Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-09-06 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 6, 1978 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Owens. Members present: Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma, Williams, Draper Also pres ent: Assistant Director Romans Associate Planner Fessenden Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Mr. Owens stated that there were three sets of minutes to be considered for approval. Lathrop moved: McClintock seconded: The Minutes of July 18, 1978, be approved as written. AYES: Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pierson ABSENT: Draper, Tanguma, Williams The motio n carried. Parker moved: Lathrop seconded: The Minutes of July 25, 1978, be approved as written . AYES: Smith, Lathrop, Owens, Parker NAYS: None ABSTAIN : McClintock, Pierson ABSENT: Tanguma, Williams, Draper The motio n carried. Parker moved : Lathrop seconded : The Minutes of August 1, 1978, be approved as written . AYES: Lathrop, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McClintock, Owens, Smith ABSENT: Draper, Tanguma, Williams The motion carried. -2- Mr. Owens stated that there are five public hearings on the agenda before the Commission this evening; one public hearing pertains to a subdivision plat, and four of the hearings are concerned with zoning designation for properties which are the subject of petitions requesting annexation to the City of Englewood. III. BELOKES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Burt Subdivision Plat Pierson moved: CASE #14-78 Parker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #14-78 be opened. AYES: Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Draper, Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Owens outlined the procedure that would be followed in conducting the Public Hearing. Mr. Owens then asked for the staff report. Mrso Dorothy Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development. She stated that the case before the Commission is concerned with the proposed division of property which has been called the "GEM property," and has been basically undeveloped with the exception of the GEM structure and two free-standing buildings for a number of years. The parcel contains approximately 18 acres, and is on the southern boundary of the City on the east side of South Broadway. The property owner is Belokes Limited Partnership, and the applicant is the Burt Developmemt Company, which company does have a long-term lease on this property. The land is zoned B-2, Commercial, and has been the subject of three previous Subdivision Waiverso The initial waiver given was on the extreme southwest corner of the parcel, which area was to be used for a commercial slide. This waiver was approved by the Commission, but late in 1972, the Commission was asked to approve a subdivision waiver in this same general location for the South Broadway Theatero Mr. Williams entered and took his place with the Commissiono The third waiver was granted on the northwestern portion of the property when Mr. Burt asked to use the land for expansion of the auto storage lots for his Toyota dealershipo At that time, the Commission decreed that no further waivers to the Subdivision Regulations would be granted, and that further division of the property would have to be accomplished by the filing of a Subdivision Plat. The proposed subdivision plat before the Commission this evening would divide the property into nine lots; access within the parcel would be by private roadways. It is the opinion of the staff that the 36 foot easements proposed for these private roadways can handle the traffic generated from these developments proposed for the -3- parcels . Mrs. Romans stated that there is consider able flexibility in the Pl at a s p roposed, and noted that the S o uth Broadway Theater is now a teen-age Disco Club, whose patro ns would be there in the evening , while it is assumed that tenants i n t h e GEM store would be o p e n during the day. This would mak e it possible to have an interchange of the use of the parking fa c il ities for these two uses . Mrs. Ro mans stated that the st a ff has worked closely wi t h Messrs. Attleson, Arkin and Burt o n t his matter, and that al l concerned departments have reviewed th e proposed Subdivisio n Plat, and services can be provided to the site, and the st orm drainage can be handled. The staff does recom- mend approval of the Subdivision Plat as proposed. Mr. OWe n s asked if there were any questions of Mr s. Romans? Upon he aring none, he asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Na t e Burt 6300 West Ma nsfield -was sworn in, and testified that he is owner of Burt Chevrolet and Burt Toyota. Mr. Burt stated that he is applying to the Plannin g Commission for appr o val of the Subdivision Plat to enable fu rther develop- ment o f the GEM property. Mr. Burt introduced his at tor n ey, Mr. Harr y Arkin, who would make the presentation for th e applicant. Mr. Har r y Arkin 718 17th Street -was sworn in, and stated that h e represents the Burt Development Company . Mr. Arkin stated th at the applicants did work closely with the staff in the preparation of the subdivision plat. This plat involves a large b lock of land that has, to this time, been de veloped piece-mea l by subdivision waivers . Mr. Arkin discusse d the plat, pointing out that the Burt Toyota dealership is t o the immedi ate north of Lot 1 designated on the plat. This area is now use d for additional parking for the Toyota dealership. The forme r GEM building is unoccupied, and negotiatio n s for a tenant f o r this property are going on at this time, as are nego t ia tio ns for use of Lot 4. Mr. Arkin discussed t h e proposed subdivision plat further. He noted that Mr. Attleson , the architec t, and Mr. Grant, president of Belokes Limite d P a rtner- ship, a re both present if the Commission wished to q u e stion them. Mrs . Ro mans pointed out that there is an easement b e tween Lots 2 an d 3, and extending northeasterly across Lo t 1 . Since the plat was designed, the applicant has considered the necessity of expansion from Lot 2 onto Lot 3, and the easement might pre- clude cons truc tion of buildings on that lot. The applicant has requested th a t the easement not be shown on the fin al plat, and at such time as the utilities are necessary, an easement will be gi v en to the utility companies needing the ea sement. It is t he applicant's opinion that the easements wo u ld be better g i ven at the time the location of structures is known. Mr. Arkin agreed wit h Mrs. Romans statement, and stressed t hat the applicant does want the easement between Lots 2 and 3 and e xt ending north- easterly across Lot 1 eliminated on the Final Plat . -4- Mrs. Pierson asked if the Commission had the authority to waive the easement designation on the plat, and asked who the easement would run to? Mr. Arkin stated that it is a utility easement, and that the Commission does indeed have the authority to waive the designation of an easement on the final plat. At such time as buildings are located on the lots, the easements would be given to the utility companies and departments who need them. Mrs. Pierson asked what other procedure would be followed in the development of the site if the subdivision plat is approved? Mr. Wanush stated that the applicant would have to apply for building permits for each development following approval of the subdivision plat by the City Council. Mr. Arkin pointed out that there would be no change of existing zoning. Mrs. Romans asked that the staff report be made part of the record of this Hearing. Mr. Owens asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the subdivision plat? No one indicated a desire to speak in favor. Mro Owens then asked for those in opposition to speak. No one spoke in opposition to the subdivision plato Smith moved: Parker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #14-78 be closed. AYES: Williams, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Draper The motion carried. Parker moved: Williams seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Sub- division Plat filed by Belokes Limited Partnership and Burt Development Company, with the elimination of the easement shown between Lots 2 and 3, and extending north- east across Lot 1, and recommend that City Council approve the final plat of the Burt Subdivision for the following described property: Beginning 50 feet east of the Southwest corner of the North- east 1 /4 of Section 15, thence North 89°40 1 East 1170031 feet, thence North 0°20 1 West 314.2 feet, thence North 49°38 1 16 11 West 388.57 feet, thence North 70°07 1 47 11 West 239.32 feet, thence Northwest on curves 365041 feet, thence South 89°40' West 361019 feet to the east line of South Broadway, thence south to point of beginning 870 feet. The Commission recommends approval of the Subdivision Plat for the following reasons: -5- 1. The Subdivision Plat will comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, Title 12, Chapter 3, of the 1969 EoM.C. 2. The Subdivision Plat will permit an orderly development of this large parcel of land, superceding previous Sub- division Waivers which have been approved for various uses on small sections of the parcel. 