e ~ns~ee~ ~he ~ttP­ ehase re~~e~er as re~tt~red here~ftT AUTHORITY: FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE, THE INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH INSPECTIONS OF THE AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARDS AND JUNK YARDS IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AS IS DEEMED NECESSARY AND SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INSPECT THE PURCHASE REGISTER AS REQUIRED HEREIN. (2) Access: It shall be unlawful for any person to refuse THE INSPECTOR access to an Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard ~e ~he ~ns~ee~er for the purpose of inspection. Location, Space and General Layouto Any Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard shall be located on a well- drained site and shall be so located that its drainage will not endanger any water supply. All such uses shall be in areas free from swamps or other potential breeding places for insects or rodentso NO AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARD OR JUNK YARD SHALL BE I.OCATED WITHIN A ONE-HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. (1) Access Roads: (a) Access roads, as defined and required by this Chapter, shall be kept open,a~ a~~ ~~mes GRADED, DRAINED and free from obstruction as fire lanes AT ALL TIMES. Stteh reads mtts~ ee ke~t graeee aaa ePa~eee a~ a** ~imesT (21) -8- (b) Such access roads shall be provided as are necessary throughout every Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard to allow for adequate health and fire protection.~er ~he d4e~rie~ in wnieh etteh ttee is ieea~ed; Such roads shall be pro- vided according to the specifications herein- after set forth, and shall be approved by the Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works . (c) The minimum width for two-way access roads shall be twenty-five (25) feet; for one-way access roads, the minimum width shall be fifteen (15) feet. Curves on all access roads shall have a minimum inside radius of not less than twenty (20) feet. (2) Ingress and Egress from Public Streets: The location and size of driveways leading to and from the public street to any Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) No portion of any driveway shall be closer than thirty (30) feet to the curb line of a street intersection, nor closer than ten (10) feet to a fire hydrant, catch basin, end of curb radius at corners or property line of an intersecting street. (b) The width of any driveway shall not exceed ~wen~y-~i¥e ~Bet THIRTY-FIVE (35) feet measured along its intersection with the property line . -22--9- 6-2-8 (c) No two driveways from the same use shall be within thirty (30) feet of each other measured along its intersection with the curb line. (3) Off-Street Loading Requirements: Off-Street loading berths or facilities for off- street loading for any Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard shall be located wholly within the confines of the fence surrounding the yard as re- quired herein . Sanitation and Fire Provisions. (1) Water Supply: (2) (a) An accessible, adequate and safe supply of -s-a-f~ potabl~ water shall be provided to every Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard. (b) All water supply facilities, i.e., pipes, valves, outlets, shall be open to inspection by the Building Inspector or any other duly authorized person. (c) The development of an independent water supply to serve any Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard shall be made only after express approval has been granted by the Department of Publ:ic Health of th e State of Colorado. Sewage Disposal: All sewage disposal shall be in accordance with this Code and all plumbing in any Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard shall comply with the plumbing (23) -10- laws and health regulations of the City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, Tri-County District Health Department, and State of Colorado. (3) Refuse Disposal: (a) The storage, collection and disposal of refuse in or upon any Automobile Wrecking Yardor Junk Yard shall be so managed as to avoid health hazards, rodent harborage, in- sect-breeding areas, accident hazards or air pollution. (b) No materials or wastes shall be deposited in or upon any Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the premises by natural causes or forces. (c) All materials or wastes which might cause fumes or dust or which may be edible or otherwise attract rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors only in closed containers. (4) Fire Protection: (a) All areas shall be kept free of litter, rubbish and other flammable materials. (b) Fire extinguishers shall be maintained, the number, kind and location of which shall be approved by the Fire Chief. -24- 6-2-9 -11- General Regulationso (1) Every Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard shall be enclosed on its perimeter with a solid, non- transparent vertical wall or fence with a minimum height of six (6) feet and a maximum of twelve (12) feet measured from ground level. Every gate for any such yard shall be of solid non-transparent construction of new or used material in ~"e"a"!