Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-07-05 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZON I NG COMMISSION July 5, 1978 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Owens at 7:10 P .M. Members present: Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Williams II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Owens stated that the Minutes of June 13, 1978, and June 20, 1978, were to be considered for approval. Parker moved: McClintock seconded: The Minutes of June 13, 1978, be approved as written. AYES: McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Draper NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Smith, Tanguma, Lathrop ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Parker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of June 20, 1978, be approved as written. AYES: Pierson, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Owens, Parker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Smith, McClintock ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. III. ZONING DESIGNATION 1470 West Tufts Avenue I-1, Light Industrial Smith moved: CASE #8-78 Lathrop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-78 be opened. AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Mcclintock NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. -2- Mr. Owens outlined the procedure that will be followed in the course of the Public Hearing. He asked that the staff present the report to the Commission. Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter before the Planning Commission this evening is concerned with the zoning designation of a parcel of land, which parcel of land the property owner has petitioned to be annexed to the City of Englewood. Mrs. Romans point~d out the property on the land use map and on the zoning map, and stated that it is located on the southeast corner of South Beverly Drive and West Tufts Avenue. The area is presently in unincorporated Arapahoe County, and is presently zoned by the County as R-3, Single-family Residence. Mrs . Romans outlined the zone designations on the surrounding land, noting that land within the City of Englewood to the immediate south and southwest is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, which designation is proposed for the subject property . The land in the County to the east and immediate northwest and north is designated as R-3, Single-family Residence, with I-2, Heavy Industrial, in the unincorporated area in the vicinity of South Windermere Street. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Antonio Bovenzi is the owner of the subject property, and has petitioned the City of Englewood for annexation. The property in question is a little more than one acre in size . Mrs. Romans stated that the attorney re- presenting Mr. Bovenzi has indicated to Community Development Director Wanush that his client is desirous of the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District classification for his property, feeling that the property can be better utilized in the I-1 Zone District than in the R-3 Zone District. The 1965 Annexation Act, as amended, requires that all munici- palities annexing property zone that property within 90 days of the finalization of the annexation. Mrs . Romans stated that this means the zoning process must actually be started before the City Council has finalized acceptance of the annexa- tion petition in order to meet this time restriction. Mrs. Romans asked that the staff report, which was submitted to the Planning Commission, Mr. Bovenzi, Mr. Vondy, and Mr. and Mrs. Ray, be made a part of the permanent record of this Hearing, and that the certification of posting and the public notice also be made a part of the record. The staff recommends that the subject property be given the I-1, Light Industrial Zone classification upon annexation to the City of Englewood for the following reasons: 1. The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, would be an ex- tension of the I-1 Zone classification which has been applied to lands within the City of Englewood, which lands adjoin the su bj ect area and are adjacent to the subject area to the s ou t hwest . • -3- 2. Because of its proximity t o existin g industrial development, major railway lines and South Santa Fe Drive, the subject area does not lend itself to further residential development. 3. That the proposed I-1 Zone Classification will conform to the Generalized Land Use Plan for that area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The staff also recommends that certain conditions be placed on this zoning if it is approved. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff feels the City more or less set a precedent on a recent rezoning case on the north side of West Tufts Avenue when con- ditions were placed on that zoning, and the staff feels there are certain similarities in this case. Mrs. Romans cited the following conditions that the staff recommends be placed on the zoning: 1. No Building Permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of any building or structure on the sub- ject property or any portion thereof except in conformance with a Development Plan which has been approved and re- corded in compliance with §22.4A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . 2. There shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the west property line of Lot 12, Bell Isle Gardens Sub- division, Arapahoe County, Colorado, which Lot is identified by street address as 1460 West Tufts Avenue. 3. The east boundary of the subject property shall be screened as approved by a recorded Development Plan. 4. No entrance, exit or loading dock shall be permitted on the east side of any building which is constructed on the subject property; nor shall any parking, storage of equipment, materials or trash, or access other than for emergency vehicles be permitted in the area east of said buildings. 