Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-14 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 14, 1978 I. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Chairman Draper. Members present: Parker, Pierson, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: McClintock, Smith, Williams Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Draper stated that Minutes of October 17, 1978, and October 24, 1978, were to be considered for approval. Parker moved: Pierson seconded: The Commission approve the Minutes of October 17, 1978, and October 24, 1978, as written. AYES: Lathrop, Parker, Pierson, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: McClintock, Smith, Williams The motion carried. Mr. Smith entered the meeting at 7:10 P. M. III. ZONING DESIGNATION 4635 South Mariposa Drive R-1-C, Single-family Residence CASE #18-78 Mr. Draper asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Pierson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #18-78 be opened. AYES: Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: McClintock, Williams The motion carried. Mr. Draper then asked for the staff report. Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development. The matter -2- before the Planning Commission is the zoning designation of property at 4635 South Mariposa Drive, which property is the subject of a petition requesting annexation to the City of Englewood o Mrs o Romans presented the Certification of Posting for the record; public notice of the Public Hearing did appear in the official City Newspaper, and she asked that the staff report be made part of the record of this Hearing o Mrs. Romans made reference to a map of the subject area, which map indicates areas remaining in unincorporated Arapahoe County, those properties which have been annexed to the City of Englewood recently, and the properties for which annexation petitions have been submitted to the City, but which are not yet annexed 0 Mrs. Romans stated that the subject property has been zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, by Arapahoe County for a number of years . The property to the east across South Mariposa Drive is zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence, and is in the City of Englewood. Mr o Anderson, the owner of the subject property, is constructing a single-family house on the site for his daughter and her husband o The building permit was issued by Arapahoe County, and upon annexation, the Englewood Code Enforcement division will assume the responsibility for inspections on the construction of the unit. Mrs. Romans stated that the property is proposed to be designated as R-1-C, Single-family Residence, upon annexation to the City of Englewood. Mrs. Romans cited the topography of the area, and pointed out that it is logical that the property on the west side of South Mariposa Drive remain in a single-family residence zone classification. Mr. LeRoy Anderson 805 East Cornell Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that he is indeed building a home on this site for his daughter, and that he purchased the land approximately two years ago. He stated that some facilities are not available from Arapahoe County, such as water and sewer service, or fire service. He stated that inasmuch as he is an Englewood resident himself, he would prefer that this property be annexed to Englewood, and that he felt Englewood would realize some tax returns on the valuation of the propertyo He stated that there have been some problems in obtaining gas service, but he has been able to do so. Water and sewer service is available from Englewood provided the property is annexed to Englewoodo Mr. Anderson stated that he cannot get water and sewer service from Arapahoe County. He stated that he feels the property has met all the requirements for annexation to the City of Englewood, and that he has tried to encourage his neighbors to annex to Englewood, alsoo Mr. Anderson expressed his appreciation to the staff for their efforts in his behalf o • -3- Mro Draper inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the matter? No one was present who wished to address the Commission. Tanguma moved: Smith seconded: The Public Hearing be closedo AYES: Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, McClintock The motion carried o Smith moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the property commonly known as 4635 South Mariposa Drive be zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence, upon annexation to the City of Englewoodo The Planning Commiss i o n hereby adopts the Findings of Fact pertaining to 4635 S outh Mariposa Drive, and refers these Findings of Fact, as written, to City Council. AYES: Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, McClintock The motion carriedo IV. ZONING DESIGNATION W. Eo Ragsdale property 4535 South Santa Fe Drive I-1, Light Industrial CASE #20-78 Mr. Draper asked that the Public Hearing be opened. Tanguma moved: Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #20-78 be openedo AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams , McClintock The motion carried o Mrso Romans stated that the matter before the Planning Commission is the zoning of property on the west side of the 4500 block of South