Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-12-20 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 20, 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Judith B. Pierson at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Draper, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Lathrop Also pre!;$ent: Assistant Director Romans, Associate Planner Steve House II. APPROVAL OF INUTES. Chair an Pierson stated that Minutes of the November 15, 1977, :meeting ere to be considered for approval. Owens moved: Wade seconded:. The Minutes of November 15, 1977, be approved as written. AYES: Williams, Draper, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop ABSTAIN: Smith The otion carried. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The ~. 1/2 of Lot 38, Lots 39 thru 42, in- clusive, Block 2, Higgins South Broadway Heights. S ith moved: CASE #27-77 Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #27-77 be opened. AYES: Wade, Williams, Draper, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop The aotion carried. Mrs. Pierson outlined the procedure to be followed in conducting the Public Hearing for the information of those persons in the audience. Mrs. Pierson asked that the staff make the initial presentat:i..on. • • -2- Dorothy Andrews Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the A sistant Director of Community Development fo r the Planning Division. Public Notice regarding the proposed Planned Develop- ment did appear in the official City newspaper, and the property has been posted the required length of time. Mrso Romans asked that the Certification of Posting, and the Staff Report, be entered into the permanent record of this Hearing. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposal is for the construction of five resi- dential units on a 112.5 ft. frontage; the R-2 zoning restrictions requir e a minimum frontage of 125 feet. Dr. and Mrs. Bigelow, applicants, appeared before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals requesting a variance to construct the five units on the 112.5 ft. frontage. This request was approved by the Board o f Adjust- ent o n Dece ber 14, 1977. There were t wo structures on this property, which were razed several years ago because of dis- repair. The proposal is for the construction of two duplexes, and one single unit, on this propertyo Mrs. Romans stated that th t ff does reco end approval of this proposal with the follo i n g conditions: 1. That the final drainage and storm runoff plans be approved by the Director of Engineering Services prior to is.suance of a Building Permit. 2. That the final landscaping plans be approved by the Depart- ent of Community Development. Mr. Tanguma asked if the staff was in receipt of a report from the Board of Adjustment setting forth the basis on which they granted the variance? Mrs. Romans stated that there is no written document available at this time ; however, the staff had been notified verbally that the matter was approved by the Board. Mrs. Pierson asked that the applicant present their case. Mr. James Copeland Copeland Designs -stated that he has been retained by the applicants to design the proposed develop- ent. He stated that he felt Mrs. Romans had given a very clear and concise presentation and he had nothing to add; he would attempt to answer any questions the Commission might have. r. Draper asked how many bedrooms each unit would contain? Mr. Copeland stated that they propose two bedrooms in each unit. Mr. Draper asked if the Board of Adjustment considered the parking at the ti e they considered the variance? Mr. Copeland stated that they did consider the parking, and the proposal does exceed the nwnber of parking spaces required. Mr. Tanguma asked if there would be restrictions on the age of children who mi ht occupy the units? Mr. Copeland stated that no age restrictions have been proposed. • -3- Mr • Pierson asked if there were any questions of Dr . Bigelow, the applicant? No questions were asked of Dr. Bigelow . OWens moved: Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #27-77 be closed. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Draper,. Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop The otion carried. Smith oved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Development proposed for the following described property, provided the following conditions are met: "The north one-half of Lot 38, and Lots 39 thru 42, inclusive, Block 2 , Higgins South Broadway Heights, Arapahoe County, Colorado." 1. The final drainage and storm runoff plans are to be approved by the Director of Engineering Services prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. The final landscaping plans are to be approved by the Depart ent of Community Development. The PlanLing Commission hereby adopts the staff report as the Findings of Fact. AYES: S ith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Draper, Owens, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop The otion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated that this matter would be referred to City Council, and thanked the applicants for coming to the meeting. IV. REX T. GARRETT i451 W. Tufts Parker oved: REZONING CASE #6-77 R-1-C to I-1 Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 be opened. AYES: Pierson, S ith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Draper, Owens, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop The motion carried. -4- Mr • Romans stated that the case before the ' Plannin g Commission i a request for a change of zoning on property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, t o I-1 , Light IndUstry; the applicant is Mr. Rex T. Garrett. The public notice of the hearing did appear in the official City newspaper, and the property has been posted as required. Mrs. Romans presented the Certification of Posting and the Staff Report, and asked that they be entered into the record of this Hearing. Mrs. Romans stated that the subject property is located north of West Tufts Avenue and is on the west of the City Ditch, and so indicated the property on the map. Under the present R-1-C Zone classification, the property could be developed with single-family houses with a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft., and a inimum floor area of 850 sq. ft. The request is for I-1 Light Industrial. Mrs. Romans reviewed the I-1 Zone District provisions, and noted the excluded uses and the uses that would be permitted in that District. There are limits on the external effects of uses, such as sound and vibration levels, the prohibition of emission of heat, fumes, dust, etc. beyond the property line. There are screening requirements for light industrial properties that abut or adjoin a residential zone district that ust be met, said screening may be by the means of a decorative wood, brick, block or concrete wall, or by plantings and landscaping. Mr . Romans stated that the staff recommends approval of the request for a change of zoning from R-1-C to I-1 for the following reasons: 1. Because of the topography and the proximity of the subject property to industrial development, it could not feasibly be developed under the present zoning. 