3. The Subdivision Plat will permit flexibility in the de- velopment of the site, while providing adequate easements for utility and emergency services. AYES: Pierson, Smith, Williams, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Draper The motion carried. IVD ZONING DESIGNATION 1470 West Tufts Avenue R-1-C, Single-family Smith moved: CASE #9-78 McClintock seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-78 be openedo AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Williams, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Draper The motion carried. Mr. Parker asked if Case #10-78 should be considered at the same time, inasmuch as it pertains to the same property? Discussion ensued. Mr. Wanush suggested that all the Hearings be conducted before making any decisions on the zoning designa- tion. Mr. Owens agreed that this would probably be the best way to proceed. Mr. Williams disagreed, and stated that he felt the decision should be made on each particular matter following the individual hearing. Mr. Owens pointed out that the hearings pertain to individual properties within one area o Mr. Wanush noted that while a decision would have to be made on each individual case, by holding all the hearings first, the Commission could discuss the entire area at one time. Discussion ensued. Williams moved: The Commission consider Case #9-78 and #10-78 individually, and make the decision following the completion of these particular hearings. There was no second to Mr. Williams' motion. -6- Mr 0 Owens inquired about considering Cases #9 and #10 together? Mr. Wanush pointed out that they are two public hearings, one pertaining to R-1-C, Single-family, and the other is concerned with I-1, Light Industrial on the south half of the property at 1470 West Tufts Avenue. Smith moved: Pierson seconded: That the Commission consider Agenda Items IV, V, VI, and VII by holding all Public Hearings, and delaying the decision on these cases until after all public hearings are completedo AYES: Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: Williams ABSENT: Tanguma, Draper The motion carried. Mr. Owens then outlined the procedure to be followed in the Public Hearings, and asked the staff for their presentation. Mrs. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development, pointed out that zoning designations for three parcels of land are to be considered this eveningo All three parcels of land have petitioned for annexation to the City of Englewood, and according to the 1965 Annexation Act, municipalities must bring land that has been annexed to the city under the zoning code within 90 days of the effective date of the annexationo Mrso Romans stated that the three properties that have to be considered this evening are: lo 1470 West Tufts Avenue, owned by Mr. Antonio Bovenzi. This property is located between West Thomas Avenue and West Tufts Avenue east of South Beverly Driveo 20 1485 West Tufts Avenue, owned by Paul Robert Thurman. This property is on the north side of West Tufts Avenue and across the street from Mro Bovenzi's property. 30 1600 West Tufts Avenue, Lots 1, 2, 3, Bell Isle Gardens. This property is owned by Thomas Plating Company, and by Carl L. and Evelyn Y. Vaughn, and is on the southwest corner of South Windermere Street and West Tufts Avenue. Mrs. Romans pointed out that land within this area that is within the City of Englewood is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, and pointed out the fact that industrial zoning exists along both sides of South Santa Fe Drive for its length through Englewood. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the subject property, 1470 West Tufts Avenue, is now zoned R-3 by Arapahoe County; this is a single-family residential classification which requires a 75 foot frontage and 12,5000 square foot lot area for developmento -7- Mrs. Romans stated that she questioned that some of the properties in the area would in fact meet the minimum requirements of this County zoning. Mrs. Romans pointed out that to the north of West Tufts Avenue, the County did impose an I-2, Heavy Industrial, classification adjacent to the R-3 Zone District. The I-2 zoning in this area has been in effect since the early 1960's. It is the feeling of the staff that the imposition of the I-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning in this area by Arapahoe County did establish a pattern for future development of this area. Mrs. Romans pointed out that heavy industrial zoning would not have been imposed in this area if there were long-range plans for the continuance of residential development. She stated that this entire area was a part of the aborted Santa Fe/Union annexa- tion of several years ago. Mrs. Romans stated that the property has been posted the re- quired number of days, and public notice of the public hearings did appear in the official city newspaper. Mrs. Romans re- quested that the staff report be included in the record of these hearings. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission has previously considered zoning on 1470 West Tufts Avenue; on July 5, 1978, the Commission held a Public Hearing to designate the entire parcel I-1, Light Industrial. Following the Public Hearing, the Commission voted not to recommend I-1 zoning for the site to City Council, but directed the staff to post and give notice of Hearings for R-1-C, Single-family Residence, on the north 125 feet of the property, and for I-1, Light Industrial zoning on the south 125 feet of the property. This split zoning would go right through the structure that is on the site at the present time. Mrs. Romans stated that many problems are created by a split zoning on property under one ownership, such as is proposed in this case. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommends that this property be zoned I-1 in its entirety, and that the R-1-C, Single-family Residence, designation not be approved on the north 125 feet. Mrs. Pierson asked where property owned by Mr. Garrett is in relation to the property at 1470 West Tufts Avenue. Referring to maps which were displayed for the Commission and audience, Mrs. Romans pointed to Mr. Garrett's property on the north side of Tufts Avenue directly west of the City Ditch. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Garrett's property has recently been zoned I-1 with conditions placed on development of the site. Mr. Fred Vondy 4825 East Vassar Lane -stated he represented Mr. Bovenzi and Mr . Trani, partners in Forum Engraving Company. Mr. Vondy stated that Mr. Bovenzi and Mr. Trani's business is located in Englewood now, and they want to expand that business, and wish to remain in an Englewood location. Mr. Vondy stated that their operation does not pollute either by air or noise, nor does it create a great deal of traffic -- either pedestrian or vehicular. -8- It is the intention of Mr. Bovenzi to construct a building which will accommodate his expanded business, and accommodate one tenanto Mr. Vondy stated that letters to adjoining property owners had been sent from his off ice in October of 1977, notifying these property owners of the proposal by Mro Bovenzi and Mr. Trani, and that a copy of that letter was submitted to the Commission at the Public Hearing of July 5, 19780 Mr o Vondy stated that he wished to express his appreciation to Mrs. Romans, Mr. Wanush, and to the members of the Commission for their efforts on this matter. Mro Vondy stated that it is his feeling that the suggestion :to split the zoning on the property was an attempt to balance inequities in the neighbor- hoodo Mr. Vondy stated that opposition was voiced to the re- quested I-1, Light Industrial zoning for the entire site, and that he felt this is the reason the split zoning was proposed. Mr. Vondy asked that the Commission again consider zoning the entire parcel to I-1, Light Industrialo He pointed out that the neighborhood is already impacted by industrial zoning in the areao Mr o Vondy submitted ~etters in support of the in- dustrial zoning for Forum Engraving from S.S o Plastics and Pkg., Inco, 4651 South Garden Lane; from Kelltek Plastics, Inco, 1555 West Thomas Avenue, and from Delea Name Plate Company, 4640 South Garden Stre~t. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Vondy .stated that his client wants to have I-1 zoning on the entir~ site; he understood that the matter before the Commission was in regard to split zoning. Mr. Owens pointed out that the Commission did vote to recon- sider their decision of July 5, 1978, and thereby leave the option of I-1 Zoning for the entire site open for consideration. Mr. Wanush stated that he would interpret the applicant's com- ments to be in opposition to the R-1-C zoning for the north one-half of his client's site. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Public Hearing is concerned with whether or not the north one- half of the land should be zoned R-1-C, and that the applicant is asking that the entire site be zoned for light industrial. Mr. Wanush stated that action on the matter of the R-1-C Zone designation on the north one-half of the site will have to be considered, and if the R-1-C designation should be denied, the option of I-1 for the entire parcel is still openo Mr. Vondy stated that on August 24, 1978, at 3:30 P.M., he did visit the neighborhood and took pictures of the areao Mr. Vondy stated that 22 photographs were taken, and do accurately portray the existing conditions in the areao Mro Vondy asked in the interest of time, if he could present the pictures to the Commission; each picture is identified by descriptive material on the back indicative of the location. Some street addresses are mentioned in some instances o Mr. Vondy pointed out that in the immediate proximity to the residential properties, the pictures reflect such things as outside storage yard for building materials, etc. There are also junked or damaged autos, tires stacked in front yards, etc., none of which is conducive -9- to a good residential area. Mr. Vondy pointed out that the reservoir is to the south of the subject site, and that the water level in this reservoir is 15 to 20 feet above grade. He pointed out that there is great impact on the neighborhood by the railroad tracks along South Santa Fe Drive; there will be increased rail traffic with the coal trains that are pro- jected to use these lines. Mr. Vondy stated that he would like Mr. Ray Alton Knapp, an appraiser, to speak on this matter. Mr. Parker asked if there was any annexation request from the properties to the west of 1470 West Tufts Avenue? Mrs. Romans stated that there is not; there has been no application for annexation between 1470 West Tufts Avenue and the Mardesen property at the southeast corner of West Tufts Avenue and South Windermere Street. Mr. Draper entered the meeting and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Ray Alton Knapp 3070 South Jasmine -was sworn in . Mr. Knapp stated that he was asked by Mr. Vondy to view and study the subject property and the concerned area. Mr. Knapp stated that his comments would be based on the way appraisers look at a property; when they are asked to do an appraisal of property, one of the major items included in the report is the neighbor- hood. Mr. Knapp stated that the appraisers view a number of items in making an appraisal, some of which are the highest and best use of the land, changes in the neighborhood, and con- formity of the use to the neighborhood. Mr. Knapp stated that the highest and best use of the land is that use to which, at the time of the appraisal, the property may be put that will be the most profitable to the property owner. Mr. Knapp pointed out that "change" can affect an individual property, a neighbor- hood, or an entire community, and that change within a neighbor- hood will affect all properties within that neighborhood. Mr. Knapp pointed out that it is the future that is of prime im- portance in making appraisals, not the past, and the conformance of the property to standards of the neighborhood in which the property is located. Mr. Knapp stated that he did not regard the subject neighborhood as "residential", but more as in- dustrial in character. He pointed out that the property is surrounded by industrial development, and by the reservoir as Mr. Vondy mentioned. The water level of the reservoir is above the level of the land to the west of the City Ditch; the City Ditch is above the topography of the land to the west of it, and according to the flood plain maps that he has viewed, this area is designated as a flood plain area. Mr. Knapp stated that the residential property owners must face the facts; the residential property appears to be decreasing in value in this area. He noted that some of the residential property owners will probably put their property on the market -10- and ask for industrial zoning, and he estimated that this could occur within five to seven years. Mro Knapp pointed out that land "has low value until it is put to useo" Mr. Knapp pointed out that "most of the land isn't being used for the highest and best use," and that if the property were to be sold, it would be difficult to recommend it as good single- family residential land. He stated that money lenders look to the resale value of the property; inasmuch as it is possible the borrower will default, the bank would have to go through foreclosure proceedings, and their investment must be protectedo Mr. Knapp stated that a loan on residential property would be on the lowest basis under the existing situation, because you could not "look into the future and this results in a lower value for residentially zoned propertyo" Mro Knapp recommended that the residential property owners west of the City Ditch join with the property owners who are requesting annexation to the City of Englewood, and request industrial zoning for their property also. He stated that this would increase the value of their property, and would not force a sale of their land until they wish to do so. Mro Knapp stressed the increased valuation of the land under the industrial zoning, and noted that it would put the residential property owners in a position to compete for the highest dollar amount when they do sello Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Knapp had stated that residential properties in this area were decreasing in value, and asked if Mro Knapp had figures to substantiate this statement? Mr. Knapp stated that he did not have figures from this particular area, but does have figures from similar areaso Mro Smith asked if he understood correctly that Mr. Knapp alleges a residential property purchased seven years ago has decreased in value? Mr. Knapp stated that as far as mortgage basis the property has decreased. Mr. Smith again asked if Mr. Knapp had figures substantiating his statement from this area in question? Mr. Knapp stated that he did noto Mr. OWens asked if there was any member of the audience who wished to speak in favor of the R-1-C zoning? No one spoke in favor. Mr. Owens then asked for opponents to present their case. Mr. Eldridge 1450 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in and stated that he was the first resident of the Bell Isle Gardens Subdivision, and that Mr. and Mrs. Porter were the second residents of that subdivision. He stated that there was no industrial zoning in the area at that time. The property at 1470 West Tufts Avenue was developed with the third residential use in the subdivisiono Mr. Eldridge questioned the advisability of extending I-1, Light Industrial, between two properties that have an R-3, Single-family Residence, zone classification. Mr. Eldridge requested that residents of the area be allowed to view the photographs of the area that were presented by Mr. Vondy, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Eldridge pointed out that he lives on the corner of West Tufts Avenue and South Mariposa Drive, and the city has not mowed -11- the weeds along the ditch all summer. Mr. Eldridge stated that he feels the residents in this area are in a "squeeze play." Mr. Williams asked Mr. Eldridge if his property was in the City of Englewood or in Arapahoe County? Mr. Eldridge stated he lived in Arapahoe County. Mr. Jerry Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -was sworn in, and asked if any of the pictures presented by Mr. Vondy portray the Porter, Eldridge and Stohn properties? He pointed out that the Porter property is immediately adjacent to the subject property, and the Porters have erected a six foot privacy fence to screen the view of Mr. Bovenzi's property. Mr. OWens pointed out that the Hearing under consideration is regarding imposition of R-1-C, Single-family Residence, on the north one-half of Mr. Bovenzi~s property --and does not pertain to I-1, Light Industrial. Discussion ensued. Mr . Smith pointed out that the applicant had spoken against the R-1-C designation for the north one-half of the property, and had requested I-1, Light Industrial, for the entire site; he stated that he felt the opponents could speak on both classifications. Mr. Ray pointed out that if this property is annexed to the City of Englewood, and zoned I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation, this would divide the Arapahoe County R-3, Single- family Residence zoning that has been imposed along West Tufts Avenue. He felt this would be condeming the current use of the property for residential purposes, and will result in a devaluation of that property as it is now used. He questionEd that a property owner of two years had more rights over property owners that have lived in the area for 30 years or more. Mr. Ray stated that the character of the neighborhood has changed from residential to industrial, but questioned that this was the way it should go. He pointed out that there are two new homes under construction on the west side of South Mariposa Drive and stated that he felt this does show an interest in residential development in the area. He pointed out that there are very few lots left for residential development in the City, and he felt we are getting away from a residential atmosphere in Englewood. Mr. Ray stated that he is opposed to the en- croachment by the I-1 District into the residential areas. He stated that he felt the single-family home is not considered as important any more, and emphasized that "America is built on the single-family home." Mr. Williams asked Mr. Ray's address in comparison to the address of the subject property, and asked if Mr. Ray felt the zoning of the subject site would directly affect Mr. Ray's property? Mr. Ray stated that his property would be affected by any industrial zoning in the neighborhood. Mr. Williams stated that he felt an annexing property owner ~hould have tre right to have his land zoned. Mr. Ray stated that he felt that -12- property owners have the right to oppose any zone district. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ray stated that Mr. Bovenzi knew what the zoning of the land was when he purchased it, and he also knew what he wanted to do with the land. Mr. Ray stated that he did not think that Mr. Bovenzi should disrupt the residentially zoned neigh- borhood because he wants to change the zoning on the land he purchased as residential. Mr. Ray stated that for those resi- dents who have lived in this area for 30 years, the residential use is the highest and best use of the land. If the zoning re- quest is granted to Mr. Bovenzi, this will deny the highest and best use of the land for the residential property owners. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Ray if he would sell his home and build a new home in the light industrial area of Englewood? Mr. Ray stated he would not. Mr. Williams then asked if Mr. Ray would build a new home in the county R-3 District in this area? Mr. Ray stated that he would not. Mr. Ray stated that he feels the City has ample industrially zoned land, and the City is losing residential units and popula- tion in the school system. Mr. Ray stated that he is concerned with the lack of control on industrial developments, and noted that the Friedman Paper Plant "has destroyed the area." Mr. Lathrop asked if he understood Mr. Ray's point that the zoning on the property at the time Mr. Bovenzi purchased it is the way the zoning should remain? Mr. Ray stated that Mr. Bovenzi has allowed the property to deteriorate in the two years he has owned it. Mr. Lathrop asked if Mr . Ray felt that Mr. Bovenzi did not have the right to purchase the land as R-3, Single-family, and then apply for I-1, Light Industrial? Mr. Ray stated that he questioned the right of one property owner to devalue other residents' land. Mr. Ray stated that he did not feel it is fair to the residential property owners to grant the I-1 Zoning upon annexation. He emphasized that he felt these residential property owners are in need of pro- tection. Mr. Stohn 1530 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in, and asked of Mr. Vondy if he owned any property in the area, or had any interest in any property in this subject area? Mr . Vondy stated that he owned no property in the area, and his only interest in any property in this area is his professional interest as Mr. Bovenzi's legal counsel. Mr. Stohn stated that he felt Mr. Vondy had entered this case more or less as a mercenary and a carpet bagger. Mr. Williams called for a point of order and protested the line of questioning. -13- Mr. Stohn stated that Mr. Vondy has painted this area as being nothing but junk and trash. He requested that the residents be allowed to view the pictures Mr. Vondy pre- sented to the Commission. Mr. Vondy gave Mr. Stohn copies of the pictures he had presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Stohn stated that he feels the intent of the purchase was deceiving; the land was purchased as residential property, and Mr. Bovenzi has now decided to ask for industrial. He stated that he feels this has been the intent of the purchaser from the very beginning. Mr. Stohn stated that he has lived in this area for 23 years, and t hat this area was originally in- tended to be a residential area. Mr. Stohn stated that he is not opposed to the annexation of this property to Englewood; he is opposed to the industrial zoning of this entire area by the City. Mr. Stohn urged that the Commission approve a residential classification for the site at 1470 West Tufts Avenue. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Stohn if his property is in the City of Englewood, or in the unincorporated portion of Arapahoe County? Mr. Stohn stated that his property is in the County. Mr. Elmer Jungck 4606 South Mariposa Drive -was sworn in. Mr. Jungck stated that he appeared before the Com- mission in regard to Mr . Garrett's rezoning request on the north side of West Tufts Avenue recently, and that he is getting tired of the City trying to take the R-3, Single-family zoning away from that area. Mr. Jungck stated that his property is up on the hill overlooking the entire area. Mr. Jungck noted that many of the large trucks looking for addresses in the industrial area wind up on South Mariposa Drive, which is a residential street. He stated that h e has lived in this area for 16 years, and has appeared before the Commission many times in protest of industrial zoning in this area. Mr. Jungck stated that he questioned that it did any good for a citizen to appear in protest because the City does what it wants to anyway. Mr. Smith took exception to Mr. Jungck's statement. He pointed out that the Garrett zoning was granted with conditions over and above restrictions contained within the Light Industrial Zone District regulations. Mr. Smith stated that he did not have to sit on the Commission and take abuse from Mr. Jungck; he stated that he does listen to the citizen protests, and that while some issues may be decided that the citizens are opposed to, this does not mean that the citizens are not "heard." Mr. Smith reiterated that Mr. Jungck's statement is not proper to make to anyone on the Planning Commission or City Council. Mr. Jungck apologized; he stated that he has been before the Planning Commission and City Council on so many matters re- garding zoning in this area. He stated that they bought their property from Mr. Garrett, and that Mr. Garrett stated at that time that the area would be developed into a residential area -14- they could be proud of. He pointed out that lumber has recently been dumped on Mr. Garrett's property to the north of West Tufts Avenue, and that the site has been covered with weeds. Mr. Jungck stated that he was not opposed to the annexation of this property to Englewood; he does oppose zoning of the property to 1-1, Light Industrial. Mrs. Zola Eldridge 1450 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in. Mrs. Eldridge stated that she is opposed to the light in- dustrial classification in this area. She stated that they purchased their property approximately 30 years ago, and wanted to retire there. Mrs. Eldridge stated that this was a nice residential neighborhood, but it has changed to an industrial area. Mrs. Eldridge noted that the pictures presented by Mr. Vondy indicate some areas down by the railroad tracks, but not of the residential uses. She questioned that there were photo- graphs of the residential uses in this group of pictures. Mrs. Eldridge stated that she felt the long-time residents of the area are deserving of consideration as well as the short- time property owner such as Mr. Bovenzi. She stated that as far as she knew, Mr. Bovenzi had done nothing to improve his property since it was purchased, and she feels that Mr. Bovenzi did buy this property with industrial use in mind. Mrs. Eldridge stated that if Englewood would clean up the properties down there, it would greatly improve ·the area. Mr. Owens pointed out that the west side of the City Ditch and along West Tufts Avenue is not within the City of Englewood at this time, but in Arapahoe County; the City could do nothing to clean it up because it is out of the City's jurisdiction. Mrs. Eldridge stated that the residents feel this is in Englewood; the weeds have not been mowed all summer. Mrs. Eldridge stated that there has not been any problem with flooding in the area except for runoff from Englewood properties up on the hill. Mr. Owens asked Mrs. Eldridge if she would consider annexing to Englewood? Mrs. Eldridge stated that there is good police protection with both Englewood and Arapahoe County patrolling the area; and that she would assume the Englewood Fire Depart- ment would respond in case of an emergency. They have had no problems being in the unincorporated area, and did not feel they had anything to worry about. She stated that she still felt the residential property owners should be considered whether or not they are within the City of Englewood. Mr. David Tousley 1510 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that he likes to work on old cars, and that he has some on his property. Mr. Tousley discussed the traffic using the graveled streets in this area, and the resulting dust and dirt. He stated that he purchased this property just to be out of the City, and