Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-12-04 PZC MINUTES' • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 4, 1979 Members of the Planning Commission met with the Community Development staff and Assistant City Attorney DeWitt at 5:30 P. M. in Conference Room A for a dinner/discussion session. Mr. DeWitt discussed the ramifications of a recent Court decision on the procedures followed by the Planning Commission in conducting Public Hearings vs. Administrative Hearings. The change in procedure was questioned by Commission members and discussed with Mr. DeWitt. I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chairman Lathrop at 7:15 P.M. Members present: Carson; Draper; Lathrop; Pierson; Becker; Bi lo Members absent: Also present: Wanush, Ex-officio Smith; Tanguma; Williams Assistant Director of Planning D. A. Romans; Associate Planner Alice Fessenden; Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Lathrop stated that the Minutes of the November 27, 1979, meeting were to be considered for approval. Mr. Draper stated that he felt Page 3, ,3, should be amended to reflect 3460 South Broadway rather than 3469 South Broadway. Mr. Lathrop asked if there were further amendments to be made? Draper moved: Bilo seconded: The Minutes of November 27, 1979, be approved as amended . AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Bilo NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pierson, Becker ABSENT: Williams, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. -2- III. CENTURIAN PARTNERSHIP Planned Development Pierson moved: CASE #27-79 Bilo seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #27-79 be opened. AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. Vice-Chairman Lathrop asked the staff to make their presentation. Mrs. Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development for Planning. The application before the Commission is for approval of a Planned Development for Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, Southlawn Gardens Annex. This property is located on the west side of South Tejon Street, and south of West Iliff Avenue. The property has been purchased by Dr. Oliver and Mr. Adams under the name of Centurian Partner- ship. The proposal is to construct five duplexes on these lots. However, there have been some problems with service by the various utility companies that have not been resolved. Inasmuch as the staff did not have all the information available to bring to the Commission, the staff does suggest that the Public Hearing be continued to January 8, 1980. Pierson moved: The Public Hearing on Case #27-79, Centurian Partnership Planned Development, be continued to January 8, 1980. The motion was seconded. AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. IV. BERKELEY/WISE REZONING R-1-C, Single-family Residence to R-2, Medium Density Residence CASE #26-79 Mr. Draper asked to be excused from consideration of this case for personal reasons. Mr. Lathrop excused Mr. Draper, and Mr. Draper left his chair. Pierson moved: Bilo seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #26-79 be opened. AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Draper, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. <' • ' . \ -3- Mrs. Romans stated that the matter before the Planning Com- mission is a request for rezoning of property owned by Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence. The legal publication for this hearing did appear in the Englewood Sentinel, the official City Newspaper. The property was posted, and Mrs. Romans sub- mitted Certification of Posting to the Secretary for the record. Mrs. Romans stated that she would ask that the staff report be included as a part of the record of this Hearing • Mrs. Romans made reference to maps on display before the Com- mission and the audience, pointing out the subject area and the zoning designations of the surrounding areas. Mrs. Romans noted that land to the north across East Jefferson Drive and Little Dry Creek is zoned R-3, High Density Residence; the subject site and land to the west and south is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence; to the east the land is in Cherry Hills Village, and is zoned R-3, Single-family Residence, requiring a minimum lot area of one acre. The subject property is owned by Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley. Mr. Harry Wise has an option to purchase the land, and has listed as his reasons for requesting the rezoning as follows: 1. The uses to the north and northwest are multi-family and off ices (this area is zoned R-3) and the property west of the site is a public use --the high school athletic field. 2. The property is within a flood plain which will necessitate additional expenditures in developing the property for any use. Mrs. Romans stated that the present zoning of the property is R-1-C, Single-family Residence, which would allow a single- family structure on a minimum of 50 foot frontage and 6,000 square feet of lot area. The R-2, Me .dium Density District, would also permit a single-family residence on 50 foot frontage, with 6,000 square feet of lot area; however, in addition, a duplex (two units) could be constructed on a minimum of 50 foot frontage with 6,000 square feet lot area. For each addi- tional 25 foot of frontage and 3,000 square feet of lot area in the R-2 District, an additional attached unit could be con- structed. Mrs. Romans stated that this parcel of land was annexed to the City in 1946, and was zoned for single-family residential use. The High School was at the present location at the time the property was annexed; the land devoted to the use of the school district has increased, but the use itself has not changed in the ensuing years. In the late 1950's or early 1960's, the Planning Commission and City Council considered the area north of Little Dry Creek and determined that it was oriented to complement Swedish Medical Center. The consulting -4-, firm of Eugene and Watson Bowes was retained to develop a zone classification which would both supplement and complement the • medical center, and the R-3-A Zone District was developed. This zone District, which was applied