>~ good condition. Each such gate shall be the same height as t h e wall or fence or such wall or fence shall be extended above any such gate to match the height of the rest of such wall or fence. The aforesaid solid, non-transparent wall or fence and any gates or doors shall not contain any advertising sign or poster other than that needed to identify the enclosed business AS PROVIDED IN §22.7 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. (2) There shall be no stacking of automobiles, junk or any other materials whatsoever which shall be visible above the sttrrettHd4H~ er required perimeter wall or fence and the gate or gates from the ground level. (3) The said operations shall BE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE PERIMETER WALL OR FENCE AND shall not encroach upon or use ftftY areft ott~s~de of efereea~d f eHee eP Wft~~ THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES OR PARTS THEREOF; NOR SHALL ANY VEHICLE BE DISMANTLED OR WORKED ON OUTSIDE OF THE PERIMETER FENCE OR WALL. t~O) -12- (4) The storage of any junk or automobiles shall be conducted in a safe manner. (5) Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit any obnoxious or dangerous degree of noise, vibration, dust, heat, glare, radiation, fumes, gas or smoke beyond any boundary line of the site on which the use is located. (6) No burning of automobile cushions, tires, upholstery, or automobiles shall be permitted. (7) Gasoline or oil shall be drained eftd FROM ALL NON- OPERABLE VEHICLES WHICH ARE STORED OR KEPT WITHIN THE AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARD OR JUNK YARD AND SHALL BE stored in compliance with the provisions of this Code governing storage of inflammable liquids.~re¥~ded ~na~ dra~nage ~nereef ~na±± fte~ ee re~ttired wfien ~he ¥eh~e±e in whiefi ~he inf±ftHl.lllfte±e ±~~tt~d ~s (8) ALL advertising signs must COMPLY WITH THE PRO- VISIONS OF §22.7, SIGN CODE, IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL ILLUMINATED SIGNS SHALL be so placed so as not to create any injurious effect e~ f±asfiing er e~ g±are on any surrounding residential areas or to conflict with any traffic lights. 6-2-10 Management and Operation. (1) In every Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard, there shall be a designated office building in which shall be located the office of the person in -26--13- charge of said Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard. A copy of this Ordinance shall be posted therein and a purchase register shall at all times be kept in said office. (2) It shall be the duty of the person in charge of ~Be ft£eresft~ft ~ses ANY AUTOMOBILE WRECKING YARD OR JUNK YARD, together with the owner or operator thereof, to: (a) •Keep at the said place of business, a written record on forms furnished by the City, on which Be shall BE giveN an accurate account and description of each and all of the articles purchased ey h~m, the price paid therefor, the time of purchase, and the names and residences of the persons from whom such purchases were made. This book shall be open to inspection by authorized representatives of the City at any reasonable time. (b) Maintain the use in a clean, orderly and sanitary condition at all times. (c) See that the provisions of this Ordinance are complied with and enforced. 6-2-11 Variances and Modifications. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall have jurisdiction and power to grant variances or, in specific cases, to modify the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter, provided the following conditions are met: (1) Applications for variation or modification of any provision of this Chapter shall be in writing upon (~7) -14- forms provided by the City. Public Notice of time and place and purpose of a Public Hearing upon such application shall be given by posting of the property affected for not less than fifteen (15) days prior to such Hearing, and by publishing such notice once in the official newspaper of the Cify at least fifteen (15) days prior to such Hearing. Such posting shall consist of a sign, prepared by the applicant and approved by the License Officer, not less than three (3) feet by four (4) feet in size, located four (4) feet above ground level :in a conspicuous place, reading in letters intelligible from the adjoining street right-of-way. The cost o± such Public Notice, as determined by the License Officer, shall be at the expense of the applicant and shall be paid at the time of application. (2) There shall be no unnecessary and substantial hardship in applying the strict letter of sttefi THE provisions, provided that no such variation or modification heretofore or subsequently authori- zed or existing shall constitute or be construed as a precedent, ground or cause for any other variation or modification by the Board, and that such power to vary or modify shall be strictly construed as specifically enumerated within the jurisdiction of the Board. -28- (3) -15- In the matter of granting variances, the Board shall first find that all of the following con- ditions are present: (a) That the variance will promote public health, safety and general welfare, after giving reasonable consideration to the character of the District. (b) That the variance will do substantial justice to all and not just to the applicant for the variance o (c) That the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property not created by the owner and not due to general conditions in the District in which the property is located. (d) That the variance, if authorized, will neither weaken the general purpose of this Chapter nor the regulations prescribed for the District in which the property is located. (e) That the variance, if authorized, will not sub- stantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming propertyo -29- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 5, 1977 