2. Because of the topography and its location below the City Ditch, the property should not have been zoned for single- family use upon annexation to the City in 1959. 3. Expansion of the industrial zoning and development to the west, north and south of the subject property has changed the rea to one of an industrial character. 4. The zoning of the subject site from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Romans noted that property to the east of the subject site above the City Ditch is zoned R-1-A, Single-family resi- dence; land to the north is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. Land abutting the property to the west and immediate south is in Arapahoe County, and given an R-3, Single-family designation. Property in the City of Englewood to the west and south of the subject site is given an I-1 Zone designation. • -5- ~r • Pierson asked what height limitations existed in the I-1 £one Dist~ict. Mrs. Romans stated that the square fo o tage of the building may exceed the square footage of the lot two times; theoretically, a developer could cover the entire site with a two-story building, or could construct a four-story building covering one-half of the site, etc. Off-street parking and off-street loading spaces must be provided on the site, which is a form of control on the building height. Mr. Parker asked what action City Council had taken on the proposed amendments to the I-1 Zone District regarding per- mitting auto wrecking yards as a Conditional Use? Mrs. Romans stated that this matter is on the agenda for January 3rd, and the City Council will set a date for the Public Hearing at that eeting. Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. Garrett's property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue is unplatted; a subdivision plat will have to be prepared and approved before development can take place. Mr. John A. Criswell 3780 South Broadway -as sworn in, and testified that he has been retained to represent the applicant, Mr. Rex T. Garrett. Mr. Criswell presented the staff and Com- mission with a prepared document entitled INDEX TO APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS, and made reference to a topographical map, a land use map, and a zoning map showing Arapahoe County Zoning in the immediate area. Mr. Criswell discussed the topography of the subject and surrounding areas. He pointed out there is approximately a 20 ft. grade difference from the east to the west line of the subject property. Mr. Criswell stated that the ubject area is approximately 6.35 acres, with dimensions of 495 ft. on the north, 631 ft. ·on the west, 287 ft. on the south, and 678 ft. on the east. Mr. Criswell pointed out that property to the east of the City Ditch is of considerably higher elevation than the property just west of the City Ditch, and those ho es to the immediate east of the Ditch would overlook any development on Mr. Garrett's property. Mr. Criswell presented as Exhibit #2, a series of photographs taken from the boundaries of the subject property viewing adjacent properties, and pictures taken from given points in the surrounding area viewing the subject property. Across Stanford Avenue to the north, the land is developed ith four or five large warehouses that have been developed within the last five to six years; to the west of the subject property there is a large industrial area, part of which is developed by the Friedman Paper Company. To the east and above the City Ditch, is a single-family residence area. Mr. Criswell noted that on the western boundary of the City through this area, the property is zoned for Light Industrial development. There is an enclave in this immediate area along Tufts Avenue which remains in Arapahoe County. There are some older single- family homes on the south side of Tufts Avenue which are still -6- in the County; south of these homes, the land is in the City of Englewood, and is zoned for light industrial development. Mr. Criswell stated that the homes along Tufts and proi;srty that is in the County in this "enclave" is zoned R-3, Single- family, with the exception of a small parcel north of Tufts Avenue and west of Mr. Garrett's property, which is given an I-2, Heavy Industrial, designation •. Mr. Criswell emphasized that properties within the City of Englewood to the north, west and south of Mr. Garrett's land are zoned for I-1, Light Industrial, which, in his opinion, is logical considering the topography of the area. Mr. Criswell noted that Stanford Avenue does not go through in this area across the City Ditch, and Tufts Avenue is the only through street in this immediate area to carry the traffic. Mr. Criswell referred to a County Zoning Map, Exhibit #5, and stated that they have been advised the R-3, Single-family Resi- dence, zoning was applied when the County first adopted the over-all zoning resolution in 1961 or 1962. Mr. Criswell stated they are also advised there is a small portion of I-2, Heavy Industrial, land to the west of Mr. Garrett's land which was given the I-2 classification in 1962. Mr. Criswell displayed a land use map of the area, and noted that industrial development to the west of the City Ditch has occurred very recently, and .cited warehouses constructed in 1972 (3), 1974 (2) and one that was constructed as far back s in the 1960's. The property immediately to the west of Mr. Garrett's property, even though zoned for R-3 Single-family residence, is used for storage of construction materials; this property may or may not be in violation of