Santa Fe Drive, referred to as the "Ragsdale property"o Mro and Mrso Ragsdale purchased the subject property which ad- joins their original site at 4535 South Santa Fe Drive on the north, several years ago. This action caused the City boundary to divide their property, and they now have requested annexa- tion of this portion of the property to the City of Englewoodo -4- Mrs 0 Romans presented a copy of the Certification of Posting, and stated that public notice of the Public Hearing did appear in the official City newspaper; she further asked that the staf f report be made a part of the official record of the Hearing. Mrs. Romans noted that Mro and Mrs o Ragsdale had requested the annexation of the portion of their property which is out- side of the City Limits; however, the legal description of both the annexation and zoning has been extended to encompass the right-of-way along South Santa Fe Drive and the right-of- way along the railroad tracks to tie in with the City boundary on the east. Mrs. Romans stated that the Ragsdale property was zoned B-4, Business, in Arapahoe County along the South Santa Fe Drive frontage, and that Mro and Mrs o Ragsdale have requested an I-1, Light Industrial, zone classification for their property. Mrso Romans pointed out that the County does have B-4, Business, along the Santa Fe Drive frontage, with an I-2, Heavy Industrial, zone classification to the west o Sheridan has zoned the area which they have recently annexed west of South Santa Fe Drive for industrial development o The I-1 Zone District proposed for the subject site will be compatible with the zoning in the area. Mr o Tanguma asked if this annexation and zoning would include the manufacturing plant on the Ragsdale property? Mrs. Romans stated that this action would bring all of Mr. and Mrs. Ragsdale's ~ property under the jurisdiction of the City of Englewood and under the I-1 Zone District. There were no further questions from the Commission. There was no one in the audience wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed zone designation. Lathrop moved: Parker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #20-78 be closed. AYES: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Mcclintock The motion carried o Lathrop moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the property described as follows be designated I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation to the City of Englewood. -5- That part of the Southeast 1/4, Northwest 1/4,Section 9, T o wn- ship 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Arapahoe County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 , Section 9; Thence South 89°54 1 East a distance of 2176.45 fee t ; thence South 0°06' West a distance of 42 feet to a point; thence South 11 °27' West 235.27 feet more or less to the True Point of Beginning; thence North 86 °12' West a distance of 486.9 feet; thence South 10°47' West a distance of 192.94 feet to a point on the City of Englewood City limits line; thence South 84 °59 1 East along the City Limits line a distance of 508.19 feet more or less to the Westerly right-of-way of South Santa Fe Drive; thence South 56 ° East a distance of 313.96 feet more or less along the City Limits line to a point 30 feet south of the north line of West Tufts Avenue; thence Easterly and leaving the City Limits line a distance of 47.46 feet more or less to the extended centerline of South Windermere Street; thence North 11 °27' East along the centerline of South Winderme r e Street a distance of 219 .71 feet more or less to a point on the City of Englewood City limits line ; thence Westerly 30.61 feet more or less along sai d City Limits line to the Westerly right- of-way of South Win dermere Street; thence North 11 °27' East along said City Limits line a distance of 451.03 feet more or less t o a point on the North line of the South 1 /2 Northwest 1/4 Sectio n 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West; thence North 89 °54' West along said line also being the City Limits line 204.06 feet mo re or less to th e Easterly right-of-way of South Santa Fe Drive; thence leaving the City Limits Line South 11 °27' West along the Easterly li n e of South Santa Fe Drive a distance of 291.85 feet to a point thence North 86 °12 ' West a distance of 125.88 feet more or less to the true point of beginning. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Mcclintock The motion carried. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush stated that the only item he had to discuss under Director's Choice are the Findings of Fact pertaining to the zone designation for the Oakley property in the 4600 block of South Mariposa Drive. The Public Hearing on this zone designation was held on October 24, 1978. Lathrop moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission accept and adopt the Findings of Fact for Case #17-78, pertaining to property in the 4600 block South Mariposa Drive owned by Mr . and Mrs. Wayne Oakley, and refer these Findings of Fact, as written, to City Council. -6- AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSENT: McClintock, Williams The motion carried. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Smith asked if any information is available on the traffic patterns between Floyd and Dartmouth, Huron and Broadway? Mr. Wanush stated that there is nothing available on this particular problem; there will be information available on the matter of curb ramps to be presented at the first meeting in December. Mr. Lathrop asked about progress on the storage at the Lay Plumbing business on Broadway? Mr. Wanush stated that he has met with Mr. Lay, and has a letter from Mro Lay setting forth their time schedule for relocating their business. He stated that he would hope to see some action on fencing of this storage lot this week. Mr. Lathrop asked if the trash haulers were under contract with the City in any way, or how they were authorized to do business in the City? He expressed concern over the debris that is left after the trash is picked up --barrels thrown about, trash left in the alleys, etc. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the trash haulers are a private business . Mr. Smith suggested that if Mr. Lathrop is ha ving trouble with the trash hauler, he should change companies as others do; the City has nothing to do with the operation of these businesses. Mr. Lathrop asked about tree limbs hanging over the sidewalks and whether there is anything that can be done about this? Mro Wanush stated that these limbs may be cut if they hang over the public right-of-way. Mr . Lathrop stated that this situation exists in the 3200 block of South Clarkson Street, on South Logan Street south of Quincy Avenue, and in fact all over the City . Mr. Draper stated that it has been suggested that the Planning Commission have a meeting with the members of the Downtown Development Authority just to keep in touch with the progress of both bodies . He asked if other members felt this would be advisable? Mr . Smith discussed a meeting the City Council had with the Downtown Development Authority and the discussions regarding the Transit Center. He stated that he was quite disturbed at the attitude expressed by members of the Downtown Development Authority regarding the Transit Center, particularly in light of the many months of meetings and work with RTD on the proposed location. He pointed out that the Planning Com- mission and City Council have both recommended that the Transit -7- Center be located on the City-owned property in the 3300 block between Girard and Floyd, Bannock and Acoma. The final recom- mendation of RTD was that the Transit Center be located on the west side of the City-owned site; that it would be totally con- tained within this site, and there would be eight bays that could be entered without leaving the site. Mr. Smith stated that it seems to be the attitude of at least half of the Down- town Development Authority members that the Transit Center should not be at this location ; others seem to feel that it is not needed at all. Mr. Smith stated that concerns expressed were that one businessman didn't want a bus stop in his ''back yard"; another stated that this was not the site that was presented and discussed as the location for the Transit Center, and that another concern was expressed by the Continental National Bank on the location of the Transit Center on the Bannock Street side of the lot. Members of the Downtown Development Authority also questioned the replacement of parking spaces that may be lost through development of the Transit Center on this site. Mr . Smith stated that he felt t his is not the concern of the Downtown Development Authority, that the City is obligated to replace any parking th at may be lost as a result of the loca- tion of the Transit Center. Mr. Smith emphasized that RTD is 90 days from Public Hearings on the funding of the Transit Center, and he felt that the Planning Commission should go on record reaffirming their support of the RTD Transit Center on the City-owned site. Mr. Lathrop pointed out that there have been meetings for over one and one-half years on the matter of the Transit Center need and location. He asked how many of these individuals who now appear to be in opposition attended these meetings. He emphasized the fact that there was considerable publicity about the location of the Transit Center in the news media also. Discussion ensued. It was determined that the staff be asked to set a meeting between the Planning Commission and the Downtown Development Authority on November 28th, at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Lathrop asked what was being done to prevent coal trains from blocking intersections? Mr. Wanush stated that he knew of no progress in this area. Mr. Smith stated that there is an ordinance before the City Council pertaining to this matter, and that he would assume the City Council would be getting into the problem in depth in the near future. Mr. Wanush announced that there is a seminar scheduled for November 18th, which will be sponsored by the Colorado Municipal League, to be held at the Cinderella City Real Estate Mart, regarding the new zoning techniques, contract zoning, conditional zoning, etc. This seminar will begin at 8:30 A.M., speakers will include Kirk Wickersham and John Criswell. This is an all day meeting, and Commission members were invited to attend. -8- VII. LARWIN SITE CASE #21-78 Tom Regan/Sternberg Mr. Wanush stated that Mr . Tom