to the area north of Little Dry Creek, permitted multi-family development, not less than 12 units per building site. The intent of this zone district was to attract adult residents to this area. In 1975, the R-3-A and R-3-B Zone Districts, both multi-family classifications, were combined into the R-3 High Density Residence district and the area north of Little Dry Creek was zoned R-3. This district does not require a minimum number of units per development, and single-family and two-family units are permitted uses. Mrs. Romans stated that there has been some recent development in the R-3 Zone Classification, and cited the medical complex at U.S. 285 and Clarkson, and the apartment buildings. Mrs. Romans stated that it is the position of the staff that zoning must begin and end at some place, and a common practice is that zoning ends at the center line of a street, an alley, or a "natural way", such as Little Dry Creek. The staff feels that the East Jefferson Drive/Little Dry Creek right-of-way makes a "natural" boundary for the zone district divisions be- tween the High Density Residence area and the single-family area to the south of East Jefferson Drive. Mrs. Romans stated there is a 100 foot right-of-way for East Jefferson Drive and Little Dry Creek, and there is no direct access across Little Dry Creek between South Clarkson Street and South Logan Street. South Washington Street, South Pearl Street and South Pennsylvania Street do not extend directly across the Creek and East Jefferson Drive, so East Jefferson Drive does serve as a buffer between these "neighborhoods." The staff strongly feels that the higher density residential use should not intrude into the single-family area south of Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council has adopted the Comprehen- sive Plan as of December 3, 1979. The Generalized Land Use Plan, Page 85 of the Comprehensive Plan, sets forth the manner in which the City is projected to develop. In this Plan, it is shown that Little Dry Creek is a boundary between the more intense uses to the north and the single-family residence use to the south of the Creek. Mrs. Romans stated that she would also like the record of this Hearing to include the Generalized Land Use Map of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. The staff has taken the position that the rezoning request filed by Mr. Berkeley and Mr. Wise does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect the single-family residential areas from intrusion by more intensive uses. Proof has not been presented by the applicant that the property cannot be developed under the present zone district. The subject site is part of the single-family residential neighborhood south of East Jefferson Drive, and is not needed to provide a "buffer" between the single-family district and the high density residence district north of Little Dry Creek. Mrs. Romans stated that schools are typically located in residential neighborhoods and are compatible with low-density residential development. .\ Mr. Lathrop asked if there were questions to be asked of Mrs. Romans? -5- Mr. John Criswell asked Mrs. Romans when the area to the north of this site was zoned R-3-A and R-3; was the area to the west of the site zoned R-2 before or after the subject site was zoned R-1? Mrs. Romans stated that she did not have the applicable ordinances at hand, but felt the R-2 and R-3 areas were designated at approximately the same time. Mr. Criswell stated in other words, about 10 years after this was zoned R-1? Mrs. Romans again stated that she did not have the ordi- nances available at the moment, and could not give an estimated date. Mr. Criswell asked what the zoning designation was on the R-2 and R-3 areas prior to being designated for medium density and high-density development? Mrs. Romans stated that the zoning would have been R-1. Mr. Lathrop asked if there were further questions of Mrs. Romans? No further questions were asked. Mr. John A.· Criswell 3780 South Broadway -was sworn in and testified that he is appearing on behalf of Mr. Harry Wise, who has a contract to purchase the land from Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley contingent upon the rezoning. Mr. Criswell stated that there would be four persons making presentations on the request this evening. Mr. Criswell submitted copies of a survey done by Mr. John Nicholl on this site in June of this year. Mr. Criswell stated that the rezoning request involves Lots 4 and 5 of Sandra's Subdivision, the dimensions of which lots are approximately 131 feet east to west, and 126 feet north to south. Mr. Criswell pointed out the configuration of the site, noting that the easterly boundary is "rounded" off, and that the City of Englewood encroached upon private property when the paving of East Jefferson Drive/South Clarkson Street was done last summer. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the square footage indicated in the survey of 16,719.26 is incorrect, and estimated that the square footage is closer to 16,500. He stated that he would say that they were talking about 15,500 square feet on Lots 4 and 5 of Sandra's Subdivision. The original application included Lot 3, which is approximately 26 feet by 126 feet. Mr. Criswell pointed out that with only 26 foot frontage on East Jefferson Drive, the property cannot be used by itself, and could be used only as a part of an assemblage. The original application included Lot 3 because at that time the applicant was under the impression he had a contract with the property owner to purchase this land; however, this contract has not been agreed upon, and the applicant asked that the application be amended to consider only Lots 4 and 5 of Sandra's Subdivision . Mr. Criswell stated that he was pointing this out because if the rezoning should be granted for Lots 4 and 5, and if they should be able to pick up Lot 3, they will be back before the Commission to ask for rezoning on Lot 3. He stated that the Planning Commission should con- sider that what the applicant wants to do would include Lots -6- 3, 4, and 5 of Sandra's Subdivision. Mr. Criswell estimated that Lot 3 contained 3,200 square feet, and if this