5. The maximum height of any structure or building shall not exceed 25 feet above the natural grade of the site. 6. All outside storage on the subject property shall be enclosed by a solid fence or wall not less than six (6) nor more than eight (8) feet in height, all trash collec- ·tion centers shall be of a covered type and no outside storage shall create litter, be a fire or health hazard or create any other form of public nuisance. 7. Lighting facilities on the property or on any building or structure located on the subject property, shall be so arranged that they will neither shine nor be reflected on the adjacent residential properties. Mrs. Romans noted that §22.4A referred to in Condition #1 is the Planned Development District. She noted that ~f one use is proposed for this subject site, she would quest~on the necessity of imposing the Planned Development requirement. -4- Mrs. Romans stated, in reference to Condition #3, that if the property is developed for one use, and the Planned Development is not required, the screening should be controlled by some other procedure. Mrs. Romans noted that Condition #5 is imposed in an effort to keep the height in conformance with that permitted in the Single-family Residence districts to the east. Mrs. Romans stated that are comparable to those 1451 West Tufts Avenue. have to comply with all the staff feels the proposed conditions imposed on the Garrett property at Any development on this property will existing codes and ordinances. Mr. Draper asked what power the City would have to enforce these conditions if the property owner initially agreed to them, but upon development failed to comply? Mrs. Romans stated that the Building Department would check on the de- velopment of the site as it progresses to assure compliance, and if there was a violation after development was completed, the property owner could be cited. Mr. Smith asked if the property to the south of the subject site was zoned I-1 or I-2? Mrs. Romans stated that this land to the south of the subject site is within the City of Englewood, and is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. Mr. Smith questioned the 20 foot dedication for West Tufts Avenue that has been discussed ; he noted that he did not see reference to this in the staff report. Mrs. Romans replied that this is a condition of the annexation, but not of the zoning. Mr. Fred Vondy was sworn in, and stated that he was legal counsel for Mr. Bovenzi, and Mr. Trani. Mr. Bovenzi is the property owner and Mr. Trani is the business partner of Mr. Bovenzi. Mr. Vondy asked if members of the Commission had viewed the subject site? Mr. Owens stated that the Commission did earlier this evening. Mr. Vondy cited industrial developments in the immediate area of his client's property. Mr. Vondy stated that the property to the north of Mr. Bovenzi's property is open, but is most likely to be zoned industrial in the future. Mr. Vondy stated that he felt the staff had dealt effectively with the problem of protecting the residential area to the east. He noted that there is presently a six foot wooden privacy fence separating this subject property from the residential property to the east. He stated that he doubted if any further type of screening would be more effective than this privacy fence. Mr. Vondy stated that his client is ready to donate the right-of-way needed for West Tufts Avenue. Mr. Vondy stated that his client wants to move his business to these premises, which business is engraving. Mr. Vondy stated that Mr. Bovenzi lives in Englewood, and hopes to stay in the City, and would like his • -5- business to be in Englewood, also. Mr . Vondy stated that his client would like to have Condition #1, the requirement for Planned Development, waived. Mr. Bovenzi would like to get an architect started on the design of the building as soon as possible, and they do feel that the privacy fence screening is adequate. Mr. Vondy stated that they have been some time in attempting to get the matter before the City, and that building costs are rising constantly; if his client must go through the Planned Development process this will result in more time loss to his client. He stated that he would urge the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the re- quested zone classification and permit Mr. Bovenzi to begin construction of his building. Mr. Vondy stated that his client would be willing to commit to the propcsed Conditions 2, 3, (subject to the comment that they feel it is already adequately screened), 4, 5, 6, and 7. Mr. Vondy reiterated that Condition #1 involves additional governmental processes and is time consuming. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Planned Development process is not lengthy, and does assure to the City and the surrounding property owners the type of development that is proposed. Mr. Vondy discussed his experience recently in Evergreen, where- in governmental process proved very costly to his client. He stated that his client will abide by the judgement of the City, but does ask for the right to construct the building on the property in compliance with the I-1 Zone District. Mrs. Pierson asked the staff opinion on this question. Mrs. Romans stated that if the Planned Development process were to be followed, and if everything went through with no problems, it would require about six weeks. Mr. Owens asked if the Com- mission would have to wait until the annexation is finalized before that process could be started? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the Planned Development process could be started prior to finalization of the annexation and zoning procedure; the plans would not be recorded if the property were not to annex to the City, or if the I-1 zoning were not applied to the land. Mr. Owens asked if there were anyone else in the audience who wished to speak in favor of the proposed zone designation? No one spoke in favor of the proposed zone designation. Mr. OWens then asked that those persons in opposition present their case. Mr. Stohn 1530 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in, and asked how this pro- posal would fit into the Master Plan which Englewood has had for some time. He asked if the pro- ponents realized that this property ''sits in the middle of a proposed street?" He asked if the proponents had given this any thought? Mr. Vondy stated that City officials have considered this, and -6- he does not feel it very likely that a street will go through this property. He stated that he felt the expense involved to acquire the right-of-way will out-weigh the hoped for benefit • of any street in that location. Mr. Stohn asked of the staff is there was a proposed street through this property? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff did not go into this matter in the staff report, as this is a matter that will have to be worked out at the City Council level at the time of annexation, and not as part of the zoning process. She stated that if the City Council determines that Navajo Street should be extended through this property, the property owner will, in all likelihood, choose not to annex. Mrs. Romans discussed the Master Street Plan as it pertains to this area. South Windermere Street cannot be extended be- tween Quincy Avenue and Oxford Avenue, and it was determined that a traffic carrier is needed in this area; therefore, the extension of South Navajo Street from Oxford south to West Tufts Avenue is proposed. The City is trying to obtain a 60 foot right-of-way on South Navajo between Oxford Avenue and Quincy Avenue. With the extension of South Navajo Street south of Quincy Avenue, heavy traffic could use this street rather than South Windermere Street. Mrs. Romans pointed out one or two alternatives to the proposed Tufts/Union Avenue realignment which could tie into the Navajo Street Extension. Discussion on the proposed realignment of the West Tufts/West Union Avenue intersection and the South Navajo Street extension ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that if the City does annex the property and zone it for industrial development, this would effectively eliminate the possibility of the South Navajo Street extension. She stated that she felt it was highly unlikely that the City Council would accept the petition for annexation from Mr. Bovenzi, and then take a great portion of the site for the extension of South Navajo Street. Mr. Vondy stated that he was involved in a recent lawsuit over South Navajo Street right-of-way further to the north, and the City did abandon their right to that right-of-way. This has been within the last 90 days. He stated that he felt it was highly unlikely that South Navajo Street would be extended through Mr. Bovenzi's property. Mrs. William F. Manning 1540 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in, and asked "how come when land is taken for streets, it's 'dedicated"'; she described it as "donated" rather than "dedicated". Mrs,. Manning questioned the height limitation as proposed on this rezoning. She noted that her property is immediately to the east of that owned by Mr. and Mrs. Mardesen, which was annexed to the City of Englewood and zoned within the past couple of years. She noted that they are developing this property with structures up to 30 feet in height, and asked how this could be done if there was a 25 foot height -7- limitation as proposed on the propert y owned by Mr. Bovenzi? Mrs. Manning then discussed the provision on lighting, and noted that lights from the Friedman Paper Plant are disruptive to residents of the area all night long, all year long. She noted that someone has shot out one of the most annoying lights on the Friedman Paper Plant. She stated that the staff "stands here and say there will only be 25 foot height allowed and no lights --it's not right." Mrs. Manning stated that the resi- dents of that area want no more I-1 zoning, no more annexations to the City of Englewood. Mrs. Manning stated that she has lived there for 22 years, and it was a nice neighborhood for many years. Mrs. Manning stated that there was "no need for a ghetto, but you have made it that; you have done it to us." Mrs. Manning stated that this area is in the County, and they want to remain in the County. Mr. Owens stated that at the time the Mardesen property was annexed to the City and zoned I-1, the position of the City Attorney's office was that no conditions could be placed on the zoning; this position has now changed somewhat. There is no way that the height limitation condition can be made retro- active to affect the Mardesen property. Mr. Owens stated that he felt the Commission and City were responding to the trends of the community. Mr. Owens pointed out that the City is not asking these property owners to annex to the City. Rather, the property owners are asking to be annexed, and they are asking for a zone district in which they feel they can feasibly de- velop their property --I-1, Light Industrial. Mrs. Manning stated that annexation and industrial zonings "are hurting the community", even though she realized "there is no sense in fighting it." Mr. Vern Porter 1460 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in, and testified that he owns the property directly to the east of the subject site. Mr. Porter stated that Mr. Bovenzi bought the property as residential property; he stated that he felt sure Mr . Bovenzi fully intended to apply for industrial zoning when he purchased the property, and suggested that per- haps Mr. Bovenzi should have checked with the adjoining neighbors before he purchased the land to determine their feelings about additional industrial zoning there. Mr. Porter stated that he did not feel it is proper to impose industrial zoning between two residential uses, as would be the case in this instance were the industrial zone classification to be approved. Mr. Porter stated that it would be a different matter if