The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-01-28 (Special) Meeting Agenda-• • • __ City Council Meeting -Special January 28, 1980 0 - • • CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 28, 1980 RESOLUTION I 3,4,5,6,7, ORDINANCE I 2,3,4,5,6, • • • 0 0 • I . . • - - • • • 7:00 P.M. 1. 2. • • • AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 28, 1980 Call to order, invocation, pledge of allegiance, and roll call. Pub lie Hearings . (a) Rezoning request for a change from R-1-C, Single Family Residenc~ to R-2-C, Medium Density Residenc~ for property in an area south of West Quincy Avenue and west of/. -"'"1h" ..../ South Lipan Street. (Copies enclosed.) { '! _--t U . ~ -~.<- J..(L <0 f<...ul_.. _,L. 'X,. c;; A 3' (b) 8 : 00 P . M. -Harry G. Wise rezoning request f.b. ·. ,._""~ ,t ><4...- of property located in Sandra's Subdivision c-u_,;;~_,q_,'l) from R-1-C, Single Family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence. (Council Communication and letter from Dr. Roscoe Davidson enclosed.)/~· 1 • _ , • . (I ~~.;(.-)i..J ""-~azi:. I v. .....i...-Adjournment. J ------) td~~/k~ AN ~ttc COWN Ci~~nager .>t) :A: . _/)(-t-;.. -f 0 I . - • • • SPECIAL MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO January 28, 1980 /cz_ The City Council of the Cit-y of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on January 28, 1980, at 7:00p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Council Member Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll eall. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were : City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Community Development Wanush Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated it had come to the attention of Coun- cil a certain discrepancy in the area that was to be considered which could possibly make it inappropriate to conduct the public hearing. Mayor Otis asked the Director of Community Development to elaborate. Director of Community Development Richard Wanush appear- ed before Council and stated there had been some significant changes in the area. Director Wanush stated the request was heard originally by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 20, 1977 and re- commended to Council that the rezoning be denied. The Council con- curred with the Commission and did not hold the hearing. The matter was taken to court and the court remanded the case to the Council for public hearing. It has become known that one of the owners of the parcels sold two pieces of ground to the adjoining single family properties. Therefore, what Council would be considering at this • I • - • • • ~------ January 28, 1980 Page 2 "---- • • • meeting would be a rezoning that cuts across someone's property and splits it into R-1-C and R-2-C. Mr. Wanush recommended that Council not open the hearing but refer the entire matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing and new recommendation. In response to Council Member Fitzpatrick's question, City Attorney Berardini explained the legality of the court order. Mr. Berardini stated since the facts previously presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council have been altered, Coun- cil would be entitled and could order a new recommendation on the situation as it exists now. Mr. Berardini agreed with Director Wanush's recommendation. Mr. John Littlehorn, 4530 South Broadway, applicant in the rezoning case, appeared before Council. Mr. Littlehorn stated Council should not have posted the hearing notice if plans were not to hold it. Mr. Littlehorn stated his property had been af- fected in a minor way. Mr. Littlehorn asked that Council hear the matter and then make a recommendation. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Little- horn stated he did not know when the transference of deeds for the land parcels were made known to the City. Mr. Wanush stated the information was not received in the normal course of preparing for the public hearing. Upon a check of the property, the conveyances were discovered. Mr. Berardini advised Council to refer the matter to Plan- ning and Zoning Commission for review and for the benefit of receiv- ing a new recommendation for a public hearing later on. Mr. Berardini stated such action would not be violating the court order since the new facts would be heard at a later date. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO DELETE AGENDA ITEM lA- REZONING REQUEST FOR A CHANGE FROM R-1-C, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO R-2-C, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE, FOR PROPERTY IN AN AREA SOUTH OF WEST QUINCY AVENUE AND WEST OF SOUTH LIPAN STREET -AND REFER IT BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THEIR RECOMMENDA- TIONS. Council Member Keena seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays : Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis • None. The Mayor declared the motion carried • I • - • January 28, 1980 Page 3 • • • -=--------.-/ __ Director Wanush stated this matter would probably go before the Planning and Zoning Commission the second week in February, 1980. * * * * * * Mayor Otis declared a recess at 7 :20 p.m. Council re- convened at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING CONCERNING HARRY G. WISE'S REZONING REQUEST OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN SANDRA'S SUBDIVISION FROM R-1-C, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO R-2, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. ~. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: • Ayes: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Nays: None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Richard Wanush, 5165 South Elati Drive, Director of Com- munity Development for the City of Englewood, appeared before Coun- cil. Mr. Wanush gave testimony concerning the purpose of the pub- lic hearing -Case #26-79. Mr. Wanush stated this case was refer- red to Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission following a hearing on December 4, 1979 • Mr. Wanush submitted the certificate of posting for the property and stated the notice of public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on January 2, 1980. Mr. Wanush submitted into evidence the following: 1. Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution recom- mending to 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 denied. • I • - • • • January 28, 1980 Page 4 • • • ;:·-- 2. Staff report prepared for the public hearing. Mr. Wanush stated the applicant was Harry G. Wise, contractor buy- er of subject property located on the southwest corner of South Clarkson Street and East Jefferson Drive. The property was presently owned by Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley. The request was to re- zone the property from R-1-C to R-2. Mr. Wanush noted the property was within the flood plain district. Hr. Wanush stated the applicant had requested the rezon- ing because he felt the property cannot be expected to develop under the existing zone classification for the following reasons: 1. The uses to the north and northwest were, multi- family and offices. 2. Since the property was within the flood plain, it would entail additional expense to develop the pro-perty. Hr. Wanush explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission considers certain criteria in evaluating rezoning requests and for the following reasons recommended denial of the application: 1. In terms of a possible mistake in the original zoning, the Commission did not think there was a mistake. 2. There had been no significant changes over the five or ten years to necessitate a change the present zoning. 3. The owner was not being denied the use of the land. The land could be developed under R-1-C, Single Family. 4. The area is not a City block, nor a buffer between one use and another • 5. The rezoning was not in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wanush submitted a copy of the adopted general land use plan. In response to Mr. John Criswell's question, Mr. Wanush stated he had not checked with any appraiser, banker, or realtor to determine whether or not the property can be developed under it present zoning. At the request of City Attorney Berardini, Hr. Wanush submitted the zoning map indicating the applicant's property. Hr • • I • - ( 0 • January 28, 1980 Page 5 • • • = ... -------..__ Berardini stated the zoning map as well as th e material submitted by Mr. Wanush earli e r in th e hearing should be made part of the record. Mayor Ot i s ask e d f or th e app li cant's presentation. Mr. John Criswell, 3780 South Broadway, attorney appear- ed on behalf the applicant , Mr. Harry Wise. Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wise had a contract to purchase the property from the Berkeleys. Mr. Criswell submitted the following evidence: 1. Applicant's Exhibit 1 -Survey of property. Mr. Criswell stated the area was approximately 16,000 square feet, undeveloped and in a flood plain. Mr. Criswell stated certain construction methods could be used in order to build in the flood plain. 2. Applicant's Exhibit 2 -Copy of Section 22.4-4 (R-1-C District), Englewood Zoning Code. Mr. Criswell stated the R-1-C District had less re- quirements than any of the other two single family residences in Englewood. Mr. Criswell stated two single family dwellings could be placed on this property fronting either Jefferson Drive or South Clarkson and still have square footage left over. 3. Applicant's Exhibit 3 -Copy of Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975 (R-2 District). Mr. Criswell stated this zoning would allow a structure of five units. Mr. Criswell stated if the area was rezoned and the owner wanted four units, he (the owner) would have to come before the Planning Commission with a Planned Development. Mr. Criswe ll stat e d Council could authorize the rezoning request on the following basis : 1) evidence proved that the property was improperly z on ed i n the f irst place ; and 2) that the present zoning deprives th e owner from realistically using his property. Mr. Criswe ll state d he planned to produce evidence to Council to prove that since the property was zoned R-1, it had not developed as R-1 ; and th e conditions of the neighborhood have changed subseque ntly n e cessitating a change in zoning. Mr. Cr i swell stated a possibility existed that there will be some deve lopm e nt of a holding pond for storm drainage control purposes i n t h e athletic area which is nearby subject • I • - • • • • • • =-~- January 28, 1980 Page 6 property. Mr. Criswell stated if the property was needed, it would be necessary for the City or School District to acquire it. Council could not refuse the rezoning on the grounds that the City or School District might want to purchase it at a later date. Mr. Criswell stated the property was orginally annexed by the City in 1946 and zoned R-1. In the late 1950's or early 1960's, the area to the north of the creek was also zoned R-1; but later rezoned R-3 and developed for a medical clinic. The develop- ment necessitated the relocation of three single-family residential homes. Mr. Criswell stated subject property with the exception of Lot 3 was the only piece of singly, privately-owned property that was zoned R-1 at any point along East Jefferson Drive. Mr. Criswell added there was only one property from Sherman to Clarkson on Jeffer- son Drive that was used for R-1 and it was located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of East Jefferson Drive and South Clark-son. barrier. Mr. Criswell stated the creek did not form a natural Mr. Criswell submitted the following exhibits for the applicants: 1. Applicant's Exhibit 14 (A) -(U) -Photographs of the subject property and surrounding area. 2. Applicant's Exhibit 5 -letter from W. D. Jorgensen & Associates, Inc. Insurance stating subject property was not suitable for single family residential use. 3. Applicant's Exhibit 6 -letter from Robert E. Thomas, Real Estate Broker stating subject property was neither desirable nor acceptable for single-family residential use. 4. Applicant's Exhibit 7 -letter from Royce L. Smith, President, A. MeliRoy Corporation, stating develop- ment of single-family residence in subject area was not feasible. 5 • Applicant's Exhibit 8 -letter from James T. Keller, II, discussing developing good quality, multiple housing close to the downtown area. 6. Applicant's Exhibit 9 -letter from Nick L. Panetta Senior Vice President, Republic National Bank, stat- ing the bank would not consider making a real estate loan as reguested by Mr. Don D. Finley, 3700 block of South Clarkson • I • - ( • ( • • • • ·-=-----. January 28, 1980 Page 7 7. Applicant's Exhibit 10 -letter from Jo Clements, Broker, LandMark Realty, Inc., stating the land lo- cate d at 3700 South Clarkson was undesirable for single family residences and should be rezoned from the present R-1-C. 8. Applicant's Exhibit 11 -letter from Robert D. Johnson Broker-Owner of Arapahoe Real Estate Agency, recom- mending that the subject property be rezoned from the current R-1-C to a higher density R-2-B for the en- hanceme nt of the area and best utilization of the pro- perty. 9. Applicant's Exhibit 12 -letter from Colbert E. Cushing, Assistant Executive Director, Colorado Association of School Executives, favorable to the rezoning of subject property. 10. Applicant's Exhibit 13 -letter from Harold R. Rust, 3811 South Clarkson Street, stating he had no ob- jection to the rezoning of subject property to R-2. Mr. Criswell stated the abovementioned exhibits were evi- dence that rezoning would be good planning and the subject property could not be developed otherwise. In response to Council's questions, Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wise solicited the letters. In regard to the letter from Re- public National Bank, Mr. Finley was told that the bank would not loan money for a single-family residence for that property. In response to questions from City Attorney Berardini, Mr. Criswell stated the uses for which the school was making of nearby property would have l e ss impact on multiple dwellings than single family residences. Th e exhibit letters indicated that de- velopers and realtors felt the property could be moved and market- ed faster if rezone d to R-2 . Mr. Criswell stated it was his con- clusion that the property under no circumstances could be developed single family. Mr. Criswe ll stated financing should not be a pro- blem if it was for a suitable use. In respon se to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wis e commented that he would be interested in Lot 3 if it we r e avail a ble • In respons e to Council Member Higday's question, Mr •. Wanush stated if th e appl i cant were to purchase Lots 4 and 5 and subsequently Lot 3, the applicant could return to Council and ask for another rezoning to R-3, however, the total land would no t be enoug h to d e v e lop under R-3 • • I • • 0 • • January 28, 1980 Page 8 • • • =------ Mr. Criswell called Mr. Harry Wis e to testify. Mr. Harry Wise, 4333 East Peak View Avenue, Littleton, employee of Englewood High School, appeared before Council and gave testimony relative to his application for rezoning. Mr. Wise stated he had entered into an agreement to purchase Lots 4 and 5 subject to rezoning. He had no interest in Lot 6 nor in Lot 3, however, if he were to obtain Lot 3 he would use it for parking space. Mr. Wise stated the school property next to subject pro- perty was used for storing dirt, gravel, &rass clippings, and equip- ment. Mr. Wise stated his plans were to build two duplexs, one on each site facing each other. He would live in one unit and rent out the other three. He understood the area to be in the flood plain and spoke to the City about the restrictions for building in a flood plain. Mr. Wise stated he understood he would have to submit a Planned Development if he were to build four-plexs. Under questioning from City Attorney Berardini, Mr. Wise stated his contract was contingent on rezoning. Mr. Wise stated he had not attempted to get financing for two single family residences because he was not interested in doing so. Mr. Wise stated he could get financing for multiple family homes. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Wise stated he had contracted for the property in the summer of 1979. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Criswell stated a real estate broker, Mr. Finley, had the property listed for one and one-half years but was unable to sell it. Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Finley had contracted to sell the property with the Berkeley's in the middle of 1978. Mayor Otis asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposi- tion of the application. Mr. Selwyn Hewitt, 4915 South Pearl, President of the Board of Education, appeared before Council and gave testimony in opposition. The Board supported the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Hewitt stated the application did not maintain the comprehensive plan integrity nor the philosophy of continuing the growth of single family residences. Mr. Hewitt stated multiple family re- sidences tend to diminish the enrollment in schools. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Hewitt stated he was also appearing as a citizen in opposition to rezoning • I - • ( • • ( • January 28, 1980 Page 9 • • • In response to Council Member Bilo's question, Mr. Wanush stated the general land use for subject property was to use Little Dry Creek as the boundary between single family and multiple family dwellings with in-fill and single family areas not to increase the density of the area. This meant every effort should be made to develop vacant lots as single family residences. Under cross-examination from Mr. Criswell, Mr. Hewitt stated he was not aware of any staff report made by the school district on the feasibility of buffering, fencing or screen- ing the school district property. Mr. Criswell submitted Applicant's Exhibit 17, letter from Jim Phillipe to Dr. R. L. Davidson on the feasibility and advisability of rezoning. Mr. Hewitt stated the letter was an opinion of a staff member not shared with the Board of Education. Mr. Criswell submitted Applicant's Exhibit 15, a copy of School Board minutes authorizing Mr. Hewitt's appear- ance and the grounds set forth for opposition. Under cross- examination, Mr. Hewitt stated the section made no comments to the master plan; however, the deviation from the master plan was a part of the discussion and the principal reason for his appearance. Mr. Criswell stated Applicant's Exhibit 15 request- ed that the Superintendent write a letter to the City Manager expressing the Board's position. Mr. Criswell submitted Appli- cant's Exhibit 16 which Mr. Hewitt stated was the letter from the Board. Mr. Criswell stated Superintendent's letter related the Board's concern on allowing any development on this ground because of the possibility of the City having to buy it at a later date • Mr. Hewitt stated the Board was concerned as stated in the letter that there was some question as to the advis- ability of any kind of construction on the property in view of the pending decision of development of a detention pond for flood control of that location. Mr. Hewitt stated this was the understanding of Dr. Davidson from negotiations that had preceded this hearing. John Littlehorn, 4530 South Broadway, appeared be- fore Couincil and gave testimony that he would construct multi- • I • - • • January 28, 1980 Page 10 • • • ple family units on the property rather than single family be- cause of the school property, creek and high rise apartments across the street. Mr. Littlehorn stated there was a serious flooding problem in Cherry Hills across the street; and Coun- cil should consider the action on the detention pond as one of the alternatives. Mr. Littlehorn stated a lawsuit was pending by the people in Cherry Hills concerning the flood- ing problem. In response to City Attorney Berardini's questions, Mr. Littlehorn stated he was a sheet metal worker by trade and a builder. Mr. Littlehorn stated he doubted that a banker would loan money for single family residence for this area; however, he had no personal knowledge of it. Carl Werner, 3787 South Clarkson, appeared before Council and gave testimony in opposition to the rezoning re- quest. Mr. Werner stated being a resident of the neighbor- hood he would not like to see multiple family dwellings con- structed in the area. Mr. Werner stated he did not consider the school property to be a liability to the area in regard to building single family residences. Mr. Werner stated he agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission and requested Council to deny the request. In response to Council Member Neal's questions, Mr. Werner stated he felt the rezoning would change the quality of the neighborhood and his residence would be threatened by other development. In response to Mr. Criswell's questioning, Mr. Werner stated he knew several people in the neighborhood who owned property. Mrs. Hannah Warren, 3770 South Clarkson, Cherry Hills, appeared before Council. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO NOT RECEIVE TESTI- MONY FROM MRS. WARREN SINCE SHE WAS A RESIDENT OF CHERRY HILLS. Motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Warren gave testimony in opposition to the rezoning request on the basis that the rezoning would cause an increase of traffic at the area intersection which is also the route several children took to school. Mrs. Warren stated she favored maintaining th~ present character of the area. Robert Berkeley 2601 South Jackson, Devner, appeared before Council and gave testimony. Mr. Berkley stated he was • I • - ( • ( • • • • January 28, 1980 Page 11 the present owner of Lots 4, 5, and 6 in subject area. Mr. Berkeley stated he purchased it in 1977 for the purpose of remodeling the house and building a branch of his business in it. Mr. Berkeley stated he could not get a loan from the bank to do so. Mr. Berkeley stated he was trying to sell all three lots as one piece but could not get an offer. City Attorney Berardini requested the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the hearing concerning the sub- ject property be made part of the record as well as any ex- hibits, documents or other material presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. request. graphs. Mr. Criswell had no objections to Mr. Berardini's Mr. Criswell stated there were additional photo- There was no further testimony to be received. Mr. Criswell gave closing remarks. He stated he felt the land could not be developed as single family re- sidence. He could not imagine there being a traffic pro- blem at the intersection in the area nor a change in the neighborhood if the area was rezoned. Mr. Criswell stated he was not aware of any evidence that proved the area should remain R-1; and the school district was looking at the situ- ation from a tax base standpoint from what they were going to have to pay or the City was going to have pay in tax dol- lars for the property. Mayor Otis stated Council would make a decision on this request within the next 30 days. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis • None. The Mayor declared the motion carried and adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. !Ja_ /)')ilL , X:. U ) /J~~.iAL ~uty City CLer~ • I • - ' ( • • ( • SPECIAL MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO January 28 , 1980 ICL The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado , met in special session on January 28, 1980, at 7 :00p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was 3iven by Council Member Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegianc e was led by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager McCown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Community Development Wanush Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated it had come to the attention of Coun- cil a certain discrepancy in the area that was to be considered which could possibly make it inappropriate to conduct the public hearing. Mayor Otis asked the Director of Community Development to elaborate. Director o f Community Development Richard Wanush appear- ed before Council and stated there had been some significant changes in the area. Director Wanush stated the request was heard originally by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 20, 1977 and re- commended to Council that the rezoning be denied. The Council con- curred with the Commission and did not hold the hearing. The matter was taken to court a nd the court remanded the case to the Council f or public hearing. It has become known that one of the owners of the parcels sold two pieces of ground to the adjoining single family properties. Therefor e , what Council would be considering at this • I • - • • January 28, 1980 Page 2 --- • • • _ _;;- meeting would be a rezoning that cuts across someone's property and splits it into R-1-C and R-2-C. Mr. Wanush recommended that Council not open the hearing but refer the entire matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing and new recommendation. In response to Council Member Fitzpatrick's question, City Attorney Berardini explained the legality of the court order. Mr. Berardini stated since the facts previously presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council have been altered, Coun- cil would be entitled and could order a new recommendation on the situation as it exists now. Mr. Berardini agreed with Director Wanush's recommendation. Mr. John Littlehorn, 4530 South Broadway, applicant in the rezoning case, appeared before Council. Mr. Littlehorn stated Council should not have posted the hearing notice if plans were not to hold it. Mr. Littlehorn stated his property had been af- fected in a minor way. Mr. Littlehorn asked that Council hear the matter and then make a recommendation. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Little- horn stated he did not know when the transference of deeds for the land parcels were made known to the City. Mr. Wanush stated the information was not received in the normal course of preparing for the public hearing. Upon a check of the property, the conveyances were discovered. Mr. Berardini advised Council to refer the matter to Plan- ning and Zoning Commission for review and for the benefit of receiv- ing a new recommendation for a public hearing later on. Mr. Berardini stated such action would not be violating the court order since the new facts would be heard at a later date. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO DELETE AGENDA ITEM lA- REZONING REQUEST FOR A CHANGE FROM R-1-C, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO R-2-C, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE, FOR PROPERTY IN AN AREA SOUTH OF WEST QUINCY AVENUE AND WEST OF SOUTH LIPAN STREET -AND REFER IT BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THEIR RECOMMENDA- TIONS. Council Member Keena seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis • None. The Mayor declared the motion carried • • I • - • .· ( January 28, 1980 Page 3 -- • • • Director Wanush stated this matter would probably go before the Planning and Zoning Commission the second week in February, 1980. * * * * * * Mayor Otis declared a recess at 7 :20 p.m. Council re- convened at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll , the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal , Fit z patrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent : None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING CONCERNING HARRY G. WISE'S REZONING REQUEST OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN SANDRA'S SUBDIVISION FROM R-1-C, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO R-2, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. (( Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: ( • Ayes : Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Richard Wanush, 5165 South Elati Drive, Director of Com- munity Development for the City of Englewood, appeared before Coun- cil. Mr. Wanush gave testimony concerning the purpose of the pub- lic hearing -Case #26-79. Mr. Wanush stated this case was refer- red to Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission following a hearing on December 4 , 1979. Mr. Wanush submitted the certificate of posting for the property and stated the notice of public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on January 2, 1980. Mr. Wanush submitted into evidence the following: 1. Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution recom- mending to 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 denied . I • - • • • • • • ' -~---- January 28, 1980 Page 4 2. Staff report prepared for the public hearing. Mr. Wanush stated the applicant was Harry G. Wise, contractor buy- er of subject property located on the southwest corner of South Clarkson Street and East Jefferson Drive. The property was presently owned by Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley. The request was to re- zone the prope rty from R-1-C to R-2. Mr. Wanush noted the property was within the flood plain district. Mr. Wanush stated the applicant had requested the rezon- ing because he felt the property cannot be expected to develop under the existing zone classification for the following reasons: 1. The uses to the north and northwest were, multi- family and offices. 2. Since the property was within the flood plain , it would entail additional expense to develop the pro- perty. Mr. Wanush explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission considers certain criteria in evaluating rezoning requests and for the following reasons recommended denial of the application: 1. In terms of a possible mistake in the original zoning, the Commission did not think there was a mistake. 2. There had been no significant changes over the five or ten years to necessitate a change the present zoning. 3. The owner was not being denied the use of the land. The land could be developed under R-1-C, Single Family. 4. The area is not a City block, nor a buffer between one use and another • S. The rezoning was not in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wanush submitted a copy of the adopted general land use plan. In response to Mr. John Criswell's question, Mr. Wanush stated he had not checked with any appraiser, banker, or realtor to determine whether or not the property can be developed under it present zoning. At the request of City Attorney Berardini, Mr. Wanush submitted the zoning map indicating the applicant's property. Mr • I • • - ( ( ( • • • • • • .__;;;7 -- January 28, 1980 Page 5 Berardini stated the zoning map as well as the material submitted by Mr. Wanush earlier in the hearing should be made part of the record. Mayor Otis asked for the applicant's presentation. Mr. John Criswell, 3780 South Broadway, attorney appear- ed on behalf the applicant, Mr. Harry Wise. Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wise had a contract to purchase the property from the Berkeleys. Mr. Criswell submitted the following evidence: l. Applicant's Exhibit l -Survey of property. Mr. Criswell stated the area was approximately 16,000 square feet, undeveloped and in a flood plain. Mr. Criswell stated certain construction methods could be used in order to build in the flood plain. 