were to be added to the estimated 15,500 square feet of Lots 4 and 5, this would give a total of 18,000 square feet or more for the applicant to work with. As the property is presently zoned, if Lots 3, 4, and 5, were under one ownership, there would be in excess of 18,000 square feet with 156 foot frontage, and if the structures were to be oriented to face on East Jefferson Drive, you could put three dwelling units there. Without Lot 3, the applicant would have in excess of 15 ,000 square feet and 100 foot frontage on Jefferson Drive, two single-family dwelling units could be constructed on the site if they were oriented to front on Jefferson Drive. Mr. Criswell stated that under the present R-1-C Zone District, the Planning Com- mission would have no authority or input on the development such as they would have under a Planned Development. Mr . Criswell stated that if Lot 3 is acquired, and if it were finacially feasible, the developer could build three single-family resi- dences on Lots 3, 4, and 5, and the Planning Commission would have no control over the development. Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant has asked for R-2, Medium Density zoning for this site. If the R-2 Zoning is granted to the applicant, a total of five units could be placed on Lots 4 and 5, and if Lot 3 were acquired, a total of six units could be constructed on the site. However, the applicant does not plan to construct more than four units if the R-2 zoning is granted. The applicant is willing to bring in a Planned Development to ensure the type of development that would be on the site, whether he determines to develop two duplexes, or one four-plex. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the applicant was really asking for the R-2-C zoning, which has the same square footage requirements and the same frontage requirements as the R-2, but would allow only two duplexes to be constructed rather than a four-plex. Mr. Criswell stated that when the applicant came to him to request him to handle the request for rezoning, he had forgotten there was an R-2-C District, or the application would have been for R-2-C. Mr. Criswell stated that he believes the R-2-C is more restrictive than the R-2 Zone classification, and feels that the Planning Commission could recommend the R-2-C be granted rather than the R-2; the applicant would agree to this if this is the determination of the Planning Commission. The R-2 Zone Dis- trict does provide more flexibility than the , R-2-C Zone Dis- trict inasmuch as it does give the option to build two duplexes or one four-plex, and there would be no requirement to go through the Planned Development process with two duplexes. Construction of a four-plex does require the Planned Development process be followed. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Wise has contracted to purchase the property subject to the zoning. It is assumed that this property is within the 100-year Flood Plain for Little Dry Creek. If it is indeed within the Flood Plain, it would be an added expense before anyone can build anything on the site -7- because the City will have to be satisfied that the conditions of the Flood Plain District are met. Mr. Criswell stated that East Jefferson Drive is a street which extends approximately six blocks east and west, deadending at South Sherman Street and at South Clarkson Street. Mr. Criswell stated that there is no piece of privately owned property abutting East Jefferson Drive in the City of Englewood that is zoned R-1 except for the subject property. The privately owned property abutting East Jefferson Drive is zoned R-3, High Density Resi- dence, R-2, Medium-Density Residence, or commercial. Any other property that is zoned R-1 which abuts East Jefferson Drive is owned by the School District --it is not in private ownership. Mr. Criswell emphasized that the School District makes industrial use of this property even though it is zoned for single-family residence purposes. Mr. Criswell stated that the School Dis- trict has constructed a storage shed on the property, gravel is stored, construction materials and heavy equipment is stored, and not all of the storage is within the building. Mr. Criswell stated that if anyone but the School District owned this property, they could not use it as they are without getting an industrial zone classification. Mr. Criswell stated that the "staff says zoning districts should be broken at alleys," and pointed out several areas where the zone district boundaries are at the street boundaries. Mr. Criswell stated that in this particular instance in terms of development of the neighborhood, the R-2 and R-3 areas have been rezoned and developed since this subject land was zoned for R-1 development. Mrs. Pierson asked for comments from the staff on Mr. Criswell's comments. Mrs. Romans stated that she had indicated that zoning should break at streets, alleys or natural ways --not only at alleys. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Criswell also indicated that the Planning Commission would have no input in a Planned Develop- ment in a single-family zone district; she stated that the Com- mission would have input if the applicant applied for a Planned Development. Mr. Criswell stated that he would agree with this; he meant that there was no requirement in the single-family dis- trict that a Planned Development be filed. Mrs. Romans emphasized that Jefferson Drive does serve as the boundary between the R-2, Medium Density District, R-3, High Density District, and the R-1-C Single-family Residence District to the south. Mr. Criswell asked that Mr. Berkeley appear before the Com- mission. Mr. Robert Berkeley was sworn in. Mr. Criswell questioned Mr. Berkeley, and Mr. Berkeley testified that he and his wife, Gloria s. Berkeley, purchased Lots 4, 5, and 6, Sandra's Sub- -8- division, in 19760 At the time of the purchase of the property, it was their intent to use the house on Lot 6 for a photography studio. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Berkeley discussed this with the Planning Staff at the time? Mr. Berkeley stated that he did so, and obtained the requirements he would have to meet in order to operate a portrait photography studio at this location. Mr. Berkeley stated that he placed the property, Lots 4 and 5, on the market about one and one-half years ago following his deter- mination that it was impractical to use the site for a photography studio. Mr. Berkeley stated that he listed the property with Mr. Don Finley, and that he has been unable to get any other contracts on the property but the one with Mr. Wise. Mrs 0 Pierson stated that it appeared that Lot 6 has two buildings on it; is this correct? Mr. Berkeley stated that Lot 6 has a single-family residence on it, which is rented at this time. Mr. Carson stated that it seemed to him that the applicant was placing a lot of dependence on acquiring Lot 3. Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant is not placing dependence on the acquisition of Lot 3; if the zoning is granted for Lots 4 and 5, Mr. Wise will go ahead and develop the property. The reason he mentioned Lot 3 is that they want to buy Lot 3, and if they are successful in obtaining the rezoning for Lots 4 and 5, they will attempt to get Lot 3 rezoned if they can obtain it. The number of units proposed for the development does not depend on the acquisition of Lot 3, but it will make for a more attractive development. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Don Finley to address the Commission. Mr. Don Finley 310 Shadycroft Drive -was sworn in, and upon questioning by Mr. Criswell testified that he is a real estate broker, with offices at 4045 South Broadway, Suite 100. Mr. Finley stated that he has been a real estate broker since 1972, and has specialized in residential sales since 1972, mainly in Englewood. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Finley was familiar with this particular neighborhood? Mr. Finley stated that he had lived at 3767 South Sherman Street from 1964 to 1973, and still retains ownership of that land. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Finley was familiar with the subject property. Mr. Finley stated that he is; Mr. Berkeley approached him in mid-1978 about listing the property for sale; he did a survey and market analysis, and listed the property for sale in late 1978. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Finley had attempted to sell the site for single-family purposes? Mr. Finley stated that he had tried to sell these lots for single-family purposes for about a year. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Finley was acquainted with small developers who are interested in small sites? Mr. Finley stated that he is, and that as a general practice, these lots in Englewood which have curb, gutter, etc. sell quickly. Mr. Finley stated that he felt this site would sell very quickly when he listed it, but in fact, there was very little response on the listing. He stated that he contacted several small builders, -9- among them Mr. Roy Smith and Mr. Uphouse. They looked at this site, and told him they were not interested. He stated that he talked to Mr. Smith about the listing at some length, and was told that it is not economically feasible to develop it for single-family. Mr. Finley stated that he had felt the sites were priced below the current market, but Mr. Smith stated that it is not feasible to build a single-family residence with- out a livable basement. They were aware that the site is in the Flood Plain, and that a livable basement could not be con- structed. Mr. Finley stated that the School District site has storage of gravel and heavy equipment, the area is a high- traffic area, and none of this is conducive to single-family residential property. Mr. Criswell asked what, in Mr. Finley's opinion, a building site for single-family development should sell for? Mr. Finley stated between $15,000 to $18,000; he stated that nothing had sold for less than $15,000 in the last three years, and there were very few single-family building sites left in Englewood. Mr. Criswell asked, in light of Mr. Finley's experience in the Englewood market, whether he felt this parcel of land could be sold presently at the going rate for single-family residential development? Mr. Finley stated that he feels that the site could not be developed economically for that price, and that this was the concensus of the builders he talked to: they couldn't pay this rate for these lots and develop them for single-family use. Mr. Criswell asked what the value is of those lots zoned for single-family development compared to those lots that are usable for single-family resi- dences? Mr. Finley stated about $4,000 to $5,000 each. Mr. Criswell stated that in other words they were about 2/3 dis- counted from what they should be? Mr. Finley agreed. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was any change in this area since 1972, discounting the inflation factor, that would have changed the value of the property? Any changes since 1976 when Mr. Berkeley acquired the property? Mr. Finley stated that he could not recall any factors that would have changed the value of the property. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Harry Wise to address the Commission. Mr. Wise was sworn in, and testified that he now resides at 4333 East Peakview Avenue in Littleton. Mr. Wise stated that he has been a teacher and coach at Englewood High School for the past 22 years, and lived in Englewood from 1960 to 1973. Upon questioning by Mr. Criswell, Mr. Wise testified that he has a contract with Mr . Berkeley to purchase Lots 4 and 5, Sandra's Subdivision. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Wise to discuss his plans for development of the site. Mr. Wise discussed the character of the area, noting that to the north, the zoning is for high density residence even though the property directly across East Jefferson Drive and Little Dry Creek has a single- family residence on it at the present time. There is a medical center on the southwest corner of the Clarkson/U.S. 285 inter- section which fronts on South Clarkson Street. On the east side of South Clarkson Street, there is one house in Cherry -10- Hills Village that can be seen from the subject site. To the south is Lot 6, Sandra's Subdivision, which is developed with tt a single-family house owned by Mro Berkeley and rented at the present timeo Mro Wise stated that the structure is small, and in poor conditiono There are weeds on the school property and along the City Ditch. To the south and west of the site is the property owned by the School District. Directly to the west of Lots 4 and 5 is Lot 3, which he hopes to acquire, and directly to the west of Lot 3 is the Englewood High School maintenance shed. Mro Wise stated that this portion of the school property is used as a "dumping ground" for anything that the school district doesn't have any use foro The ground was originally used as a parking lot and ball field, but has been used for storage for the past several years. Mr. Wise stated that he had taken photographs of the subject site and surrounding areas. These photographs were presented to the Commission and Mr. Wise described what each photograph depicted. Mro Bilo noted that Mro Wise had indicated that one photograph was taken looking north; if this is the case, it would have shown the single-family structure to the north of East Jefferson Drive. Mr. Wise stated that the photograph is angled north by northwest. Mr. Criswell pointed out that this single-family house is the only single-family structure which abuts East Jefferson along its six block length; all other uses are multi- family or commercialo Mr.Criswell asked of Mr. Wise what his plans were if the re- zoning were to be granted. Mr o Wise stated that he plans to construct two luxury duplexes or a four-plex. He would want to live in one unit, and rent out the other threeo Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Wise understood that the property is possibly in the Flood Plain? Mr. Wise stated that he dido Mr. Criswell referred to Mr. Finley's testimony regarding the construction and sale of single-family homes without livable basement areas. He asked if Mr. Wise had considered the fact that any basement areas that might be proposed for the duplexes would have to be devoted to storage and could not be used for livable spaceo Mr. Wise stated that he did not plan livable space in the base- ments, but would have crawl spaces for the location of furnace equipment, etco Mro Wise stated that he felt the development of the site would be financially feasible with four units. Mro Criswell asked if the acquisition of Lot 3 would make a difference in Mr. Wise's plans in over-all density proposed for the site? Mro Wise stated that it would not; he proposes to construct only the four unitso Mr. Criswell asked if Mro Wise would accept the condition that however many units might be allowed on the site by the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance if the zoning were to be granted, the development of the site would be limited to four units? Would Mr. Wise submit a Planned Development if he determined to build two duplexes rather than one four-plex? Mro Wise answered in the affirmative to both questions. Mr. Bilo asked if Mr. Wise would still want to acquire Lot 3 if the rezoning was to be approved? Mr. Wise stated that he -11- would want to build four units whether he acquired Lot 3 or not. The acquisition of Lot 3 would make for a nicer develop- ment, and could possibly be used for carports for the units. He emphasized that he would hope to be able to purchase Lot 3 if the rezoning is approved. Mr. Lathrop pointed out that all Flood Plain Regulations would have to be met by Mr. Wise. Mrs. Becker pointed out that there has been discussion on the fact that there could be no livable basements in the flood plain. She asked if Mr. Wise was planning to construct base- ments that could eventually be converted into living space? Mr. Wise stated that he was considering crawl spaces, with City approval. Mr. Criswell emphasized that the applicant has "assumed" the site is in the Flood Plain. He stated that he has talked to Mr. Rick Kahm of the Public Works Department, who referred him to the consulting engineer who is doing a study for the City. According to the consulting engineer, if the property is in the flood plain, it is by only one or two feet. The corners of the site appear to be above the flood plain elevations. If the site is, in fact, in the flood plain, the Flood Plain re- quirements will have to be met whatever is constructed on this site. Mrs. Pierson stated that she has reviewed the criteria the Commission should consider in rezoning, such as change in character of the neighborhood, denial of use, error in original zoning, etc. She questioned that this request qualified for rezoning under the criteria the Commission must consider, and questioned that the Commission had the authority to recommend the rezoning. Mrs. Pierson questioned if there was another way to approach development of the site; she stated that she felt this piece o f property needs "some creative thinking." She asked if a Planned Development could be submitted so that variances in the density etc., could be granted, but the zoning would not be changed? Mr. Criswell stated that he did not think this possible. In a single-family district, the Planned Development would have to be f or single-family construction. Mr. Criswell stated that he would hope the Planning Commission members would drive through this neighborhood. He pointed out that the City did not have the Flood Plain provisions in the Comprehensive Zonining Ordinance until three or four years ago. Mrs. Romans stated that the Flood Plain Ordinance has been in effect since 1971. Mr. Criswell reiterated that this property was annexed in the late 1940's. This property has been in the City and zoned for single-family development for 25 years+, and it has not developed in this time. Mr . Criswell stated that as he understood the Planned Development Ordinance in Englewood, it will allow flexi- bility in setbacks and placement of the structure, but it does not allow for a change in density. Mr. Criswell stated that -12- most cities have a "free-standing Planned Development", but the Planned Development in Englewood is only an overlay district, and only "cosmetic-type" improvements can be accomplished with this method. He stated that he did not know what else the ap- plicant