Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-04 PZC MINUTES\ CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • March 4, 1980 • I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Members present: Barbre, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Tanguma Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Becker, Smith, Williams Also present: Associate Planner Alice Fessenden Mrs. Pierson stated that she would like the record to show that Commission member-elect Milton Senti is in attendance. Mrs. Pierson asked that the record also reflect that Mr. Don Williams had notified the staff that he would be unable to attend; he is employed by the State Highway Department and was held over on a "snow watch". II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of February 20, 1980, are to be considered for approval . Tanguma moved: The Minutes of February 20, 1980, be approved as written. The motion was seconded. AYES: Barbre, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Becker, Smith The motion carried. Mrs. Becker entered the meeting and assumed her place with the Commission members . III. JOHN J. LITTLEHORN R-1-C Single-family Residence R-2-C Medium-Density Residence CASE #4-80 Mrs. Pierson stated that the request before the Commission is to rezone property from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium Density Residence. -2- Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-80 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Becker, Barbre, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Smith The motion carried. Mrs 0 Pierson stated that she would like to review the criteria that is taken into account by the Planning Commission in the consideration of any rezoning request. Mr. Smith entered the meeting at 7:05 P. M. and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Pierson stated that this criteria includes: lo The possibility of a mistake in the original zoning of the areao 2. Any significant changes that have occurred in the area under consideration that would render another zone classi- fication more applicable. 3. Whether or not a person is denied the use of his land be- cause of existing zoning. Other factors which are also considered by the Commission are: 1. The area should complete at least one city block of compatible zone classification, or should consist of at least one city block and be contiguous to like or compatible zoning classification. 20 Proof should be presented that there is a demand and need for enlarging the existing zone classification. 30 There must be compliance with all of the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinanceo 4. The proposed rezoning must comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Pierson stated that with these factors in mind, she would ask that comments made during the course of the Public Hearing be confined to these aforementioned items o Mrs. Pierson then asked for the staff report o Mrso Romans asked the pleasure of the Commission on whether or not those testifying before the Commission should be sworn in? She stated that she had discussed this briefly with Assistant City Attorney DeWitt and he indicated that the • • • procedur e this evening should be at the pleasure of the Planning Commissiono -3- Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the formal procedures of swearing in should be followed. Mr. Smith agreed that the more formal proceedings should be followed. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would agree, and announced that everyone wishing to testify before the Commission, or to comment or to ask questions, would be requested to come forward and be sworn in. Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development in the Planning Division. Mrs. Romans stated that the matter before the Planning Commission is an application for rezoning filed by Mr. John J. Littlehorn, and by William R. and James W. Jackson, owners of three of the four parcels involved in the request. Mrs. Romans stated that it was her understanding that the Messrs. Jackson have the first right of refusal on the fourth parcel, that being controlled by the Seventh Day Adventist Association of Colorado as trustee for Mrs. Banks. With the agreement on the fourth parcel, Mr. Littlehorn and the Messrs. Jackson do have an interest in the total area under considera- tion. Mrs. Romans stated that the subject site, which was designated on the map by Miss Fessenden, has frontage on West Quincy Avenue, which street is a designated arterial and serves as a truck route through the City of Englewood. The property is presently zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence, which would allow development of single-family homes with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet and a minimum frontage of 50 feet. This zone district will allow such uses as public facilities, educational institutions and religious institutions, and will also allow the home owner the right of a "home occupation" which must meet standards set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The subject site abuts property on the west which is zoned for I-1, Light Industrial; this industrial area has developed quite intensely in the last 10 years. The subject site abuts land that is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence, on the east and south, and is adjacent to an R-1-C District on the northo Mrs. Romans stated that the subject site is comprised of four parcels, which were indicated on the map by Miss Fessenden. Parcel #1 is owned by Mr. John J. Littlehorno Parcel #2 is under the ownership of William R. and James W. Jackson; Parcel #3 is owned by Midwest Real Estate Exchange, Inco, which is a business owned by the Messrs. Jackson; and Parcel #4, is in the ownership of the Seventh Day Adventist Association of Colorado and