Regan and Mr. Gene Sternberg have been invited to informally present their plans for develop- ment of the vacant portion of the Larwin site. Mr. Wanush stated that Mr . Regan and some other investors have control of the vacant portion of the site and are interested in the development of this land. Mr. Sternberg has been retained as the Architect to develop a revised site plan. Mr . Wanush emphasized that this is not a formal application at this time. Mr. Regan stated that he and other investors have purchased the vacant land on the Larwin site, and if it were to be developed as originally proposed, it would be extremely congested and there would be little open space. He added that he personally does not care for the design of the existing structures. The proposal that his people have come up with is for a condominium development, with two-story townhouses on the eastern edge near the Kent Village development and interspersed throughout the site, along with several 10-12 story mid-rise structures. Mr. Regan emphasized that the exterior of all structures would be brick to match the Kent Village development. Mr. Regan stated that the revised plan retains the number of units approved pre- viously; however, by a rearrangement of the units and increasing the height of the mid-rise buildings, there is much more open space. Mr. Regan stated that the townhouse units will have a basement, first and second floor; the mid-rise units will be 10-12 stories, with nine units per floor, and the units will be 1,000 sq. ft. or more per unit. The townhouse units will have garages, and the mid-rise units will have two floors of underground parking. The over-all parking ratio will be at least two spaces per unit. Mr. Regan noted that the number of mid-rise structures will decrease from 10 to 8, but the overall height of these structures will increase. Mr . Sternberg cited the fact that the recorded plan shows 25% open space, with 75% lot coverage; the proposed plan indicates a 75% open space with 25% building coverage ratio. Mr. Regan pointed out that the mid-rise buildings will be 10 to 12 stories, and that the dimensions of the buildings will be essentially the same as those which are approved --two feet wider and 10 feet longer. Mr . Tanguma inquired about fire fighting capabilities on structures this tall? Mr. Wanush stated that the structures would have to sprinklered, and meet the other requirements of the Fire and Building Codes. Mrs. Pierson inquired as to whether the mid-rise structures would be condominium units as well as the townhouse units? Mr. Regan stated that the entire development would be condominium units. The one-bedroom units with den, which would have ap- proximately 1,000 square feet in floor area, would probably start at around $60,000, but this is not a firm figure. Mr. -9- Regan stated that the eastern portion of the site would be de- veloped as an adult area, with the larger units for families on the middle and western sections of the site. Mrs. Pierson asked if this would be a total development, or a phase-develop- ment procedure? Mr. Regan stated it would be developed in stages, and they would want to begin on the eastern boundary adjacent to the Kent Village development. Mrs. Pierson asked · about the active recreational areas that were proposed in the Larwin Site? Mr. Regan pointed out areas that would have in- door swimming pools, and the fact that tennis courts are inter- spersed throughout the open areas. Mr. Lathrop asked if the development would have elevators and supplemental generators such as were included in the Simon Center? Mr. Regan stated that the construction would have to meet the Fire and Building Codes. Mr. Smith asked for comments from members of the audience on the proposed plans. Mr. Allott, a resident of Kent Village, stated that this particular plan was presented to them this evening, and they had not had an opportunity to view it previously. Mr. Richard Brown, Kent Village, stated that a meeting has been set for November 22nd to discuss the plans. This meeting will be with the Kent Village residents and people from Cherry Hills Village people. He stated that he could not make a formal statement at this time on behalf of these people. Speaking as an individual, he stated that he feels this plan as presented this evening, is a great improvement over that which was approved in 1972. He stated that he felt there may be need for further discussion on the placement of buildings, but does feel that this is a step in the right direction. Mr. Brown stated that he is aware that residents of Cherry Hills Village are very concerned about traffic, and whether the streets can carry the number of cars that will result from the total development of the site to the density that has been approved •. Mr. Tanguma asked if the design of the buildings would be similar to what is approved and constructed on the site now? Mr. Regan stated that they would not; the townhouses would be like the Kent Village development, and he would envision the mid-rise development to be like the Marion Parkway towers. Discussion ensued. Mr. Sternberg discussed the change in his architectural style, stating that he feels he is now more "open space conscious" than he was 20 years ago. He stated that he