the entire neighborhood decided to apply for light industrial zoning, but to impose light industrial zoning on a piece-meal basis and to impose it between two residential uses is wrong. Mr. Porter questioned the possibility of zoning the Tufts frontage of the site to residential, and the southern half of the site for industrial development. He noted that this would preserve tre residential "frontage" along Tufts Avenue in this area. Mr. Owens pointed out that in the past 15 years, there have -8- been no Building Permits issued either in Arapahoe County or the City of Englewood for other than industrial development in this area. The trend in this general area does seem to be toward industrial development. Mro Owens stated that the Com- mission did view the property earlier this evening, and did note the several nice residential uses in this neighborhood. Mro Owens did point out, however, that the area to the south and west of the subject site is zoned for and developed as industrialo Mr. Porter stated that to the west, the "Hays" property is zoned for industrial development, but the remainder of the property is developed residentially. Mr. Porter asked if the property owner was planning to construct just one building to house his business on this site, or whether there would be other buildings and tenants in addition to Mr. Bovenzi's business. Mr. Porter again asked if the Tufts frontage could not be zoned for residential use, and the south half of the lot zoned for industrial purposes? Mr. Vondy stated that it is the feeling of his client that the entire parcel would be more appropriately zoned to I-1, Light In- dustrial. Mr. Vondy stated that while an architect has not been engaged to design the development, Mr. Bovenzi would have tenants on the site to make it economically feasible. They do intend to generate income from other tenants that will be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Vondy pointed out that Mr. Bovenzi's engraving business is quiet, and inquired of Mr. Porter what his business is and where it is located? He asked of Mr. Porter if he was not engaged in business in this immediate neighborhood? Mr. Porter stated that he was not. Mr. Stohn inquired if Mr. Bovenzi had attempted to get the property rezoned in the County before applying to the City for annexation and zoning? Mr. Vondy stated that they made initial inquiries, and found the parcel to be part of Englewood's economy, and felt that the site should be annexed to the City. No application was made for rezoning in Arapahoe County. Mr. Stohn asked if Mro Vondy and/or his client was told by Arapahoe County officials that they would not impose an industrial classification between two residential uses? Mr. Vondy stated that he was told no such thing, and would doubt that this is true. Mr. Stohn stated that this was the information that he was given upon inquiry. He stated that he felt the applicant was forced to come to Englewood not only on account of "services" but for development. Mr. Stohn stated that at the previous attempt at annexation of this area by the City of Englewood, Mrs. Romans had assured the residents of this area that the residential area along Tufts Avenue would remain in a residential zone district classifica- tion, and that properties not developed residentially or so zoned under the County zoning classification would be zoned for industrial purposes. Mrs. Romans stated that she did not recall a zoning proposal for the property west of the Porter property other than for I-1, Light Industrial. Mrs.Romans stated that when the property east of Santa Fe Dr i ve was annexed to the City, the area along West Tufts Av enue was proposed for I-1 Zoningo -9- Mrs. Marlene Stohn 1530 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in, and testified that all property east of the Mardesen property at the southeast corner of West Tufts Avenue and South Windermere Street was proposed for residential zoningo Mrs. Stohn stated that if office files were researched, she was sure that this would be substantiated. Mrs. Stohn stated that at the time Mr. Mardesen's property was annexed to the City, she personally came into the office to discuss the matter with Mrs. Romans; she was assured at that time that any annexation along West Tufts Avenue would be given a residential zone designation for the depth of the existing residential use. Mrs. Romans stated that she would check the office files on the zoning of this area, but that she could not recall at this time any such conversation. Mrs. Stohn stated that the Mardesen property was previously owned by Mr. Hayes, who had an industrial zone classification on his property because of the gun shop business he conducted at that location. Mrs. Stohn emphasized that the residents of this area do not want further industrial zoning in the area, and most certainly do not want industrial zoning imposed be- tween two residential useso Mr. Owens asked Mrs. Stohn if she could really expect this subject property to develop as a single-family residential use? Mrs. Stohn stated that she didn't know if it would, but could not say that it would not. Mr. Owens stated that in a recent case before the Commission in this immediate area, the gentleman testified that he could not obtain financing for residential development on his property. Mrs. Stohn discussed the development of the Moore/Hanson property, which was originally zoned R-4, Residential-Pro- fessional at the time of development. The developers agreed to the screening provisions required in that zone district at the time of the initial development; however, last year an addition was made to the structure, which addition eliminated the landscaping and screening provisions between the residential properties and his industrial business. Mrs. Stohn stated that the property owners object to any additional industrial zoning in this area. Mr. Stohn asked about the configuration of the subject site; he noted there were some "jogs" shown on the maps of the property. Mrs. Romans stated that the "jogs" indicate right- of-way that would be encompassed in the zone designation. Mr. Roy Eastin 4546 South Lipan Court -was sworn in, and stated that he would "like to point out the fact that the staff presented alternatives on the realignment of the Tufts- Union and the Navajo extension, but did not present any alterna- tives for the development of this area. It's going to be in- -10- dustrial and that is that, even though it's now residential." Mr. Eastin stated that the "way this is being rushed through", it reminds him of the Friedman Paper Plant, and the way that was "rushed through." Mr. Owens took issue with Mr. Eastin's statement that this is being "rushed" through any process. Mr. Owens attempted to explain to Mr. Eastin the process that is being followed, and the reasoning behind this process. Mr. Smith further explained the reason that the zoning designation is being considered be- fore the final action of the annexation petition; he noted that there is a time limitation that must be followed in applying a zone classification after the annexation petition is approved. To meet this deadline, consideration of the zoning by the Planning Commission is started prior to final City Council action on the annexation petition. Mr. Smith emphasized that this is not a matter of "rushing" anything through, but simply trying to meet the time limitation placed by State Statute. Mr. Eastin stated that there are a lot of nice homes in this area, and that they deserve protection. To zone this area to industrial with residential use on either side of it as well as across the street does not make sense. Mr. Eastin noted that this subject site is now zoned residential by Arapahoe County, and is adjacent on three sides to residential zoning. He stated that if the property were to be cleaned up, maybe something could be done with it. It is not an asset to the City of Englewood as it is now. Mr. Eastin asked if there was a shortage of land zoned for industrial purposes? Mr. Owens stated that he did not believe there was a shortage. He reiterated that he felt the Commission is responding to economic trends in the area, and again pointed out that no building per- mits have been issued for any use but industrial for the past 15 years. Mr. Tanguma agreed that the trend of this area does s~em to be to industrial development of some kind. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the industrial development would aid in the increase of property values for property owners in the area. Mr. Eastin stated that he did not agree that the in- dustrial zoning and development would increase the property values; he felt that it would tend to decrease them. Mr. Gerald Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -was sworn in, and stated that he felt some consideration should be given to the fact that the residential property owners have lived in this area for 20-30 years, and that Mr. Bovenzi has owned his two years. Mr. Ray stated that he felt the I-1 zoning would devalue the property of the long-time residential property owners. He further pointed out that if the subject site were to be designated for I-1 Light Industrial development, the residential properties to the west on the south side of West Tufts Avenue are "condemned to I-1 if they want to get anything out of their land." Mr. Ray stated that the County has stated they would not "spot" zone industrial between residential uses in the manner proposed. • -11- Mr. OWens stated that unless there was a direct communication from the County to the City Planning Commission on that state- ment, that the Commission could not accept it. Mr. Ray stated that he did not feel it was right to spot zone a piece of property industrial between two residential uses. Mr. Ray stated that the industrial zoning and development does affect the property values of the residents, and the zoning and effect will continue to the east of the City Ditch. He stated that he did not agree with zoning more and more land for industrial purposes; he noted that this resulted in the loss of residential ground and residential uses in Englewood. Mr. Ray acknowledged the right of the subject property owner to use the land as they wish, but not if it adversely affects the other property owners of the area. Mr. Ray stated that he understood a Building Permit has been issued for the construction of a solar-heated house on the west side of South Mariposa Drive, which street is to the east of the subject property. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt this is a difficult decision facing the Commission; while there are some very nice homes in the area. there are also some very "trashy" properties which are not conducive to new residential development. Mr. Ray stated that he felt much of the "trashy" look is a result of the continual industrial encroachment into the residential area. Mr. Ray stated again that it is the feeling of the residents of the area that the industrial encroachment will continue to the east of the City Ditch. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt it likely that the residential development on Mariposa would be preserved, and that the in- dustrial zoning would not keep "creeping" to the east. Mrs. Pierson stated that she did not agree that the proposed in- dustrial designation of this subject property was "spot zoning". Mr. Ray noted that their property was in poor condition when they purchased it, and that they are putting a lot of time and money into fixing it up. He stated that they are fearful that an industrial development on the recently rezoned property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue could have an adverse effect on the property value of their place. He stated that he felt the im- position of industrial into this residential area will have the i 1 domino" effect on the residential area to the east of the City Ditch. The merit of zoning the property industrial and whether effort would be made to clean it up if it were so zoned was discussed, as were the merits of leaving the property residential in an effort to encourage further residential development. Mr. Ray stated that he felt a lot would depend on the type of industrial tenant that would occupy the development as to whether the in- dustrial zoning would lend itself to cleaning the property u~ -12- Mrs. Stohn stated that the property directly across the street from them on the north side of West Tufts Avenue is in Probate Court. She stated that she understood that the property owner, who lives in New York state, wants to sell this property. She stated that she understood the residential structures on the property are being rented by the new owner. Mrs. Linda Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -was sworn in. Mrs. Ray stated that when Mr. Bovenzi purchased the property two years ago, it wasn't in very good shape, and he probably purchased if for speculation purposes. She suggested that prospective purchasers of such property should first inquire throughout the neighborhood as to the surrounding property owners attitude on matters such as industrial zoning and de- velopment. Mrs. Ray stated that it was her opinion that if someone has owned property for two years and hasn't done much with it, they had no intention of doing anything to improve it to begin with. She pointed out that the houses on both sides of this site are very nice, and that there are individuals willing to purchase property and put time and money into fixing it up. Mrs. Ray stated that the Commission talks about following the "economic trend" of the neighborhood, and pointed out that at some point, this "trend" was started by allowing one developer to put in warehouses or some such industrial use. Mrs. Ray urged that if the zoning is approved, that conditions be placed on the zoning, and that these conditions be enforced. Mrs. Eldridge 1450 West Tufts -was sworn in. She stated that the six foot privacy fence along the boundary between the Porter property and the subject property is there for a reason namely, that Porters are trying to obstruct their view of the ill-kept property to the west. She noted that this fence was erected within the last two years, since Mr. Bovenzi purchased the subject site. Mrs. Eldridge stated that she and her husband have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years, and have seen the encroachment of the industrial zoning and development. Mrs. Eldridge stated that building permits have been issued for con- struction of two houses on South Mariposa Drive, and felt that this is proof that the area can develop for residential purposes. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Vondy if he would like to rebut any of the statements made by the opponents? Mr. Vondy stated that for the record, he would like to state that property owners in the area were notified of the intent of his client. Letters were sent to Porters, Eldridge, Ausfahl, B. Garrett, and McDermott. These names were obtained from the Department of Community Development, and letters were sent; no replies were received. Mr. Stohn suggested that the applicant develop the site for residential purposes and live there. He stated that the neighborhood would welcome him. -13- Pierson moved: Parker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-78 be closed. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Owens, McClintock NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mr. Owens declared a break of the Commission at 8:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:05 P.M. with the following members present: Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Mcclintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson. Absent: Mr. Williams. Mr. Owens asked the pleasure of the Commission on the matter of the zoning designation? Pierson moved: McClintock seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the property at 1470 West Tufts Avenue, upon annexation to the City of· Englewood, be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, for the following reasons: 1. The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, would be an ex- tension of the I-1 Zone Classification which has been applied to lands within the City of Englewood, which lands adjoin the subject area and are adjacent to the subject area to the southwest. 2. Because of its proximity to existing industrial develop- ment, major railway lines and South Santa Fe Drive, the subject area does not lend itself to further residential development. 3. That the proposed I-1 Zone classification will conform to the Generalized Land Use Plan for that area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Commission further recommends that the following conditions be placed on this zoning: 1. No Building Permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of any building or structure on the subject property or any portion thereof except in conformance with a Development Plan which has been approved and recorded in compliance with §22.4A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 2. There shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the west property line of Lot 12, Bell Isle Gardens Subdivision, Arapahoe County, Colorado, which Lot is identified by street address as 1460 West Tufts Avenue. 3. The east boundary of the subject property shall be screened as approved by a recorded Development Plan. -14- 4. No entrance, exit or loading dock shall be permitted on the east side of any building which is constructed on the subject property; nor shall any parking, storage of equipment, materials or trash, or access other than for emergency vehicles be permitted in the area east of said buildings. 