the County zoning code. To the west of Mr. Garrett's property, and south of Stanford Avenue, a building was constructed in 1974 that is used for storage, and the Friedman Paper Plant was constructed in 1976. Mr. Criswell pointed out six residences on the south side of Tufts Avenue that are older residential structures; to the south of these residences is further industrial develop- ent that has occurred in the 1970's. Mr. Criswell stated that in this area, the land to the west of the City Ditch is developed for industrial purposes, and that if you consider the develop- ment since 1970, it has all been of an industrial nature. M~ Criswell stated that the residences on the south side of Tufts Avenue were constructed as far back as in the 1940's or 1950's, and that basically, the development of the area west of the Ditch since 1955 has been industrial. Mr. Cris ell discussed the zoning history of this area, noting that at the time the land was annexed to the City in 1959, the policy was that all property was given the R-1-A, Single-family Residence classification unless and until the land was given further consideration by the Commission and Council and another zone classification was placed on the land. This land was, therefore, zoned R-1-A upon annexation to the City of Englewood. It i the client's belief that the land was given an agricultural -7- ~one cla ification when under the jurisdiction of Ar apahoe County. Soaetime between 1959 and 1963, following a n nexation to the City of Englewood, the land was given an R-1-D, Single- family, classification, the R-1-D classification being less restrictive than the R-1-A, but both being single-family zone districts. In 1963, the City of Englewood adopted the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, and at that time, the staff recom- mended that the property be given an I-I, Light Industrial, zone classificition. In 1965, Mr. Garrett proposed to develop the property for a mobile home park; the rezoning request was withdrawn before the Planning Commission acted on it. Two years later, Mr. Garrett again asked for the I-1 Zone classifica- tion; the Co ission recommended that the request be denied, and upon appeal, the Council refused to hold a Public Hearing. Three years later, in 1970, the Planning Commission initiated a rezoning to I-1, Light Industrial, to allow the development of a Mobile Home Park. The minutes of the meetings in 1970 indicate that the City was drafting a new mobile home park ordinance; Mr. Garrett asked that the Commission not proceed further until the adoption of the new mobile home park ordinance. Mr. Criswell stated that in 1969, the Commission and staff studied the City in depth, and tried to forsee reasonable de- velop ent for the City; a Comprehensive Plan was compiled, and recom ended to City Council for adoption. The City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Criswell referred to two maps, Tab 8, which are copies of the Comprehensive Plan --Generalized Land Use 1970, and Generalized Land Use 1980. Both of these maps in- dicate an industrial development of the subject area, and by virtue of approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the Commission and City Council in 1969, both bodies are "on record that the area west of the City Ditch should be developed for industrial use." Mr. Criswell stated that these are the facts of the case as he and the applicant know them to be. He asked if the Co ission had any questions of him. Mr • PierBon asked if the applicant had considered applying for Planned Develop ent approval in addition to the rezoning on this site? Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant has not considered a P.D. at this point in time. He pointed out that Mr. Garrett has been before the Planning Commission three times in the last 14 years in an attempt to get the land rezoned; Mr. Garrett has gone to the expense of having plans drawn and presented on previous occasions and the request has been denied. Mr . Crisw~ll stated that there are no definite plans for de- velopment of the property at this time. Mr. Criswell pointed out that before development could occur on the land that it would have to be subdivided. He stated that at the time the subdivision plat is considered, he would anticipate there might be plans for development. Mrs. Pierson coDlll\ented that the question of development of the land i not within the scope of the consideration at this time. Mr. Cris ell agreed. • -8- Mr. Smith stated that he felt the proposed development of the land is germane to this consideration. He pointed out that the applicant is requesting a change from a single-family residential classification to an industrial zoning; there must be some reason the applicant has requested the industrial zoning rather than a higher-density residential classification. Mr. Criswell presented a letter from a Mr. Roland Barnard, President of Midland Federal Savings, dated December 16, 1977, as Exhibit #10, and a letter from Mr. Robert Starkloff, dated Dece ber 21, 1977, as Exhibit #11. Mr. Criswell read both letters for the benefit of the audience. Both Mr. Barnard and Mr. Starkloff stated in the letters that in their opinion, the subject property would be more suitably developed with other than single-family residential. r . Pierson called a recess of the Conunission at 8:05 P.M. the eeting reconvened at 8:15 P.M., with the following members present: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Draper. Mr. Lathrop was absent. Mr. Criswell made reference to a copy of Map from the Comprehensive Plan (Tab 8). no streets are planned to extend over the Quincy and Tufts Avenues, and added that, co t would be astronomical to do so. the Master Street Plan He pointed out that City Ditch between in his opinion, the Mr. Criswell then called the applicant, Mr. Rex T. Garrett, to the podium. Mr. Rex T. Garrett Rt. 3, Box 97 Parker, Colorado -was sworn in and testified that he maintains offices at 300 East Hampden Avenue in Englewood. Mr. Garrett testified that he is in the real estate business, and has been for 25 years, all of that time in Englewood. Mr. Cris ell asked that Mr. Garrett describe the circumstances un- der hich he acquired the property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue. Mr. Garrett stated that in 1957, he traded a newly constructed residence on South Lipan Street