Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-09-19 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 19, 1978 I. CALL TO ORDER . The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Com- mission was called to order at 7:25 P.M. by Vice-Chairman Draper. Members present : Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Smith, Williams, McClintock Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans II. SUBDIVISION WAIVER 1900 West Baker Avenue 1925 West Harvard Avenue 1975 West Harvard Avenue CASE #15-78 Mr. Dick McMartin stated that he is present on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Richard R. Gibbons, property owners who have applied for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations to enable them to sell a portion of their property. Mr. McMartin indicated the Gibbons' ownership on a map, and indicated the portion of the property that they wish to sell. Mr. McMartin stated that Mr. Gibbons does propose to dedicate the north 30 feet of the property on the east for right-of-way for West Baker Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Gibbons will retain the south one-half of the property and will sell the north one-half to the present lessee of the warehouse on the property. The present lessee has operated a transmission repair shop on the site for four years, and they are now interested in purchasing the site and the parcel to the east of them to expand their facility. Mr. McMartin stated that he could not see any need to go through the procedure of filing a formal subdivision plat, and would ask that the Planning Commission waive the requirement of filing a plat. Mr. McMartin stated that he does have with him an executed Quit Claim Deed for the north 30 feet for the Baker Avenue right-of-way . He noted that this deed is based on the legal description contained in the survey . Discussion followed. Parker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission grant the waiver to the Subdivision Regulations for the following described property: -2- Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1 /4 of Section 28, Township 4 South, Range 68 West of the 6th Principle Meridian, described as follows: Thence East along the Nort h line of the Southeast 1/4 of South- west 1/4 of Section 28, also known as the centerline of West Harvard Avenue a distance of 208 feet more or less; thence North 30 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of West Harvard Avenue to the True Point of Beginning; thence East along the North right-of-way line of West Harvard Avenue a distance of 61 feet more o r less; thence North and leaving the North right-of-way line of West Harvard Avenue a distance of 300 feet more or less to a point on the South line of the existing right-of-way of West Baker Avenue; thence West along said South right-of-way line a distance of 61 feet more or less; thence South along the East line of a parcel described in Book 2128, Page 273 for right-of-way purposes a distance of 30 feet; thence West along the south line of the parcel described in Book 2128, Page 273, for right-of-way purpose a distance of 61 feet ; thence South at right angles from the South line of the parcel described in Book 2128, Page 273, a distance of 135 feet ; thence West 117 feet more or less to a point on the East right-of-way line of South Tejon Street; thence South along said East right-of-way line of South Tejon Street a distance of 135 feet more or less to the point of intersection of the North right-of-way line of West Baker Avenue and the East right-of-way line of South Tejon Street; thence East along said North right-of-way line a distance of 178 feet more or less to the true point of beginning; said tract of land containing 1.188 acres more or less. The Commission grants the waive r to the Subdivision Regulations on the condition that a Quit Claim Deed for the north 30 feet of the east parcel is given to the City for right-of-way for West Baker Avenue. The Commission grants the waiver to the Subdivision Regulations for the following reasons: lo No substantial benefits would be gained by the public from requiring a Subdivision Plat to be prepared, approved and filed for the subject property, inasmuch as no additional utility easements are required and the applicant has agreed to dedicate the north 30 feet of the easternmost property for the right-of-way of West Baker Avenue upon the approval of the request for a Waiver. 2. The proposed division would permit the property to be developed in a compatible manner with both the present development in that area and with that projected under the provisions of the generalized Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson None Williams, McClintock, Smith The motion carriedo III. FINDINGS OF FACT 1470 West Tufts Avenue -3- CASE #8-78, #9-78, and #10-78 Mr. Draper stated that Findings of Fact on Cases #8-78, #9-78, and #10-78 pertaining to 1470 West Tufts Avenue; Case #12-78 pertaining to 1485 West Tufts Avenue; and Case #13-78 pertaining to 1600 West Tufts Avenue should be considered for approval by the Commission. Mrs. Pierson questioned that the Commission could consider the Findings at this meeting, inasmuch as only four of the members present this evening were present at the Hearings. Mr. Wanush pointed out that a majority of the quorum could take action. Mr. Draper pointed out that he had abstained from voting on Case #9-78 because the discussion was nearly completed when he arrived. Mr. Wanush pointed out that the Findings of Fact are written supporting Case #8-78, and that Cases #9-78 and #10-78 were denied . Pierson moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Findings of Fact on Case #8-78, #9-78 and #10-78, and recommend that these Findings of Fact be forwarded to City Council. AYES: Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Mcclintock~ Smith ABSTAIN: Tanguma The motion carried . CASE #12-78 1485 West Tufts Avenue Pierson moved: Lathrop seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Findings of Fact on Case #12-78, and recommend that these Findings of Fact be forwarded to City Council. AYES: Lathrop, Parker, Pierson, Draper NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma ABSENT: McClintock, Smith, Williams The motion carried. CASE #13-78 1600 West Tufts Avenue Pierson moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Findings of Fact for Case #13-78, and recommend that these Findings of Fact be forwarded to City Council. -4- AYES: Parker, Pierson, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma ABSENT: McClintock, Smith, Williams The motion carried. IV. PUBLIC FORUM There was no member of the public present to address the Com- mission. V 0 DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush stated that the Resolution creating a Downtown De- velopment Authority was approved by a vote of 170 in favor to 46 opposed. Mr. Wanush stated that the creation of the De- velopment Authority will have an effect on the work load of the Planning Commission, inasmuch as there will be a need for a close working relationship between these two bodies. Any plan of action proposed by the Downtown Development Authority will have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wanush discussed interest that has been expressed in the Larwin site by a developer and architect. Mr. Wanush stated that he has talked to several potential developers, and in light of the decision on the RPR Brothers proposal to subdivide a portion of the site and develop that portion as an office complex, the potential developers have been informed that de- velopment must encompass the entire site, and be developed according to the basic developmen t plan that is on fileo Mr. Wanush stated that the latest developer and architect to express interest in the development of the site have some good plans, but they are not patterned on the existing development plan. Mr. Wanush stated that he felt the question now is do we want to build to the existing development plan with mediocre design, or do we want to bring the new proposal before the publico Mr. Wanush stated that he is very enthusiastic about this proposal and feels that it could be "sold"o He noted that the design of the structures isn't set at this time, but the layout of the sites is much better than the existing develop- ment plan o It would result in a decrease in density in the sections that he has seeno He stated that he would be meeting with the developer and architect on September 20th, and will recommend that they get together with key people from Kent Village and Cherry Hills Village just to talk about the proposalo Mr. Draper asked if the height proposed for the development would differ from the existing plan? Mr. Wanush stated that next to Kent Village, the height is proposed as two stories; the architect has indicated that if their plan is approved, they would want to construct these units firsto In some of the existing high rise areas --the center area --the possibility -5- of eliminating one structure and increasing the height on the remaining structures has been brought up. This proposal would increase open space, and the amount of parking would also be increasedo An active recreation area would have to be provided. Discussion ensued o Mrs. Romans pointed out that the architect had mentioned their proposal would be of brick construction. Mr. Wanush stated that he was of the opinion from plans he has seen that the visual impact would be more on the order of Kent Village than the existing Larwin Development. Mrs. Pierson asked if these units would be available for moderate income or above? Mr. Wanush stated that it would appear that the units will be renting and/or selling for more than the moderate income level. Mr. Parker asked if the units proposed under the new plan would be rentals or condominiums? Mr. Wanush stated that both are proposedo Mr. Wanush stated that the construction would be accomplished by phasing; if the market on rentals and condominium units dropped, there is no way to force a developer to continue with a development if there is no market. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Wanush stated that a new sewer line will have to be installed from the Larwin site to the plant. Mr. Wanush pointed out that if the latest propnsal is pursued, it probably wouldn't tle to the Commission before October or November o Mrso Pierson asked if any interest has been expressed in the Halcyon Heights II site at South Clarkson and U.S. 285. Mr. Wanush stated that a possible developer is discussing the site in terms of rezoning and office development, but nothing concrete has been proposed, and no applications have been made to the office. Mr . Wanush reported on a City Council study session wherein the South Navajo Street extension was discussed; it has been determined that Navajo Street should be extended to West Tufts Avenue, west on Tufts Avenue to South Windermere Street, and south on Windermere Street. This routing will serve the public, even though it may not be the heavy traffic carrier it m~ght have been with a different routingo The proposal at this time will not affect property at 1470 West Tufts Avenue . Mr. Wanush discussed the Belleview Avenue /railroad track crossing. He stated that a grade separation is proposed for this intersection, with construction to begin next summer. Belleview Avenue will go under the railroad tracks and will tie in with the Belleview Avenue/South Santa Fe Drive inter- section. Belleview Avenue will be closed for a period of eight (8) months during the construction, and traffic will be routed down South Windermere Street. Windermere Street will be improved to a three-lane roadway, two lanes northbound, for the duration of this project. Funding for the project is from the I-470 transfer monies. -6- Mr. Wanush stated that the City-owned parking lot was selected as the location for the transit center, and he is under the impression that the location of the center probably will be on either the south or west side of the site. He stated that he is not aware whether RTD has made the determination on the actual location of the facility. Mr. Wanush stated that the closing of South Acoma Street in the 3300 block could be in- cluded with either option. Mr. Lathrop stated that he would like to see the transit center located on Girard, if possible. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Parker questioned what is being done about the problem of outside storage and dumping in the 3900 block of South Broadway, on the east side of the block. Mr. Wanush stated that the property owner has discussed the possibility of putting up a fence around the lot; the staff has contacted the property owner about cleaning the lot up, and the property owner has indicated that it is building materials that are being stored on the site. Mr. Parker questioned that building materials would include old tires, old toilets, and other similar refuse. Mr. Wanush stated that it is difficult to determine what is usable in this particular business and suggested that the in- stallation of the fence would be one solution. He agreed that the lot is unsightly and has all appearances of a junk yard. Mr. Parker asked if it would not be possible to cite the property owner and set a time limit for removal of the items stored on the site; he noted that more items are stored there every day. Mr. Lathrop stated that he felt this particular site is a disgrace to the City, and he felt the Environmental Code officers should, by right, question this use. Mr. Parker noted that there are a given number of people in Englewood that feel the City does not enforce the ordinances equally; he added that a situation like this makes him wonder if possibly there are grounds for these feelings. Discussion ensued on the process of getting a case cited into court. Mrs. Pierson asked if possibly the process could be speeded up and still be fair to the people? Mr. Wanush stated that a 10-day notice to clean the premises is now given; he stated that he would assume that the ordinances could be amended to require a shorter time to comply. Mr. Wanush stated that discussion has centered around a way to identify repeat offenders, but this has not been pursued. Mr. Lathrop cited an article in the local newspaper quoting Chief Building Inspector Pittman and Code Enforcement Officer Schneider as stating they used the "soft approach" of talking to the offender first and giving a time to comply before the citation is issued, which then gives an additional -7- time to comply. Mr. Lathrop questioned that this is necessary. Mr. Wanush stated that this is the Department policy to initially approach the offenders and ask them to comply with a specific code or ordinance. He stated that he felt it did no good to threaten them with a court suit on the initial contact; people resent being informed to clean up a yard, for instance. Mr. Lathrop questioned that people would resent a 10-day notice to clean a yard or comply with an ordinance. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt people do resent notification of that type. Mrs. Pierson stated that she understood the Brown residence on South University Boulevard was to be relocated. Mrs. Romans stated that it is to be moved to the Temple Buell property at U.S. 285 and University Boulevard. Mr. Lathrop brought up the need for curb cuts and ramps for handicapped. Mr. Draper noted that it was reported at the last meeting that City Council is looking into the matter and investigating the financing of these ramps and curb cuts. Mr. Wanush stated that City Council has asked the Engineering Division to do a cost estimate on this project. Mrs. Pierson asked about the progress on the Comprehensive Plan? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is drafting the document at this time for presentation to the Commission. Mr. Draper asked if the Commission wanted to elect a new Chairman now, or wait until a new member is appointed to the Commission? Mr. Parker noted that three members are absent this evening, and felt it would be appropriate to wait until we have a full attendance of the present members. Mr. Tanguma suggested that this matter be placed on the October 3rd agenda. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE; September 19, 1978 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact: Case #8-78, #9-78, and #10-78 RECOMMENDATION: Pierson moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Findings of Fact on Ca se #8-78, #9-78 and #10-78, and recommend that these Findings of Fact be forwarded to City Council. AYES: Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma ABSENT: Williams, McClintock, Smith The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASES NO. ) 8-78, 9-78, AND 10-78, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY ) IDENTIFIED AS 1470 WEST TUFTS ) AVENUE, AN AREA WHICH IS THE ) SUBJECT OF PETITIONS REQUESTING ) ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ) ENGLEWOOD. ) The zoning of the property identified as 1470 West Tufts Avenue was considered at a Public Hearing on July 5, 1978, as Case No. 8-78. This matter was reconsidered at the next regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on July 25, 1978, and was continued until September 6, 1978. The zoning of the subject property was considered further at Public Hearings on September 6, 1978, through Case No. 9-78 and Case No. 10-78. The following members of the Commission were present at the meeting on July 5, 1978: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith and Tanguma. Mr. Williams was not present. The following members of the Commission were present at the meeting on September 6, 1978: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, OWens, Parker, Pierson, Smith and Williams. Mr. Tanguma was not present. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. That a petition has been received by the City Council requesting the annexation of the subject property to the City of Englewood, and said petition is being considered by the members of Council. 