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact: Hampden Professional Park Subdivision Plat RECOMMENDATION: Don Smith moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact on the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division, Case #31-76, as amended and attache d. AYES: Jorgenson, Owens, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: Parker, Pierson ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. -30- CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN TIIE MATTER OF CASE NO. 31-76, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE APPLICATION OF THE SUBDIVISION ) REGULATIONS TO A CERTAIN PARCEL OF ) LAND IN THE CITY PURSUANT TO TITLE ) 12, CHAPTER 3 OF THE '69 ENGLEWOOD ) MUNICIPAL CODE. ) The Preliminary Plat of the Hampden Professional Park, which is the subject of Case #31-76, was considered on October 19, 1976, and a Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 31-76 on January 4, 1977, in the City Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. On February 23, 1977, the City Planning and Zoning Commission voted to reopen the Public Hearing relative to Case No. 31-76. The Rehearing on Case No. 31-76 was held on March 8, 1977, also in the City Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. Those members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission who were present during the Public Hearing were: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Owens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. No members were absent. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing on March 8, 1977, a motion to deny the approval of the Subdivision Plat was made by Mr. Williams. Those members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission who voted in favor of the motion were: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Owens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. Mr. Don Smith voted against the motion. No members were absent, and no members abstained from voting. At the next regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on March 22, 1977, a motion was made to ap- prove the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in Case No. 31-76, which motion received no second. A motion was made by Mr. Ed Smith and seconded to reconsider Case No. 31-76. Those persons voting in favor of the motion to reconsider were: Mr. Owens, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. Ed Smith and Mrs. Wade. Those persons who voted in opposition to the motion to reconsider were: Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Williams. Those persons who were absent: Mr. Jorgenson and Mr. Tanguma. The Chairman ruled that the motion to reconsider had passed. .e -31- FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, records, reports, filed documents and the minutes of the meetings of the City Planning and Zoning Commission at which the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division was considered, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact. 1. That an application for approval of a Subdivision Plat, to be identified as Hampden Professional Park, was filed on October 12, 1976, on behalf of R. P. R. Brothers, Ltd., Thomas J. Regan, President, having offices at 460 South Marion Parkway, SUite 154, Denver, Colorado 80209. 2. That R. P. R. Brothers, Ltd. holds a contract to purchase the land which is the subject of this application from Larwin Multihousing Corporation, 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California 91436, and that Larwin joins in the platting. 3. That the land which is proposed to be platted is described as follows: Commencing at the South one-quarter corner of said Section 35; thence N 0°11'47" E and along the West line of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 35, 90. 00 feet to the point of beginning, said point being on the North line of East Hampden Avenue; thence on an angle to the left of 90°14'04" and along said North line and along a curve to the left having a radius of 796. 00 feet, a central_ angle of 20 °39' 58 11 , an arc distance of 301.00 feet to a point 30.00 feet Northerly from the South line of the Southwest one-quarter of said Section 35; thence s 89°15'19" Wand parallel with said South line 337.68 feet to a point 30.00 feet Easterly from the West line of the -East one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one- quarter of said Section 35; thence N 0°09'38" E. and parallel with said West line 650.20 feet; thence S 89°50'22" E. 207.70 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 160.88 feet, a central angle of 36°00'00", an arc distance of 101.08 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 196.50 feet, a central angle of 39°50'44", an arc distance of 136.65 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 85°59 1 3811 E and along said tangent 36.79 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 186.50 feet, a central angle of 44°09'15", an arc distance of 143.72 feet to a point of compound curve; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 114.00 feet, a central angle of 29°01'11", an arc distance of 57.74 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 12° 49'12" E and along said tangent 70.79 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 183.00 feet; a central angle of 65°13'40", an arc distance of 208.33 fe~t to a point of tangency ; __ thence_§ 78 °02' 52" E and along ______ _ -32- said tangent 54.10 feet to a point of .curve; thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 