for the subject property. Mr. Cris ell asked if, in the time period between 1957 and the present, Mr. Garrett had developed any single-family residences in Englewood? Mr. Garrett testified that he had. Mr. Criswell then asked if Mr. Garrett had developed residences and sold them or sold the building sites in this area? Mr. Garrett stated that he had. Mr. Garrett stated that he had developed the homes on West Stanford Place; the 4600 and 4700 block between Lipan and Kala ath --approximately 16 building sites in each block; he has developed the north end of the 4600 block between Huron and Inca streets; the east side of Inca in the 4500 block, for a tot 1 of approxi ately 60 ho es in this particular neighborhood. Mr. Cris ell noted that in 1957, when Mr. Garrett took this property in trade, it was under County Jurisdiction; he asked what the County zoning was at that time on this land? Mr. -9- Garrett stated that it was given an agriculatural classification. Mr. Crigwell stated that the land was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1959, and was given the zone classifica t ion of R-1-A, Single-family; he asked if Mr. Garrett had attempted to develop the property for single-family sites? Mr. Garrett stated that in the latter part of 1959, he had an engineer draw up ~reposed plot plans for single-family development, which was submitted to Midland Federal Savings; his request for a development loan was turned down. Mr. Criswell asked if this contributed to Mr. Garrett's seeking to have the property rezoned? Mr. Garrett stated that it did. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Garrett had been before the Planning Commission on three occasions regarding the zoning on this land, and each time there was opposition; he asked what reason was given for the opposition? Mr. Garrett stated that it is his understanding that the neighbors in the area feel the rezoning of the land to industrial would devaluate their property. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Garrett was aware of the industrial development that has taken place in this area since 1970? Mr. Garrett stated that he is aware of this development. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Garrett if he had taken any steps to determire if the industrial develop ent est of the City Ditch had had any effect on the property values of the homes east of the Ditch? Mr. Garrett stated that he has checked on the sales of properties in the area, and has taken special notice of the multiple-sales. Some properties in this area have been sold three or four times. Mr. Garrett stated that he felt the sales records of several of the properties in the area show that the property has not devalued as a result of the industrial development. Mr. Criswell ade reference to Tab 7, which sets forth selling prices and the rate of increase of several properties within the immediate area. Mr. Garrett noted that properties with just one sale have not been indicated on this information; "just one sale does not give an indication of the increase in value." Mr. Criswell asked if the sales increase in this area was comparable to other sales increases throughout Englewood? Mr. Garrett stated that they were comparable. Mr. Criswell asked, based on the figures of percentage increase on resales, and Mr. Garrett's knowledge of real estate values, whether Mr. Garrett felt that industrial development on his property would have any effect on the real estate values of properties east of the City Ditch? Mr. Garrett stated that he did not feel the properties east of the Ditch would be affected by the industrial development of his property. Mr. Garrett discussed the terrain of the area, and noted that the property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue is considerably lower than the properties to the east of the City Ditch. Mr. Garrett noted that he lived at 4750 South Lipan Street for 12 years; this property looked over the Wate1· Plant and the industrial developments in that area, and that the development was below the line of view from his property. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Garrett felt his property could be used for residential purposes at the present time? Mr. Garrett stated that he felt it could not be developed for residential -10- purposes; he noted the cost of building the house as well as the eost of preparing the site for construction. The ultimate cost of the home would render it very difficult to sell in that particular area. He noted that the land is very low, and the structures would look directly into the warehouse develop- ent to the north. Mr. Criswell noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance allows a residence with a minimum of 850 sq. ft. in the R-1-C Zone District. He asked if this size of house could be sold, and if not, what minimum floor area would be marketable at the present time. Mr. Garrett stated that on today's arket, he would say that a minimum size of 1,100 sq. ft. would be marketable. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Garrett what he would estimate construction costs for a house of 1,100 sq. ft. to be. Mr. Garrett estimated construction costs of approximately $25,000; the sale price of such a home would be, at the very minimum, $35,000. Mr. G~rrett stated that he did not feel that a $35,000 house could be marketed if it were constru~ted on that site. Mr. Criswell noted that in 1965, Mr. Garrett had plans to develop a obile home park on the site; in 1970, the Planning Co mission initiated the rezoning of the site for a mobile home park. He asked Mr. Garrett if he had any plans for the development of the land now if the rezoning should be granted? Mr. Garrett stated that he had no definite plans at this time. Mr. Cris ell asked Mr. Garrett if he was aware that he would have to comply with the subdivision regulations prior to any develop ent on the property? Mr. Garrett stated that he is are of that requirement. Mr. Smith ade reference to Tab 9, y4, which reads: "It is so economically unfeasible to attempt to develop this ground for residential uses that a continuation of single-family residential zoning will result in a confiscation of the owners' property." He stated that by testimony presented, the property Mr. Garrett owns is worth, probably, two times what he paid for it; how could this result in a confiscation of property