2. That the zoning of this area was initiated by the City pursuant to Sections 22.1-5 and 22.1-7 of the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance and Sections 31-12-115(2) of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended. -2- 3. That notice of the Public Hearings at which the zoning of the subject property was considered, was given by posting the property and by publication in the official City newspaper, the Englewood Herald Sentinelo 4. That the land which is the subject of the Hearings on July 5, 1978, and on September 6, 1978, is des- cribed as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Tract 11, Block 2, Bell Isle Gardens Subdivision, Arapahoe County, Colorado, also being a point on the City Limits of Englewood, Colorado; Thence West along said City Limits, also being the North line of Tract 11, and also being the South right-of-way line of West Tufts Avenue a distance of 6903 feet more or less; Thence North along City Limits line a distance of 20 feet more or less to the centerline of West Tufts Avenue; Thence West along said centerline of West Tufts Avenue a distance of 98o7 feet more or less to the centerline of South Beverly Drive; Thence South along the centerline of South Beverly Drive a distance of 145 feet more or less; Thence West a distance of 25 feet to a point on the City Limits of Englewood, Colorado; Thence South along said City Limits a distance of 125 feet; Thence East along City Limits a distance of 193 feet more or less to the Southeast corner of Tract 11; Thence North and leaving the City Limits along the East line of Tract 11 a dist~nce of 250 feet more or less to the point of beginningo Said tract of land containing 1.08 acres more or less. 5. That the land has been zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, by Arapahoe Countyo 6. That significant changes have occurred in the area since the subject property was zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, by Arapahoe County, which detract from further residential development on the subject propertyo 7. That those properties to the west of the sub- ject site which are used for residential purposes have already been impacted by industrial zoning and development in the area and the zoning of the subject site for other than residential use will not by that act initiate the impact. 8. That the topography of the land and the location of the site in proximity to industrial development, railways and South Santa Fe Drive, a major arterial, are such that any new development on the site would more reasonably be for a use other than single-family residence. 9. That the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, would be an extension of the zoning applied to the adjacent land within the City of Englewood and would be compatible with the Generalized Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan and the.recomme~da~ion of the ad hoc committee appointed by the Planning Comm1ss1on to review the Industrial section of the Comprehensive Plan. -3- 10. That a zone district boundary line should not be drawn which will divide land under one ownership, leaving part of the land subject to one set of restrictions, and part subject to another . 11. That the subject site is contiguous to property on the east which, because of its location, is more properly identified with the residential neighborhood to the east than to the industrial area. 12. That by dividing the City into Zone Districts, each district must begin and end somewhere and the very nature of the zoning ordinance can result in unlike zone districts abutting one another, in which event certain protections are warranted which will screen or buffer the more restrictive district from the development in a less restrictive district. 13. That the development on the subject property can be screened from the property adjoining on the east by imposing certain conditions upon that development including, but not limited to restrictions as to the location of the storage of equipment, materials, or trash; access, loading and parking areas; the maximum height of structures and lighting facilities. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearings to consider the zoning of the subject property was given; 2. That because of changes which have occurred in the adjacent area since the subject site was zoned for single- family residential use by Arapahoe County, the highest and best use of the property has changed to other than residential; 3 . That the subject property is bounded on the south and southwest by land which is in the City of Englewood, which land is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and is developed with industrial uses, making the extension of the industrial zoning to the subject site a logical action; 4. That the proposed I-1, Light Industrial Zone District will conform with the Generalized Land Use Plan for that area as set forth in the 1969 Comprehensive Plan and as recommended by the ad hoc committee which reviewed the In- dustrial section of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. That the site will be increasingly affected adversely by its proximity to the railway lines and South Santa Fe Drive; both of which are projected to generate a more intense volume of use; -4- 6. That by the very nature of zoning, unlike dis- tricts in some instances must adjoin, and because this site will adjoin a residential district to the east, certain conditions should be placed upon the use of the site for industrial pur- poses which will create a buffer between the residential and industrial districts and will minimize the impact of the in- dustrial use upon the residential. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council, that the above described property which is the subject of a petition requesting annexation to the City of Englewood, Colorado, be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation, with the following conditions being made a part of such zoning: a. 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. 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 equipment, 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. -5- f. 