2. Applicant's Exhibit 2 -Copy of Section 22.4-4 (R-1-C District), Englewood Zoning Code. Mr. Criswell stated the R-1-C District had less re- quirements than any of the other two single family residences in Englewood. Mr. Criswell stated two single family dwellings could be placed on this property fronting either Jefferson Drive or South Clarkson and still have square footage left over. 3. Applicant's Exhibit 3 -Copy of Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975 (R-2 District). Mr. Criswell stated this zoning would allow a structure of five units. Mr. Criswell stated if the area was rezoned and the owner wanted four units, he (the owner) would have to come before the Planning Commission with a Planned Development. Mr. Criswe ll stated Council could authorize the rezoning request on the following basis : l) evidence proved that the property was improperly zoned in the first place; and 2) that the present zoning deprives the owner from realistically using his property. Mr. Criswell stated he planned to produce evidence to Council to prove that since the property was zoned R-1, it had not developed as R-1 ; and the conditions of the neighborhood have changed subsequently necessitating a change in zoning. Mr. Criswell stated a possibility existed that there will be some development of a holding pond for storm drainage control purposes in the athletic area which is nearby subject '· • I • - 0 • • • • - ~--=='"'=--""--;a,.--~--_:;....:.,_ __ _,__ ---- January 28, 1980 Page 6 property. Mr. Criswell stated if the property was needed, it would be necessary for the City or School District to acquire it. Council could not refuse the rezoning on the grounds that the City or School District might want to purchase it at a later date. Mr. Criswell stated the property was orginally annexed by the City in 1946 and zoned R-1. In the late 1950's or early 1960's, the area to the north of the creek was also zoned R-1 ; but later rezoned R-3 and developed for a medical clinic. The develop- ment necessitated the relocation of three single-family residential homes. Mr. Criswell stated subject property with the exception of Lot 3 was the only piece of singly, privately-owned property that was zoned R-1 at any point along East Jefferson Drive. Mr. Criswell added there was only one property from Sherman to Clarkson on Jeffer- son Drive that was used for R-1 and it was located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of East Jefferson Drive and South Clark-son. barrier. Mr. Criswell stated the creek did not form a natural Mr. Criswell submitted the following exhibits for the applicants: 1. Applicant's Exhibit 14 (A) -(U) -Photographs of the subject property and surrounding area. 2. Applicant's Exhibit 5 -letter from W. D. Jorgensen & Assoc i ates, Inc. Insurance stating subject property was not suitable for single family residential use. 3. 4. 5. Applicant's Exhibit 6 -letter from Robert E. Thomas, Real Estate Broker stating subject property was neither desirable nor acceptable for single-family residential use. Applicant's Exhibit 7 -letter from Royce L. Smith, President , A. MeliRoy Corporation, stating develop- ment of single-family residence in subject area was not feasible. Applicant's Exhibit 8 -letter from James T. Keller, II, discussing developing good quality, multiple housing close to the downtown area. 6. Applicant's Exhibit 9 -letter from Nick L. Panetta Senior Vice President, Republic National Bank, stat- ing the bank would not consider making a real estate loan as reguested by Mr. Don D. Finley , 3700 block of South Clarkson • I • - • • ( January 28, 1980 Page 7 • • • 7. Applicant's Exhibit 10 -letter from Jo Clements, Broker, LandMark Realty, Inc., stating the land lo- cat e d at 3700 South Clarkson was undesirable for single family residences and should be rezoned from the present R-1-C. 8. Applicant's Exhibit ll -letter from Robert D. Johnson Broker-Owner of Arapahoe Real Estate Agency, recom- mending that the subject property be rezoned from the current R-1-C to a higher density R-2-B for the en- hancement of the area and best utilization of the pro-perty. 9. Applicant's Exhibit 12 -letter from Colbert E. Cushing, Assistant Executive Director, Colorado Association of School Executives, favorable to the rezoning of subject property. 10. Applicant's Exhibit 13 -letter from Harold R. Rust, 3811 South Clarkson Street, stating he had no ob- jection to the rezoning of subject property to R-2. Mr. Criswell stated the abovementioned exhibits were evi- (( dence that rezoning would be good planning and the subject property could not be developed otherwise. • In response to Council's questions, Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wise solicited the letters. In regard to the letter from Re- public National Bank, Mr. Finley was told that the bank would not loan money for a single-family residence for that property. In response to questions from City Attorney Berardini, Mr. Criswell stated the uses for which the school was making of nearby property would have less impact on multiple dwellings than single family residences. The exhibit letters indicated that de- velopers and realtors felt the property could be moved and market- ed faster if rezoned to R-2. Mr. Criswell stated it was his con- clusion that the property under no circumstances could be developed single family. Mr. Criswe ll stated financing should not be a pro- blem if it was for a suitable use. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wise commented that he would be interested in Lot 3 if it were available. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Wanush stated if the applicant were to purchase Lots 4 and 5 and subsequently Lot 3, the applicant could return to Council and ask for another rezoning to R-3, however, the total land would not be enough to develop under R-3 • • I • - • • • January 28, 1980 Page 8 • • • Mr. Criswe ll called Mr. Harry Wise to testify. Mr. Harry Wis e , 4333 East Peak View Avenue, Littleton , employee of Englewood Hi gh School, appeared before Council and gave testimony relative to his application f or rezoning. Mr. Wise stated he had entered into an agreement to purchase Lots 4 and 5 subject to rezoning. He had no interest in Lot 6 nor in Lot 3, however, if he were to obtain Lot 3 he would use it for parking space. Mr. Wise stated the school property next to subject pro- perty was used for storing dirt, gravel, grass clippings, and equip- ment. Mr. Wise stated his plans were to build two duplexs, one on each site facing each other. He would live in one unit and rent out the other three. He understood the area to be in the flood plain and spoke to the City about the restrictions for building in a flood plain. Mr. Wise stated he understood he would have to submit a Planned Development if he were to build four-plexs. Under questioning from City Attorney Berardini, Mr. Wise stated his contract was contingent on rezoning. Mr. Wise stated he had not attempted to get financing for two single family residences because he was not interested in doing so. Mr. Wise stated he could get financing for multiple family homes. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Wise stated he had contracted for the property in the summer of 1979. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Criswell stated a real estate broker, Mr. Finley, had the property listed for one and one-half years but was unable to sell it. Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Finley had contracted to sell the property with the Berkeley's in the middle of 1978. Mayor Otis asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposi-tion of the application • Mr. Selwyn Hewitt, 4915 South Pearl, President of the Board of Education, appeared before Council and gave testimony in opposition. The Board supported the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Hewitt stated the application did not maintain the comprehensive plan integrity nor the philosophy of continuing the growth of single family residences. Mr. Hewitt stated multiple family re- sidences tend to diminish the enrollment in schools. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Hewitt stated he was also appearing as a citizen in opposition to rezoning. • I • • - ( ( • • • January 28, 1980 Page 9 • • • -:.__~--_...;- In response to Council Member Bilo's question, Mr. Wanush stated the general land use for subject property was to use Little Dry Creek as the boundary between single family and multiple f amily dwellings with in-fill and single family areas not to i ncreas e the density of the area. This meant every effort should b e mad e to deve lop vacant lots as single family residenc es . Under cross-exami nat i on f rom Mr. Criswell, Mr. Hewitt stated he was not awar e o f any staff report made by the school district on the feasibi li t y o f bu ff ering, fencing or screen- ing the school district prope r t y. Mr. Criswell submitted Applicant's Exhibit 17, letter from Jim Phillipe to Dr. R. L. Davidson on the feasibility and advisability of rezoning. Mr. Hewitt stated the letter was an opinion of a staff member not shared with the Board of Education. Mr. Criswell submitted Applicant's Exhibit 15, a copy of School Board minutes authorizing Mr. Hewitt's appear- ance and the grounds set forth for opposition. Under cross- examination, Mr. Hewitt stated the section made no comments to the master plan; however, the deviation from the master plan was a part of the discussion and the principal reason for his appearance. Mr. Criswell stated Applicant's Exhibit 15 request- ed that the Superintendent write a letter to the City Manager expressing the Board's position. Mr. Criswell submitted Appli- cant's Exhibit 16 which Mr. Hewitt stated was the letter from the Board. Mr. Criswell stated Superintendent's letter related the Board's concern on allowing any development on this ground because of the possibility of the City having to buy it at a later date • Mr. Hewitt stated the Board was concerned as stated in the letter that ther e was some question as to the advis- ability of any kind of construction on the property in view of the pending decision of development of a detention pond for flood control of that location. Mr. Hewitt stated this was the understanding of Dr. Davidson from negotiations that had preceded this hearing • John Littlehorn, 4530 South Broadway, appeared be- fore Couincil and gave testimony that he would construct multi- • I • - ~--- • • January 28, 1980 Page 10 --- • • • ple family units on the property rather than single family be- cause of the school property, creek and high rise apartments across the street. Mr. Littlehorn stated there was a serious flooding problem in Cherry Hills across the street; and Coun~ cil should consider the action on th~ detention pond as one of the alternatives. Mr. Littlehorn stated a lawsuit was pending by the people in Cherry Hills concerning the flood-ing problem. In response to City Attorney Berardini's questions, Mr. Littlehorn stated he was a sheet metal worker by trade and a builder. Mr. Littlehorn stated he doubted that a banker would loan money for single family residence for this area; however, he had no personal knowledge of it. Carl Werner, 3787 South Clarkson, appeared before Council and gave testimony in opposition to the rezoning re- quest. Mr. Werner stated being a resident of the neighbor- hood he would not like to see multiple family dwellings con- structed in the area. Mr. Werner stated he did not consider the school property to be a liability to the area in regard to building single family residences. Mr. Werner stated he agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission and requested Council to deny the request. In response to Council Member Neal's questions, Mr. Werner stated he felt the rezoning would change the quality of the neighborhood and his residence would be threatened by other development. In response to Mr. Criswell's questioning, Mr. Werner stated he knew several people in the neighborhood who owned property. Mrs. Hannah Warren, 3770 South Clarkson, Cherry Hills, appeared before Council. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO NOT RECEIVE TESTI- MONY FROM MRS. WARREN SINCE SHE WAS A RESIDENT OF CHERRY HILLS. Motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Warren gave testimony in opposition to the rezoning request on the basis that the rezoning would cause an increase of traffic at the area intersection which is also the route several children took to school. Mrs. Warren stated she favored maintaining th~ present character of the area. Robert Berkeley 2601 South Jackson, Devner, appeared before Council and gave testimony. Mr. Berkley stated he was • I • - ~·-- ( ( • • • • • • January 28, 1980 Page ll the present owner of Lots 4, 5 , and 6 in subject area. Mr. Berkeley stated he purchased it in 1977 for the purpose of remodeling the house and building a branch of his business in it. Mr. Berkeley stated he could not get a loan from the bank to do so. Mr. Berkeley stated he was trying to sell all three lots as one piece but could not get an offer. City Attorney Berardini requested the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the hearing concerning the sub- ject property be made part of the record as well as any ex- hibits, documents or other material presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. request. graphs. Mr. Criswell had no objections to Mr. Berardini's Mr. Criswell stated there were additional photo- There was no further testimony to be received. Mr. Criswell gave closing remarks. He stated he felt the land could not be developed as single family re- sidence. He could not imagine there being a traffic pro- blem at the intersection in the area nor a change in the neighborhood if the area was rezoned. Mr. Criswell stated he was not aware of any evidence that proved the area should remain R-1; and the school district was looking at the situ- ation from a tax base standpoint from what they were going to have to pay or the City was going to have pay in tax dol-lars for the property. Mayor Otis stated Council would make a decision on this request within the next 30 days. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried and adjourned the meeting at 10 :20 p.m. • I • - • • • • • . ~ ~ _.__. ______ ------ ROLL CALL Moved Second d e Ave Higday Neal Fitzoatrick Keena BilO Bradshaw Otis U,w~cd~~£ (JJV.r ~ (}_ho ~: u~ 7'n c.. (AIUIJU Nay {!,ul}ftZh 73~~ • Absent Abstain I . • - • • ROLL CALL M ove d s d d econ e A \ye Nay Absent A i bsta n Hi g day A-- Neal 1.-- Fitzpatrick t..--- Keena ......- Bilo L-- Bradshaw L--- Otis ~ I . • a: • Moved s econd ed - L._ , . ' Higdav Neal • • • RO LL CAL L Ave Nav Fitzoat r i ck Keena 8f1o Bradshaw I Otis a ~~~J~ 35' Absent Abstai n - ·- r -- I . • - • • - - I . • • - • , . ' . • - ROLL CALL Moved s econded Ay e Nay Absent Abstain -t--Hi~::dav I I Neal Fitz oatrick L--v-Keena 81 ---Bradshaw Oti s I ~ I • • • -• • - ROLL CALL M ove d s d d econ e A 1ye Nay Absent Abstain Hi.,;day - Neal -Fitzpatrick - Keena - Bilo Bradshaw - Otis - • I . • - • • --~- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Ay_e Nay Absent Abstain Higday Neal Fi tz_j)atrick Keena Bilo Bradshaw Otis • I . • • -• • - ROLL CALL M d S ove d d ec on e A •Ye N ay A bsen t Ab t 1 s a n ,_.....-Higday Neal Fi tz_p a trick Keena Silo Bradshaw Oti s . /? " ned """" a J I . • • • - • • - ROLL CALL Moved Sec onded Aye Na_.y Absent Abstain Higday ~ Neal '--- Fitzpatrick L-- Ke ena <....-- Bilo L-- Bradshaw <-- Otis t.---- I . • -_-_ _1 • • - • • - ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higday -Neal -,__.-Fi tzpatrick -Keena -,____ BIIo -Bradshaw Otis • I . • • - • • - w ROLL CALL Moved se d con ed Ave Nay Absent Abstain Higday Neal Fitzpatrick Keena B11o Bradshaw Otis w~ cS 't»u_~~, ~PJ'c[Y -(!