can do --the property cannot develop as it is presently zoned. Other than committing himself to a development that would have only one or two units more than is presently allowed in the R-1-C Zoning, he didn't know what else the applicant could do. He pointed out that the applicant is willing to come to the Planning Commission and City Council with a Planned Development so that there would be control over the development of the four units if the rezoning is grantedo Mr. Criswell stated that he is of the opinion that this property cannot, is not, and will not be developed as R-1-C. Mr . Criswell made reference to the single-family development in the neighborhood. He noted that Mr. Wise has stated that he feels the house on Lot 6, Sandra's Subdivision is "substandard"; he stated that he does not feel it is substandard, but it is very small, and that the homes in the area appear to have been built about the time of World War II. Mr. Criswell emphasized that these homes cannot be duplicated on today's market. Mr. Criswell stated that he does not suggest changing the zone classification on those homes that are developed; however, there are sites that will not develop on today's market under today's criteria. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the applicant has presented justification for rezoning. Mrs. Pierson asked if the City Council could grant the rezoning conditioned upon submission of a Planned Development for the site? Mrs. Romans stated that this has been done in the past and cited the Marshall Rezoning/Planned Development in the 3200 block of South Bannock Street. Mrs. Romans stated that a Mr. Zeitlin is the owner of Lot 3, Sandra's Subdivision; Mr. Zeitlin contacted the office, and stated that he did not want Lot 3 in- cluded in the rezoning request. Following the contact from Mr. Zeitlin, Mrs. Romans stated that she wrote to Mr. Wise with a copy to Mr. Criswell and suggested that this matter should be resolved before the Public Hearing. Mr. Criswell then con- tacted the staff and asked that Lot 3 be eliminated from con- sideration in this application. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Commission had the option of including Lot 3 in the recommendation on this zoning if it was determined to recommend that it be approved? Mrs. Romans stated that Lot 3 was not included in this application; it was not included in the legal publication of the Hearing, nor was it posted. Mrs. Pierson asked if this matter could be tabled until it can be determined whether or not Lot 3 would be part of this one owner- ship? Mrs. Romans emphasized that it still would not be a part of Mr. Wise's rezoning application that is before the Planning Commission. Lot 3 would have to be posted and a public notice would have to be given to consider rezoning of that site. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anyway "we can accomplish creative use of this land without rezoning?" Mrs. Romans cited several -13- areas that developers have said could not be developed as single-family that have been so developed, notably at Bates and Clarkson and Bates and Emerson. Mrs. Romans stated that she is not convinced that a creative, imaginative development cannot be realized with a single-family use. Mr. Bilo asked if the staff felt the possibility exists that Mr. Berkeley and/or Mr. Wise could come in at a later date to request rezoning of Lot 3 and Lot 6? Mrs. Romans stated that this is possible. Mrs. Becker asked for clarification on the manner in which density is determined in the R-2 Zone District. Mrs. Romans explained the formula for determining the density. Mr. Criswell stated that it was not his intention to create a controversy with the mention of Lot 3. He stated that the ap- plicant did not file an application and present plans for the Planned Development at this time, and would not, until they knew whether or not the rezoning would be approved. Mr. Criswell pointed out that to present plans for a Planned Development that would meet all the requirements of the Ordinance would be quite an expense. Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant is willing to commit that they will bring in a Planned Development if the R-2 Rezoning is approved. Mr. Criswei1 stated that as far as Lot 3 is concerned, he felt it would be developed in conjunction with Lots 4 and 5, or it will not be developed. It cannot be developed with only 26 feet of frontage. He stated that he felt the Planning Commission could initiate the rezoning of Lot 3 if they so wished. Mr. Lathrop asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in opposition? Mr. Carl Werner 3787 South Clarkson -was sworn in, and testified that if Lot 3 were to be rezoned for medium density, it would abut his property on the south and subject him to the increased density, noise and other problems that would be in- herent in this proposal. He stated that his property abuts Lot 6, the rental unit owned by Mr. Berkeley, on his north property line. The City Ditch cuts through his property at 3787 South Clarkson. Mr. Werner predicted that eventually Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, would all be rezoned if Lots 4 and 5 are approved now. Mr. Werner stated that he would agree that Little Dry Creek - East Jefferson Drive form a natural boundary for the zone dis- tricts, and that he would hate to see the higher density dis- tricts extend beyond this natural barrier. Mr. Werner stated that he felt this would lower property values of the single- family residential area extending south along Clarkson Street, and noted that Mr. Criswell had ignored the effect the rezoning might have on the remainder of the residential properties on South Clarkson Street. Mr. Werner noted that Mr. Criswell stated all fou r corners of the subject site appear to be out of the Flood Plain; if this is the case, why could not base- -14- ments be constructed with livable area for single-family residential construction on the site? Mr. Werner stated that he felt with a "little vision", this property could be de- veloped; "past history shows that lots that were felt to be unbuildable can become a very beautiful piece of land under the right hands." He questioned why this could not be the case on the subject site. Mr. Lathrop stated that he felt whether or not a basement could be constructed would depend on the Flood Plain and the Building Code. Mr. Werner agreed that the School District has "perpetrated an eyesore on the neighborhood." He suggested that if the School property were to be cleaned up, the subject site might be more desirable for single-family development. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Werner if his house was in the Flood Plain, and if his house had a basement? Mr. Werner stated that his property is not in a flood plain, and he does have a basement. Mrs. Hannah Ward 3770 South Clarkson -was sworn in and stated that she lives in Cherry Hills Village, but is in the Englewood School District. Mrs. Ward stated that no one has mentioned what effect the rezoning request would have on the school. She stated that a great many of the children going to Flood Middle School and to the High School walk down Clarkson and Jefferson and cut across onto the School property. She stated that she felt the increased density and traffic that would result from the rezoning would be a detriment to the safety of these school children. Mrs. Ward referred to the zoning -map of the area, and pointed out that the school is surrounded by single-family residential. She stated that she felt the Commission must decide what type of neighborhood they want around the school, and stated that she personally felt that the single-family zoning is much more appropriate around the school than the medium or high density classifications. Mrs. Ward stated that she would agree with Mr. Werner that once the zoning boundary at Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive is crossed there would be a "chipping away" of the single- family area along South Clarkson Street. Mrs. Ward stated that she objects to the statement by the applicant that the houses across the street cannot be seen from the subject site. She stated that it might be a little difficult when the trees are leafed out, but that for approximately seven months out of the year the view is unimpeded. Mrs. Ward stated that Mr. Werner has spent several years developing and improving his property. Mrs. Ward asked if the rental property owned by Mr. Berkeley had a basement? Mr. Berkeley stated that the house is built on a slab. Mrs. Ward stated that the house owned by Mr. Berkeley is rented to a very nice young couple, who have made an attempt to fix .\ -15- the place up. Mrs. Ward stated that the argument the property owner cannot use the property is persuasive, but she doesn't agree with it. Mrs. Ward pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Berkeley bought the property three years ago for the purposes of establishing a business --a photography studio --on the site; the residential character and development of the neighborhood has been established for 30 years. She stated she questioned the validity of this argument. There are some parcels of land in the City that are being developed for single-family use, and that perhaps while some of the "marginal" parcels have not been developed in the past, they will be now. Mrs. Ward urged the Commission members to consider the zoning around the school, and asked that they "don't chip away at it." Mr. Carson asked Mrs. Ward where she lived? Mrs. Ward stated across the street on the east side of South Clarkson Street. Mr. Carson asked if the house directly north of Mrs. Ward's home was in the flood plain? The property owner stated that she thinks it is, but that the house has been there for 30 years. Marie O'Brien 3750 South Clarkson -was sworn in, and asked what type of structures Mr. Wise would propose to construct on the site: prefab, frame, brick? She stated that they can see the subject property from her home approxi- mately seven months out of the year. Mr.Criswell stated that this would be one purpose of filing a Planned Development, to indicate the type of structures that would be constructed on the site. He noted that while prefab homes are not prohibited in Englewood, Mr. Wise does not pro- pose prefab structures. Mr. Criswell stated that he thinks the odds of a better development would be better with more units than would be pe r mitted in the R-1-C. Carson moved : Becker seconded: The Public Hearing be closed . AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Draper, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that much has been made of the trash on the Englewood High School site; she agreed that it is an eye- sore, but it is not the concern of the Commission in this matter. She stated that her concern is that while the applicant and his counsel have stated they will file a Planned Development plan for the site , once the zoning is granted, that zoning is a fact unless and until another rezoning request is filed on the site, and there is no guarantee that the Planned Develop- ment will become a fact. She stated that the Commission could -16- recommend the rezoning to City Council, it could be granted, and "tomorrow, things could be different." She stated that she is also concerned about the statement that they would be back to ask for rezoning on Lot 3; this could also mean they could be back later to ask for rezoning for Lot 6 to the south of the subject site. Mrso Becker stated that this would be a chipping away of the single-family residential neighborhood in this area, and she felt it is in the best interest of the City to keep the zoning as it presently stands. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt it has been established that the zoning could be recommended to be conditioned on the submission of a Planned Development application for the site, which Planned Development would run with the land, and not with the individual ownero Mrs. Pierson stated that there are several reasons the rezoning should not be recommended, among them being: Lot 3 is not a part of this application, which would leave a strip of single-family zoning that is unusable, and makes the designations of Lots 4 and 5 spot zoning, which is unacceptable. Mrso Pierson stated that she did not feel the applicant has met the "burden of proof"; she stated that there was no testimony that the original zoning of the site was in error, and no testimony on changes in the character of the neighborhood. She acknowledged that there has been some testimony on denial of use of the land, but the arguments were not persuasive. The area is not contiguous to like or compatible zoning on three sides, nor does it - complete one City block of compatible zoning. This request is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the Commission had no option but to deny the rezoning request, even though she felt this was a special instance and the developer had some creative ideas which the Commission had no tools to allow. Carson moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning of Lots 4 and 5, Sandra's Subdivision from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, be deniedo AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Draper, Tanguma, Smith The motion carriedo Mrs. Becker stated that she would agree with Mrs. Pierson that this is a situation in which the Commission has no vehicle available to help the developer. She suggested that possibly this is something that can be gone into under the Comprehensive Plan Goals. Mr. Bilo stated that he felt it is necessary to protect the single-family residential properties, and that there was no alternative but to deny the rezoning. • -17- Mr. Lathrop stated that he felt the comments made by other members of the Commission have taken into consideration the testimony presented. He stated that the Commissions hands are tied at this time. The rezoning cannot be approved and be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lathrop stated that he knows the property does need to be improved, and would hope that perhaps at a later date something can be done to facilitate development. Mr. Wanush pointed out that the recommendation will be sent to City Council, and that the applicant may appeal the decision of the Commission to City Council. Mr. Lathrop called called a recess at 9:15 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M., with the following attendance: Present: Absent: Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Becker Tanguma, Williams, Smith V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission under Public Forum. VI. COUNTRY CLUB JOINT VENTURE CASE #21-78 Mr. Wanush stated that the staff had talked to the architect on this project on December 3rd; because of a lack of permanent financing, the project is now at a dead standstill. They are still trying to work out the financing. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush stated that he had nothing to bring before the Commission. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Pierson stated that she had considered the pros and cons of administrative hearings vs. public hearings during the pro- ceedings this evening . She noted that it is rather awkward to have everyone sworn in before submitting their testimony. She asked the thoughts of other memberso Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the presentation by the applicant had been very formal, and asked if it would have been that formal had this been an "administrative" procedure before the Commission rather than a "hearing "? Mrs. Pierson questioned that the format would have been different in this instance. -18- Mr 0 Bilo asked when the next meeting was scheduled? Mr. Wanush stated that there is nothing on the agenda until the first meeting in January, unless the Commission wants to have a meeting on December 19th o Mr o Bilo questioned if perhaps the Commission wanted to discuss the administrative hearing pro- cedure at that time? Mrs. Romans stated that there are only one or two matters that are on the tentative agenda for January 8, 1980; perhaps the Commission would want to discuss the hearing procedures at that timeo Mrs. Pierson stated that she for one would like time to consider the procedures, and it was determined that this matter would be put on the agenda for January 8th. Mro James Keller, Executive Director of the EDDA, asked what progress has been made on the revision of the B-1 section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? Mrs o Romans stated that the staff has been waiting for approval of the Comprehensive Plan, which approval was given by City Council at their meeting of December 3rdo Mr. Keller stated that he would like to urge the Planning Commission to consider the revision of the B-1 District as a priority itemo He stated that members of the EDDA are particularly concerned about uses such as pawn shops, used clothing stores, etc. Bilo moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Commission direct the staff to come up with a draft of the B-1 District re- visions for the meeting of January 8, 1980. Mro Wanush questioned if the Commission wanted to work on the revision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance section-by-section, or revise the entire Ordinance at one time? Discussion ensuedo Members of the Commission seemed to feel that they should initially look at one section to see what is entailed in the revision and then determine whether it should be by section or if the entire Ordinance should be addressed at onceo The vote: AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker, NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. Mrso Becker discussed her displeasure with the mechanical voting systemo Becker moved: Pierson seconded: The Planning Commission reinstate the voice- vote procedure to be called by the Secretary. AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. ' • -19- There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:45 P. M • -20- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 4, 1979 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Becker seconded: Denial of Rezoning Request The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning of Lots 4 and 5, Sandra's Subdivision from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2,Medium Density Residence, be deniedo · AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Draper, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commissiono rude G. Welty, ording Secret ry •