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 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 buildings or structure located on the subject property, shall be so arranged that they will neither shine nor be reflected on the adjacent residential properties. Upon the vote on a motion made at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 1978: Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Draper, Mr. Lathrop, Mr. McClintock, Mr . Owens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Williams. Those members opposed to the motion: Mr. Smith. Those members absent : Mr . Tanguma. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. EDWARD DRAPER I 9-z,t / Vice-Chairman ~ MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: September 19, 1978 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact: Case #12-78 RECOMMENDATION: Pierson moved: Lathrop seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Findings of Fact on Case #12-78, and recommend that these Findings of Fact be forwarded to City Council a AYES: Lathrop, Parker, Pierson, Draper NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma ABSENT: McClintock, Smith, Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, CO LORA DO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 12-78 ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING ) TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY IDEN-) TIFIED AS 1485 WEST TUFTS AVENUE,) AN AREA WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF ) PETITIONS REQUESTING ANNEXATION ) TO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. ) The zoning of the property identified as 1485 West Tufts Avenue was considered at a Public Hearing on September 6, 1978, in the Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the Commission were present: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith and Williams. Mr. Tanguma was not present during the meeting. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. That a petition has been received by the City Council requesting the annexation of the subject property to the City of Englewood, and said petition is being considered by the members of Council. 2. That the zoning of this area was initiated by the City pursuant to Sections 22.1-5 and 22.1-7 of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, and Section 31-12-115 (2) of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended. 3. That notice of the Public Hearing at which the zoning of the subject property was considered, was given by posting the property and by publication in the official City newspaper, the Englewood Herald Sentinel. 4. That the land which was the subject of the Hearing on September 6, 1978, is described as follows: A tract of land in the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West, thence East along the North line of the Southwest 1 /4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range -2- 68 West, a distance of 330.0 feet more or less to the true point of beginning, said true point of beginning also being on the City Limits of Englewood, Colorado; thence continuing East along said City Limits a distance of 165 feet more or less; thence South 0° East along the City Limits of Englewood, Colorado, a distance of 660 feet more or less to the center- line of West Tufts Avenue; thence West and leaving the City Limits line of Englewood, Colorado, a distance of 165 feet more or less; thence North a distance of 660 feet more or less to the true point of beginning. Said tract of land con- taining 2.50 acres, more or less. 5. That the land has been zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, by Arapahoe County, since the early 1960's. 6. That significant changes have occurred in the area since the subject property was zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, by Arapahoe County, which detract from further residential development on the subject property. 7 . That the topography of the land and the location of the site in proximity to industrially zoned land to the north, east and northwest, and to industrial development to the north and west, as well as to the railways and to South Santa Fe Drive, a major arterial, are such that any development on the site would more reasonably be for a use other than single-family residence. 8. That the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, would be an extension of the zoning applied to the land ad- joining the subject site on the north, east and northwest, which land is within the City of Englewood. 9. That the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District classification would be compatible with the Generalized Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendation of the ad hoc committee appointed by the Planning Commission to review the Industrial section of the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearings to consider the zoning of the subject property was given; 2. That because of changes which have occurred in the adjacent area since the subject site was zoned for single- family residential use by Arapahoe County, the highest and best use of the property is for other than residential; 3. That the subject property is bounded on the north, east and northwest by land which is in the City of Englewood, which land is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and which is either developed or planned to be developed with .e -3- industrial uses, making the extension of the industrial zoning to the subject site a reasonable and logical action; 4. The proposed I-1, Light Industrial Zone District will conform with the Generalized Land Use Plan for that area as set forth in the 1969 Comprehensive Plan and as recommended by the ad hoc committee which reviewed the Industrial section of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council that the above described property which is the subject of a petition requesting annexation to the City of Englewood, Colorado, be zoned, I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation. Upon the vote on a motion made at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 1978: Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Draper, Mr . Lathrop, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Owens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Williams. Those members opposed to the motion: Mr. Smith. Those members absent: Mr. Tanguma BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Vice-Chairman MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: September 19, 1978 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact: Case #13-78 RECOMMENDATION: Pierson moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission accept the Findings of Fact for Case #13-78, and recommend that these Findings of Fact be forwarded to City Council. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tanguma ABSENT: McClintock, Smith, Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORAIX> IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 13-78, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE ZONING OF AN AREA IDENTIFIED ) AS 1600 WEST TUFTS AVENUE, WHICH ) AREA IS THE SUBJECT OF A PETITION ) REQUESTING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY ) OF ENGLEWOOD. ) A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 13-78 on September 6, 1978, in the Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the Com- mission were present: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith and Williams. Mr. Tanguma was not present. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. That a petition has been received by the City Council requesting the annexation of the subject property to the City of Englewood, and said petition is being considered by the members of the Council. 2. That the zoning of this area was initiated by the City pursuant to Sections 22.1-5 and 22.1-7 of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance and Section 31-12-115(2) of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1975, as amended. 3. That notice of the Public Hearing at which the zoning of the subject property was considered, was given by posting the property and by publication in the official City newspaper, the Englewood Herald Sentinel. 4. That the land which is the subject of the Hearing on September 6, 1978, is described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 3, Bell Isle Gardens, Arapahoe County, Colorado, which is the point of intersection of the South line of West Tufts Avenue and the West line of South Windermere Street; thence Easterly along the South line of West Tufts Avenue 127.3 feet; thence North 10 feet to the centerline of West Tufts Avenue and the -3- true point of beginning; thence Westerly along the centerline of West Tufts Avenue 396.13 feet more or less to the City of Englewood City Limits line; thence South 56°0' East along the City Limits a distance of 17.88 feet more or less to the south line of West Tufts Avenue; thence South 11°19' West along said City Limits line a distance of 254.55 feet; thence North 89°47' East and leaving the City Limits of Englewood a distance of 304.1 feet to the West line of South Windermere Street; thence South 166.79 feet to a point on the City of Englewood City Limits; thence East along a curve to the left having a radius of 45 feet thru 215° and following the City Limits a distance of 168 .7 feet; thence North 35° West 52.1 feet to the East line of South Windermere Street; thence North along the City Limits a dis- tance of 100.0 feet; thence South 89°46 1 West a distance of 10.0 feet; thence North along the City Limits line a distance of 250 .0 feet; thence Easterly along the City Limits line 87.3 feet; thence North 10 feet to the true point of beginning. Said parcel contains 2.232 acres, more or less . 5. That the land has been zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial, by Arapahoe County. 6. That the proximity of the subject property to the railways, to South Santa Fe Drive and to industrial land on the north, east, south and west, is such that industrial zoning will permit the highest and best use of the land. 7. That there are no uses in the vicinity of an in- tensity normally associated with a heavy industrial area; rather the uses are of a type permitted in a light industrial district. 8. That the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, would be an extension of the zoning applied to the adjacent land within the City of Englewood. 9. That the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District would be compatible with the Generalized Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendation of the ad hoc committee appointed by the Planning Commission to review the Industrial section of the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearings to consider the zoning of the subject property was given; 2. That the subject property has been zoned for industrial use by Arapahoe County. 3. That the subject site is well located for access to the railway and to South Santa Fe Drive, South Windermere Street and West Tufts Avenue, all of which makes it a desirable location for industrial development. • -3- 4. That the subject property is adjacent to land which is in the City of Englewood, which land is zoned I-1, Light Industrial and is either developed or anticipated to be developed with light industrial uses, making the extension of the light industrial zoning to the subject site a logical action. 5. The proposed I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, will conform with the Generalized Land Use Plan for that area as set forth in the 1969 Comprehensive Plan and as recommended by the ad hoc committee which reviewed the Industrial section of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council that the above described property which is the subject of a petition requesting annexation to the City of Englewood, Colorado, be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation. Upon the vote on a mo t ion made at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 1978. Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Lathrop, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Owens, Mr . Parker, Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Williams. Those members opposed to the motion: Mr. Smith . Those members abstaining: Mr. Draper. Those members absent : Mr. Tanguma . BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. . ~ 1 /2 A-~Al_-/A WARD DRAPER Vice-Chairman