~ #of(p -7CJ • • I . • - • • - -7 ;;;;: -:s ti ----~ -------=--- ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higday Neal Fitzpatric k Keena Bilo Bradshaw Otis • • I . • • - • • ROL L CAL L Moved Sec onded Aye Na y Ab sent Abstain Higday Nea l F itzpat r i ck Keena Bi 0 Bradshaw Oti s t:/t? • • I . • - • , . • 2 3 _:C: -ezw !L ----- ROL L CALL Moved s ec onded Ay e Nay Absent Abstain Hig;day Heal F itzpatric k Keena Bilo Bradshaw -Otis • • I . • - • • - ROLL CALL Moved Second d e Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hig day Neal Fi tzoatrick Keena Bilo Bradshaw Otis ' • I . • - • • -. ROLL CALL Moved Second ed Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higdav· Neal Fitzpatrick Keena Bilo Bradshaw Ot is • • I . • - • • - ROLL CALL M d ove Second ed Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higday Neal Fitzpatrick Keena Bilo Bradshaw Otis I . • • • - • • ---..-.; ? ROL L CA LL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higday Neal Fitzpat rick Ke e na Bilo Bradshaw Otis • • I . • -• • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hh:day Neal Fitzoatrick Ke ena Bilo Bradshaw Otis • I . . • • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Second d e Aye Nay Absent Abstain Hig:day Neal Fitzpatric k Keena -Bilo Bradshaw Otis • • I . • • - • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Na y Ab sent Abst a in Higday Neal Fi tzpat rick Ke e na Bilo Bradshaw Otis • I . • - • • ROLL CALL flj d ove S ec onded Aye Nay Ab sent Ab stain Higdav Ne al Fi tzpat rick Keena Bi o Bradsh aw Otis • • I . • - • - RO LL CALL Move d S e conded Higday Ay e Nay Absent Abstain Neal Fit z pat rick Ke ena Bilo Bradshaw Otis I . • • • -• • - 0 ROLL CALL Mov u s fleiJ e ec on Aye Nay Absent Abstain Higdav Neal Fit zpatrick Keena B.11o Bradshaw Otis • I . • • • - • • • • -- • ROLL CALL Io!oveu Seconded Higday Aye Nay Absent Abstain Neal Fit zoatrick Keena B1lo Bradshaw Otis Cf!vn ~ ..(33DS ~~. ~~Wua, -~~~~~ -~ 0-y. ~ ~ CAuAA:f ~~~ ~t<.., fl/1~/1~ ~, CiAU.f ~~ -~ /JU-( ~ ~ ~ IU11d~ ~ ~~~~ C!4{ ~kor~ -.~ yXuu. ~-~~' ~~ auo ~ ~ eu.e~(~~ -~~~.~~~ ~~~~ -1 • I . • • -• • ROLL CALL r-toved Seconded Aye Nay Absent Abstain H i ;!dav Ne a l F itzpatrick Keena Bilo Bradshaw Oti s • • I . • • - • • - ROLL CALL Moved s econd ed AYe Nay Absent Abstain Higday Neal Fitzoatrick Keena Rf1n Bradshaw Otis ~--------------------~~~r~~ • I . • • - • • ---- ROLL CALL Moved Sec onded Ay e Nay Absent Abstain ,_... H1gday Neal Fitz ria tr1 c k Keena Bilo Bradshaw Oti s I . • -• • • - ROLL CALL Moved S ec onded Aye Nay Absent Abstain ' Hi~day Neal Fitzpatrick Keena Bilo Bradshaw Otis '-tt) t1/l/LVfl. ~L ~~ ;;~~~I ._/ '-67ut.; ~/UU~~ :rutj r ~ ~ --~ A»-£~ ~~ ~__,(}/UJ ~@ ;t~ u -~ ~ ~ CVLuL.- -~n-~~~~~cr~ -(\Q~ ~<a-a-~ '-f/}~ C9·~ -~~~ ;q~;l. I . - - • • • • ROLL CALL Moved s d ec on ed Aye Nay Hi11:day Neal F itz patrick Keena Silo Bradshaw Otis ~ -· ~ Absent Abstain . t:l~.c(J(po! ~f.Ju-c ~n. ~~ u _ flY/)'lpv t'f ~,S,d &>, r~~ ;tJ 1 7 • I ~H. AJ,/21 t:bo t::l...-' ,Cs' / r ~·-.c.u -.~ u~ --!u:vvtu trz4A~ 1f ~ ~?~ 0 ~ 1 r ~Lvvd~ -~~~ ~dd~/I'W 0-~~ -u~ ..-~~ ~-~AU/YI-VJ ~~ ~~~1~~ • I . - - • • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Bradshaw Otis ~-~ r ~~flJ~M0~~ -~1 r ~fila /YU ~~ CUVYlfl~~~ 4£/)~~~ ~ /) UJ Iff-~ t2A-J a_ ~ • • I . • - • .. • - ---~~- ROLL CALL Moved Sec o d d n e Aye Nay Absent Higday Abstain Ne al Fi t zpatri ck Keen a Bllo Bradshaw Ot is • @ ~-ur ~~ ~~ ~~ c.,..__ ~ ~ tk ~ ,4V>~ ~~ -;8(.----~ d.Ul /}~ ~ .....vl t t. '(:}..A . @ 4 cUn-l' ~ 71/J /-<J ~ foJ-k.J h ~ .£t &~ ~ j ~ ~. ..c:t..ht fi--< a~ ~<.-<U-_.(_ ~ • < I • - • • - • • - ROLL CALL M ove d s d d econ e A lYe N ay Ab sen .. Ab t i s a n o.c-Higday -Neal Fit;zpatrick - Keena - Bil.o -Bradshaw Qt;is • • I . • • - • • - .. ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nay Absent s a n Higday Ab t 1 Neal Fitzpatric k Keena Bilo Bradshaw Ot is • • I . • • - ./ • • , • . ' I I I • • • IN ·m DISTRI CT COl'!'.':" I:~ A.~!.) FOR Tl!t COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action ~o. ~8297, Division 1 JO!Ill J . LITTLEHOR.~. JR. , and lfAUE 0. LITTLEHORN, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, !A v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FL~INGS, CONCLUSIONS A..~D JUDGMENT CITY OF EliCU:WOOD : JA..'!ES L . TAYLO!l, ) DAVID II . C1-\ Y'I'O:I, HOWARD R. BROk"!'', ) DOUGLAS T. SOVERN, VER.~ MASil, DOAALD ) L. a. SKITK and DONALD W. WILLIAMS , as ) ..-bera of the City Council thereof; ) JUDITH PIERSON, MARTIN LATIIROP. "U>.RRY ) OIIE.'CS, CHALMERSE PARKER, DONALD L . R. ) SKITR, EDDIE TANGUMA, JR., MAE WADE, ) DONALD WILLIAMS and EDWARll DRAPER, as ) ..mbers of the Planning and Zoning ) Colllmission thereof; lJ. !CELLY OLIVER, ) H. J. Bf.VIER, VIRGINIA !lAWSON, JOHN ) DElLING, ROBERT S. U:ONARD and :>ONALD ) D. SEYKlUll, aa members of the Board of ) Adjustment and Appeals thereof; ) WILLIAM ll . .JACKSON; JAMES W. JACKSON; ) SEVE.'CTH tlo\Y ADVENTIST ASSOCIATIO!l OF ) COLORADO; MIDWEST REAL ESTATE E.XCIIANCE,) I!IC . ; and ROSA LEE BANKS, ) Defendants and Respondenu . ) ) THIS KATTtll comes before the Court on the Amended Petition of Petitioners under Rule 106, C.ll.C .P ., for judicial review of the actio~• of Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the City Planning and Zoning Comaiaaion and City Council of Respondent City of Englewood. The E:ourt has ::-eviet<ed the file h~rein and the record certifie<l -:o t'·: Court b:• Respondents and has considered the arguments of couns.:l, and being fully advised finds as follows :. l. On or about Aucust 18, 1977, Petitioners filed t loo' · appli;a ~ion with Respondent Ci ty of Englewood ("City") for the rcz:uuin ". of certain properties locat ed at 1250-1296 llest Qutncy Avenue in Lhe The application sought rezoninc of the property • '' \ . . l . ~ . ' I • - / / / / • ·; • • • -2- from zone diatrict R-1-C "aiD&le faily reaidence" to R-2-C ''medi-denaity r .. idence ." The applicatian .predicated the rezoning request on the &rounds that : A. The property as presently zoned was not useable for ain&le family residence due to the lack of suitable access ; B. The property adjoined a light industrial zone ; C. lta&oning would provide a better "buffer zone" between residential and industrial uses ; D. It would be too risky to build aiD&le fGlily residence& close to the industrial site ; and E. There -. a ~d and need for R-2-C &ODin& in the city. 2. The Depertment of Cocmunity Development of Respondent City re-eled approval of the r .. oning request on the bases that : A. The rea-in& would be ccapatible with the intect of the co.prehenaive plan; B. The 1.-2-C area would aerve as a buffer between the li&ht taduetrial a.,.. to the veat and the •in&le faaily reaidence district to C. The increase in density would make the area 1110re fiD&Dcially feasible for development in view of the necessity of havin& ·. to provide internal access to the units . 3. A hearing ves held before the City Planning and Zon i ng C.-tuio:l ("Coaaisaion") on September 20, 1977, at which the staff report was pres ented and s~atemen ts u nder oath rec e ived from t h e appU :; .1: othe r intereated persona in attendance. At the conclusion of the hearing the COIII:lission adopted a motion to deny the rezoning o:pplication . ~u b- sequently on October 4, 1977, the Commission approved findiags of ~-~' and rec-ndet i on in connect ion with the rl!~onin g request "oh i c h r•,~---.~,...1 ,.,1 to the City Co u ncil t h~t P<!t~t c o ncrs' re:oning request be dc n i c ~. • . .,_ I i • I • ' ... '··· ', .. :.! .. 1 .. ... I • - • • I · / . , • / / I • • • -3- 4. On October 3, 1977, Petitioners appeared before the City Council of the City of Englewood ("Council") indicating that they requested that Council review the dec~sion and recommendations of the eo-inion and requesting that Council hear the matter. On that date Council adopted a motion to postpone consideration of the request unt!.l Council's next meeting. S . On Octob~ 17, 1977, Council met and after discussion approved and adopted a motion to approve the Commission's recommendations and to deny Petitioners' rezoning request without further hearing . At the October 17th meeting of Council Petitioners renewed their requests for a hearing beofre City Council in connection with their application . No testiaony or evidence was received or considered by Council and no written decision was entered by Council containing any findings of fact or conclusions or any other factual bases or reaaons for its decision . 6. On September 14, 1977, the Board of Adjustment md Appeals of the City ("Board") conducted·• hearing on the application of Petitioners for variance to reduce the J:li.ni.mum lot sizes pertainiD& to their property from the requisite six thousand square feet to an allowed fifty-one hundred square feet . At the hearing before the Board testillony under oath was taken and received from applicant and other parties in interest . 7. At the conclusion of the hearing a motion to allow the variance was made and seconded, but felled to pass after tvo affirmative votes and five negative votes were recorded . 8 . The !lo ard fa iled t o en te r any written <!eci s ion (C•::· ... · any findinga of fact or conclusions or other ·factual basea and reasons for its dec ision . 9 . Section 58 of Par t II of the Home Rule Charter of t he City provides in part (with r ~s ~ec t to the ~ctions of the c~;,<ion on applications for an cnJmcn~s, t:lOdifica tions or revi sions of ~ouin& • ;. l ! I I ,' :· : . I • .. - • • / I ' • ' I I • • • -4- ordinances) that •: ... the recommendations of the Commission shall not be binding on tbe Council ... " 10. Section 60 of Part Ill of said Home Rule Charter provides in part that the Board shall keep minutes of its proceedings. abow the vote tal;en and keep records of its examinations and other official actions and further provides that " ... findines and decisions of tbe lloard shall be fin.l subject only to judicial review ... " (~haais supplied) 11. Section 1-7-3 of the ~lunicipal Code of the City of Ea&lawood provides that hearing before Council on ordinances which zone or rezone realty are considered as quasi-judicial hearings. Section 1-7-7 of the Municipal Code sets forth the requisites for quasi-judicial hearing requiring a "written decision by the hearing body which shall sat forth the factual bases and reasons for the decision rendered." Section l-7-7 further provides that in all quasi-judicial hearings a atanog=aphic or other verbatim reproduction of all testimony presented in said hearing be made. 12. No ateaographic or other verbatim reproduction of all taatimony presented bafore the Com=iasion vas made in connection with the hearing held by it, nor did Council enter any written decision herein setting forth the factual baaea and reasons for its decision denying Petitioners' request for hearing and affirDing the Commission's recommendations . Upon the foregoing the Court concludes as follows : 1 . The dctcrminat io"l made hy Council i n rt ~firtrin~ ·-~,,. Commission's recommendation to deny Petitioners' applied for rezoning con s tituted a q ua si-judi cial ect . Snyder v . City of La kewood, 542 P .ld 371 . • ! ·~· ~ . , .. . -.... f. .:~ t - ,-~;- -?-> . .1 ' . ·. I • - - • / I ., ,. I ' / / • • • • • -s- 2. Petitioners were entitled to a hearing before Council prior to the exercise by Co~cil of ita quasi-judicial power to deny Petitioners' applied for rezoning in accordance with applicable proviaiona of the ordinances of the City of Englewood set forth in Section 1-7-1, et. aeq., of the Municipal Code of said City. 3. Petitioners are entitled to and were denied the opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of their applied for rezonin& before Council and were entitled to the written deciaion of Council aettin& forth sufficient findings of fact and conclusions and factual base& and reaaons for Council's decision in order to afford the Petitioner& the opportunity for meaningful judicial review of Council's decision . 4. The actions of the Soard in denying Petitioners' sousht for variance was a quasi-judicial act purauant to the applicable ordinance& of the City (Section l-7-3(a){2)) and Petitioners were entitled to a written deciaion by the Soard setting forth the factual baaea and reaaona for the decision rendered sufficient to provide the.Petitianera vith aeeningful opportunity for judicial review thereof (1-7-7(a)(4))., 5. Petitioners were denied such findin&s and decision& by the Board and were denied such hearing , findings and decision by Council. The Respondents urge the Court to conatrue the City'& ordinance& to require the conduct of a public hearing before Council on rezoning matter& only in cases where Council determines to proceed with the adoption of a rezoning ordinance . Respondent& argue that no public hearing is required unless a r r zoning ordinance is considered for adoption. They furcher argue that pursuant to the provisions of Section 22.3-4(c) an applicant for rezoning if dissatisfied with the reco~dations and report of the Commission may appeal to the City Council to review auch recO'IIIIendations and report . Their argument ~s that Councii is only required to hold a pu b lic hearing in the event that it should determine to reverse the deci sion o f the Planni nc Co~ission an d proceed with the • :ri'' ,• t ,. ' ,. I I ·! ., .. . ;.-". ..... . ~~:> t~-....... I • - I / J , • i I ; • • • • • -6- ~aideration of a rezoning ordinance . This interpretation of Council'• obligation places. the cart before the horse and rendera aomewhat redundant the purpose of a public hearing after Council baa already made the decision to overrule the Commission. Further, auch a conatruction of city ordinances deniea a party the right to heerina before that body that exercisea the quasi-judicial power. It ~•t be remembered that the Comaiasion posaeaaea only the power to re~d chanaea in the zoning map or o.rdinance . By the Respondents' conatruction of city ordinances partiea are effectively denied the right to be heard in connection with matters that directly affect their property intereata by the only body that possesses the power to act concerning such interesta. The Court ia of the opinion that Respondents' construction of city ordinances is in error; that the activity and actions of Council in denying Petitioners' application for rezonift& are quasi-judicial in nature to be preceded by opportunity for hearing, for the preaentation of evidence and argument followed by written decision with appropriat. find1D4s and coocluaiona sufficient to provide the opportunity for -tnaful judicial review, It ia therefore the order and judgment of the Court that the Reapondenta have exceeded their jurisdiction and abused their ·diacretioo in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions and that the cause be remanded to the Board for the entry of a written decision containing the factual basus .md reasons for the Board'a decision in aufficient particular to afford Petit i one rs ,.,ith a oeaningful opportunity for j udicial review of such decision . It is further ordered that the cause be remanded to the City Council of the City of Englewood for the purpose of cor.ducting a hearing on Petitioners' application for rezoning and the Comm i asion'a recommendations in connection therewith for the purpose of allowin& • .; .. \·· ...... '· .. ... ~ ~';. ';.·."! ... ~ .. ~ :'• ~··· .... r· -~ . ... • -•. '.Jt: • ·r.: ., ,' · . I • - - • • / ( .. I I / • i I •I f l • • • . . . . . -7- Petitioner• the opportunity to praaent evidence and arsu--nta in aupport thereof and for tha .~try of a written deciaion aettin& forth the factual baaea and reaaona for any deciaicm to be entered by Council therein in aufficient particular to afford Petitioaara with a -lnaful opportunity for judicial review of aw:h deciaicm . ENT&IED tbia ~of October, 1979 . BY THE COURT : Diatrict Jud&e . i . :.·~3?;;;_ .. .. -:''?'.· '• r , • .· 't . ·~ ,• · .. I • '~ ·.