does not regard this as a project, but as a neucleus of a neighborhood. Mr. Sternberg stated that he hopes to have a two-mile jogging and cycling lane within the project. The access lanes are designed to give access to the "private" parking areas. He pointed out that over half of the parking will be underground, and that the greenery and · open space will be greatly increased. -10- Mr. Draper inquired about the water and sewer service? Mr. Regan stated that this development would have Englewood water and sewer service. Mr. Wanush stated that the existing plan was approved by the Planning Commission as a Subdivision Waiver. The staff has proceeded on the assumption and has told prospective developers, that if they came in with plans to build to the existing site plan, they may do so. Any changes would require an amendment of the Subdivision Waiver, and would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wanush emphasized that this was the nature of the initial contact with Mr. Sternberg; however, Mr. Sternberg returned with plans that the staff felt were so much better than the existing plan that it was suggested he pursue a possible amendment to the Subdivision Waiver by talking to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wanush stated that the next step would be for Mr. Regan to submit a formal request for an amendment to the Subdivision Waiver. The request may be sub- mitted in whatever detail the Commission wants. He noted that discussion has centered around exterior changes, parking and open space changes. In terms of the process, there is no formal Public Hearing required, but Mr. Wanush stated that he felt there should be public input on this matter. Mr. Wanush stated that he realized that one of the concerns was whether the project would be completed; he stated that no guarantee can be given on something like this, because of the market conditions, which vary dramatically. A developer cannot be forced to build a project if the market conditions are un- favorable. Mr. Tanguma asked if the amendment were approved, whether these plans would take the place of those that are existing? Mr. Wanush stated that formal action would be required to amend the Subdivision Waiver, and that the plans approved by the amendment would be recorded and would replace the existing plans. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Commission could recommend which phase would be constructed first? Mr. Wanush stated that he felt this would have to be discussed with legal counsel before he could state definitely. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Com- mission could take into account exterior finishing, parking location, etc. in their consideration of the site plan. Mr. Wanush stated that this is correct. Discussion ensued. Mr. Regan stated that the next question :is whether he should file a formal application to amend the Sub- division Waiver? It was the concensus of the Commission that Mr. Regan should proceed to file a formal application. Mr. Lathrop questioned if the Commission would be giving approval phase-by-phase? Mr. Wanush stated that he felt the amendment should be considered on the total vacant area and· if further ~ changes need to be made, they should be approved by the Com- mission at that time. -11- Mr. Allott stated that he wanted it understood that his silence on the matter does not mean he approves of the proposal. He stated that the impact of the traffic from such a development may be mitigated, but it will not be eliminated. Mr. Allott stated that he was sure there would be input from the residents of Kent Village and Cherry Hills Village residents. Discussion on the matter of traffic ensued. Mr. Wanush stated that a study in Lakewood indicated a traffic factor of nine to ten trips per day per unit . Mr. Tanguma asked if solar heating had been considered in this development . Mr. Regan stated that solar heating is not con- templated in this development; gas heating will be used, and that he felt the gas taps would be available by the time the units are ready for occupancy. Further discussion ensued. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. -12- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: November 14, 1978 SUBJECT: Zoning Designation RECOMMENDATION: Smith moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the property commonly known as 4635 South Mariposa Drive be zoned R-1-C Single-family Residence upon annexation to the City of Englewood. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Findings of Fact pertaining to 4635 South Mariposa Drive, and refers these Findings of Fact, as written, to City Council. AYES: Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, McClintock The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. rtrude G. We} y ecording Secretary CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NOO 18-78, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE ZONING OF PROPERTY IDENTIFIED ) AS THE ANDERSON PROPERTY WHICH IS ) LOCATED AT 4635 SOUTH MARIPOSA ) DRIVE, WHICH PROPERTY IS THE SUB-) JECT OF A PETITION REQUESTING ) ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ) ENGLEWOOD, COLORADOo ) -13- The zoning of the land identified as 4635 South Mariposa Drive was considered at a Public