Mrso Rosa Lee Banks. Mrso Romans stated that it is her understanding that Mrs. Banks, who is now confined to a nursing home, has given this parcel to the Churcho Mrs. Romans also stated that these ownerships have been verified with the Arapahoe County Assessor's Office. -4- Mrs. Romans stated that the action required of the Planning Commission following the public hearing, is to continue the Hearing, or to table the matter to a date certain, or to make a recommendation to the City Council that the matter be either approved or denied. The subject parcel is approximately 1.56 acres in area. The permitted maximum density in the R-1-C Zone District is seven units per net acre. In R-2-C, the permitted maximum density is 14 units per net acre. Development in the R-2-C District is limited to single-family and two-family residences; there may not be any triplexes or four-plexes constructed. Mrs. Romans pointed out the lack of interior access to the subject site; access will have to be provided by the developers to serve the interior of the lots, which will require roughly 1/4 of the land area for street purposes. This would decrease the total area available for development, and the number of units that could be placed on the property would also decrease pro- portionately. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicants have listed the following as reasons for their requested rezoning: 1. That because of the increased intensity of the industrial development in the areas to the northwest, west and south- west, which are zoned I-1, Light Industrial, it would be more difficult to obtain financing to construct single- family residences or to attract buyers if the financing could be found for construction. 2. That under the R-2-C Zone District, land costs would be reduced and the applicants could build low-maintenance, energy efficient, affordable housing. This would help attract more famili~s to Englewood. 3. That the R-2-C, Zone District, would provide a more adequate buffer between the single-family areas to the east and the light industrial uses to the west. 4. That the land is not desirable for single-family parcels due to the lack of suitable road access to each of the subject properties, but by clustering the two-family units under a Planned Development, a desirable living environment could be created. The subject property has been within the corporate limits of the City since 1955, and was automatically zoned for single- family development upon annexation. Mrs. Romans stated that there have been no major changes in zoning in this immediate area since it was annexed; the primary changes that have occurred have been in the intensity of use, and cited the development of the industrial area to the west, and the residential area to the east. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Littlehorn has been • before the Planning Commission on previous occasions in relation to this property. In April of 1975, Mr. Littlehorn came before the Planning Commission requesting a Subdivision Waiver to -5- divide his ownership, which at that time extended east to South L . pan Street, into six si es. Five of the sites would front o n South Lipan Street, an d the sixth would be a long, narrow p arcel to the rear of the residential lots on South Lipan Street. Mr. Littlehorn i n dicated at that time that this sixth parcel would be combined with those parcels under the ownership of the Messrs. Jackson for a joint development. In June of 1976, Mr. Littlehorn and the Messrs. Jackson applied for an I-1, Light Industrial Zone classification on their property, and included that owned by Mrs. Banks. Following the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny the I-1 zoning. There is no record of an appeal to the City Council following the Planning Commission's decision. In September of 1977, Mr. Littlehorn and the Messrs. Jackson again came to the Planning Commission, requesting a change of zone classi f ication from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium Density Residence. The Planning Commission at that time determined that the rezoning request be denied, and so recommended to the City Council. An appeal to the City Council was filed in October of 1977 by the applicants. The City Council reviewed the Findings of Fact adopted by the Planning Commission and elected not to hear the applicant's appeal. The applicants had, in the interim, applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to lower the minimum lot area of each of the five building sites from 6,000 square feet to 5,100 square feet; the motion was made to approve this re- quest; however, the motion did not carry. Mr. Littlehorn then determined that his right to use the ground had been denied, and took the matter to Court. The Court decision agreed that Mr. Littlehorn 's rights had been denied by the City Council's refusal to hear his appeal, and the matter was remanded to City Council for hearing. Mr. Littlehorn had, since the time of his appeal to City Council, sold off the south 120 feet of the large parcel, selling a parcel 60' x 68' to the owners of 4325 South Lipan Street and the owners of 4335 South Lipan Street. The City Council felt, when the matter came up for Public Hearing before the Council on January 28th, that with the sale of these two parcels of ground that the area had been changed, and that this might have an effect on the determination by both the Commission and the City Council. The matter was then re- ferred back to the Planning Commission for rehearing and recom- mendation. Mrs. Romans discussed the Comprehensive Plan, and the Generalized Land Use Map. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the land use as de- picted on this map is not in specific detail and boundaries do not break on any given line. Rather, the map is generalized and the depiction of projected land use is shown in specific areas by irregular shapes or blobs. This map indicates that the subject area is in between that which is designated for industrial development, and that which is designated for single-family development. The staff has taken the position that this is a peculiar or unique piece of property: it does not face the "f ront " of any use, but rather is bounded by the back yards of the residential uses along South Lipan Street -6- and West Radcliff Drive, the side or rear of Industrial uses abut the property on the west, and West Quincy Avenue, a major arterial, abuts the property on the north. The staff does recommend that the rezoning be approved, with the following conditions: 1. That the subject properties be developed as a single unit under the Planned Development District regulations. 2. That the matter be brought before the City Planning and Zoning Commission in twenty-four (24) months for review and if a Planned Development has not been approved and recorded and construction pursuant thereto undertaken, the Planning Commission shall reconsider the use and the development of the subject property. Mrs. Romans stated that utilities are available for service to this area; there is a six inch (6") water line in West Quincy Avenue; there is a 15 inch sewer line in West Quincy Avenue, and an eight inch (8 11 ) sewer line along the west boundary line of the subject property. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the City has an allotment of 300 sewer taps per year, and that the applicants would have to work within this restriction, but the lines are there for service. Mr. Smith asked if the rezoning extended across West Quincy Avenue? Mrs. Romans stated that it is projected to the center- line of West Quincy Avenue. She stated that wherever possible, zone districts break at the centerline of streets, alleys, or at rear property lines. Mr. Smith pointed out that the one condition suggested by the staff is that construction be begun within 24 months; he asked why the lengthy time limit? Mrs. Romans pointed out that one of the conditions is 1hat a Planned Development be approved; this can be a rather lengthy process in itself, and it was felt by the staff that the 24-month limitation was realistic. Mr. Smith noted that on Page 9 of the Staff Report, reference is made to 22 units; he asked how many units could be built on this site. Mrs. Romans stated that ordinarily 25% of the land area is required for access. In this instance, the sub- ject site is 1.56 acres +/-without any provision for access, so approximately 50,000 square feet would be available for development. She stated that she did not see how more than 16 or possibly 17 units could be constructed on the site after access is provided. Mrs. Romans added that if the access is dedicated to the City, it would have to be a 50 foot street, with a 90 foot cul-de-sac for turning movements. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were further questions of Mrs. Romans? No further questions were asked by the Commission of Mrs. Romans. Mrs. Pierson then asked if Mr. Littlehorn and the Messrs. Jackson were present? • Mr. John J. Littlehorn was sworn in, and stated that the Messrs. Jackson are not present, but that he does have an affidavit to speak in their behalf on this matter. They are the owners of Parcels 2 and 3, and have a contract to purchase Parcel #4, which action will be finalized later this month. Mr. Littlehorn stated that this area has been -7- a problem, which has aggravated as the City grew. Mr. Little- horn stated that under the present R-1-C regulations, and the present configuration of the property, the most that can be developed on the site is three homes, with "huge back yards." Mr. Littlehorn stated that the applicants will go along with the conditions suggested to be imposed in the staff report. He stated that he is aware that they will have to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval of a Planned Development. He stated that the applicants want to use the property in a reasonable and economical way. Mr.Smith asked if he understood that the Messrs. Jackson have finalized the purchase of Parcel #4. Mr. Smith stated that he was under the impression that the Church did not own or have control of the property until such time as Mrs. Banks was deceased. Mr. Littlehorn stated that Mrs. Banks is now confined to a nursing home; the Jackson Brothers have a con- tract with tne Church to purchase the property, which will be finalized this month. Mr. McBrayer stated that he also is concerned about the 24- month time period. He asked if this much time was needed. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he felt the 24-months was very definitely needed. He pointed out that he has been working on this matter for over two years, and is still unable to use the land. Mrs. Pierson stated that Mr . Littlehorn has testified that he is authorized to speak for the Jackson Brothers; she asked if he also had authorization to speak on behalf of Midwest Real Estate Exchange, Inc.? Mr. Littlehorn stated that the Midwest Real Estate Exchange, Inc. is one of the businesses owned by the Jackson Brothers, and he does have authorization to speak for them. Mrs. Pierson then asked if Mr. Littlehorn had authorization to speak on behalf of Mrs . Banks or the Church? Mr. Littlehorn stated that he did not; only for the Jackson Brothers under their contract to purchase the land. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Planning Commission recommended that the rezoning be granted with the conditions suggested by the staff, whether Mr. Littlehorn had authority on behalf of the Messrs. Jackson to agree to these conditions, and did he in fact agree with the conditions? Mr. Littlehorn stated that he did have the authority to agree to the conditions, and he does, in fact, so agree. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were others in the audience who wished to speak in favor of the rezoning? -8- Mro Mike Littlehorn 4301 South Lipan Street -was sworn in and stated that he f eels that the rezoning would allow a better use of the property, and would make a good buffer zone between the industrial and single-family residential areao He stated that he would like to see the property rezonedo Mro Tanguma asked Mr. Mike Littlehorn i f he was any relation to the applicant, Mr. John Littlehorn? Mro Mike Littlehorn stated that he is related to the applicant o Mrs. Romans pointed out that the property at 4301 South Lipan Street is listed in Mro Mike Littlehorn 's name; he is an ad- joining property owner. Mrso Pierson asked for those in opposition to present their caseo Mr. Steve Neyer 4330 South Lipan Street -was sworn in and stated that following the public hearing before the Planning Commission on the rezoning request, which public hearing was held on September 20, 1977, Findings of Fact were adopted by the Commission , Seven conclusions were reached by the Commission at that time, and Mr. Neyer stated that he felt the following four still pertain: (4) That property owners in the adjacent area have relied on the present R-1-C, Single-family Residence Zone District which is applied to the subject site to maintain the low- density residential character of the neighborhood o (5) That it has not been shown that the property cannot be developed under the present zone classification. (6) It was not shown that the original zoning of the subject area was in error. (7) That the present zone classification will continue to conserve and stabilize the value of the property and to promote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of all in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan. Mro Neyer stated that this application is concerned with a portion of the same area as was encompassed in the 1977 re- quest; at which point in time, the rezoning request was denied 0 Mr. Neyer stated that as far as a buffer between the industrial use and the residential use, there is no buffer between the Harvey Park Towing Yard across West Quincy Avenue and the resi- dential useso He stated that he felt approval of the requested R-2-C Zone District would be spot zoning 0 Mrs. Becker asked the location of the towing yard; is it to • the northwest of the subject property? Miss Fessenden indicated - the towing yard on the map. -9- Mr. George Stampados 4325 South Lipan Street -was sworn in and stated that he does not feel a development for two-family use will be in conformance with the character of the neighborhood, and might well be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Stampados stated that the Jason Park is to the north of this area across West Quincy Avenue, and children have to cross this street to get to the park. He felt that a medium-density development would increase the amount of traffic using West Quincy Avenue, a heavily traveled street at the present time, and create a more hazardous condition for those children crossing the street. He stated that he felt single-family homes are more likely to attract families with children than a two-family development. He pointed out that the school district has lost and is losing school population, and the multi-family character of the develop- ment as proposed by Mr. Littlehorn would be more likely to attract people who a r e transient. Mr. Stampados stated that "spot zoning" would violate the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; the rezoning, if approved, would impose on the security and trust that the residents have in the neighborhood. Mr. Stampados stated that at the beginning of the meeting it was brought out that the site could hold a given number of units; Mr. Littlehorn has testified that at the most, they could have a total of four units at the present time; if the rezoning were to be approved, they could construct up to four times that amount, or 16 units. He stated that he just could not see the merits of the rezoning, and is opposed to it. Mrs. Robert Taylor 1090 West Radcliff Drive -was sworn in and testified that she is an artist, and is concerned with the appearance of the proposed development, the height and visual aspects of the proposed development. She asked if Mr. Littlehorn could construct three story structures on the site, and she also inquired about landscaping? Mrs. Romans stated that the height restrictions in the R-1-C and the R-2-C zone Districts are the same: two stories or 25 feet. Mrs. Romans stated that the R-2-C Zone District does require that 40% of the lot be in landscaping. Mr. Smith noted that on Page 9 of the Staff Report, in Y3, it states that "lower construction costs per unit would be possible and the ability to spread out the recovery cost of the land be- tween 22 units versus 11 units would be available." He noted that Mr. Littlehorn has testified that he could construct only three houses on the land, whereas Mrs. Romans had testified that seven residences could be constructed on the land. Dis- cussion ensued. Miss Fessenden pointed out that if the develop- ment was based on the amount of frontage alone, three units is all that Mr. Littlehorn could construct; if one considers the gross square footage of the site, there is sufficient area to accommodate seven single-family dwellings. -10- Mr. Littlehorn stated that he has explored the possibility of putting a roadway into the site; if the City requires a 50 foot roadway and a 90 foot cul-de-sac, this would take so much of the ground they would have a problem with lot sizes, setbacks, etc. He stated that he didn't feel it was feasible to have a public dedicated roadway into the site. He stated that he was considering a private road to service the interior of the site, and he is considering construction of "round" houses. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he does not build things just to make money, but the project must be economically sound. He stated that the units might have garden level apartments, which he personally likes. Mr. Littlehorn stated that with the pressures from society today to conserve energy, he is considering many different things for the development. Mr. Smith stated that if Mr. Littlehorn does not anticipate putting a road in, would this not stop the development? Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Littlehorn stated that the roadway would not be dedicated to the City; it would be a private roadway. Mrs. Romans pointed out that roadways less than 50 feet have been approved in other projects, but also pointed out that the discussion of roadways is more in line with con- sideration of the Planned Development, and not on the merits of the rezoning. Mrs. Romans emphasized that the figures quoted in the staff report as maximum development are just that --they do not take into account the need for access. Some of this property is land-locked, and cannot be used un- less access is provided. If the rezoning is approved, then the actual design of the proposal will have to be considered. If the rezoning is not approved, and if the applicants want to develop the site with more than the three buildings per- mitted by the existing frontage, the site would have to be subdivided, and access provided to the interior of the property. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the members of the audience were present because they are interest in the impact on the area. He stated that there is a lot of difference in the im- pact of 20 units vs. 10 units. He reiterated that the staff report mentions 22 units and 11 units. One of the reasons given for the rezoning request is the applicant's inability to use the property. If seven units can be developed on the site, the land can be used --it is a feasible development. He stated that if the 11 units mentioned by the staff in the staff report were reduced by 25% --to accommodate the area to be devoted to street purposes --they could build seven units. Mr. Littlehorn stated the units are contemplated to be not more than two bedroom in size and there would be one or two children per unit at the most. He stated that if this was balanced out per person, he didn't feel the impact would be greater than that of a single-family development. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he would not attempt to build single-family resi- dences on a speculative basis on this property; he stated that people would not buy them in that location. -11- Mr. Draper asked for more information on the proposed roadway under consideration by Mr. Littlehorn? Mr. Littlehorn stated that a lot of it would depend on the requirements of the City. He stated that the only individuals to use the roadway would be the residents and the fire department. Mr. Littlehorn stated that the roadway and cul-de-sac would not have to be extended the full depth of the site; he stated that he was considering the possiblity of a 10-foot wide roadway with a crushed rock surfacing. Mr. Stampados stated that he understood the City wanted suf- ficient space in the cul-de-sac for the fire engines to maneuver without backing up; he asked if it would be possible to locate the roadway in such proximity that protection could be given to the rear of the structures on the west side of South Lipan Street from the proposed roadway? Mrs. Pierson asked if it was possible to put in a gravel roadway in the City? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would recommend that the roadway be constructed to City specifications. Mr. Littlehorn stated that the requirements of the Fire Depart- ment for roadways are very stringent. He suggested that per- haps the discussion is straying from the subject of the rezoning. Mrs. Becker stated that she would agree and asked that the dis- cussion be centered on the rezoning. Mr. Littlehorn stated that Court decision on the case was in regard to confiscatory zoning; the applicant is denied the use of the land under the present zoning, and cannot find an alternative to get around the problem. He stated that he is trying to cooperate with this Department, and feels that this proposal is very reasonable. Mrs. Pierson stated that she un- derstood the decision on the court case was on a flaw in the procedure that was followed. Mr. Littlehorn stated that this was correct; however, this hearing must be conducted properly before the confiscatory action in the case can be heard. Mrs. Pierson reviewed the Court decision on the matter, and stated that the holding was that Mr. Littlehorn had been denied the opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of his application before the City Council. The ruling was on procedural deficiencies. There would have to be another ruling on any question of confiscatory action. It was noted that the Staff Report is to be included in the record of the Public Hearing. Draper moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-80 be closed. AYES: Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Becker, Barbre, Carson, Draper, Mc Brayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. -12- Mrs. Pierson declared a recess of the Commission at 8:15 P.M. The meeting reconvened with the following members present: Draper, McBrayer, Smith, Tanguma, Pierson, Becker, Barbre, Carson. Absent: Williams Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission may table the matter until a date certain, or make a recommendation that the re- zoning request be approved, or denied. She asked the pleasure of the Planning Commission? Mrs. Becker stated that one of the concerns that is voiced by opponents to the medium density zone classifications is that the duplexes do not in fact bring in families with children. She asked whether there were any statistics on this question; do duplexes really attract families with children, or is it singles or young couples? Mrs. Romans stated that in this in- stance, with the units containing only two bedrooms, it probably will not attract families with many children. To attract families with children, you really need to develop the three and four bedroom units. Mrs. Pierson questioned that this was really at issue on whether or not the rezoning should be approved. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would like to ask Mr. Senti, a long- time realtor, to give the Commission the benefit of his ex- perience on whether or not duplexes are an imposition on the neighborhood --just what their impact is, and the type of families who occupy duplexes . Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt this might be more appropriate at a later time in the meeting. Mr. Smith stated that economic feasibility is given as one of the reasons for requesting the rezoning. He stated that he does not think the site was improperly zoned in the beginning, and he does feel that the matter of economic feasibility for development as single-family is an issue. He stated that it has been brought out that the site is not desirable for single- family development because of lack of good access. He stated he feels that the construction of three units on the site vs. seven doubles does indicate that the land can be used. Mr. Smith then discussed a development on Colorado Boulevard which has become a "neighborhood" by itself, by screening out the industrial area. He stated that if this could be done on this site, and have seven single-family homes constructed, he felt that the question of "economic feasibility" is not something for consideration. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the City is getting into the low-cost housing market by the construction of 10 units for low-income families, plus the additional 100 units for the elderly. He stated that an individual cannot be forced to build low-cost housing. He questioned that the economic question was something that should be considered in the matter of rezoning. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the R-2-C Zone District would create a good buffer between the single-family district and -13- the industrial district. He pointed out that a rezoning re- quest for I-1 zoning on this property was denied because it would impose the industrial zoning right next to the single- family residential district. If Mr. Littlehorn is now denied the R-2-C zoning and has to try to develop the property for single-family purposes the same situation would be created: single-family residential development would abut I-1 Industrial development. Mr. McBrayer stated that he did not think it would be feasible to develop seven single-family residences on this site; he stated that the price of the homes would be excessive --the houses would cost more than the average resi- dential unit in Englewood. This would impose extremely ex- pensive housing against the industrial district, which is not good. He stated that he felt the property owners would be denied the use of the property if the rezoning were to be denied. The I-1 Zone District is actively developing, and he felt the need for a buffer between the industrial and single- family district is more apparent now than in the past. Mrs. Pierson stated that it is apparent that the I-1 develop- ment has changed the character of the area. It has not been shown that the proposed rezoning would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and she stated that she felt the Planning Commission should recommend to City Council that the rezoning be granted. Becker moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning of the following described property from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence be approved: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest one-quarter (1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; thence West along the North line of said Section 9, said North line also being the centerline of West Quincy Avenue, a distance of 99 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing Westerly along the North line of Section 9, a distance of 231.8 feet, to the North line of Jensen's Subdivision 2nd Filing, City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado; thence East along said North line of Jensen's Subdivision 2nd Filing a distance of 163.8 feet to the Southwest corner of the parcel of land de- scribed in Book 2951, Page 442 in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's Office; thence North along the West line of the parcels of land described in Book 2951, Pages 441 and 442, a distance of 120 feet to the Northwest corner of the parcel of land described in Book 2951 on Page 441; thence East along the North line of said parcel of land described in Book 2951, Page 441 a distance of 68 feet; thence North a distance of 210 feet to the true point of beginning, said tract of land containing 1.56 acres more or less. This recommendation to rezone the subject property is contingent on the following conditions: 1. That the subject properties be developed. as a singl~ unit under the Planned Development District regulations. -14- 2. That the matter be brought before the City Planning and Zoning Commission in twenty-four (24) months for review and if a Planned Development has not been approved and recorded and construction pursuant thereto undertaken, the Planning Commission shall reconsider the use and the development of the subject property. Mr. Smith asked that the staff clarify for the benefit of the audience the requirement of a Planned Development. He stated that inasmuch as one of the