· •. '. .. ' !. r I. ~-~- i' .. -.~· .. ,· ~: : ... . ~i~·-: ~ ~.;,_ . : . ·''·:~ ..,"' J ... :·~:::··(~:- ::-;·:.: _._ . . . .· ~ ... :; . ..:-··. . .. :.. ... I ' ·::·:-:'.. :-:·· ~ f ' . : ' ' ~··'' i :i· . .. ···· . . ·.· .. -==---=---"' ~~~1rf'".-~: ·~·.'·i'_ • I • - ( • S'l'Al''!o' ltl':PORT . Pnge -I- STAFF REPORT RE: • • • H~:t.ONJNG 1\P!'J.JCI\'J'JON Case #1'1-77 Rezoning request for a change from R-1-C, Single-family Residence to R-2-C, Medium D~nsity Residence, D.\TE TO BE CONS I DE RED: September 20, 1977 NAliE OF APPLICANT: John Littlehorn 4530 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 NAME OF PROPERTY OWNERS: Parcel No. 1: John J. & Marie 0. Littlehorn 4530 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Parcel No. 2: William R. & James W. Jackson Route 5, Box 4 Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Parcel No. 3: Midwest Real Estate Exchange, Inc. P. 0. Box 1749 Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Parcel No. 4: Seventh Day Adventist Association of Colorado c/o' Mrs. Rosa Lee Banks 1296 w. Quincy Englewood, Colorado 80110 RELATION OF APPLICANT TO REQYEST: Mr. Littlehorn is the owner of a portion of the land for which the rezoning is sought and has included the remainder of the property in an effort to m~ke possible an orderly development of the area which is adjacent to an industrial area. He has requested the change of zoning from R-1-C, a Single-Family Residence, to R-2-C, .Me dium-D·~nsity Residence. Under the present zoning ordinance, it is possible for an applicant to include land in his rezoning application even though he has no l e gal i n t e rest in the land . • I • - • • • • • • S'l'Ai''i'' Itt; 1)\)it'i' I':1;;c -2-------------·--------- !!Q~~'!:_IO!'! 01~ p;tQPQ~I\L: ltE:lONING APPLlCA'J'lON . __ !2~~___!t.l1-:72.__ __ . ----- The property is in an area south of West Quincy Avenue and west of South Lipan Street. Sec enclosed vicinity map. The property is legally described as follows: "Beginning at a point 99 feet West of the NE cor11er of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 9, TownshipS South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; thence West along the north line of Section 9, a distance of 230.8 feet; thence South a distance of 330 feet; thence East a distance of 230.8 feet; thence North a distance of 330 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.7S acres, more or less." PRESENT ZONE DISTRICT: R-1-C, Single-Family Residence District. (Minimum frontage of SO feet per unit.) REQUESTED ZONE DISTRICT: R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence District. (Minimum frontage of SO feet per two units.) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: Mr. Littlehorn is requesting rezoning of the subject property which adjoins the I-1, Light-Industrial Zone District on the East, from R-1-C, Single-Family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence. The reasons given by the applicant for the rezoning request is that: 1. The R-2-C Zone District will provide a better buffer between the single-family area to the east and the ljght industrial uses to the west. 2. There is a demand and need for R-2-C zoning in the City • 3. The land is not useable for single-family parcels due to the lack of suitable road access. RECOM~!ENDATIO~ FRm! THE DEPARTMENT OF COmfUNITY DEVELOPMENT: The D·3partment of Community D~vclopment recommends approval of the rezoning of the following described area from R-1-C, Single-family Residence zoning to R-2-C, Me dium Density Residence Zone District, under the authority • I • - ( • • ( • S'fAio'F REi?ORT Page -3-___ _ • • • RE'I.01HNG APPJ,ICATlON -------------·-------Case ~1~-77 granted to the Commission by §22.3-2 of the City of Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. "Beginning at a point 99 feet West of the NE corner of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 9, Towuship 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; thence West along the north line of Section 9, a distance of 230.8 feet; thence South a ·distance of 330 feet; thence East a distance of 230.8 feet; thence North a distance of 330 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.75 acres, more or less." This recommendation is based on the findings that: 1. The rezoning would be compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to retain the area for residential development. 2. The R-2-C area would serve as a buffer between the I-1 Light Industrial area to the west of the subject area and the R-1-C, Single-Family Residence District to the east. 3. The increase in density would make the area more financially feasible for development in view of the necessity of having to provide internal access to the units. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT AREA AND THE ADJACENT AREA: The application covers an area of 1.75 acres and is located on the southwest corner of West Quincy Avenue and South Lipan Street, extended, in an R-1-C, Single- Falaily Residence Zone District. It consists of four subdivided parcels, one of which is vacant; the other three have been used as residences and saall far.s. Under the Comprehensive Zoning map, all zoning breaks at the centerline of public rights-of-way so ·the R-2-C District would extend to the centerline of West Quincy Avenue. There are existing single-faaily residences on three sides of the site: a residential area on the south which was subdivided and developed soon after the area was annexed between 1956 and 1961; n e w houses on the east, built by Mr. Littlehorn, the applicant; and an older residential area across West Q~incy Avenue to the North . • • I • • - 0 • • S 'i'/\l-'1'' H~PORT I':l[;_£__-1:- • • • HEZONING Al'.l>.LICA'J 'ION . _ __£'!_Se #11-7?.._ _____ -.. _ The largest of the four parcels, shown :1s Parcel No. 4 on the attached map, has only 15 feet of frontage on West Quincy Avenue, to allow for an access ro:-ad; it is this access road and the west property line oi Parcel No. 4 which abut the 1-1, Light Industrial Zone District. The other two parcels also have their only access and frontage on West Quincy Avenue. The Jackson Brothers' property, shown as Parcels No. 2 and 3, each have 74.4 feet of frontage on Quincy, and Mr. Littlehorn's property, Parcel No. 1, has 67 feet of frontage on West Quincy Avenue. West Quincy Avenue is designated as an arterial and a truck route through Englewood and carries a large volume of industrial traffic, as well as serving the residential areas. BACKGROUND OF PREVIOUS CITY ACTION RELATING TO THE PROPERTY: The subject site was at one time a cow pasture, and part of a small farm property. The -buildings within the area were constructed prior to annexation and no building permits have been issued by the City for this property since it was annexed. In 1972, the industrial use (Sinton Dairy depot) on the west side of the area, was required to put in a 20 foot planted screen to separate that use from the residentially-zoned subject site. The approval of a Subdivision Waiver by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 19, 1975, and an amendment to that waiver on April 22, 1975, was granted to Mr. Littlehorn enabling hia to divide his land into five residential lots and one large parcel, which parcel is now included in the subject application. See Parcel #1. A request for rezoning the subject site to 1-1, Light Industrial, was made in June, 1976. This request was not approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. RELATIONSHIP TO THE CO~PREHENSIVE PLAN: The generalized Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan shows the subject property to be on the periphery of the residential area with industrial land to the we st. • I • - ( • • • • • STAlo'lo' REPOK'f ~e __ --=5'"---------------- ltl-:I.ONlNG APPI,ICA'i'ION C~se _!~-~-77 _______ _ _g)MMENTS !''ROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS: The Public Works ))3part1nent has notified the staff that it has no objection to the proposed ~oning, and no objections have been received from the other dopartments or agencies. Mountain Bell Telephone bas notified the Department that they have no objections to the proposed rezoning. · DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS: As a small fa~ and pasture area, the subject site became an isolated spot as residential subdivisions were developed around it, and later industrial develop- aent occurred on its west border. The residence and barn at 1296 West Quincy Avenue is located on the largest of the parcels and bas access to West Quincy Avenue only by way of a 15 foot-wide roadway on the west side of the site. This parcel would be difficult to develop for any use without the cooperation of either or both of the owners of the other parcels. The lack of access and limited frontage on West Quincy Avenue for any·of these parcels discourages development for single-family use. In order to use the land to its full potential, the flexibility allowed under the Planned Davelopment Ordinance will be needed. Residential use has been given a high priority by the City of Englewood. The future developaent of these properties for this use is aore likely if the two-family development is permitted • I . • - • • I • • - ( • • ( • • • • PARTIAL MINUTES ONLY. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND 7.0NING COMMISSION September 20, 1977 I. CALL TO onmm. 'J'he Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning r.ommission was called to order by Chairman Pierson at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Draper. Richard Wanush, E"(-Officio Members absent: Tanguma Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community 03velopment; Steve House, Associate Planner. II. APPROVAL OF _ MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes ot· the September 7, 1977 meeting wer~ to be considered for approval. Parker moved: Smith seconded: The Minutes of the s .eptember 7, 1977 meetiug be approved as written. AYES: Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma ABSTAINING: Wade, Draper, Williams The moticn carried. II I. LITTLEHORN REZONING. CASE #14-7'7 Ch a irm a n Pierson stated lhat the Littlehoru Hc:.t011ing ApplicaliiHl is before the Planning Commission for Public Hearing • Parker moved: Owens set::onded : The Public Hearing for the Littlehorn Rezoning Application be opened. AYES: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, D:caper NAYS: None ABSE~: Tanguma The motion carried. • • I • - • • • • • -2- Chairman Pierson spoke on the items the Planning Co mmi.s slo1 : considers before a rezoning d e cision is ma~u: 1. That there is a possibility a mistake has bee n mad e iu the original zonin,:t of an area. 2. That there have been significant changes in th e ar e a whi c h may call for a rezoning of the area. 3. That an individual has been d e nied the us c of th eir l a n d . 4. That the area to be rezoned covers at least on e c i t y hlo e k . 5. That proof has been brought before the Commission th at there is a need for an expansion o f tne particular zone classification. 6. That the rezoning would be in compliance with the Ma ster Plan. Chairaan Pierson cited the King's-r.till Homeowner's Association v. The City of Westminster Case which was heard in De cember of 1976 and published in Colorado Lawyer in February of 197'7. ''In its findings, the Court ruled that the standard for acceptance of the change (in zoning] was whether the proposed zoning action was in compliance with the Master Plan [also known as the Comprehensive Plan]. In which case, the action need only relate to the general welfare of the community. Where the rezoning was in violation of the Master Plan, the Court ruled that there must be some change in the conditions of the neighborhooq to support the zoning change," "The power to impose conditions on rezoning is an exe1·cise of the police power and such conditions are valid as lon g as they are reasonably conceived." Conditions can be imposed "to make the change from r e siden t ia l to commercial use a smooth transition." "In determining whether spot zoning is involved, the t e st i s whether the change in question was made with the purpose of furthering a Comprehensive Zoning Plan or designed merely to relieve a particular property from the restrictions o f the zoning regulations." The Chairman went on to clarify that the Commission had not determined whether this was spot zoning in as auch as further testimony in this hearing was yet to be heard, • I • - ( ( • • ( • • • • -3- Mrs. Pierson then explained that the general lol"llla t to follow in the rezoning of an area is: 1. A staff report is presented by the Community Do~ve1opm e nt O.~partment. 2. A statement from the applicant is received. 3. The floor is made open and statements and comments are taken from those in attendance, Tanguma arrived at 7:10 p.m. and was seated with the Commission. Chairman Pierson asked that, at this time, the Commission hear the staff report regarding this application from Mrs. Dorothy Romans. Mrs. Romans was duly sworn in and testified that the case being presented for the Commission's decision, Case #14-77, John J. Littlehorn Rezoning Application, is an application to rezone the following described area from R-1-C to R-2-C: "Beginning at a point 99 feet West of the NE co1·ne1· of the NW 1/4 of the NE l /4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; thence West along the no1·th line of Section 9, a distance of 230.8 feet; thence South a distance of 330 feet; thence East a distance of 230,8 feet; thence North a distance of 330 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.75 acres, more or less." The property has been posted and a notice of the hearing appeared in the 31st of August issue of the Englewood Sentinel. The parcel is in four separate ownerships shown in the Staff Report. The maps were available for the view of the audience and the Commission. Parcel 1 is owned by Mr. John Littlehorn. Parcel 2 is owned by William & James Jackson. Parcel 3 is owned by the Midwest Real Estate Exchange, Inc, and Parcel 4 is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Association of Colorado c/o of Mrs. Rosa Lee Banks. Mrs . Romans stated that it is possible for one person to include other land in his application when applying for rezoning. She pointed out the subject area on the Comprehensive Zoning Map on the Council Chambers wall. The subject property is in an R-1-C, Single-Family Residence Zone District. Immediately to the west, the land is zoned I-1, Light Ltdustrial. The area being considered for rezoning is 1.27 acres. The proposed rezoning is to R-2-C, Medium • I • - • • • • • -4- D~nsity District. This District permits a single or two- family dwelling unit; a triplex or a fourplex cannot be built in the R-2-C Zone District . 1'he staff is considering this specific :i:vne as a "buffer" zone between the 1-1 District to the we s t and Lhe n-1-C District to the east. Dorothy Uomans submitted severnl photographs of the site to the Commission. .Mrs. Romans 1urther stated that this type of zoning, Me dium J)::!nsity, would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan . The matter was referred to City departments and Ute Public Service Company and Mountain Bell. No objections to this rezoning have been received. The property being considered has not been suboiviued and before it can be developed, a subdivision plat must be considered. However, at this hearing, we are only considering the rezoning of tnis property. Mr. Larry Owens questioned whether Mr. Littlchorn was required to go to the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Romans responded that he did not have to, but did so to request a variance to build on a 5100 square foot lot on his property rather than on the required 6000 square foot building site. Mr. Owens further asked if the property can be divided into four parcels and still have a minimum of 6000 square foot lots. Mrs. Romans answered that it was doubtful this would be possible. An access to the property would have to be provided by Mr. Littlehorn. Mr. Chalmers Parker asked about the 15 foot access onto Quincy Avenue from Parcel #4. Mrs. Romans stated lhal lhi :-; is an access to the property on which Mrs. Banks lives. It is not designated as a right-of-way ; rather, it is a private road. Mr. Tanguma asked if there is right-of-way on the south side of the property? Dorothy Romans answered that it i s not a right-of-way; but an easement. Chairman Pierson called for a statement from the applicant, Mr. John J. Littlehorn. Mr. Littlehorn was duly sworn in. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he felt that the proposal was thoroughly covered by Mrs. Romans. He has examined the area and found this is the best and possibly the only thing to do to be fair to future purchasers of the property and to those who own the adjacent property. Several neighbors were stated as being in favor of the rezoning . • I • - • • • • -5- Mr. Smith questioned whether the applicant had any access to the east. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he does not but that he would like to submit a proposal for a private road and an easement a~ong the south side of the home at 4335 South Lipan Street for the Fire Department. Mr. Smith also asked if Mr. Littlehorn intended to break up this property into three 6700 foot parcels. In answer, Mr. Littlehorn stated that he would like to build duplexes and that he would only break up the property if there was a condiminium complex breakdown. Under the present zoning, Mr. Littlehorn felt that he could only build one house on the property. Chairman Pierson asked if any one else would like to comntent on the rezoning application, Mrs. Banks asked whether a letter has been received from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Mrs. Romans answered that none had been received by her office. There were no persons in attendance at the Hearing who spoke further in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Pierson asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the rezoning application. Mr. Steve Meyer, 4330 South Lipan was duly sworn in. He stated that he is not opposed to Mr. Littlehorn developing the land, His main objection is the parking situation that may result from the increase in the housing situation. He does not want the increased traffic near his home. Mr. Merle Doan, 1201 W. Radcliffe, was duly sworn in. He also stated that he is not against Mr. Littlehorn developing the land. Mr. Doan did not like to see so many houses built is such a small area. The area is already too congested and there is only a narrow access road into the property. Mrs. Wade said that the way the property is built up now, it would only leave Quincy Avenue as an access to the property. She wanted to know whether this was correct. Mr. Doan said this was so. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Littlehorn if he had a right-of-way through his property. Mr. Littlehorn answered that it would be strictly an easement on the property and the emergency access to South Lipan Street will be locked and be used only by the Fire D~partment. I • • • • • • • -6- Mrs. Banks again questioned whether auytlti.n ;: wrjttcu h a d IJ<'"Il received from the Seventh Uay Adventist Chu1·d•. Mr s . Homa11 s said the staff had not received anythin1 ~ from them, hul. L ite Church was aailed a copy of the Staff Report. Mr. Li L t.l c h o rn said that he spoke to the Secretary or the Church Tn'asu •·y in the latter part of last week and was t:ol<l Lhal Lion Ciot••·•:h is not in a position to take a stand in this matt e r. Mr s . Banks is the trustee for the property nnd s l•e has t:h e riu :ll say in the matter. Mr. Owens requested that Mr. Littlehorn explain exactly wloat he had in mind. Was he going to develop only his property or the whole parcel? Mr. Littlehorn answered that h~ will only be! developing his own property. The Jacksons would also like to have the rezoning and had included their uamc on the application. Mr. Smith commented that it was stated in the Staff Report that this section would be a "buffer". To him, it looked like "spot zoning". Mr. Richard Wanush replied that the Commission has to decide whether this is spot zoning or not. The critical element is the ability to develop the land, The greatest issue is if there is a good chance> for Mr. Littlehorn and the other owners to develop their property under the present zoning. Mr. Tanguma asked what side of this parcel did Mr. Littlehorn propose the street would be on. Mr. Littlehorn stated that he would like the drive to curve across the property. The l"oad would possibly be of gravel, There being no further testimony, Chairman Pierson asked i1 there would be a aotion to close the hearing. Owens moved: Smith seconded: The Public Hearing of Case #14-77, John .J. Littlehorn Re~oning Application, bu closed. AYES: \fade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Williams moved: That the case cited by Mrs. Pierson, Kin~'s Mill, be struck from the record. No second. Motion died for the lack of a second to the motion • I • • - • • ·-ri·- Smith moved: Willi~ms seconded: • • • That Case #14-77, John J. Littlehorn Rezoning Application, be d e 11i e c.J. Mr. Smith stated that this is a unique property arran~ement and the City would be an R-2-C District right in the middle of an H-1-C District. If the R-2-C District is proposed as a "buffer", it should run the length of the entire I-1 District. The property could be developed as i l is even though it is unusual. Mr. Owens concurred with Mr. Smith, It is a unique area ; but it does have possibilities. However, he doesn't know i f the requested zoning would permit the highest possibl e use of the property. Possibly something else could be worked out at a later time. Mrs. Wade stated that if the whole area is going to he developed, it is one thing. But, if you have a piece 1neal development, someone will be unable to use their prope rty. Chairman Pierson felt that it would be Hasier iJ all th e property owners were to go ahead with a plunned devclopmeut proposa~.· Mr. Littlehorn is certainly dcp.r·ived oJ his usc of the property he owns and the re~oning is agreeable with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tanguma objected to the rezoning because it seems to be a "little island". He foresaw problems that would develop in the future. Mrs. Pi,er.son stated that it is such an odd piece of property. She does not think it could be reasonably developed as a single family dwelling. Mr. Smith stated that good negotiations are needed to put the parcels together and develop the property, This, in tu r n, would encourage cooperation between the neighbors. A reading of the motion was called . AYES : Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. ~hairman Pierson granted a short recess hefore the meetin~ :ICont iuued. • I • - 0 • • • • • -8- The meeting was called to order at 8 :13p.m. Members present: Wade, Williams, Lathrop, Ow e ns, P:~rk e r, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Draper Members absent: None ~-~~~- for a motion ~o open Case Jim D3ndy Restaurant . AYES: Wade, Smith, NAYS: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. The Subdivision be opened. Lathrop, Draper ne Steve House stated that requesting a subdivision Center property designat waiver. Ownership of the Mr. Harold Kalke, the trust Paul Smith. The site is lo ample parking lots surround in the area to the east wh zoning, B-2, Business, t use. The history of the was zoned as a single- City. In 1963, it wa to c-2, history has our present B-2. I 1 Smith, is ennial Shopping a previous subdivision er is in the name of is represented by Mr. typical shopping center with a. The zoning is B-3 ttleton. Under our taurant is a permitted In 1962, it tion to the is similar to The applicant There WOUld restautant. the site from Federal Bou the building of a parking spaces in aff feels there is suf Belleview Avenue on the on the east. co111111ercial zoning. Dandy Restaurant. for the the Engineering 1, or Public Service in regards to th waiver. The Colorado Department of H ection to the waiver but expressed concern ation and deceleration lane on f'ederal and to be constructed by the shopping center. It inP.d that this construction must be completed befor ificate of Occupancy is issued for the Centennial Sta The recommendation of the staff is for approval of • I • - ( • • • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 14-77, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) 111E APPLICATION TO REZONE A ) CERTAIN AREA OF 111E CITY FROM ) R-1-C, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, ) TO R-2-C, MEDIUM DENSITY RESI-) DENCB, PURSUANT TO §22.3-2 OF ) 111E OOKPRBBENSIVE ZONING ) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. ) A Public Bearing was held in connection with Case No. 14-77, on September 20, 1977, in the City Council Cbaabera at the Englewood City Hall, at 7:00 P.M. The following aaabers of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mr. Draper, Mr. Lathrop, Mr. OWens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the fora of testtacny, presentations, reports and filed documents, the eo .. isaion aakes the following findings of fact: 1. That proper notice of the meeting to consider the requested rezoning was given by publishing and posting. 2. That the area in question is described aa: "Beginning at a point 99 feet West of the NE corner of the NW 1/4 of the NB 1/4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West ~f the 6th P.M.; thence West along the north line of Section 9, a distance of 230.8 feet; thence South a distance of 330 feet; thence East a distance of 230.8 feet; thence North a distance of 330 feet to the point of beginning, con-taining 1.75 acres, more or less." 3. That the application was filed by: Mr. John J. Littlehorn 4530 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado and Kr. Williaa R. Jackson Mr. James Jackson c/o Jackson Brothers 701 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 • I • - 0 • • • • • 4. That the owners of the property within the subject area are: Parcel No. "1": John J. & Marie 0. Littlehorn 4530 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Parcel No. "2": William R. Jackson James W. Jackson c/o Jackson Bros. Investment Co. 701 West Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Parcel No. "3": Midwest Real Estate Exchange, Inc, P. 0. Box 1749 Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Parcel No, "4": Seventh Day Adventist Association of Colorado 2520 South Downing Street Denver, Colorado c/o Ms. Rosa Lee Banks 1296 West Quincy Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 -a- 5, That the area with which the application is con- cerned was annexed to the City by Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1955, and was zoned R-1-D, Single-family Residence f1·om that time until 1963, In 1963, the subject property was zoned R-1-C, Single-faaily Residence by Ordinance No, 26, Series of 1963, by which Ordinance the R-1-D Zone District was repealed, 6, owned by John other parcels primarily for That the site within the subject area which is and Marie o. Littlehorn is vacant, and that the included in the application for rezoning are single-family residential use, 7. That the land to the north, east and south of the subject site is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence, and is developed for single-family residential use. 8, That the land to the west is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, which land is used for industrial purposes. 9, That Mr. Littleborn applied for and was granted a Subdivision Waiver on April 22, 1975, to divide a parcel of land into six parcels, two of which have been developed with • I • - ( • ( • • • • -3- single-family residences by Mr. Littleborn, and single-family residences are under construction at this time on the three reaaining lots which front on South Lipan Street. The sixth parcel, a site 67 feet by 300 feet, is undeveloped and is in-cluded in the subject application. 10. That the R-2-C Zone classification could not be considered as an adequate buffer between the Industrial Zone District to the west and the single-faaily development to the east and, therefore, the request could not be approved based solely on the assumption that it would so serve. 11. That persons in attendance at the Bearing testified they own hoaes in the immediate area and have relied upon the R-1-C Single-faaily Residence Zone District, which is applied to the subject site, to assure that any development of that property would be coapatible with the sinele-faaily residential character of the nei&hborhooda to the north, east and south, and that the traffic eenerated by an increase in density would be of concern. CONCLUSIONS given. 1, That proper notice of the Public Bearing was 2. Tbat two parcels within the subject area are now used for single-faaily residential purposes. 3. That the aoat recent development in the subject area baa been the construction of five single-faaily residences upon land adjoining the subject site on the east. 4. That property owners in the adjacent area have relied on tbe present R-1-C, Single-faaily Residence Zone Dis- trict which is applied to the subject site to aaintain the low-density residential character of the neighborhood. 5. That it baa 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 proaote the health, safety, morals and general welfare of all in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan. • I • • - • • • • • • -·!- RECOI.fMENDA'l'ION Therefore, it is the rccOJmnendatioll or t.lw C i l.y Planning and Zoning CoDUoission to the City Council or lhe City of F.nglewood, Colorado, that the application oJ .Jol111 Littlehorn and William R. Jackson, Case No. 14-77, lu J't~zo llc lhc property hereinafter described from R-1-C:, :)iuglc-family Jlf•sictcnce, to ll-2-C, McdiuJo Density Resi<.lcuec , h(.· <.lcui(:<l : "Be,:!inninv, at a point 99 feet West of th~ Nr: corner o; the NW l /4 oJ the NJ:: l/4 of Section Ll, Township :> South , Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; thence West along the north U .ne of Section 9, a distance of 230.8 feet; the nee South a distance of 330 feet; thence East a ~istancc or 23u.H t eet; thence North a distance of 330 feet to the point. oJ beginning, containing 1.75 acres, nlore or less." Upon a vote at a meeting of the Colnmissioil O!l SeptembPr 20, 1977. Those members voting in favor ot the motion :.o recommend against the rezouin~: Mr. Draper , Mr. Lalhl'op , Mr. Owens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Sm.ith, Mr. T :lup:um:., !.irs. Warl~! and Mr. Williams. Those members voting in opposition of tll\:! moliou to .t·c,corollh'Cd against th<! f'l'zon:inr~: No:1e . Those members a bsen 1:: None. ilY ORDER OF THE ClTY PLANNING AN D ZONING COMMISSION . • I • - • • • • • ( PARCEL DIVISION OF AREA IN REZONING REQUEST -15 'A ( .. ( • ~ PDinl of B~gining t WEST QUINC:,Y:.....:.:AVE.:.=:..:N:::.UE=-----~--vo-99 ....,..