that he saves 3% on taxes by being out of -15- the City. He stated that he felt it was wrong to impose an industrial zone classification between two pieces of R-3, Residence, property. Mr. Owens noted that there had been mention of this area being in a flood plain; he asked if this were shown on the Flood Plain Maps? Mr. Wanush stated that it was not so indicated on the Federal Insurance Administration Flood Plain Maps to his knowledge. Mr. Owens asked Mr. Vondy if he wished to make any comments in rebuttal? Mr. Vondy stated that he had nothing further to add. Parker moved: Williams seconded: That the Public Hearing on Case #9-78 be closed. AYES: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Williams NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Owens called a recess of the Commission; he asked that no Commission member discuss any items on the agenda with anyone other than another Commission member while in recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M. Those members present were: Williams, Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith. Absent was Tanguma. V. ZONING DESIGNATION 1470 West Tufts Avenue I-1, Light Industrial Parker moved: CASE #10-78 Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #10-78 be opened. AYES: Williams, Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Owens asked for the staff report on Case #10-78. Mrs. Romans indicated the location of the subject site on the map, and asked that her comments made in the previous Public Hearing be made part of the record of this Hearing. Mrs. Romans stated that this Hearing is concerned with the south one-half of the property at 1470 West Tufts Avenue, which has been posted for I-1, Light Industrial. Public -16- Notice of the Public Hearing for the I-1, Light Industrial, did appear in the official City newspaper. Mrs . Romans asked that the staff report for Case #10-78 be made part of the record of this Hearing. Mrs. Romans stated that her comments made at the start of the Public Hearing on Case #9-78 also pertain to this Public Hearing. Mr. Qwens asked Mr. Vondy if he wanted to address the Commission? Mr. Vondy stated that he would ask that the Commission adopt his previous comments on Case #9-78 as his presentation on case #10-78. Mr. Owens asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor? No one else spoke in favor of the zoning designation. Mr. Qwens asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the I-1 zoning? No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Williams asked that Mr. Vondy state for the record the fact that he requested I-1 Zone District designation for the entire site. Mr. Vondy stated that his client would request that the entire parcel at 1470 West Tufts Avenue be given the I-1 Zone designation. Parker moved: Williams seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #10-78 be closed. AYES: Smith, Williams, Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. VI. ZONING DESIGNATION 1485 West Tufts Avenue I-1, Light Industrial Smith moved: CASE #12-78 Lathrop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #12-78 be opened. AYES: Pierson, Smith, Williams, Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried . Mr. Owens asked for the staff report. Mrs. Romans identified this parcel on the north side of West Tufts Avenue across the street from the previously considered site at 1470 West Tufts Avenue. She asked that her comments made in Case #9-78 as to the area and previous actions relating -17- to the area, be reflected in the record of this Hearing. The property was properly posted and public notice was given in the official City newspaper. Mrs. Romans asked that the staff report for Case #12-78 be made a part of -the record of this Hearing. The subject property extends between West Tufts Avenue and West Stanford Avenue, and is approximately 2-1 /2 acres; the owner is Paul Robert Thurman of Roslyn, New York. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton Bush have an option to purchase the property and have asked that upon annexation to the City of Englewood, the property be zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The land is presently zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, by Arapahoe County. Mrs. Romans stated that the properties in the low area west of the City Ditch, are shown in the 1969 Comprehensive Plan as light industrial. Mr. Parker asked if this property is where Navajo Street would be when it is extended? Mrs. Romans stated that if City Council chooses to extend South Navajo Street, the alignment of that street would be directly to the east of the subject property at 1485 West Tufts Avenue. All of the right-of-way for South Navajo Street between West Stanford and West Tufts Avenue would come from the property owned by Mr. Rex Garrett at 1451 West Tufts Avenue. The final alignment of the street has not been determined at this point ; it could extend south to Thomas Avenue and westward to cross Santa Fe Drive to line up with West Union Avenue, or it could terminate at West Tufts Avenue. This is a matter that the City Council must decide at the time of the annexation of this property; it is not being considered in relation to the zoning designation. Mr. Owens asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. John A. Criswell 3780 South Broadway -was sworn in, and stated that he represents C & M Distributors, Inc., and introduced members of that corporation, among them Mr. Bush, President; Mrs. Pat Bush; Dot McGinn, Vice President; and Glenn McGinn, General Manager. Mr. Criswell stated that he respected the decision of the Com- mission to hold all the public hearings prior to making any decisions on the individual cases; he would caution the Com- mission, however, that what they may have heard previously cannot be used in reaching a dec i sion in this particular case. The rezoning cases may be related, but are separate and should be determined on their individual merits. Mr. Criswell stated that he did want to emphasize that his client is not the owner of the property, and his client has not contracted to purchase the property under any claim that it will be used for residential purposes. Mr. and Mrs . Bush have contracted to purchase the land only if it is annexed to Englewood, and if it is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. Mr. Criswell stated that C & M Distrfuutors is presently located at 1470 West Thomas Avenue, which site con- tains between 20,000 to 25,000 square feet of lot area, and the building contains approximately 9,500 square feet. Mr. Criswell -18- stated that this business is the buying of various commodities in bulk and repackaging them in lesser quantities for resaleo The business has outgrown their present facilities and they are seeking a larger location. Mr. and Mrso Bush want to keep their business in Englewood, and have entered into a contract to purchase the subject site provided the land is annexed to the City of Englewood, and given an I-1 Zone District designa- tion0 The subject property is approximately 2.4 acres in area, with 165 foot frontage on West Tufts Avenue, and a north/south depth of approximately 650 feet. Mro Criswell stated that Mr. and Mrs. Bush will .not use the entire tract for their business, but will make use of approximately the southerly 40% of the tract; the remainder would be sold to other in- dustrial users following the proper subdivision of the siteo Mr. Criswell emphasized that before any use can be made of the site, a subdivision plat will have to be filed, streets dedicated, utility service provided, etco Mr. Criswell stated that several street plans have been proposed for this area, but a definite plan has not been approved to this timeo Mr. Criswell stated that he did not feel that the area west of the City Ditch and the area to the east of the City Ditch are part of the same "neighborhood" by virtue of the topographyo Mr. Criswell stated that he feels the zoning designation of I-1 does merit consideration. He urged that the Commission favorably recommend the I-1 Zone District for the following reasons: lo From a financial standpoint, this property cannot be developed as single-family residenceo Mr. Criswell stated that he didn't know how long this property has been zoned R-3 in the County, but it has not developed for single- family purposeso He stated that mortgage money could not be obtained from V.A., F.H.A., or a standard lender to finance a single-family development. 