506.00 feet, a central angle of 16°50'04", an arc distance of 148.67 feet; thence S 0°41 1 18 11 E, 96.96 feet to a point of curve; thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 177.93 feet, a central angle of 15°34'30", an arc distance of 48.37 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 387.76 feet, a central angle of 16°13'31" an arc distance of 109.81 feet to a point of tangency· the~ce s 0° 02'17" E and along said tangent 60.00 feet to ~ point on the North line of East Hampden Avenue; thence S 89°57'43" w and along said North line 371.16 feet to the point of beginning· containing ~2.276 acres, more or less. ' 4. That at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on October 19, 1976, a motion was made by Mr. Don Smith and seconded by Mr. Parker, to approve the Preliminary Plat of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision subject to the following conditions: (1) The size of each of the proposed lots shall be no less than 24,000 square feet, the minimum area which is required for most of the Permitted Uses in the R-3 High Density Residence District. If a high-density residential development is proposed, two lots could be combined to meet the 42,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement. (2) The proposed 50 foot right-of-way through the center of the subject site will be dedicated as shown on the Preliminary Plan and a name for that street shall be deter- mined and it shall be so identified on the Final Plat. (3) In order to provide for access for utility service, easements of a width of no less than ten feet (5 ft. on each side) shall be established along all side and rear lot lines. (4) The necessary land will be dedicated for East Girard Place to make it a 60 foot right-of-way rather than the existing 40 foot width. (5) A drainage plan shall be included as a part of the Final Plat. Such drainage plan shall meet the requirements set by the Director of Public Works. (6) There shall be compliance with all of the provisions of §12-3-26 of the Subdivision Regulations in pre- paring the Final Plat. Those members voting in favor of the motion were: Mr. Jones, Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. Ed Smith, Mr. Tanguma and Mrs. Wade. Those members voting against the motion: None. Those members who were absent: Mr. Williams. -- -33- 5. That a Final Plat was prepared pursuant to §12-3-26 and §12-3-27 of the EnglewoodJColorado Subdivision Regulations, Title 12, Chapter 3 of the '69 Englewood Municipal Code, as amended, and the conditions imposed upon the Preliminary Plat were met. 6. That a Public Hearing was held on January 4, 1977 and a rehearing was held on March 8, 1977, to consider the Final Plat of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision, identified as Case No. 31-76 and that due Notice was given of those Hearings. 7. That the area being considered in Case No. 31-76 is identified as Phases 8 and 9 in Exhibit 11 A11 , a general de- velopment plan attached to and made a part of a Subdivision Waiver approved by Commission Resolution No. 8, Series of 1972 as recorded in Book 2069 at Page 29 in the office of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. 8. That the land, described as follows, which was the subject of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1972, was annexed to the City of Englewood by Ordinance No. 17, of 1962. The SW 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 4 South, Range 68 West EXCEPT those portions described in Book 789 at Page 548 and in Book 1143 at Page 497; AND the E 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 35, Township 4 South, Range 68 West, EXCEPT those portions described in Book 657 at Page 30, in Book 662 at Page 299, and in Book 1143 at Page 497. 9. That the City of Englewood zoned the land for business use by Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1963, and by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963, and that these actions were invalidated by District Court Decree and the land reverted to R-1-A, Single-family Residence. 10. That the land was then zoned R-3-A, Multi-family Residence by Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1967. 11. That J. J. Carey came into possession of the land which was to be later covered by Resolution 8, Series of 1972, on January 2, 1968, and, purporting a desire "to develop and improve the above described real property into an attractive and desirable urban community area", prepared and recorded, on that same date, a Declaration of Protective and Restrictive Covenants which provided that "Any residential development on all or part of the above described real property shall be limited to, and may not include more than 1500 residential units." 12. That said Restrictive Covenants run to the City Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Englewood, and .. -34- may be enforced only by said City Planning and Zoning Commission, and that said Restrictive Covenants may be waived, amended or ~ otherwise changed by said Commission. ~ 13. That J. J. Carey did not execute the plans for development he had exhibited at the time he was discussing the zoning of the land and that the land was later sold to Larwin Multihousing Corporation. 