conditions for approval is the submission and approval of a Planned Development for the site he would vote for the motion. Mrs. Romans explained that the Planned Development District is a district that overlays the entire City and is applied upon specific application. The applicant must bring in a survey and detailed drainage plan, and a site plan must be submitted. Mrs. Romans emphasized that the Planned Develop- ment cannot change the density or the use permitted in any zone district. The plan would have to show the location of the buildings, parking areas, landscaping and access. The Planning Commission would have to have a Public Hearing on the Planned Development; if the Planned Development were then recommended to City Council, the City Council could also hold a Public Hearing. If the Planned Development is approved by the City Council, it is recorded in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's Office, and any construction permits issued must be in compliance with the recorded Planned Development. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the Director of Community Develop- ment may make "minor" changes in the recorded plan; any major changes in the plan must be reconsidered by the Planning Com- mission and City Council. Mr.Barbre asked when the contract on sale of Parcel #4 would be closed, and if it should not be consummated, would this have any effect on the decision of the Commission? Mrs. Pierson stated that it would not; the entire area would be treated as a whole, and would all be rezoned if this is the determination of the Commission. Mr. Draper stated that he felt the matter of economics does play a very vital role in the decision of the Commission; he stated that he did not think this subject parcel would develop under the present zoning, and he would rather see an R-2-C Planned Development, than to leave the site as it is. Mr. Carson stated that he felt there was no need for a buffer zone in this area; he indicated the zone pattern to the north and pointed out that the residential abuts against the industrial zoning, and "they get along with light industrial down there." -15- Mr. Tanguma agreed that the residents may "get along with the light industrial zoning", but that a great many of them don't like it. He stated that the light industrial develop- ment moved in after the residences were constructed. Mr. Carson stated that he lives in this general area and he likes it. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt it would be wrong to impose the light industrial classification right against single-family residential, and that the Commission has an opportunity to correct this situation. Mr. McBrayer stated that the staff had made reference to the fact that the previous I-1 Zone request for this property was denied because it was felt the I-1 Zone classification should not be imposed against the R-1-C, Single-family residence district. If this property is not rezoned to R-2-C, the Com- mission would be forcing the R-1-C to abut the I-1 on this property. Mr. Smith stated that he would vote in favor of the motion at this time; he still feels that to be able to construct seven single-family units on the site is economically feasible, and he questioned the "need" for a buffer; he stated that he felt the buffer of the R-2-C Zoning would be a benefit after the rezoning, but diq not think the land should be rezoned to create a buffer. Mr. Smith stated that this property is unique; it does have very limited access, which would cut down on the intensity of development. He stated that he agreed that something must be done with this property; he questioned that the R-2-C Zone District would attract families with children. But, inasmuch as one of the conditions sug- gested on the rezoning is that the applicants come back for approval of a Planned Development, he would vote for the motion. The vote was called: AYES: McBrayer, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Becker, Barbre, Draper NAYS: Carson ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson advised members of the audience that the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning has passed, and will be referred to City Council . The City Council will have to hold a Public Hearing on the matter, also. Mrs. Pierson also announced a t this point that the boards and commissions of the City are composed of volunteers; anyone who is interested in serving on the Planning Commission or any other board or commission in the City should submit a letter of application to the City Manager's Office. IV. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present who wished to address the Commission under Public Fo r um. -16- V. COUNTRY CLUB JOINT VENTURE. CASE #21-78 Mrs. Romans reported that the property has been sold and the contact with the new owner is in Salt Lake City, Utah, a Mr. Richard S. Prows. She reported that several people were in a couple of weeks ago to discuss the site with the staff. The new owners have engaged a market analyst who is doing a market study on the site. She stated that she understood that they plan to go ahead with development of the first phase. Mrs. Romans stated that she understands that the Utilities Department is going ahead with the design of the sewer line to service the development. Mr. Smith asked if any permits had been issued for Phase #1? Mrs. Romans stated that none have been to this date; the owners have until March 12, 1980 to obtain permits before the expira- tion of the variance. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the Denver Regional Council of Govern- ments annual dinner meeting will be on March 19th, at the Regency Inn beginning at 6:00 P.M., dinner to be served at 7:00 P.M. The John Christensen award is given at this time, and the scheduled speaker will be a Kenneth E. Boulding. The City will pay the expenses for the Commission members who wish to attend, and the Commissioners are responsible for the ex- penses of any guest they may wish to take. The reservations are $12.00 each; Mrs. Romans asked that those wishing to go to this dinner please notify the staff. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Manager's office has asked that the staff check with those individuals who want their business phones and addresses listed on the roster. Mr. McBrayer and Mr. Draper indicated that they want their business numbers listed; the remainder of the members did not. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Pierson stated that the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is March 18th, and the study session is scheduled for March 29th, at 8:00 A. M. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was any way the statistics could be obtained on the people moving into the neighborhoods -- families with children, singles, etc. Mrs. Romans stated that Miss Fessenden is doing a very detailed housing report, and Mrs. Young, Planning Assistant, is also doing a population study. Both of these reports will be available to the Com- mission members upon completion. Mrs. Romans commented that when she was a member of the Englewood School Board, a study indicated that there were children who were living in the duplexes in the school system. • -17- Mr.Tanguma asked if Mr. Senti had any information on the impact the medium-density developments would have upon the residential areas and the school system? Mr. Senti stated that there probably would not be too many children from a medium-density develop- ment such as was considered this evening. He pointed out that if the units were to have basements, you might expect families with children to reside there, but if the units are only two- bedroom, and with no basements, he felt there would be very few children living in these units. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it would be very interesting to determine if attitudes toward medium-density developments change after people live in close proximity to them for a time. Mr. McBrayer asked how the Commission could get such feed-back. Mr. Smith stated that he lives in an R-2 area; half of the block is very well kept, but the remainder is very poorly maintained. He stated that he felt if a property is purchased strictly for "investment" purposes, the property owner is not as apt to keep it up as one who lives in a part of the unit. Further discussion on the population and number of children to be expected in medium-density developments ensued. Mrs. Becker noted that there are many "little ones" around, and she stated that she would be interested in finding out where these young families are living. Mr. Smith stated that a lot of this information would be available in the Census, particularly if these children are pre-school age. Mrs. Romans stated that the density factor being used in the population study is 2.39 per dwelling unit for the single- family areas. This factor indicates that in the single-family area, there is .39 children per household, assuming a typical mother/father/child situation. Mrs. Romans commented on the fact that I-1 does abut the R-1-C Zone District to the north; but that as far back as the mid- 1950's, it was the concern of the Commission that there should not be I-1 and R-1 Zone Districts abutting. Brief discussion ensued. Draper moved: The meeting be adjourned. Mrs. Pierson declared the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. G trude G. Welty R 'cording Secreta -18- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 4, 1980 SUBJECT: Recommended Approval of Rezoning Request RECOMMENDATION: Becker moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning of the following described property from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence be approved: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest one-quarter (1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (1 /4) of Section 9~ Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; thence West along the North line of said Section 9, said North line also being the center- line of West Quincy Avenue, a distance of 99 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing Westerly along the North line of Section 9, a distance of 231.8 feet, to the North line of Jensen's Subdivision 2nd Filing, City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado; thence East along said North line of Jensen's Subdivision 2nd Filing a distance of 163.8 feet to the Southwest corner of the parcel of land described in Book 2951, Page 442 in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Re- corder's Office; thence North along the West line of the parcels of land described in Book 2951, Pages 441 and 442, a distance of 120 feet to the Northwest corner of the parcel of land described in Book 2951 on Page 441; thence East along the North line of said parcel of land described in Book 2951, Page 441 a distance of 68 feet; thence North a distance of 210 feet to the true point of beginning, said tract of land containing 1.56 acres more or less. This recommendation to rezone the subject property is contingent on the following conditions: 1. That the subject properties be developed as a single unit under the Planned Development District regulations. 2. That the matter be brought before the City Planning and Zoning Commission in twenty-four (24) months for review and if a Planned Development has not been approved and recorded and construction pursuant thereto undertaken, the Planning Commission shall reconsider the use and the development of the subject property. AYES: McBrayer, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Becker, Barbre, Draper NAYS: Carson ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning Commission etary