5. The maximum height of any structure or building shall not exceed 25 feet above the natural grade of the site. 6. All outside storage on the subject property shall be en- closed by a solid fence or wall not less than six (6) nor more than eight (8) feet in height, all trash collection centers shall be of a covered type and no outside storage shall create litter, be a fire or health hazard or create any other form of public nuisance. 7. Lighting facilities on the property or on any building or structure located on the subject property, shall be so arranged that they will neither shine nor be reflected on the adjacent residential properties. Mrs. Pierson stated that even though she made this motion, sle has not reached a decision on the matter. If this I-1 Zone classification is granted, she felt that the requirement for development by the Planned Development process should not be waived. She noted that the property is bounded on the south and southwest by industrial zoning and development, but at the same time, there is good residential stock in the neigh- borhood. Mr. Smith stated that he would recommend that the matter be denied. He stated that he supported the rezoning at 1451 West Tufts Avenue with conditions, believing that with the topo- graphy of the land, there would be no impact on the residential land adjacent to it. He stated that he would vote against this motion. Mr. Smith made reference to the existing land use map of the site, and pointed out that it is residentially zoned and developed on three sides. Mr. Smith stated that by approving this zoning designation, it would be imposing an industrial classification between two residential uses. He stated that the new residential construction that is proposed on South Mariposa Drive may give some encouragement to further residential development. Mr. Smith stated that he did not agree that the "domino theory" applies in this instance if the land were to be designated for I-1; but he also feels that if the property is annexed to the City, that the north one-half of the property should be zoned something other than for industrial development. He did agree that the I-1, Light Industrial zone designation was proper for the south one-half of the site. He felt that even with conditions imposed on the industrial zoning, it would be wrong to impose the I-1 on the entire site. He felt that the Commission is here to serve the desires of the community as well as to consider the economic and development trends of an area. He pointed out that the residents who have spoken -15- this evening are the ones living in and supporting this area. Mr. Smith stated that he would urge the Commission to deny the I-1 Zone classification, and consider another classification that is more "realistic." Mrs. Pierson asked if the zoning on the property could be split --one-half to a residential classification, and one- half to industrial? Mrs. Romans stated that there would have to be public hearings on any residential classification. Mr. Parker stated that he would vote against the motion for the reasons outlined by Mr. Smith, and in addition, because he feels that Englewood has too much land zoned for I-1, Light Industrial, at the present time. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would vote against the motion, and would urge the Planning Commission to recommend a split zoning on the property. Mrs. Pierson stated that she isn't sure that it has been shown this area isn't salvagable for residential development. If the I-1 Zone classification were to be approved, "we might cause the irreversible process" that would preclude further residential development. Mrs. Pierson stated that she could not support the I-1 Zone District for the entire parcel. Mr. Owens stated that the residential property owners have lived in this area for many years and want to continue their residency here; however, Mr. Bovenzi has the right to make use of his property. Mr. Owens stated that he would support the proposal to split the zoning on the property, and would en- courage the applicant to find a way to develop the south one- half of the site for industrial purposes. Mr. Owens stated that the Commission is not trying to discourage development, but that there are residents of the area who must be protected. Mr. Owens stated that he felt if the entire site were to be zoned for industrial development, it would have considerable impact on the neighborhood. The vote on Mrs. Pierson's motion was called: AYES: None NAYS: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma ABSENT: Williams The motion failed. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson suggested the possibility of the applicant giving the north 100 feet of the site to the City for a mini-park in exchange for industrial zoning on the re- mainder. Mr. Vondy stated that this would have to be considered, and questioned that the City would want the expense of maintaining a park in this neighborhood. Further discussion ensued. -16- Mr. Tanguma asked if another public hearing would be required if the split zoning were recommended? Mrs. Romans stated that she would assume the City Attorney's office would require another public hearing . She did point out that the Findings of Fact could show that the Commission did consider the matter of split zoning on the site. Mr. Smith asked if it would be in order to make a motion that the Commission send a communication to City Council with the vote stating that it seems apparent the Planning and Zoning. Commission would approve a split zoning on the site, the north 125 feet being residential and the south 125 feet being in- dustrial, with the possibility of another Public Hearing if the applicant agrees with the zone change. Mr. Owens stated that he felt this could be handled in the Findings of Fact. Smith moved: Draper seconded: That the Findings of Fact on Case #8-78 shall include the fact that the Planning Commission did favorably consider the 125 feet north of West Thomas Avenue to be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, but that the Commission did not favorably recommend the 125 foot frontage on West