2. Mr. Criswell pointed out that there is no land in the City of Englewood in this neighborhood which is north of West Thomas Avenue and west of the City Ditch that is zoned for residential purposeso The only property used for residential purposes is in Arapahoe County, and, Mro Criswell added, since the early 1960's, no building permits have been issued in this area for residential purposeso 3. Mr. Criswell stated that, whether it is a county or a municipality, there is a well known, well established principle that any agency that has the authority to zone or rezone --such zoning or rezoning must be engaged in in accord with an adopted Comprehensive Plano Mr. Criswell stated that almost every city that he knows of as well as counties in the metro area, has an adopted Comprehensive Plano Mr. Criswell stated that the City of Englewood adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1969, and a section of the Plan forecasts how the City will developo When an individual purchases property in the City, it is natural that they -19- would look at the Comprehensive Plan to determine projected development. Mr. Criswell referred to the Generalized Land Use Map of 1970 and 1980, which maps indicate that this area west of the City Ditch that is within the City of Englewood should be developed for industrial use. Mr. Criswell stated that "anyone who has purchased property in the City of Englewood since 1969 was obligated to investigate the Compre- hensive Plan; if they did, this would have shown that all of this property was to be used for industrial purposes." Mr. Criswell again urged a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Draper asked if C & M Distributors planned any changes in their operation? Mr. Criswell stated that they do not; there is no outside storage, no noise, and what truck traffic is generaged by this use would be moved from Thomas Avenue to West Tufts Avenue. Mr. Smith asked if it was not true that two new houses were being built in the R-3 area along South Mariposa Drive? Mrs. Romans pointed out that both these properties are subject of annexation petitions to the City of Englewood, and that the building permits, if issued, were issued by Arapahoe County very recently. Mr. Criswell pointed out that when he speaks of property west of the City Ditch, this does not include the west side of South Mariposa Drive; he stated that no one could deny that South Mariposa Drive on both sides of the street is substantially single-family land, and is not part of the industrial neighbor- hood. Mr. Lathrop asked if the houses were being built in the County on these two properties along South Mariposa? Mrs. Romans stated that this land is in the county at this time. Mr. Eldridge stated that this land is in Englewood. Mr. Wanush stated that this land is not within Englewood at this time; the two property owners have petitioned for annexation, but the building permits were recently issued by Arapahoe County, and not by the City of Englewood. Mr. Owens asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the zoning? No one else spoke in favor of the I-1 Zone District. Mr. Owens then asked for those in opposition to speak . Mr. Jerry Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -stated that he feels it is the duty and right of every citizen of Englewood to be concerned about what is going on in Englewood; he pointed out that the City is losing residential land, and students in the Englewood School system. He noted that he has owned his property on South Lipan Court for two years, and is opposed to -20- any I-1 zoning because of the lack of control that is shown in the I-1 zoning ordinance as it is now writteno He pointed out that a zone district that would allow a development such as the Friedman Paper Company has something wrong with ito Mr. Ray stated that he felt the conditions imposed on the Garrett rezoning were of benefit to the neighborhood even though the imposition of any I-1 zoning was not for the betterment of any neighborhood. Mr. Ray emphasized that he is opposed to the lack of control on industrial developments. Mr. Ray stated that I-1 zoning in this area will have an effect on the residential area. Mr. Ray stated that he understood when the Friedman Paper Company annexed their land to the City and were granted industrial zoning, that promises were made that could not be enforced by the City. He stated that he did not want to see anything like this happen again; he stated that it is detrimental to the residents of the community. Mr. Ray stated that he would like to comment the Planning Commission and City Council on their handling of the rezoning request made by Mr. Garrett on his property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue. Smith moved: Pierson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #12-67 be closedo AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Williams, Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. VII. ZONING DESIGNATION 1600 West Tufts Avenue I-1, Light Industrial CASE #13-78 Mr . Draper announced that he has stock in the Verticel Company, and wished to abstain from consideration on this case. Mr. Draper excused himself from the Commission and took a seat in the audience. Smith moved: Lathrop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #13-78 be opened. AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Williams, Lathrop, Mcclintock NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Draper ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Owens asked Mrs. Romans for the staff report. Mrs. Romans stated that this zoning designation concerns Lots 1, 2, and 3, Bell Isle Gardens. Lot 1 is owned by Thomas Plating Company, and Lots 2 and 3 are owned by Carl L. and Evelyn Y. Vaughn. This property is the subject of an annexa- -21- tion petition to the City of Englewood, and the City has been requested to designate this land as I-1, Light Industrial. Mrs. Romans pointed out that municipalities are required to place newly annexed property in a zone classification within 90 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance. Mrs. Romans testified that the property was properly posted and that public notice of the public hearing did appear in the official City newspaper. Mrs. Romans stated that she had identified the zoning of the surrounding area in the previous public hearings, and asked that her comments in those hearings be made part of the record of Case #13-78 as to the description of the area and previous actions related to the area. Mrs. Romans stated that this property is bounded by West Tufts Avenue on the north, South Windermere Street on the east, the south boundary of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Bell Isle Gardens Subdivision, on the south, and by the railroad tracks on the west. The land is given an I-2, Heavy Industrial, zone classification by Arapahoe County. Mrs. Romans asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of Case #13-78. Mr. Owens asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Charles Haskell 3003 East Third Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that he represents the two owners of the property, and also the Verticel Company, who has an option to purchase the property subject to the annexation of the land to Englewood and the designation of that land as I-1, Light Industrial. Mr. Haskell stated that the Verticel Company is presently located at 3880 South Kalamath Street, and has been at that address for 20 years . They convert scrapped paper into honeycomb core. Mr. Haskell stated that there is no room for expansion of the operation on the present site, and after an extensive search for a new location, the subject site was chosen . It is in close proximity to the railroad tracks, and it would be possible to get a spur rail to the plant. Mr. Haskell stated that his clients agree to the dedication of additional rights-of-way for West Tufts Avenue and South Windermere Street . Mr. Haskell stated that he does request favorable consideration of the I-1 Zone District on this site. Mr. Owens asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the zoning? No one spoke in favor. Mr. Owens then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. No one spoke in opposition to the zoning. Mr. Parker asked if the Navajo Street extension is on the drawing board? Mr. Smith stated that it will IE considered at a study session very shortly. Williams moved: Parker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #13-78 be closed -22- AYES: McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Williams, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Draper ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carriedo Mro Owens asked the pleasure of the Commission in considering the zoning designation for these three siteso Smith moved: Lathrop seconded: The Commission adjourn to Executive Session for approximately 20 minuteso AYES: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Pierson, Smith NAYS: Williams, Parker ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. The meeting reconvened at 10:25 P oM. Present: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Williams Absent: Tanguma Mro Owens asked the Commission what action they wished to take on the zoning caseso Mr. Parker moved: Williams seconded: That the Commission consider Cases #8-78, #9-78, and #10-78. AYES: Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Williams, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carriedo Discussion of the testimony which had been presented at the Hearings ensued o Parker moved: McClintock seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that property identified as 1470 West Tufts Avenue be designated as I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation to the City of Englewood for the following reasons: lo The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, would be an extension 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. -23- 2. Because of its proximity to existing industrial development, major railway lines and South Santa Fe Drive, the subject area does not lend itself to further residential developmento 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 Plano The Planning Commission further recommends that the following conditions be imposed on this zone designation: a. 