if the land is not rezoned? Mr. Criswell stated that in legal ter inology if a property owner is denied the use of his property it is termed "confiscation" of property. It does not refer to an actual "taking away" of the property. Mr. S ith questioned the reasoning for requesting an industrial zone classification over a higher density residential classi- fication, or the R-4, Residential Professional District? Mr. Garrett pointed out there would be the same problem with obtaining financing for development. Mr. Smith asked if the possibility of a multi-family development had been discussed with a lending agency? Mr. Garrett stated that he has discussed the possibility in gener lities, but not in reference to a specific proposal. Mr. Criswell pointed out that the criteria for granting a zoning is whether it is an extension of a like or compatible zone; this would not be the case with R-2, R-3, or R-4 zone cla sifications. -11- Mr. Criswell called a Mr. Dick Rees, Star Route, Box 409-A, Morrison, Colorado, to the stand. Mr. Rees was sworn in and testified that he maintains offices at 300 East 9th Avenue; he is engaged in the consideration of financing for all types of development for Midland Mortgage; he stated that he is a business graduate, and has been in business in the metro area for 22 years, 5-1/2 years of which were with the Continental National Bank of Englewood. He testified that he is familiar with the lending policies of the area, and did look at the site in question. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Rees if, in his opinion, it would be possible to develop the subject site with single-family residences. Mr. Rees stated that the marketability would be very limited for single-family structures located on that site. Mr. Criswell asked about the possibility of obtaining mortgage financing for a single-family development on the site? Mr. Rees stated that he would suggest it is impossible to get mortgage financing for a single-family development on this site; he pointed out that one of the things a lender would look at is the general neighborhood and the collateral for the loan. Mr. Rees stated that a single-family development on this particular site would be greatly influenced by the industrial area to the north, est, and south. The lender would also look at the amenities of the neighborhood, and this neighborhood "has no amenities of a good neighborhood." Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Rees felt the development of the industrial area had an adverse effect on the value of the properties to the east of the City Ditch? Mr. Rees stated that he did not think so, and he did not feel the industrial use of th~ subject site would be a negative aspect. The properties east of the City Ditch will over-look the site rather than looking "into" an industrial development. Mr. Rees stated that most of the industrial development is for warehousing, and that there is very little manufacturing and fabrication in the area. Mrs. Pierson asked if any members of the audience had any questions of Mr. Rees? Mr. Gerald Ray indicated two properties on the north end of the west side of the 4500 block on South Lipan Court, on the land use map and asked why an industrial development would not devalue these properties? He noted there is a grade difference on their properties, so that the structures appear to be one story from the street. In actuality, these are two-story houses with walk-out basements on the west; these structures would be looking directly into the industrial development if Mr. Garrett's request is granted. Mr. Rees stated that he did "not feel what you are viewing now would be affected by development that is not single-family" on Mr. Garrett's site. Mr. Ray stated that he did feel an industrial development would act to devalue the property east of the City Ditch. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Paul Garkie to come to the podium. • -12- r. Paul Garkie 4020 South Bellaire -was sworn in and testified t h at he has been a real estate appraiser for 33 years. He is a member of the American Society o f Real Estate Appraisers, and of several other organizations pertaining to his profession. Mr. Garkie stated that he has viewed the property in question, and that he had looked at properties in the neighborhood, but not for appraisal purposes. In his opinion, the highest and be t u ~e for Mr. Garrett's property would not be single-family use. Mr. Garkie stated that he has been an FHA appraiser, and in his opinion, it would be impossible to get FHA or VA financing for a single-family development on the subject site. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Garkie what he felt the highest and best use of the subject site would be? Mr. Garkie stated that the fact there is light industrial directly across the street, the City Ditch is a boundary for the residential area, he thinks the best use for the site would be for light industrial ware- housing. Mr. Draper asked if owners of single-family property in the area would be able to obtain a loan in this industrial neigh- borhood. Mr. Garkie stated that he is not in the loan business. He felt that each would have to be considered individually. Mr. Garkie stated that if the "wrong type of development" goes in on the Garrett property, he felt there would be a considerable depreciation in property values for the residential properties. Mr. Garkie stated that he felt a mobile home development on this ite would have an effect on the property values, but questioned that a warehousing development would have. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Garkie what type of use he would suggest that would not adversely effect the residential area, and would be econo ically feasible? Mr. Garkie stated that the permitted uses are established by the zoning controls; he stated that he felt a light industrial use that did not create smoke, glare, noi e, etc. would be acceptable. r. OWens asked if Mr. Garkie felt that a house located in this i ediate area would have the same value as that house would h a ve were it to be located in a residential area that did not abut an industrial area? Mr. Garkie stated that generally, it would have the same value, but that each situation ust be considered individually. Mr. Garkie stated that he was asked to view the subject property --Mr. Garrett's property to deter ine if it is feasible to construct single-family residences on that property; he stated that · in his opinion it is not feasible. Mr. Smith asked if the reason single-family home construction on the site wa not feasible is that the land abuts an indus- trial property? r. Garkie stated that this would be one of th main reasons. Mr. Smith asked what would happen to those hou es east of the City Ditch which would abut an I-1 Zone District if the zoning were granted? Mr. Garkie stated that • -13- he felt most of the adverse effects on those houses has already taken place, but some houses might be affected • A member of the audience noted that discussion has centered on the industrial zoning of land west of the .City Ditch; he pointed out that the City of Englewood has developed Jason Park which is west of the Ditch; there are nice single-family homes being constructed on South Lipan .at West Quincy. He questioned why this area could not be developed as single- family and why the units would not sell? Mr. Garkie noted that to get a deve.lopment started, subdivision approval would have to be obtained from FHA, VA or a conventional lender. He questioned that this approval could be obtained. Mrs. Pie~son stated that the Commission would hear statements fro me bers of the audience in favor of the rezoning. No one indicated they wished to speak in favor of the rezoning. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission would now hear state- ments from those opposed to the rezoning. She asked if the opponents had a representative? Mr. Gerald Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -was sworn in, and stated that Mr. Criswell had made reference to a "bluff" along the City Ditch; Mr. Ray pointed out that the change in grade runs through the R-1-A area east of the City Ditch; he noted that there is approximately a 12 ft. change in elevation on their property, and that grade variations exist on the other residential properties alsoo Mr. Ray pointed out that Mr. Garrett's property is surrounded on three sides by residential zoning on properties that are either in the City of Englewood or in the County. Mr. Ray stated that the pictures presented by Mr. Criswell do not reflect the view from the rear of the residential properties east of the City Ditch. Mr. Ray stated that the topography of the area is such that the residences on the west side of South Lipan Court would have a view directly into the industrial development from the rear of their properties. Mr. Ray noted that the houses being constructed at Quincy and Lipan face into warehousing on the south side of Quincy Avenue; no landscaping has been provided by the industrial uses, and the developer of the residential uses has been able to obtain financing for the construction of these houses that sell for $45,000 to $50,000. Mr. Ray stated that Mr. Criswell has testified that when the property was annexed in 1959, it was annexed and zoned as R-1-A, Single-family; he stated that he felt there had to be a reason it was brought in as R-1-A. Mr. Ray stated that he has been told that persons living on South Mariposa Drive in the 4600 block south, were told that this area would be developed into a park, and residential use, and that this would be a "fantastic area". Instead, the property owner has applied for a change of zoning from R-1-D to I-1, Light Industrial. Mr. Ray stated that he is not aware of who made the alledged statement, but Mr. Garrett was the owner of the property at the time the statement was supposed to have -14- been ade. Mr. Ray questioned the validity of the statements that loans would not be available for residential construction on this site. He stated he felt an industrial development on this site : will definitely have an effect on the residences east of the City Ditch. Mr. Ray stated that he does have a petition in opposition to the rezoning request that has been circulated in the area and has been signed by property owners living directly east and south of the subject property. Mr. Ray presented these petitions for the record. Mr. Ray stated that he felt it was fair to say that the opponents ere present because they have no alternative but to oppose the request. If the request is approved by the Commission and City Council, and the property is zoned I-1, there are no controls over what goes in --it could be a paper plant or an auto wrecking yard. Mr. Ray stated the lack of control and enforce- • nt of the Zoning Ordinance is a very important factor, and cited the pro ises by developers of Friedman Paper Plant that there would be no outside storage of paper, etc. Mr. Ray tated that paper is stored outside all day and all night; it blows all over the neighborhood. People have called personnel at Friedman to complain about the blowing paper and have been infor ed that Friedman has "never heard about any problem" prior to that specific call. The neighborhood is also disturbed with the noise from the P.A. system at Friedman. The neighbor- hood has had problems with the warehouses to the north of Stanford Avenue. No screening has been provided by either the developers of the warehouses or the Friedman Paper Plant. M~ Ray st ted that because of the way the ordinances are written, there is only the police department to enforce the ordinances, and he did not see how some of the requirements could be enforced. Mr. Ray emphasized that none of the warehouses that are along Quincy Avenue have been made to provide screening. Mr. Ray stated that building height is a very important consideration. He noted that there is no control over the height of the building in an industrial area in the zoning ordinance. Mr. R y stated that the R-1-A Zone District is very restrictive, and should not abut a light industrial zone district. He tated that he did not feel the people living in this district " hould be subjected to abutting an industrial area." He pointed out that he and his wife purchased their property about 14 onths ago; they had previously owned a house in Denver and wanted to relocate to the suburbs. He stated that when they purcha ed the house, it was the "worst one in the block", and that they have improved the house and the area. He stated that they have gone to considerable time ane expense to make the property liveable, and if the I-1 Zoning is approved, he stated they are looking at a depreciation factor. Mr. Ray stated