14. That after having purchased the 55 acre tract which had been the subject of the Carey application, Larwin filed an application for approval of a Planned Development on the subject site on June 8, 1972, together with a request for a Waiver to the requirement for Platting said site, because it was to be developed as a Planned Development under the pro- visions of §22o4A, Planned Development District, of the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance. 150 That Larwin Multihousing Corporation withdrew the application for Planned Development after reaching an un- derstanding with the administration that the site could be de- veloped as a unit under the provisions of a Subdivision Waiver, §l2-3-3(b) of the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Englewoodo 16. That on October 17, 1972, the City Planning and Zoning Commission issued a Subdivision Waiver to Larwin Multihousing Corporation by Resolution No. 8, Series of 1972 and that certain conditions, identified as Attachment "B", and a plan identified as Exhibit A, a "general development plan" were attached to and made a part of the Subdivision Waiver, which Waiver is recorded in Book 2069 beginning at Page 29 in the office of the Arapahoe County Clerk and Re- corder. 17. That the general development plan divided the site into nine "phases", each phase to be developed with multi- family dwelling units totalling 1500 dwelling units in all, the internal access to which units was by way of private road- ways which did not meet the standards of §12-3-40 and §12-3-41 of the Subdivision Regulations. 18. That Building Permits were issued to Larwin Multihousing Corporation to construct 368 dwelling units in Phase I and 239 dwelling units in Phase IV, as identified in the general development plan. 19. That said Waiver was subject to the conditions attached thereto and was to cease its effectiveness at such time as the present owner (Larwin Multihousing Corporation) or any successor in title fails to continue to comply with said conditions, and that the Commission has the authority to amend said Waiver. 20. That at no time, was this matter acted upon officially by the Englewood City Council. -35- 21. That Roy J. Pogue, Vice President of Larwin Group, Inco 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California, told the City Planning and Zoning Commission on January 20, 1976, that Larwin did not own either the land or the buildings in Phases I and IV, and that Larwin is in the process of liquidating their assets throughout the United States because Larwin secured a large amount of unsecured obligations and fell into default. 22. That Mr. Pogue was told as a representative of Larwin, that 1he entire site would have to be subdivided, which direction was reaffirmed in a letter to Mr. Pogue dated July 16, 1976, at the direction of the City Planning and Zoning Commissiono 23. That having thus been informed that the develop- ment which was the subject of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1972, would not be completed, and no effort was to be made by Larwin to plat the land, it was determined that the position would be taken that the division of the property into nine phases is de facto by virtue of the Subdivision Waiver, and that any further division of one or more of those phases would have to be accomplished in accordance with Article II of the Subdivision Regulations, and that it is within the authority granted to the City Planning and Zoning Commission to so proceed. 24. That throughout the many years of consideration of the property described above in Finding of Fact No. 8, both the City and the residents and property owners were of the opinion that the applicants acted in good faith and would com- plete the proposed developments. 25. That the land was zoned R-3, High Density Residence by Ordinance No. 52 of 1975, which District permits development consistent with the high concentration of persons and land valuation, including high-density residential types of structures as well as various institutions and offices for the use of professional purposes. 26. That the area of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision is approximately 12 acres, including perimeter and internal street right-of-way and that the Subdivision would plat the land previously identified as Phases VIII and IX of the general development plan into two blocks, Block 1 having eight .. lots and Block 2 having seven lots, each lot containing one-half acre or more in area. 27. That the Final Plat of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision is in compliance with §12-3-26 and §12-3-27 of the Subdivision Regulations. 28. That Mr. John Welles' testimony reveals that there would be a substantial increase in traffic as the Subdivision is proposed and Mr. J. D. Willis indicated that it would be essentially unfeasible to develop structures in excess of two stories in view of the off-street parking requirements. -36- CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper public notice was given of the Public Hearing which was held on January 4, 1977, and of the Rehearing, which was held on March 8, 1977. 2. That the application for approval of the Subdivision Plat identified as Hampden Professional Park applies to Phases VIII and IX of the general development plan, identified as Exhibit A, which is attached to and a part of a Subdivision Waiver issued to Larwin Multi-housing Corporation by Resolution No. 8, Series of 1972, at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on October 17, 1972. 3. That the approval of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision Plat would alter the general development plan approved by Resolution No. 8, Series of 1972. 4. That the subject land is zoned R-3, High Density Residence. 