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 §22o4A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. b. There shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the west property line of Lot 12, Bell Isle Gardens Subdivision, Arapahoe County, which Lot is identified by street address as 1460 West Tufts Avenue. Co The east boundary of the subject property shall be screened as approved by a recorded Development Plan. d. 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 equip- ment, materials or trash, or access other than for emergency vehicles be permitted in the area east of said buildings. e. The maximum height of any structure or building shall not exceed 25 feet above the natural grade of the site. f. 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 nuisanceo g. 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. Mr. Smith stated that he will vote against this motion. He stated that he cannot support expansion of the industrial area in the City of Englewood since there are areas available that are not developed. Mr. Draper asked Assistant City Attorney DeWitt's opinion on enforcement of specific restrictions on a zoning designation. -24- Mr. DeWitt stated that he felt the matter of special conditions is something the applicant, City Attorney and City Council will have to discuss and work out. He stated that he did not feel that special conditions should be used unless absolutely necessary and discussed the problems of enforcing the special conditions. He stated that every effort would be made to enforce the con- ditions if they are imposed. Mrs. Pierson stated that there seems to be a lot of conflict in opinion on the imposition of special conditions on zoning. Mr. DeWitt stated that he feels the special conditions are enforceable, but was not sure of the acceptance in the Courts in this area of this procedure . Mr . DeWitt reiterated that the City Attorney's office will make every effort to support the conditions that are imposed. Mrs. Pierson stated that the City Council did impose conditions on a rezoning at 1451 West Tufts Avenue. Other legal counsel have stated that the special conditions placed on a zoning are a very sound way to protect adjoining property owners. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the Commission could proceed wi1h the recommendation of conditions on this zoning designation. Mr. DeWitt acknowledged that the interest of the citizens should be considered . He pointed out that the City Council will make the final determination on the matter, and that the members of the Commission must make the recommendation they feel is best, and if they feel conditions are necessary in this case, they should so recommend. Mr. Draper asked if conditions are being placed on zoning in other areas? Mr. DeWitt stated that some areas are doing it, and some areas are not. He stated that there was only one test case that he is aware of that is even close to the matter of conditional zoning. Mr. DeWitt stated that he felt there could be concern over the word "impose". He pointed out that you can "negotiate" conditions, but it might not be possible to "impose" conditions. Mr. Owens stated that he would have to vote for the I-1 zoning. He stated that he feels this area has been impacted to the extreme as it is; the trends in the area have been toward in- dustrial development for some time, and he feels that the en- tire area will eventually request the I-1 Zone District. Mr. Owens stated that he understands the concern of the long-time residents of the area; however, this will not eliminate the use of their land as residential --it will not deny the property owner the rightful use of his property. Mr. Owens stated that he felt the imposition of conditions on the zoning of this particular area will make it livable for everyone concerned. The area has changed, and will change in the future. The vote was called on the motion: -25- AYES: McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Williams, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. Mr. Owens announced to the audience that the Commission has recommended to City Council that 1470 West Tufts Avenue be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation to the City of Englewood. Parker moved: McClintock seconded: The Planning Commission deny Case #9-78, R-1-C, Single-family Residence, on the north 125 feet of 1470 West Tufts Avenue, and Case #10-78, I-1, Light Industrial, on the south 125 feet of 1470 West Tufts Avenue. AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Lathrop, McClintock NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Draper ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. Williams moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that property identified as 1485 West Tufts Avenue be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexa- tion to the City of Englewood for the following reasons: 1. The trend of development in the area in which the subject property is located has been established by the industrial zoning and construction which has taken place to the north, south and west of the subject site during the past fifteen years and this trend is industrial rather than residential. Indeed, when the County introduced Heavy Industrial zoning into this area almost 20 years ago, this trend was established. It should be noted that under the County Zoning, both Heavy and Light Industrial Zone Districts abutted the property zoned R-3, Single-family Residence. 2. The subject property should not be developed for residential purposes because of the proximity of the subject site to: a) existing industrial development; b) to the Denver and Rio Grande and Santa Fe Railways, which are destined to carry an increasing number of coal trains in addition to the other trains which use the tracks; and c) to South Santa Fe Drive, which is to be constructed as a six-lane, major arterial serving an industrial corridor as well as mass transit. -26- 3. The 1969 Comprehensive Plan does not project new single- family residential uses in this area. 4. The recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Review Com- mittee, which committee the Planning Commission assigned the responsibility of evaluating the Industrial areas in the City, was that the area which lies to the east of South Santa Fe Drive on both sides of West Tufts Avenue, and which is to the west and below the ridge which runs approximately parallel with the City Ditch, should be zoned and developed for industrial use. Discussion ensuedo The vote was called: AYES: Parker, Pierson, Williams, Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. Williams moved: McClintock seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that property identified as 1600 West Tufts Avenue be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, upon annex&- tion to the City of Englewood, for the following reasons: 1. Because of the proximity of the subject site to existing industrial development; to the Denver and Rio Grande and Santa Fe Railways which are destined to carry an increasing number of coal trains in addition to the other trains which use the tracks; and to South Santa Fe Drive which is to be constructed as a six-lane, major arterial serving an in- dustrial corridor as well as mass transit, the subject property would most logically continue to be zoned for in- dustrial use. 2. When Arapahoe County introduced the heavy industrial zoning into this area almost 20 years ago, the industrial trend was established. Since that time, all development in the area has been for industrial use. 3. The 1969 Comprehensive Plan projects industrial development in this area. 4. The Comprehensive Plan Review Committee, which committee the Planning Commission assigned the responsibility of evaluating the Industrial areas in the City, recommended that the subject area should be zoned and developed for industrial use. Discussion ensued. The vote was called: AYES: Pierson, Williams, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker NAYS: Smith ABSTAIN: Draper ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. -27- Mr. Owens announced the Commission recommendation on the zoning designations, and stated that these recommendations will be forwarded to City Council; City Council will hold a Public Hearing on the zoning designations, and will render a decision. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. No member of the public addressed the Commission. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans introduced Miss Alice Fessenden, Associate Planner in the Community Development Department. Miss Fessenden was hired as a summer intern in the Department a couple of years ago, and was then employed by the Housing Division. She has transferred to the Planning Division to serve as the Associate Planner. Mrs. Romans stated that today is Mr. and Mrs. Owens' wedding anniversary. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council has challenged the Chamber of Commerce to a softball game, which will be at 7:00 P.M. on September 8, 1978. Commission members who wish to attend may purchase tickets at the office of Community Development. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lathrop inquired about the curb cuts/ramps around Swedish Medical Center that were discussed some time ago? Mr. Smith stated that this has been discussed at the City Council level, and that a cost estimate is being done at this time. Mr. Owens stated that it is with regret that he must submit his resignation from the Planning Commission. He stated that he has taken a new position, which entails considerable travel and it is possible that he will have to move from the State in the near future. Mr . Owens stated that even if he did not have to relocate, he would not have the time to devote to the Com- mission that the work of the Commission requires. Mr. Owens stated that he felt the Commission is at a very critical stage in their work, and that there are great challenges facing the Commission and the City in the near future . Mr. Owens stated that he felt it will be very important to keep in mind the work that the Commission has done this past year on the Compre- hensive Plan Review, and urged that the Comprehensive Plan be adhered to as closely as possible. He stated that he was pleased that the decisions made this evening do, in fact, follow the projections outlined by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Owens stated that he wished to thank the other members of the Commission and the staff he has worked with for their co- operation and effort. -28- The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M . trude G. Welt;;: cording Secre ry -29- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: September 6, 1978 SUBJECT: Subdivision Plat RECOMMENDATION: Parker moved: Williams seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Sub- division Plat filed by Belokes Limited Partnership and Burt Development Company, with the elimination of the easement shown between Lots 2 and 3, and extending north- east across Lot 1, and recommend that City Council approve the final plat of the Burt Subdivision for the following described property: Beginning 50 feet east of the Southwest corner of the North- east 1/4 of Section 15, thence North 89°40' East 1170.31 feet, thence North 0°20' West 314.2 feet, thence North 49°38'16" West 388.57 feet, thence North 70°07'47" West 239032 feet, thence Northwest on curves 365041 feet, thence South 89°40' West 361.19 feet to the east line of South Broadway, thence south to point of beginning 870 feeto The Commission recommends approval of the Subdivision Plat for the following reasons: 1. The Subdivision Plat will comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, Title 12, Chapter 3, of the 1969 E. M. C. 2. The Subdivision Plat will permit an orderly development of this large parcel of land, superceding previous Sub- division Waivers which have been approved for various uses on small sections of the parcel. 3. The Subdivision Plat will permit flexibility in the de- velopment of the site, while providing adequate easements for utility and emergency serviceso AYES: Pierson, Smith, Williams, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Draper The motion carriedo By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commissiono ·ertrude . lty Recording Secretary -30- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: September 6, 1978 SUBJECT: Zoning Designation -1470 West Tufts Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Parker moved: McClintock seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that property identified as 1470 West Tufts Avenue be designated as I-1, Light Industrial, 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 subject area and are adjacent to the subject area to the southwest. 2. Because of its proximity to existing 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 Planning Commission further recommends that the following conditions be imposed on this zone designation: a. 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. b. There shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the west property line of Lot 12, Bell Isle Gardens Subdivision, Arapahoe County, which Lot is identified by street address as 1460 West Tufts Avenue. c. The east boundary of the subject property shall be screened as approved by a recorded Development Plan. d. 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 equip- ment, materials or trash, or access other than for emergency vehicles be permitted in the area east of said buildings. -31- e. The maximum height of any structure or building shall not exceed 25 feet above the natural grade of the site. f. 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. g. 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. AYES: McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Williams, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. rtrude G. Wel y ecording Seer tary -32- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: September 6, 1978 SUBJECT: Zoning Designation -1485 West Tufts RECOMMENDATION: Williams moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that property identified as 1485 West Tufts Avenue be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexa- tion to the City of Englewood for the following reasons: 1. The trend of development in the area in which the subject property is located has been established by the industrial zoning and construction which has taken place to the north, south and west of the subject site during the past fifteen years and this trend is industrial rather than residential. Indeed, when the County introduced Heavy Industrial zoning into this area almost 20 years ago, this trend was established. It should be noted that under the County Zoning, both Heavy and Light Industrial Zone Districts abutted the property zoned R-3, Single-family Residence. 2. The subject property should not be developed for residential purposes because of the proximity of the subject site to: a) existing industrial development; b) to the Denver and Rio Grande and Santa Fe Railways, which are destined to carry an increasing number of coal trains in addition to the other trains which use the tracks; and c) to South Santa Fe Drive, which is to be constructed as a six-lane, major arterial serving an industrial corridor as well as mass transit. 3. The 1969 Comprehensive Plan does not project new single- family residential uses in this area. 4. The recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan Review Com- mittee, which committee the Planning Commission assigned the responsibility of evaluating the Industrial areas in the City, was that the area which lies to the east of South Santa Fe Drive on both sides of West Tufts Avenue, and which is to the west and below the ridge which runs approximately parallel with the City Ditch, should be zoned and developed for industrial use. -33- AYES: Parker, Pierson, Williams, Draper, Lathrop, McClintock Owens NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. '· r l ~dur~~ e trude G. Welt R cording Secret -34- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: September 6, 1978 SUBJECT: Zoning Designation -1600 West Tufts Avenue RECOMMENDATION: Williams moved: MCClintock seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that property identified as 1600 West Tufts Avenue be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation to the City of Englewood for the following reasons: 1. Because of the proximity of the subject site to existing industrial development; to the Denver and Rio Grande and Santa Fe Railways which are destined to carry an increasing number of coal trains in addition to the other trains which use the tracks; and to South Santa Fe Drive which is to be constructed as a six-lane, major arterial serving an industrial corridor as well as mass transit, the subject property would most logically continue to be zoned for in- dustrial use. 2. When Arapahoe County introduced the heavy industrial zoning into this area almost 20 years ago, the industrial trend was established. Since that time, all development in the area has been for industrial use. 3. The 1969 Comprehensive Plan projects industrial development in this area. 4. The Comprehensive Plan Review Committee, which committee the Planning Commission assigned the responsibility of evaluating the Industrial areas in the City, recommended that the subject area should be zoned and developed for industrial use. AYES: Pierson, Williams, Lathrop, McClintock, OWens, Parker NAYS: Smith ABSTAIN: Draper ABSENT: Tanguma The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. rtrude G. We ty ecording Secretary