Hearing before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on November 14, 1978, in the Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hallo The following members of the Commission were present: Mr. Draper, Mr. Lathrop, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Tanguma. Mr. McClintock and Mr. Williams were not present during the Public Hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence t~ken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the City Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact: lo 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 City Councilo 2o That the zoning of this property was initiated by the City pursuant to Sections 22ol-5 and 22.1-7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Section 31-12-115(2) of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amendedo 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 newspapero 4. That the land which was the subject of the Hearing on November 14, 1978, is described as follows: -14- Beginning at the Northwest corner of Plot 13, Bell Isle Gardens, Arapahoe County, Colorado; thence South 12 °55 1 ~ East a distance of 165.74 feet to the true point of beginning; ~ thence continuing South 12 °55 1 East for a distance of 100 feet more or less to a point on the City Limits of Englewood, Colorado; thence leaving the City Limits of Englewood, Colorado, North 89 °47 1 East a distance of 154 feet more or less to a point on the City Limits of Englewood; thence North 12 °55 1 West along said City Limits of Englewood a distance of 100 feet more or less; thence South 89 °47 1 West and leaving the City Limits of Englewood a distance of 154 feet more or less to the true point of beginning; said tract of land containing .353 acres more or less. 5. That the land has been zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, by Arapahoe County since the early 1960 1 s. 6. That a single-family dwelling is being constructed on the site at this time . 7 . That the topography of the site and the location of the site in proximity to residential development is such that it should continue to be zoned for single-family residential use. 8. That the R-1-C, Single-family Residence District, would be compatible with the adjoining residential development in the unincorporated area of Arapahoe County and with the residential development within the City of Englewood to the east. 9. That the proposed R-1-C, Single-family Residence, zoning will be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. That the proper notice of the Public Hearing to consider the zoning of the subject property was given; 2 . That the proposed R-1-C, Single-family Residence zone classification will conform with the Comprehensive Plan; 3. That the proposed R-1-C, Single-family Residence zone classification will permit the development which is in progress on the site and will be compatible with the adjacent development. 4. That the proposed R-1-C Zone District will be a logical continuation of the single-family residence zoning which has been imposed on the site by Arapahoe County. -15- 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 R-1-C, Single-family Residence, upon annexation to the City. Upon the vote on a motion made at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on November 14, 1978: Those members voting in favor of the Motion: Mr. Draper, Mr. Lathrop, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Tanguma. Those members opposed to the Motion: None. Those members absent: Mr. McClintock and Mr. Williams. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ; -16- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: November 14, 1978 SUBJECT: zoning Designation -I-1, Light Industrial RECOMMENDATION: Lathrop moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Co~..mission recommend to City Council that the property described as follows be designated I-1, Light Industrial, upon annexation to the City of Englewood. That par t o f th~ So u theast 1 /4, N0rthwest 1 /4 ,Section 9, Town- ship 5 So uth , Runge 68 West o f t1 •s Gth Princ ipal Meridian, Arapaho e County: C •.JL-'~e'1d.o, described 2::: f o l::.o ws: Be g inning at the No rthwest Corner of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1 /4, Sec tion D; The:rce :30<.1t 11 3 9 °5 <1 : Ea~~t n d i stance o : 2 176.45 feet; thence South 0°06' ~est a dis~ance of 42 !eet to a point; thence So u th :'..l ";.:. 7' West 23S , 27 :,>e:.: mor2 o'.!:· less to the True Point o f Begi~ning; t~ence North 36~12 · Wes ~ a dis t a nce of 486 .9 fee ~; t hence South 10°47' V'°<.:..'