that he had asked a Crown Realty representative to view the area in li ht of the rezoning request; it was this realty representative's opinion that the I-1 zoning would have a negative effect on property values. Mr. Ray stated that he did not feel the ranting of the rezoning request would be compatible with what -15- the City Council has said they ant to accomplish --preserving the single-fa~ily areas. He stated that more and more industrial development is coming into the City. Mr. Ray stated that this R-1-A District is the nicest area in the City, and that once the I-1 District gains a foothold in the area, it will move east of the City Ditch. Mr. Ray co ented on the shortage of park land for the City; he stated that there should be 10.5 acres of park land for each 1,000 people; at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the City had a total of 110.3 acres of park land, and was short a considerable amount of land to be developed for park and recreation purposes. Mr. Ray stated that he felt there was sufficient industrial zoning and industrial use in the City; he stated that it did not ake sense to encourage additional industrial zoning and development, and at the same time to make low-interest loans to persons to i prove the residential area. Mr. Ray stated that he would suggest, as an alternative, that the rezoning not be approved at this time; rather than accepting the rezoning petition for the l-1 District, the Commission and staff should design and implement buffer zoning along the City Ditch. He stated that he felt a buffer zoning could be made to work in this area. He stated that he had attempted to find some information on "contractural zoning", but has been unable to do so to this ti e. Mr. Ray suggested that another alternative is to establish an enforcement person or agency to enforce the Co prehenuive Zoning Ordinance; he stated it was not fair to the people of Englewood to be given promises and not have those promises lived up to. Mr. Ray stated that he did not feel the residents of the area are being unreasonable, but they are trying to protect their family life and their homes. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Ray if they had questioned the zoning of the parcel of land owned by Mr. Garrett at the time they pur- cha ed their property? Did they notice the warehouses that were constructed at that time? He asked if, considering the industrial development in the area which adjoins the subject parcel of land, whether or not Mr. Ray might have considered that the subject parcel would be considered for industrial use in the future? Mr. Ray stated that they were not aware of the Friedman Plant until two days after they signed the contract on their house. But, at the time they were looking at the site they purchased, they had a clear view to Santa Fe, and the houses in the neighborhood were of good quality. Mr. Owens noted that by looking at the Zoning Map on the wall in the Council Chambers, it is evident there are places where the R-1-A District does abut the I-1, Light Industrial District. Mr. Ray stated that he would suggest there was an error made several years ago in the zoning designations. Mr. Owens asked what use Mr. Ray ould suggest for the site? ·Mr. Ray stated that he would prefer to see the site developed as a park. -16- Mr. ith asked how many of the houses on South Li pan Court had baseaents or patios which would face directly into the industrial area if the zoning were to be granted? Mr. Ray stated that four of the houses have basements or patios which would be affected. A recess of the Commission was called at 9:35 P.M.; the meeting reconvened at 9:55 P.M. Pr sent: Absent: o ens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Draper Lathrop, Williams rs. Pierson stated that the Commission would continue to hear state ents from those opposed. Mr. Don Gamet 4550 South Kala ath -stated that he has lived in this area that is under discussion this evening inc 1934. r. Gamet stated that he is concerned about the traffic that ill be generated in the area if this property is zoned for industrial development. Tufts Avenue is one of the main arteries children have to cross to reach Clayton Elementary School. He urged that the increase in industrial traffic be considered before reaching a decision on the re- quest. Mr. Gamet stated that he is opposed to any more industry moving into the City of Englewood; he noted that the school enrollment has decreased markedly in the last few years, and he felt that additional residential development should be en- couraged. Mr. R)y Eastin 4546 South Lipan Court -stated that he has lived at this location for 14 years. He stated that he anted to bring out the fact that the "paper shredder was ra ed down our throats", and the annexation and zoning procedure was accomplished in a little over a month. This action up et a lot of the people, and the City Council didn't care about doing anything about it. He asked what the acreage of the City is? Mrs. Roman replied that the City is a little under seven square miles; 65% of which is residentially zoned and the remaining 353 is commercially and industrially zoned. Mr. Eastin stated that it "looks like there is enough industrial zonin for now". He stated that there is already industrial traffic through the residential neighborhood, and additional industrial zoning and development will only compound the proble . Mr. Eastin stated that Mr. Criswell has referred to the R-1-A zoning upon annexation and inferred that it was illegal. Mr. Criswell tated that it has been ruled unconstitutional to annex property and apply zoning without notice and ithout benefit o f a Public Hearing. The initial residential classi- fication for this property at 1451 West Tufts was unconstitutional. The property wa zoned R-1-D several years after it was annexed, which was constitutional. Mr. Criswell stated that the point • -17- h was •uking wa that the initial resident i al class i fication of the property as unconstitutional, and that the st aff has recommended on several occasions since that time tha t the land should be given an industrial classification. Mro Ea stin stated that as he understood it, the property annexed at that time all got the sa e treatment? Mr. Criswell replied that it did. Mr. Eastin asked if the property was owned by Mr. Garrett at the time it was annexed? Mr~ Criswell stated that it a • Mr. Eastin asked of Mr. Garrett how many lending agencies he usually contacts before he begins to build houses? Mr. Garrett stated that at this time, Midland was the only agency he con- tacted. Mr. Eastin asked if plans for construction were always dropped after only one refusal? Mr. Garrett stated that this i not necessarily the case. He stated that he could get further information from lending institutions if it is required. Mr. Erne t Hofer 1327 West Tufts Avenue -stated he opposed the I-1 zoning. Mr. Gamet asked if there were restrictions on the storage of flammable liquids, pesticides and insecticides in the I-1 District? Mr. Gamet stated that he has been a fire fighter, and i aware of things that are stored in the warehouses. In the event of an explosion and/or fire, these could be lethal. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pier on asked if there were further questions or more testimony to be heard? Mr • Ray asked "if he has no immediate plans to put anything on his property, what is the big push at this time?" Mr. Garrett stated that if the rezoning to industrial is granted, he will probably start develop ent, but he has no plans at this point in time; he pointed out that he made plans prior to one of the previous hearings, and "got no where". He stated that he wanted to be assured of the industrial zoning before having · plans prepared for the development. Mrs. Ray asked if Mr. Garrett felt there might be less opposi- tion if there were definite plans for the development? Mr. Garrett tated that it is possible. Mr. Garrett stated that Mr. Ray had called him prior to the meeting, and asked what sort of development he envisioned for the site if the zoning were to be approved. Mr. Garrett stated that he told Mr. Ray that he would like to have something on the site similar to the development around the Elks Club on South Jason --a one story tructure, 12 ft. maximum height. Mr. Garrett stated that he would agree the Friedman Paper Plant should not have been per itted in the I-1 Zone District. Mr. Garrett reiterated that he had lived at 4750 South Lipan Street for 12 yearso Mr. Owen asked if Mr. Garrett would be agreeable to filing a Planned Development for the site? Mr. Garrett stated that if • -18- he understood the Planned Development conce pt, he wo uld be agreeable. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt Contr ac t Zoning was proper, but the City Attorney has stated that it cannot be done, and Mr. Criswell stated he would not discuss that issue further at this time. He noted that as the staff and applicant have pointed out, the property cannot be developed as R-1. The property will have to be ·subdivided before any developMent can occur, no matter what zoning is applied to the land. Mr. Criswell stated that at this stage, Mr. Garrett is not in the position to come in and state which uses will be put on this land --the uses will be limited if the I-1 Zone District is approved. r. Criswell noted that conditions may be placed on a Sub- division Plat that could control the development to a degree, as well as the controls that are in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cri wel. stated that he felt there would be sufficient control over the property if the I-1 Zoning were granted to require a Planned Develop ent or Subdivision Plat at the time of develop- nt. Mrs. Pier on asked if the property owner could develop the entire six acre tract without coming back to the Commission? Mr. Criswell stated that he felt this is possible. Mrs. Pierson a ked if the Co ission could grant the zoning with the con- dition that the property o ner come before the Commission with a Planned Development or Subdivision Plat of the property? Mr. Criswell stated that he knew of no zoning authority in the etro area that granted zoning on unsubdivided land that did not make the zoning conditioned on subdivision of that land. Mr. Wanush st ted that he did not feel subdividing of the land could be required, based on the statements of the City Attorney. He tated that he felt there would have to be subdivision of this la.nd to aake proper use of the land, but that it is possible to use the land without subdivi.si.on. Mr. saith asked Mr. Criswell and Mr. Ray if it would be possible to get the applicant and the opponents together to discuss the possibility of placing covenants on the land? Both Mr. Ray and Mr. Crisllell stated that they assumed this would be possible. Mr. Saith tated that he felt it was possible, if some agreement could be reached between the applicant and the opponents, to grant the rezoning request and still protect the property owners in the residential area. Mr. Garrett stated that he ould be willing to work with the residential property owners if at all possible. Mr. Criswell comllented that he felt something could be worked out through ne otiations with the opponents. Discussion ensued. S 1th moved: Owen seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 be continued to January 24, 1978, at 7:00 P.M. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Draper, Owens NAYS: None ABSENT! Willia , Lathrop The action carried. • It was •oved, seconded and carried that the meeting b e adjourned. Meeting declared adjourned at 10:35 P.M . I /·-.. ..,;.'· ./:--I ,_,, .. G ,'/ .. .. . 4 , ·1· -l ~ ,, ' , ' .. / /;~··-~& · v... .. I 4 ·~ /_.·~t< .Gertrude G. l~lty Y . ...-Recording Se'cretary -19- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RIC MDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 20, 1977 SUBJECT: Planned Development RECOMMENDATION: Saith ·oved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Development proposed for the following described property, provided the following conditions are met: "The north one-half of Lot 38 and Lots 39 thru 42, inclusive, Block 2, Higgins South Broadway Heights, Arapahoe County, Colorado." 1. The final drainage and torm runoff plans are to be approved by the Director of Engineering Services prior to issuance of a Building Per it. 2. The final landscaping plans are to be approved by the Depart ent of Co unity Development. The Planning Co ission hereby adopts the staff report as the Findings of Fact. AYES: Smith, Tanguaa, Wade, illiams, Draper, Owens, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: · L throp The iaotion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Co is ion.