5. That the R-3, High-Density Residence District, adopted by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1972, permits high density residential deve1opment as well as other specified uses, including professional offices. 6. That the powers of the City Planning and Zoning Commission are those granted by Statute, City Charter and Ordinance and in no instance has said Commission been delegated the authority to make legislative decisions as to zoning, that authority being held only by the City Council. 7. That the City Council did not act on the applica- tion of Larwin Multihousing Corporation for a Subdivision Waiver and therefore it cannot be interpreted that the conditions identified as Attachment "B" in Resolution No. 8, Series of l9 72, constitute "zoning" of the land which is the subject of that Resolution. 8. That the City Planning and Zoning Commission, upon determining that the plans of both J. J. Carey and Larwin Multihousing Corporation have necessarily been aborted, and that it is in the best interest of the community to amend the Protective and Restrictive Covenants and the Subdivision Waiver, does have the authority to waive, amend or otherwise change both the Protective and Restrictive Covenants, recorded in Book 1740 at Page 753 and Resolution No. 8, Series of 1972, as recorded in Book 2069 beginning at Page 29. 9. That the Final Plat of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision is in compliance with Title 12, Chapter 3 of the '69 Englewood Municipal Code, otherwise known as the Sub- Division Regulations, and that the area of the lots would comply with the minimum lot area requirements of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance. ' -37- 10. That a quorum of the Commission was present and the motion to reconsider Case No. 31-76 was in order. 11. That the following motion was made, seconded and approved at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on March 22, 1977: 12. That in order to alleviate traffic problems, the City Planning and Zoning Commission finds it necessary to reduce the height of buildings to be constructed within the Subdivision to two stories. Don Smith moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision, as set forth in Case #31-76, with the follow- ing conditions made a part of the approval: (1) Buildings in the development of Hampden Professional Park shall not exceed two stories. (2) All development of the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division shall be accompli~hed under a Planned Development . (3) If the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision is developed with professional office buildings, the following definition of "Professional Office" shall be enforced throughout this development: "Professional Office: The office of a person engaged in any occupation, vocation, or calling, not purely commercial, mechanical, or agricultural in which a professed knowledge or skill in some department of science or learning is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising or guiding them in serving their interest or welfare through the practice of an act founded thereon, such as medical doctors, dentists, attorneys-at-law, architects or engineers ." AYES: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Wade, Owens NAYS: Pierson, Parker ABSENT: Tanguma, Williams, Jorgenson The motion carried . -38- RECOMMENDATION Therefore, the City Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, that the Final Plat of the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision, submitted by R. P. R. Brothers, Ltd., 460 South Marion Parkway, Suite 154, Denver, Colorado 80209, be approved subject to the conditions attached thereto. Upon the vote of the Commission on a motion made at a Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on the 22nd day of March, 1977, the following members voted to recommend approval of said Final Plat; Mr. Owens, Mr. Don Smith, Mr. Ed Smith and Mrs. Wade. Those members voting against the recommendation: Mr. Parker and Mrs. Pierson. Those members absent: Mr. Jorgenson, Mr . Tanguma and Mr. Williams. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. --' I ,, -39- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 5, 1977 SUBJECT: Alternative Solutions -Auto Shredding Operation RECOMMENDATION: Tanguma moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following alternatives be considered in the search for a solution to the shredding operation on West oxford Avenue. 1. The City of Englewood should petition the City of Denver to grant Denver Metals an extension of time for the opera- tion of its shredding plant in Denver. 2. During this extension period, the City of Englewood, with other interested jurisdictions, search for an alternate location for the auto shredder. 3. That an effort be made to locate funds to reimburse Denver Metals for their unrecoverable costs expended in the con- struction of the OXford Avenue site. 4. That to prevent similar problems from arising along the South Platte River, there be a joint effort by the various jurisdictions to develop long range plans and implementation programs for the joint development of the Platte River Valley. 5. That in the event the shredding operation continues at its present location, there be negotiations with Denver Metals on the possibility of a specified length of time they will occupy the subject site. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Jorgenson, Owens NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. I ;tertrude G Welty Recording Secretary