.!"t ?. diE,·tn n c e o f 192.94 feet to a point on the City o f Englewood Cj.ty li ~i t s line; thence South 84 °5 9 1 East alo ng the \.ity Ll mi t s l ine a d i stance of A 508 .19 fe et more o r less t o the We s t e r l y r ig h t -of-way of South ~ Santa Fe Dr ive: th e ace So uth 56° East a d i s t a n ce of 313.96 feet more or les s along tho City Limit~ lin e to a poin t 30 feet south of t h e north l i ne of We s t Tufts Avenue; t h ence Easterly and leav ing the C ity Limits line a dist2nce of 47.46 feet more or less to the e x tended ce n ter l ine of Sout h Windermere Stree~ thence No rth !1 °27 1 East a l ong t h0 centerl ine of South Windermere Stree t a dista n ce of 2 19 .71 fe e t more o r le ss to a point on the City of Engl ew oo d Ci t y limit s l i n e; t he nc e Westerly 30.61 feet more or less alo ng said Ci t y Limi t s line t o the Westerly right- of-way of Sou th ·w ind errier e S tr eet ; thenc e No r th 11 °27' East along said City Lim it s line a d i s tanc e of 4 5 1.0 3 feet more or less to a point on ~he ~or~h li ne o f the S ou ~h 1/2 Northwest 1/4 Section 9, Township 5 So ut h , Range 68 West; t henc e North 89 °54 1 West along said line al s o being the Ci ty L imi t s line 204.06 feet more or less to the Ea s t er ly righ t -o f-wa y o f So u t h San t a Fe Drive; thence leaving the Ci ty Lim i t s Line South 11 °27' West along the Easterly line o f South Santa Fe Dr ive a d istance of 291.85 feet to a p o int thence No r th 8 6 °12" We st n distance of 125.88 feet more or les s to the true p oint o f be g inning. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, McClintock The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. -17- -18- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: November 14, 1978 SUBJECT: Findings of Fact -Case #17-78 RECOMMENDATION: Lathrop moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission accept and adopt the Findings of Fact for Case #17-78, the zoning designation of property in the 4600 block South Mariposa Drive owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Oakley. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSENT: McClintock, Williams The motion carried o By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commissiono CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, -COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 17-78, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) THE ZONING OF PROPERTY IDENTIFIED ) AS THE OAKLEY PROPERTY WHICH IS ) IN THE 4600 BLOCK OF SOUTH ) MARIPOSA DRIVE, AN AREA WHICH IS ) THE SUBJECT OF A PETITION RE-) QUESTING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY ) OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO . ) -19- The zoning of the land identified as the Oakley property which is located in the 4600 block of South Mariposa Drive, was considered at a Public Hearing before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on October 24, 1978, in the Council Chambers of the Englewood City Hall. The following members of the Commission were present: Draper, Lathrop, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma and Williams. Mr . McClintock was not present during the Public Hearing. 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 City Council. 2. That the zoning of this property was initiated by the City pursuant to Sections 22.1-5 and 22 .1-7 of the Comprehensive 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. 4. That the land which was the subject of the Hearing on October 24, 1978, is described as follows: -20- Beginning at the Northwest corner of Plot 13, Bell Isle Gardens, Arapahoe County, Colorado. Thence South 12 °55' East a distance of 579.14 feet to the true point of beginning, said true point of beginning also being a point on the City Limits line of Englewood, Colorado; thence continuing South 12 °55' East along said City Limits of Englewood, Colorado, a distance of 275 feet to the southernmost corner of Plot 13, Bell Isle Gardens; thence North 08°05' East along the City Limits of Englewood a distance of 271 feet more or less; thence South 89°47' West and parallel with the northern line of Plot 13, a distance of 99.6 feet more or less to the true point of beginning; said tract of land containing .307 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 the topography of the site and the location of the site in proximity to residential development to the north and east and to the City of Englewood Reservoir on the west is such that it most logically should continue to be zoned for single-family residential use. 7. That the R-1-C, Single-family Residence District, would be compatible with the residential development in the unincorporated area to the north and with the residential de- velopment within the City of Englewood to the east. 8. That the proposed R-1-C, Single-family Residence, zoning will be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. That the proper notice of the Public Hearing to consider the zoning of the subject property was given; 2. That the proposed R-1-C, Single-family Residence zone classification will conform with the Comprehensive Plan; 3. That the proposed R-1-C, Single-family Residence zone classification will permit development which will be compatible with the development to the north and east of the subject site and will be a logical extension of the single- family residence zoning. 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 R-1-C, Single-family Residence, upon annexation to the City. • -21- Upon the vote on a motion made at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on October 24, 1978: Those members voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Draper, Mr o Lathrop, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mro Smith, Mro Tanguma and Mr. Williams. Those members opposed to the motion: None. Those members absent: Mr o McClintock. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.