Tufts Avenue for I-1 Zoning. The Commission did feel that this 125 foot depth on West Tufts Avenue should be zoned to a residential classification to be compatible with the surrounding area. The I-1 Zoning was considered subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report addendum, with the exclusion of Condition #2. Mr. Parker stated that he still could not vote for this motion; he still considers the imposition of any light industrial onto this property as "spot zoning". Mrs. Pierson disagreed that it is spot zoning, but felt that the split zoning would give the applicant reasonable use of his property, and takes into consideration the residential and industrial character of the neighborhood. Mr. Lathrop stated that he felt the split zoning on this property would protect the interests of the residential community, and would meet the desires of the property owner by zoning the south one-half of the site for industrial zoning . It was pointed out that the division between the residential and industrial zoning as proposed, would go through the house which is now on the property. The vote was called: AYES: Draper, Lathrop, Mcclintock, Owens, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: Parker ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. -17- Pierson moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission initiate the zoning of the north 125 feet of 1470 West Tufts Avenue to R-1-C, Single-family Residence, the Public Hearing to be held on July 25, 1978, at 7:00 P.M. AYES: Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mr. Owens thanked members of the audience for their attendance. IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Penner Building Systems CASE #7-78A June 20, 1978 Mr. Owens asked if there was additional information available on this matter. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant is present. This matter was considered at the last meeting, and was postponed because there were some items the Director of Engineering Services wanted to check out. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Penner of Penner Building Systems, has an option to purchase the property, and final plans on the proposed division of property cannot be drawn until Mr. Penner is assured of what he can do on the property should he exercise the option to purchase. The City is now taking the position that plans on this proposed division of the property can be approved, but will not be recorded until they are presented in final detail. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant, Mr. Penner, has made whatever changes have been requested of him thus far. A new site plan and drainage plan were submitted by Mr. Penner, and they have been reviewed and approved by Director of Engineering Services Diede. One question was raised on the drainage plan, but it is felt that this can be solved, and need not further delay preliminary action by the Commission. There was also a question on the turning radius at one point in the fire lane, and the latest plan shows the turning radius and easement as required by the Fire Department. The roadway of the cul-de-sac is still shown as 40 feet, and the Director of Engineering Services has said that he would recommend acceptance of the 40 foot roadway by the City Council, and sees no problem. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would recommend that the Commission give approval to the preliminary plan presented by Mr. Penner. This plan would not be recorded until Mr. Penner has completed purchase of the property, and has submitted a detailed site plan and drainage plan. Discussion ensued. -18- Mr. Owens asked if Mr. Penner would like to add anything to Mrs. Romans' presentation? Mr . Penner stated that he had no further comments. Smith moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Sub- division Waiver requested by Penner Building Systems for Lot 7, Block 2, Tejon Industrial Park, with the understanding that the plans will not be filed and recorded until the Final Plans are submitted following purchase of the land by Mr. Penner. AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Mcclintock ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. V. VISITORS No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mrs. Romans reminded the Commission of the special work session at 6:00 P.M. on July 11th to review the reports of the Compre- hensive Plan Review Committees. The Commission will meet at 5:00 PM. on July 18th with members of the Swedish Medical Center administration. This will be a dinner meeting and discussion session. On July 25, 7:00 P.M., there will be Public Hearings on zoning designation for 1470 West Tufts Avenue. Mrs. Romans reviewed the annexation and zoning history of this area, and noted that there had been several different attempts to have this area annexed to the City of Englewood and zoned. The initial zoning designation for this area proposed an I-1, Light Industrial classification for the entire area; the third attempt at zoning this area following annexation did, indeed, propose single- family residence classification on those properties fronting on West Tufts Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has been notified that the Thurman property on the north side of West Tufts Avenue will petition the City for annexation, and will request an I-1, Light Industrial Zone classification upon annexation. Mrs. Romans stated that there have been inquiries from property owners on South Mariposa Drive regarding annexation, and that both these property owners have been told the staff will recommend a Single-family Residence classification for their property. Mrs. Romans reminded members of the RTD work shop on July 22nd, at 8:30 A.M. -19- VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Smith moved: The meeting be adjourned. The motion was seconded and carried; meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M • . ertrude G. We ~ecording Seer