The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-09-18 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 18, 1984 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Conunission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman McBrayer. Members present: Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen Romans, Assistant Director of Conununity Development Members absent: Becker Also present: Senior Planner Susan T. King City Attorney Olsen II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. September 5, 1984 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Minutes of September 5, 1984 were to be considered for approval. Mr. Venard stated that on Page 3, 119, the word "expended" should be "expanded" • Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of September 5, 1984 be approved as amended on Page 3, 119. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McBrayer ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. III. TIDWELL REZONING R-1-C to R-2 Carson moved: CASE 1132-84 Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 1132-84 be opened. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried . Mr. McBrayer stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on August 29, 1984; Certification of Posting has been suomitted, and will be made a part of the record of this Hearing. Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff report also be included in the record of the Hearing. -2- The request is to rezone approximately 1.5 acres from R-1-C, Single- family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence. The application was filed by John D. and Charlotte Tidwell, 2720 West Union Avenue, Englewood, Colorado, who are owners of part of the subject property. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the courses of action open to the Commission in considering the rezoning request: 1) The Commission may recommend the rezoning request be approved and refer the recommendation to the City Council; 2) the Commission may recommend the rezoning request be ap- proved with conditions, and refer said recommendation to the City Council; 3) the Commission may refer the matter back to the applicant. Mr. McBrayer asked that anyone addressing the Commission on the matter of the rezoning request come to the podium and be sworn in, and that all testimony pertain to the matter of the rezoning. Mr. McBrayer asked if Commission members had any quesions regarding the staff report. No questions were posed by Commission members. Mr. McBrayer asked if under consideration. right to speak later. staff had anything to add in regard to the case Mrs. Romans stated that she would reserve the Mr. McBrayer then asked the applicant to come forth and present his request. • Anthony Gengaro ~ 3320 East Second Avenue -was sworn in, and testified that he is representing the property owners. Mr. Gengaro stated that his firm, Gengaro & Associates, is a Planning Consulting firm, which was hired by Mr. and Mrs. Tidwell to study their area and recommend the type of de- velopment that was felt best for the area. Mr. Gengaro stated that he had prepared a slide show of the subject area, depicting the present development, surrounding development, streets, and character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gengaro presented these slides. Mr. Gengaro stated that Mr. and Mrs. Tidwell have been considering the potential development of their property, and in viewing various recent developments in the Denver metro area, determined that they liked the development at South Sheridan Boulevard and West Arkansas Avenue, which development was done by Gengaro & Associates. It was at this point that Mr. and Mrs. Tidwell contracted with Gengaro & Associates to have the study done on their property and the surrounding area. The study which Gengaro & Associates did indicates that the proper development for this site would be a medium density residential use, owner occupied units, with landscaped common areas. It should be developed in a like or compatible scale and character bo the existing neighborhood. To accomplish these objectives, a change of zone classification is needed. With the consent of the adjoining property owners, Mr. Whitby and Mrs. Green, and Mr. and Mrs. Parr, the application for a rezoning from R-1-C, Single-family Resi- dence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, has been filed, which would al-• low the type of development they propose. Mr. Gengaro stated that all property owners in the subject area were con- tacted, and no opposition was expressed; Mrs. Green did express some res- ervation to the proposed rezoning, but no actual opposition. Mr. Gengaro • • • -3- stated that Mrs. Green presently raises Afghan hounds, and does not want to have to move. Mr. Parr has filed a rezoning application for the large block of properth which he owns, also requesting a change of zone classi- fication from R-1-C to R-2. Mr. Gengaro discussed the development ad- joining the subject site, and the existing development and proposed de- velopment to the south of Mr. Parr's property in Littleton. Mr. Gengaro stated that the Planning staff suggested that he and his constituents contacted the adjoining property owners to see if some consensus could be reached by the property owners on the projected zoning and development of the area. Mr. Gengaro stated that the requested R-2 is contiguous to existing zoning to the immediate north, and will serve as a buffer between the single-family residential development to the west of South Decatur Street and the industrial zoning to the east of the subject site. Mr. Gengaro reviewed the requirements for a change of zone classification: 1) Is there an error in the original zoning of the subject site; 2) Have there been changes in the area which would preclude the use of the land under the present zone classification; 3) Is the area an extension of, or adjacent to the same or a compatible zone district rather than creating an isolated area of incompatible zone classification; 4) Will the proposed change implement the Comprehensive Plan • Mr. Gengaro stated that the rezoning request addresses all of these points. Mr. Gengaro stated that the staff report corroborates the findings of their study; the proposed zoning is consistent with the principles and objectives of the Plan. The proposed zoning change will provide the City with the opportunity to encourage development in a manner which will increase the property values, and is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gengaro pledged that he and his constituents will continue to work with the Planning staff on the ulti- mate development of the site if the rezoning is granted. Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission had questions of Mr. Gengaro. Mr. Stoel asked if Mr. Gengaro knew what Mrs. Green's reservations were. Mr. Gengaro stated that Mrs. Green wants the area to remain "rural" in character because she does raise the Afghan hounds. Mr. Gengaro stated that they do have a letter in their files from Mrs. Green that she is not in "opposition" to the rezoning, but that she does have "reservations." Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning. No one else spoke in favor. Mr. McBrayer asked if any member of the audience wished to speak in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Sherman Salazar 4742 South Decatur Street -was sworn in, and testified that he is not in favor of or in opposition to the rezoning, but does have some questions. Mr. Salazar urged the Commission to review the issues and consider what is in the best interest of the City. Mr. Salazar stated that he felt the development done by Mr. Koza to the north -4- of the subject site was a very attractive development, and he would have • no objection if the proposed development was to be similar. He asked what the proposed development would look like, size of structures, height, etc. He stated that he did not feel that what is being done or proposed in Littleton is important at this time; he stated that he wants to feel "comfortable" that what is being proposed will be compatible with what is already developed, and that the City does not "take a step backward." Mr. Mcrayer advised Mr. Salazar that the issue is the matter of "rezoning" and that the Commission cannot require the applicant to present plans for the development at this point in the process. Mr. McBrayer stated that if the R-2 zoning is granted, the R-2 Zone District regulations will govern the size, height, open space, etc. of the development. Mrs. Romans pointed out that following the rezoning of the land, if ap- proved, the developer will have to plat, or subdivide the land, and pos- sibly request approval of a Planned Development depending on the type of development proposed. The neighborhood will have additional opportunities to discuss the layout of the lots and streets and the development through these processes. Mr. Salazar stated that he did recall that Mr. Koza, developer of Centennial , South Subdivision, appeared before the Board of Adjustment; he stated that he felt this development did add quite a bit to the City and was a good development. Mr. Salazar stated that his only concerns are that he feels comfortable with the proposal, that the minimum requirements are met, and .- that "nice" affordable housing be developed. Mr. McBrayer stated that while he would agree with Mr. Salazar that what is done in Littleton is not of concern to the Commission at this meeting, he does understand the reason behind the inclusion of the Littleton pro- jected development in the presentation to the Commission. Mr. Gengaro stated that he would like to present three more slides to the Commission and the audience; these slides were of the acutal develop- ment which Mr. and Mrs. Tidwell had viewed which was done by Gengaro & Associates; these units sold in the low $70's, were four levels with basement and garages. These units were at zero lot line, each resident owning the house and lot even though the development was "attached" housing. Mr. McBrayer asked if a Planned Development would be required. Mrs. Romans stated that if the proposal would be for four or more attached units, a Planned Development is required. It could also be used to provide more flexibility in the site plan. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to speak to the Commission on Case 1132-84. Mr. Salazar stated that the last three slides cleared up a lot of questions in his mind, and he encouraged support of the rezoning. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 1132-84 be closed. AYES: Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson NAYS: None • • • • ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None Becker The motion carried. -5- Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning request for change of zoning from R-1-C, Single-family Residence to R-2, Medium Density Residence for the following properties be approved: PPI Numbers of Township 2077, Section 8, 1/4 Section 4, 00 (Unplatted): 045, 040, 058, 059, 041. Also that portion of the right-of-way of South Decatur Street from the western boundaries of parcels 045 and 040 to the centerline of said street. This approval is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Because of its proximity to industrial areas, and because of the agricultural nature of the development within the subject area, the Single-family Residence zoning may not have been the correct initial zoning. 2. The City has zoned an area north of the subject site which is Cen- tennial South Subdivision for R-2 Medium Density Residence, causing a change in the area . 3. The properties within the subject area are not developing under the R-1-C Zone District, because of the proximity to industrially zoned areas. 4. The area proposed for rezoning is more than "one (1) City block in area", and therefore, complies with a policy previously established by the City. 5. The proposed medium-density zoning would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The maximum possible density permitted in the R-2 Zone District could be accommodated by those facilities most directly affected, such as utilities and police and fire services. 7. There are commercial, educational and recreational facilities within the immediate area that could meet those needs of the additional population that may come about because of the rezoning. Mr. Tanguma suggested that it would be best to delay a decision on this case until the Commission has heard Case #33-84, which is for property immediately to the south of this subject site. Mr. Stoel stated that this subject site is contiguous to the R-2 Zone District to the north • Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission has been given an overview of the entire area encompassed in both rezoning requests during the presenta- tion by Mr. Gengaro, and he did not see any problem with acting on Case #32-84 at this time, and that he would vote in favor of the motion. -6- The vote was called: AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: Tanguma ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. IV. PARR REZONING R-1-C to R-2 Barbre moved: CASE #33-84 Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #33-84 be opened. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carired. • Mr. McBrayer stated that legal notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on August 29, 1984. Certification of posting has been submitted. Mr. McBrayer asked that the legal publication, the • certification of posting, and the staff report be made a part of the record of this Hearing. This application for rezoning is concerned with approximately 8+/-acres of land owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Parr, and is directly to the south of the properties considered in Case #32-84. Mr. McBrayer again reviewed the options open to the Commission in their consideration of the rezoning, that of recommending the rezoning as requested; recommending approval with conditions, or referral back to the applicant. Mr. McBrayer again asked that anyone addressing the Commission come for- ward to be sworn in. Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission had any questions of the staff. No questions were asked. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff had anything to add at this time. Mrs. Romans stated that she would reserve the right to speak prior to closure of the Hearing. Mr. McBrayer asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Anthony Gengaro 3320 East Second Avenue -was sworn in. Mr. Gengaro testified that the presentation on this case, #33-84, would be a duplication of the presentation on Case #32-84 heard previously. He stated that they do concur with the staff report, and would encourage support and approval of the rezoning request. Mr. McBrayer asked that the record reflect that Commission members have all seen the slide presentation by Mr. Gengaro, and have all heard the presentation given on Case #32-84. All information presented on Case • • • • -7- #32-84, verbally and pictorially, will be considered as presentation on Case #33-84. Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission had any questions of Mr. Gengaro. Mr. Tanguma addressed the issue of water service to properties east of Mr. Parr's property. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not know of any easements for water service, and asked how the developers would propose to address this matter. Mr. Gengaro stated that the properties to the east are not serviced with City of Englewood water at the present time, but use well water. When South Clay Street is fully developed, he stated that he would assume the City would then serve this area. There are no plans to serve water to the east of Mr. Parr's property from South Decatur Street. At this time, there is adequate capacity for both water and sewer for the proposed de- velopment. Mr. Tanguma stated that this still did not answer his concerns about the properties to the east. Mr. Gengaro stated that the properties to the east are on South Clay Street right-of-way, and there are no easements in South Clay Street at this time. He stated that at such time as South Clay is fully developed, he would assume the City would pull that area together for utility service by the City. The water for the Tidwell de- velopment will come from South Decatur Street, and Mr. and Mrs. Parr do not have immediate plans for development of their site • Mr. Tanguma stated that unless four or more units are attached in the proposed development, this matter would not come back to the Commission for further consideration. Mrs. Romans stated that before any develop- ment can occur on any of the land under consideration this evening, a Subdivision plat must be prepared and approved by both the Planning Com- mission and City Council. Access, utility service, etc. would be ad- dressed at the time of the subdivision plat consideration. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development. She stated that she has been working with residents of this particular area since 1961 when the property was annexed to the City of Englewood. Mrs. Romans reviewed the zoning history of this entire area south of Union Avenue, east of South Decatur Street, and noted that it has been difficult in the past to get a consensus of the property owners on the development of the land. When Mr. Wilson and Mr. Gengaro first discussed the proposed rezoning with the Planning staff she did encourage these gentlemen to try to get everybody together on the matter of zoning. She stated that this has been accomplished, and extended her thanks and appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. Tidwell and Mr. and Mrs. Parr and to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Gengaro for their efforts and coopera- tion. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission will still have to consider the platting of the property, and stated that the staff will continue to work with the developer and property owners to the completion of this development • Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #33-84 be closed. -8- AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. Carson moved: Stoel secondea: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning request for a change of zone from R-1-C, Single-family Residence to R-2, Medium Density Residence for the following parcels of land be approved: Permanent Parcel Identification numbers of Township 2077, Section 8, 1/4 Section 4, 00 (unplatted): 013 and 055. Also that portion of the r .ight-of-way of South Decatur Street from the western boundaries of parcels of 013 and 055 to the centerline of said street. This rezoning is recommended for the following reasons: 1. Because of its proximity to industrial areas, and because of the agricultural nature of the development within the subject area, the Single-family Residence zoning may not have been the correct initial zoning. 2. The City has zoned an area north of the subject site which is Cen- tennial South Subdivision for R-2 Medium Density Residence, causing a change in the area. 3. The properties within the subject area are not developing under the R-1-C Zone District, because of the proximity · to industrially zoned areas. 4. The area proposed for rezoning is more than "one (1) City block in area", and therefore, complies with a policy previously established by the City. 5. The proposed medium-density zoning would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The maximum possible density permitted in the R-2 Zone District could be accommodated by those facilities most directly affected, such as utilities and police and fire services. 7. There are commercial, educational and recreational facilities within the immediate area that could meet those needs of the additional population that may come about because of the rezoning. AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. VI. STATE HIGHWAY WORK PROGRAM 1985/1986 CASE #34-84 Mr. McRrayer asked if the staff wanted to discuss the proposed Highway Work Program. • • • • • • -9- Mrs. Romans stated that every year, the City submits a list of projects that we want included in the work program of the State Highway Department. These requests are submitted to the Arapahoe County Commissioners, and are forwarded to the Highway Commission. Mrs. Romans noted that all requests have been previously submitted, and reviewed the requests for improvements on Santa Fe Drive at Dartmouth Avenue, on U. S. 285, and on Belleview Avenue. Mrs. Romans noted that the State Highway Department has striped a con- tinuous left-turn lane along West Belleview Avenue; this is not a solution to a growing problem, and she urged that a study of West Belleview Avenue be supported as a request to the Highway Commission. Mrs. Romans cited several new developments which will be occurring on both sides of West Belleview Avenue, in both Englewood and in Littleton, which will compound the turning movement problem along Belleview. Mrs. Romans stated that she would like to see a list of criteria that can be given to developers that they would have to conform to in designing the ingress/egress to the various developing sites. A double left-turn has been suggested for the Broadway/Belleview inter- section on all four movements. Mrs. Romans also discussed the projects included for the Federal Aid Urban System; neither of these requests are new. Mrs. Romans stated that the requests must be submitted to the Arapahoe County Commissioners by October 5; if the Commission makes a recommenda- tion this evening, it can be forwarded to City Council for their considera- tion on October 1, and if approved at that meeting, could be to the Arapahoe County Commissioners by the October 5th deadline. Mr. Tanguma suggested that the improvement to the Belleview/Broadway intersection should be strongly emphasized. He felt this should be a high priority item. Mrs. Romans stated that the high priority of this item could be emphasized to the City Council and the County Commissioners. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: City Council for The Planning Commission refer the following projects for the State Highway Work Program 1985/1986, to the their consideration and approval. I. Requests proposed for inclusion in the 1985/86 Work Program. A. Construction Projects on the State Highway System: 1. South Santa Fe Drive: a. The construction of an interchange at the intersection of West Dartmouth Avenue and South Santa Fe Drive.* *At this time, the plans for the not provide a grade separation. a grade separation is necessary continue to be requested. improv.ements at this intersection do The Commission is of the opinion that and recommends that the interchange -10- 2. u. s. 285: a. The construction of a one-way couplet between South Broadway and South Santa Fe Drive utilizing the present alignment of U.S. 285 and West Ithaca Avenue, and the upgrading of the U. S. 285/South Broadway interchange as a part thereof. b. The extension of the drainage system along U. s. 285 to take care of the sheet flow across U. S. 285 between South Downing Street and South Pearl Street. c. Upgrade the South University Boulevard/U. S. 285 inter- section to permit double left-turns. Right-turn lanes should feed into through lanes. 3. Belleview Avenue. a. Upgrade the South Broadway/Belleview Avenue intersection to provide double left-turning movements. b. Study prevailing and projected roadway and service con- ditions to develop standards for corrective measures to be required of persons constructing new developments which will have access to West Belleview Avenue. II. Requests Relative to the Federal Aid Urban System. A. Construction Projects on the Federal Aid Urban System. 1. South Broadway a. Install planted median from Quincy to Belleview as from U. S. 285 to Quincy. b. Overlay from U. S. 285 to Quincy Avenue. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Becker The motion carried. VI. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #31-84 Amendment of The Broadway Planned Development Mr. McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact on the amendment of The Broadway Planned Development were to be considered for approval. Magnuson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case /131-84 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Barbre, Carson, Magnuson, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen None • • • • • • ABSTAIN: ABSENT: McBrayer Becker The motion carried. VII. PUBLIC FORUM. -11- There was no one in the audience to address the Commission. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the breakfast meeting with Swedish Medical Center has been postponed until October 9th. The next regular meeting of the Commission will be on October 2, at which time the staff hopes to have the final Plat for the Quincy Haven Subdivision. Mrs. Romans reported that she is continuing to work with Mr. DeWitt on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance revisions. She stated that she hopes public hearings can be scheduled for November. IX. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE • Mr. Tanguma discussed concerns that had been expressed to him regarding emergency response time for the area south of Belleview Avenue. Mrs. Romans suggested the persons concerned should contact Chief Holmes and Chief Broman. Mr. Allen brought to the attention of the Commission a couple of articles pertaining to landfills and trash collection centers. Mrs. Romans stated that C.D.I. is proceeding with a trash transfer station on West Union Avenue just west of the South Platte River. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P. M •