__-I- I NE"C-oiNWI/4ol -~I NWI/4, 5«.9, T5S, R68W 74.4 74.4 67 "PARCEL NO. 3" "PARCEL No. 2" ~ PARCEL No. I • "PARCEL NO. 4 .. t~.s· 2JO.B DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 9-1-77 BY • I ---- -~ NO RTH SCALE: t"• so·· • I . - ( • • ( • • • • ;8 Englewood Public Schools 4101 SOUTH IANNOCk STREET I ENGlEWOOD , COLORADO ID11D I TELEPHONE IJDJI 761-71150 ROSCOE l DAVIDSON , s..,.., • .., .. , January 11, 1980 Mr. Andy McCown City Manager City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Andy: The matter of the application to rezone a parcel of land on the southwest corner of East Jefferson Drive and South Clarkson Street from R-1-C, single-family residence to R-2, medium density residence, and the related matter of -, ·~, I the appearance and use of school property adjacent to that land h~been brought to the attention of the Board of Education by Dorothy Romans in a letter of December 6, 1980. At the Board of Education meeting on January 8, 1980, dis- cussion was held regarding the correspondence and conversations that Dorothy and I have had regarding the Planning Commission's position and the scheduled Public Hearing on the matter. The Board has asked me to advise you that they have discussed the matter. They feel there is some question of the advisa- bility of any kind of construction on that property in view of the pending decisions and development of a detention pond for flood control at that location. Mr. Selwyn Hewitt, President of the Board, will plan to attend the public hearing on January 28, 1980 on behalf of the schools • If you wish to discuss this with me, please call. Sincerely, Roscoe L. Davidson RLD:b cc: Mayor Gene Otis Ms. D. A. Romans Members of the Board of Education • • I • • - ( • • • • • • Q C 0 U N C I L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N DATE AGENDA ITEM SUBJE'CT Planning Coamission Case No. 26-79: Wise Rezoning Request 18 Dec. 12. 1979 INITIATED BY City Planning and zoning co .. ission ACTION PROPOSED Deny the request to rezone ·Lots 4 and 5 of Sandra's subdivision froa R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence. INTRODUCTION: Mr. Harry Wise bas a contract to purchase Lots 4 and 5, Sandra's Sub- division, froa Mr. and Mrs. Robert Berkeley, subject to the property being rezoned froa R-1-C, Single-faaily Residence to R-2, Mediua Density Residence. The property is located on the southwest corner of East Jefferson Drive and South Clarkson Street. The Planning Co .. ission received teatiaony on the rezoning application at a Hearing on Deceaber 4, 1979. CONCLUSION AND RBCOIOIENDt\TION: After considering the testimony presented at the Hearing, the aeabers of the Planning co .. ission voted to not refer the rezoning request to the City Council with a favorable reco .. endation; but, rather, to recoaaend that the rezoning be denied. This recommendation was aade because: 1. The rezoning of the subject property would not be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan • 2. It was not deaonstrated that the original zoning of the site was in error. 3. It was not demonstrated that there have been changes in the character of the neighborhood which would preclude the development of the subject site under the existing zoning. 4, The subject property is not contiguous to like or coapatible zoning zoning and it does not complete, nor is it in and of itself, one City block in area, causing the request to be one of spot zoning • I • • - • • - • SUGGESTED ACTION: MOVED BY __________ _ I . SECOND·------------ YES ____ NO ____ ABSENT'---------------- • • - • • • • ( IIEIIORANOOII TO mE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOIOIBNDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COIIIIISSION. • DATE: Deceaber 4, 1979 SUBJECT: Denial of Rezoning Request REC~TION: Carson aoved: Becker seconded: Tbe Planning Coaaission reco .. end to City Council that tbe rezoning of Lots 4 and 5, Sandra's Subdivision fro• R-1-C, Single-faaily Residence, to R-2,11ediua Density Residence, be denied. AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williaas, Draper, Tanguaa, Saitb The aotion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning co .. ission • I • - ( ( • ( • STAFF REPORT Page -1- STAFF REPORT RE: • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 Rezoning request for a change from R-1-C Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence. ' DATE TO BE CONSIDERED: December 4, 1979 NAME OF APPLICANT: Harry G. Wise Route 2 Sedalia, Colorado 80135 NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER: Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley 2601 South Jackson Street Denver, Colorado 80210 RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO REQUEST: Mr. Wise is the contract buyer of the subject property. LOCATION OF REQUEST: The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of East Jefferson Drive and South Clarkson Street. The property is legally described as: That part of the South one-half (1/2) of the Northeast one- quarter (1/4) of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: aeginning at a point 213.8 feet Jlore or less South of the Northeast corner of the South on·:•-half (1/2) of the Northeast one-quarter (l/4), of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 68 West, said point of beginning also being the point of inter- section of the centerline& of East Jefferson Drive and South Clarkson Street; thence North 66°15' West, along the center- line of East Jefferson Drive to the point of intersection of the extended West line of Lot 4, Sandra's Subdivision; thence south along said West line of Lot 4 and Lot 5 a distance of 181.6 feet more. or less, to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 5, sandra's Subdivision; thence South 66°15' East, along the • I • - ( ( 0 • ( • STAFF REPORT Page -2- • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 Southerly lot line of said Lot 5 and the extended Southerly lot line of said Lot 5 to the point of intersection with the centerline of South Clarkson Street, said centerline also being the City limits line of Ent~lewood, Colorado; thence North along said centerline of South Clarkson Street a dis-tance of 181.6 feet more or less to point of beginning; said tract of land containing .62 acres, more or less. PRESENT ZONE DISTRICT: R-1-C, Single-family Residential. The property is also within the Flood Plain District. REQUESTED ZONE DISTRICT: R-2, Medium Density Residential. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Mr. Wise bas stated on the rezoning application that he is requesting the rezoning inasmuch as he feels the property cannot be expected to develop under the existing zone classi- fication for the following reasons: 1. The uses to the north and northwest are,multi-family and offices (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. ACTION REQUIRED: Following consideration of the requested change in zoning, the Commission will vote to either recommend approval, or to recommend denial of the requested change of zoning. After the Planning Commission recommendation has been received by the City council, the City Council will set a date for a Public Hearing. Following the Public Hearing, the City Council will either approve the change of zoning by ordinance or deny the request . DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT AREA: The subject site is fairly level, is undeveloped and is in the Little Dry Creek Flood Plain. It is located on the • I • - ( ( 0 • ( • STAFF REPORT Page -3- • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 eastern boundary of the City, being bordered on the east by South Clarkson Street, which is the division between the City of Englewood and Cherry Hills Village. East Jefferson Drive borders the site on the north and Little Dry Creek parallels this street. The area to the north of Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, and the majority of this area is developed either in high-density resi- dential units or medical offices, although there is a single- family bouse fronting on South Clarkson Street and to the north of Little Dry Creek. The single-family residence is a per- mitted use in the R-3 Zone District and it is unlikely this use will be changed to one of a more intense development be- cause of its land area. There is no direct access from the R-3 area north of Little Dry Creek to the single-family area to the south of Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive. The subject site was a part of a rather large holding owned for a number of years by Mr. Cecil Zeitlin. Some of Mr. Zeitlin's property to the west of the subject site was purchased by the Englewood School Board in the mid-1950's and is now part of the High School baseball field. Mr. Zeitlin sold the subject property and a site to the south to Mr. and Mrs. Berkeley in 1976, but he still retains ownership of approximately 23 feet by 195 feet between the School District property and that sold to the Berkeley's. There is a 100-foot right-of-way adjacent to the sub- ject site in which both Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive are situated. The property to the west of the subject site is part of the Englewood High School athletic field, and is also used as a storage area for equipment . There are single-family homes to both the south and east of the subject site. The homes to the south are within the R-1-C Zone District in the City of Englewood. The homes on the east side of South Clarkson Street are in an R-3 Zone District in Cherry Hills Village. This zone is a restrictive residential zone, allowing only single-family homes on no less than one acre sites. • I I • - ( ( 0 • c • STAFF REPORT Page -4- BACKGROUND OF PREVIOUS CITY ACTION: • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 The subject site was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1946. A review of previous zoning maps indicate the site has always been included in a low density residential zone. It has also always been within the Little Dry Creek 100-year Flood Plain, which fact has been made known to the Berkeleys and to Mr. Wise by the Planning Division staff prior to their action to purchase the property. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rezoning of this parcel from R-1-C, Single-faaily Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, would not be in conforaance with either the 1969 Comprehensive Plan, or the 1979 Plan which is before the City Council. The Plan indicates that the area within which the subject site is located should continue to be developed as a low-density residential area. Both the Citizen Review Committees and the City Planning and Zoning Commission have established a Goal in the 1979 Compre- hensive Plan to preserve the single-family neighborhoods and to prevent any encroachment of a higher-density use or more intense use into these single-family districts. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends denial of the rezoning from R-1-C, Low-density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential, for the following reasons: 1. The rezoning would not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Proof has not been presented that the property cannot be developed under the present zone district. 3. It has been established in many Court rulings that zoning must begin somewhere and end somewhere, and traditionally district boundaries have been located along rear property lines or along natural features. Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive provide a distinct and natural division which acts to isolate the high density zone from the low-density residential neighborhood, and minimizes the infringement of one zone on the other. 4. The subject site receives greater influence from the single- family neighborhood on the south and east and is not in- fluenced by the R-3 zone to the north, due to East Jefferson Drive and Little Dry Creek on the north. The site is not needed to provide a buffer between the R-3 zone and R-1-C • ~ I I • - - c • • • STAFF REPORT Page -5- • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 zone because Little Dry Creek already provides an adequate buffer. 5. As to the School District property to the west of the sub- ject site, schools are typically in residential neighborhoods and are co•patible with low-density residential developaent • • I • • - N . A ( • ,-'1.,. E I . • ~ -·-- " "' • • • KENYQN ·tB '<>J?!'iv£.: sr AVE. -r----·---- / i \ R.O.W FOR .- LITTLE DRY CREEK and E. JEFFERSON DR. . ~ . ENGLE'M:>qD ~HOOL DIST. I) ' ~ '<"{ .';( 't l.._ ~ '{ (.I) I ' - .j .. t ---:-r_ --_; .... -._ . ) · ltY AI@:, / ( • • • PARKING 5 JJ8 -...._ AREA \ " ~ ., -~ .. )~: :: ~-·: ~:.~-... :·-.. ~· ·. . . -~ . ·."' .... ' ... ' . ' .... :·· i . "·· ., .... > ' ~ . ·"\:'\: ,l. l " . ~-~--: ·i . •. . .. • ...... ,;·~f"' ~-;· .. '. ... 0 I . • - CERTIFICATION OF POSTING Attached is a photograph of a sign as it is erected on the following described property: Lots 4 & 5, Sandra Subdivision. I hereby certify under oath that the above described property was posted continuously for a period of -------days, from -------------- --------------------• 19 ___ , to -----------------------------· 19 S~gnature Date State of Colorado ss County of Arapahoe Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ay of --lr;a~~/!f:.A.oii""Ou,""!~:l-·! ___ , 19&2_ • • My Commission Expires: ~tnri'YA:< .10-: /9a.:? • I • • - CERTIFICATION OF POSTING Attached is a photograph of a sign as it is erected on the following described property: Lots 4 & 5, Sandra Subdivision. I hereby certify under oath that the above described property was posted continuously for a period of -------days, from ------------- -------------------· 19 ___ , to ----------------------------' 19 ___ • Signature I Date State of Colorado ss County of Arapahoe Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ay of • My CoiiiDission Expires: -~"-"'"'"""=-"-=.._,.h ... 1:;.._:/._S=-,.~.__1'..._9.....;:;'/c2=.. _______ _ • I • - ( • ( • • • ( IIEIIORANWII TO '111E ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOIIIIENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING OOIIIIISSION. • DATE: Deceaber 4, 1979 SUBJECT: Denial of Rezoning Request REC~TION: Carson aoved: Becker seconded: The Planning Ca..ission reco-.end to City Council that the rezoning of Lots 4 and 5, Sandra's Subdivision froa R-1-C, Single-faaily Residence, to R-2,11ediua Density Residence, be denied. AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williaas, Draper, Tanguaa, Saith The aotion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Coaaission. I . - ( • • r • STAFF REPORT Page -1- STAFF REPORT RE: • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 Rezoning request for a change from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence , Do\TE TO BE CONSIDERED: December 4, 1979 NAIIE OF APPLICANT: Harry G. Wise Route 2 Sedalia, Colorado 80135 NAIIE OF PROPERTY OWNER: Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley 2601 South Jackson Street Denver, Colorado 80210 RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO REQUEST: llr . Wise is the contract buyer of the subject property. LOCATION OF REQUEST: The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of East Jefferson Drive and South Clarkson Street. The property is legally described as: That part of the South one-half (1/2) of the Northeast one- quarter (1/4) of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: ae~inning at a point 213.8 feet 110re or less South of the Northeast corner of the South on·:•-half (1/2) of the Northeast one-quarter (1/4), of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 68 West, said point of beginning also being the point of inter- section of the centerline& of East Jefferson Drive and South Clarkson Street; thence North 66°15' West, along the center- line of East Jefferson Drive to the point of intersection of the extended West line of Lot 4, Sandra's Subdivision; thence South along said West line of Lot 4 and Lot 5 a distance of 181,6 feet more. or less, to the Southwesterly corner of Lot 5, sandra's Subdivision; thence South 66°15' East, along the • • I • - ( • • ( • STAFF REPORT Page -2- • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 Southerly lot line of said Lot 5 and the extended Southerly lot line of said Lot 5 to the point of intersection with the centerline of South Clarkson Street, said centerline also being the City limits line of En!;lewood, Colorado; thence North along said centerline of South Clarkson Street a dis-tance of 181.6 feet more or less to point of beginning; said tract of land containing .62 acres, more or less. PRESENT ZONE DISTRICT: R-1-C, Single-family Residential. The property is also within the Flood Plain District. REQUESTED ZONE DISTRICT: R-2, Medium Density Residential. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Mr. Wise bas stated on the rezoning application that he is requesting the rezoning inasmuch as he feels the property cannot be expected to develop under the existing zone classi- fication for the following reasons: 1. The uses to the north and northwest are multi-family and offices (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. ACTION REQUIRED: Following consideration of the requested change in zoning, the Commission will vote to either recommend approval, or to recommend denial of the requested change of zoning. After the Planning Commission recommendation has been received by the City Council, the City Council will set a date for a Public Hearing. Following the Public Hearing, the City Council will either approve the change of zoning by ordinance or deny the request . DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT AREA: The subject site is fairly level, is undeveloped and is in the Little Dry Creek Flood Plain. It is located on the • I • - • • ( • • • • STAFF REPORT REZONING REQUEST Page -3-Case #26-79 eastern boundary of the City, being bordered on the east by South Clarkson Street, which is the division between the City of Englewood and Cherry Hills Village. East Jefferson Drive borders the site on the north and Little Dry Creek parallels this street. The area to the north of Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, and the majority of this area is developed either in high-density resi- dential units or medical offices, although there is a single- faaily house fronting on South Clarkson Street and to the north of Little Dry Creek. The single-family residence is a per- mitted use in the R-3 Zone District and it is unlikely this use will be changed to one of a more intense development be- cause of its land area. There is no direct access from the R-3 area north of Little Dry Creek to the single-family area to the south of Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive. The subject site was a part of a rather large holding owned for a number of years by Mr. Cecil Zeitlin. Some of Mr. Zeitlin's property to the west of the subject site was purchased by the Englewood School Board in the aid-1950's and is now part of the High School baseball field. Mr. Zeitlin sold the subject property and a site to the south to Mr. and Mrs. Berkeley in 1976, but be still retains ownership of approxt.ately 23 feet by 195 feet between the School District property and that sold to the Berkeley's. There is a lOQ-foot right-of-way adjacent to the sub- ject site in which both Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive are situated. The property to the west of the subject site is part of the Englewood High School athletic field, and is also used as a storage area for equi~nt . There are single-family boaes to both the south and east of the subject site. The homes to the south are within the R-1-C Zone District in the City of Englewood. The homes on the east side of South Clarkson Street are in an R-3 Zone District in Cherry Hills Village. This zone is a restrictive residential zone, allowing only single-family boaes on no less than one acre sites. • • I • • r._ t-o I ~ ---1 ~ • I • { STAFF REPORT Page -4- BACKGROUND OF PREVIOUS CITY ACTION: • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 The subject site was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1946. A review of previous zoning aaps indicate the site bas always been included in a low density residential zone. It bas also always been within the Little Dry Creek 100-year Flood Plain, which fact bas been aade known to the Berkeleys and to Mr. Wise by the Planning Division staff prior to their action to purchase the property. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rezoning of this parcel from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, would not be in conforaance with either the 1969 Comprehensive Plan, or the 1979 Plan which is before the City Council. The Plan indicates that the area within which the subject site is located should continue to be developed as a low-density residential area. Both the Citizen Review Coaaittees and the City Planning and zoning Coaaission have established a Goal in the 1979 Compre- beDsive Plan to preserve the single-family neighborhoods and to prevent any encroacbaent of a higher-density use or aore intense use into these single-family districts. PLANNING DEPARTIIENT ANALYSIS AND RECOIOIENDATION: The staff reco .. ends denial of the rezoning froa R-1-C, Low-density Residential, to R-2, Mediua Density Residential, for the following reasons: 1. The rezoning would not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. 2 . Proof bas not been presented that the property cannot be developed under the present zone district. 3. It bas been established in many Court rulings that zoning aust begin somewhere and end somewhere, and traditionally district boundaries have been located along rear property lines or along natural features. Little Dry Creek and East Jefferson Drive provide a distinct and natural division which acts to isolate the high density zone from the low-density residential neighborhood, and ainiaizes the infringement of one zone on the other. 4. The subject site receives greater influence from the single- family neighborhood on the south and east and is not in- fluenced by the R-3 zone to the north, due to East Jefferson Drive and Little Dry Creek on the north ~ The site is not needed to provide a buffer between the R-3 zone and R-1-C .-----~----------~,~~.T~:----~----~=.--~.~~------ ·- n- I • • - - ( • • ( STAFF REPORT Page -5- • • • REZONING REQUEST Case #26-79 zone because Little Dry Creek already provides an adequate buffer. 5. As to tbe School District property to tbe west of the sub- ject site, schools are typically in residential neighborhoods and are coapatible with low-density residential developaent. I . • - • • { l ( i ,_"~ E I ' l ~ • ~ • • • KENYQN ·rs'<>RRv•.: sr AVE. ---r---- I \ RO.W. FOR _ .-- UTILE DRY CREEK and E. JEFFERSON DR. I ', I i ' ~ ,I I I i I Iii I I ,, ( /"I \ I ., I I {I I z I ~I \.~.,~I ~,I . r ~-ul I· I ,. I ·I I ( ,, ,,., I• VI '11 ·. I I'' : I I ~~i' \I : :'" I G X I I -------~----------~~~--~~~~~~----~--~~w·------ I . • - • I / • ----· ----·· ..o .#.••··· US -. \-___ :) C:S ~~----.-~ :.~ r PARKING I AREA ;---~ L • -0 \ J ~. ~''-/ 'I r' • • • ,- ~336 Ro 533• :0f,l0..R IN ~ii~~ALL PARK I NG 0 !;338 AREA ' -. ,_: . '~· .... .'. ...... .~.· ... - ., ·. -- f'J i I .,• I • • . : ··,, . . ... :· ~ .. . , \". ~ . - • • • • - 1979 GENERALIZED LAND USE PLAN c:::::;) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RES . INCENTIVE AREA ~ MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~ C~TRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ~ COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS ~INDUSTRIAL ~4d~ ~ ~-a_.cy ~ ~'''--L-<-(f...~ d-t", 0 c;! o T • ci ~ • I • - • • !. I· i 1 ·_:j 1 i 1 I I l D. F. .. <> ~ • • • -------------------------.. --• .. ,.,., . ...... ..._. .. ~ ~ · n2951 .. 442 __ .. ._ .. ____ . -~..:.---IIUL.~ -----03S ... ·~ ....... ~. o.. ..... . -4-k ......... __ .. ~ ..... ..._._ . .. . ---PJ-.,.,.._ -MQfiG8 WLAD ............................. II ............... ~eiU.. ....... ilt ........................... _ --·---------.......... ..-.-----.... ___________ .... __ .. ____ _ ...... ,._,_, ..... ~ .. ._ ..... ,....~ ............. .._..... _,__. .. •• ..._-..-~ .• ,..... ... ...._..... c-..,..t ar......-....... .,c::.a-..k .. w~~: i ! ,.-j I I ! I 1\ J>&ft'<'1 of ~ Uo -... JJ4 -~ fiC. -'-'· -· 5 -~. -.. the ·~ p.11. --.. .r.u-o C ,,. a& .a pcalft ZJII ~--aC U. lldttl-at: . I i ; i ~of ___ ,._, __ JJ4.r--. •. --~ u.-u.. of---'·,.--.r " .. -.. --,..s.& of -~ .. --~-·---u-.r--.•··- l "·oo ~-. ~-~ ._ t1ooo -~ u.. of u.-,. ae-~ IJ4 of-'-'· • -0~ 68.11 ~-· .... pcalft. --- puaU..t wlUI tlooo-U.. .r--1J'I aC--~-... 9, ....,,_ _______ .-of 10.1111 -.. --..... .r ......-... al:ll'=l'..l!.f_A£~..ksase-""-1'11~· ~-4»' •· u-. lotffih':d:':t:.. ..... ~-........ ___ ................................ ....... tal ......................................................... .._. ............. ~ ..... ... ________ ... _ .. ___ .. _________ .c. .. ... h ....................................... _ ... _____ _ 'IO"A'"I:A.."\'D1'0110LDt ... ..W ................................................... ,,., ........ ...._ paf't ................. .-.rt. ........................................... ~., .................... ...... .. ~ ...................................................... _. ............................. .... ·~!-" ... ~"-'-......... , ............................................................ ,.._._ ........ .......,.... . ., ................. ~ ................... .,....__. .. ~ ............... .. c-'~t..f ................................................ ~ ... --.. _ ......... ..__, ... ._ .... , ............................................ ~ ....................... ....._... ... __ ._ __ ., .............................. ..,.... t..-r.. u. ~ ~-a1l ~ INl: ra:w~M: ,..... • .._...._ ...t;ri.*'-· ~u-. -~ or ... :rof-«. u_. •MI tl .. •'"-'-t ... r,.tft...l .-.at-e. t'-~-.. ................ .....,...._fill dw ~ ....... -' U. ....... .-r'-- ..ur .. ,••ref ..... , eh4oi r ·-~ ... ,._ ......._ ...... ;.-e1.,... ~ ....... e1 ... _1'7 ,..._. .,.._ l••fvDy~l•i""q •\ectaiMtM......,._a...,.,.rti......,U...WfiU'll'.tU. .................. wiiiW~T&Ie' I-"0Rt..'""'£RO£f"E!!t,"D.'t1Meioft«''t.r ........ .._.._.....,._,.._.._, ......... , ................... _ .. ._ ....... •hrJI ..... •pp'-::abket .allp~ ts••m:£ssa·HEREOFtMe_....,..,_,&a..r_...,....._......_.. .......................... ,._ ... ...... ....-.. ., . ' I . t 1 M~ I ,.-.......,...,,~. ~.......,.......,.,....,,c,,..,::,.."""""'-.._,.'"'.,...'.....,'-',...__.....,.,....,.,.._......,.,, . .,,.,..,..X.Q....,.,.,,,.._ .... ,.,..., .......... l P ...... K ,,.......,, ,__ --~ -~ • • • • I • - • • 0 ' I>. F.'- ... .., ;:: .. nus DEED.. ,. ........ ·~ ._.,. -_ .... _ ;;:. ...... -~ ....-·--~ ..................... • CllOIOCE D • ..,.._---- ----.. aas.s.. ~ -.1 •• Qo. ...... __ .. ..__. --... Col_ ...... ..-_.._. . • • • Slale Doc:umenlary Fe I n.-UAI 3 1111 . WIT:SESS£tll.tMtt'-_.......,_, ..................... ...........__, ... _ _. · ----nw ~a. *'1"100 em• '" .......................... 0 ....... -................................. -. ................ .. -..-.~u...,..,...,........,..................... 1 ................................ _...,....,. ... . ,.,._.,__.... ............................................................ __. .................. ... __ ,.._...___ .... ~---..... ...-.~....................... ......... . .. :~~-~"'::=-• ..,. -~ .. ~ ~ r"'.=:r=--:.-=- Df--....... ----. C 1 "1.&&.--210--~tl ~-~--,.,.~--,.,.~----·· -· ~ paral.l•l to--:U.. ~-'· a-~ "·• -to--~ - be<Jinal....,. --·..u. --,.anllel wit:lo -~ 1U. Df .-u. '· .u-Df A.OO-. --,.anllel to--:U.. Df--~ or--~Df-,,a-oru.oo-.--~ • the ttortlo lU. .r ~-'· a-Df n.oo-to .• .,.._, ~-01111 """"u..t.w.~.~ 1'-or .a.-..,. or--v• or~ !ltdl:&~~~a..~ ~~ 1'1 ~ ~~ ~ tizr~~ TOC£11I£1l.....a .................. , 1 ............. --.-........................ ....... taini na_.,...,,........., ............... ........_. ... ---..........._...._ ... ....,...........r;_. .. ... -taW.I"ich\.llla. • .........__ ................................................................................ .. andt.t,...~ .... ~_. .................. II ...... .....,..,.,.,~~, TOII4V£A..'\;UTOHOI..Dt..__..,........, ................ ~_. .... ....,...._ .............. ... ... '"''"., ttw liM-.& .................................. ~ ......................................... .... ••.Wlen.. ........................................................................... -......... .... ttwirlw.:irs.,.,....ipa.t._.•U...._flll ............ ,...,.....,.,...._ ..................... .,, .. ........ ____ .....,......_ ......... ....,.~ ................................................................ .. r.-illric'ht.f llll ,...... ... "' .......................................... __ .. _ ........ ......... •twlthot&)o,. __ _..._ ... ..._ ....... ....._. ...................................... ___... ... "ncuN~~., ... .._. • ._._....,....._.. ..... ~ r.r ~ ,_.. I-"'_. d1 ..... :o:t..""'U~nt year•. ea.cftiOftb. reatri.ct.i-. ...._.-..t1-. _. ri_. or _, of .._... it any, a nd ttw .to. .... bupi _.. Pn .. ._. i• ttw .-• .... ,.....w. ,.........,Ute Mill ........ .,die_.·...._ • ... un-i.,or of llwlfto theW a .. ipa oM tM .............. -' ..et. ........................ .-.y ,..._ • ....... l•wf•tllyr:laimtncor t.dairathewMI.-••'-J'putt......._tM..W,....r-' ......................... Aa&ANTANO f"'JtEVF.RDEFESD.TtwM""'a.. .... w ........... aM . ..-,..&.U. ...... U• ............. t ........... ..... ahallbe•p,.-.c:ah .. s..a.D~ J S\VlTSESS"'HEkEOFtM...Wpat"tr-'t'-ftnl,.,.-tMo ........... MtW..._. ....... ,,_~ ... ,...,. ..... ..... .., l ft+.,~~ --------------------~~ --------------------~~ •. ~An:CWCXILOilAIIO }-. ·. ~~~·:::_~?_.~~ c-o,.r-. _l-rf.r..'~·..PftC~~ .... ,... ... _.n_~ ...... u. ·. · ·. ta .·· Johll ..,.., .Uttleboza -..... ......,.. ,.,, :. :1 . ••J I 'u •. -:,.:. i. · .. · ·/ l )~7~_, .. .:;~:.1 ,.-L ~ u. ·.:. -~~~;-~-:.~.~~~ .. ~J . -...:.:.... ---· N,,:u.... •-.•.....-n~ ..... ......._ • • 6 t. .. r ~. I • - EXHIBIT NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 • • • • LIST OF APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION / Survey of Lots Involved Copy of 522.4-4 (R-1-C ./ District), Englewood Zoning Code Copy of Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975 (R-2 District) /~~fl 'UU Englewood Zoning Map l'..f -u).;.~) Letter, 1/28/80, from "" Walter D. Jorgensen Letter, 1/24/80, from ~ Robert E. Thomas, Real Estate Broker Letter, 10/17/79, from A. Meli Ray Corporation Letter, 1/25/80, from / Executive Director, Englewood Downtown Development Authority Letter, 1/23/80, from ~ Republic National Bank Letter, 1/28/80, from / Land Mark Realty, Inc. Letter, 1/25/80, from Robert D. Johnson, Real Estate Broker Letter, 1/24/80, from Colbert Cushing Letter, 1/24/80, from Harold Rust Various Photos of Neighborhood / I • - J • • ~~~ M43 IIOUTH l"ttiNCIE Olt.VIO L . NICHOLL JOHN J NICHOL L l E I•• ~336 56 1 \.. of Oil Po•~,..nt I Elo• ~33~.94) ';; .. "'~ ";-' 0 c "'o .:~ (~~ ... u z ... ... " z + 0 ~ ARAPAHOE SURVEYS lti!GISTIERIEO SUitVIEYOitS SUitVI[YS MAP WORK LITTLIETON . COLOitlt.OO No . 6990 ([1 .. ~356 .7~) I I I + NE Corner I of Lot 3 I El••· 5336 .34) cl~,:-f:". ~!?so c 0 l 0 : 10 0: CD ""·9C'' ~ SCALE Inch = 30 Feet 533816 ) T N "' ..... ~ ! ~ 31 1 IE '••· 5338 .68 \. of 011 Powl'mtnt ) .. :r u 0 u 0 -a ... i: 0 I El•• 5336 15 I ([low . Notes : . ; 1/2" StHI Pin with Plostic Cop on Corners .......... 5 ;... (7\ ,., 0 ..,.. ~ k\ 0 (/) ~ .... .... "' ~ .. z w c 0 .. (/) E ': ~ a ... 0: 0 <l 0 ...J .. u • ... ... . 1. Bench Mark Do to from Citr of Englewood; Lead Cop on Clarkson Bridge walk across Little Orr Creek. Elev. 5339 .49 IE••• 5338 .47) ;:...._ ..,. 2. 100 Year Flood Plain Elevation os per Citr of EnglewOOd 5336 .0 ( E low ~331 .27).5' Q TH I S I S T O CE tH IFY THAT O N TilE 19 TH DAY O F JU 'IE 1 1f9 A :i URVEY WAS :>~or u•; •C " MY >J P E RVISIO N Of' l o Ts 4 A'<::> 5 , -AII'•R A 1 .; 3UJtli VISi o N 0 4>10 T HA T P OR T IO :J OF l OT 3 5 A NO RA 1 S :>U 'l D I V ISION tl E L C R I O!:D AS: 0 C C I I IG AT T H( r.E C OR IIE R Of' loT 3 ::iAII .:lR A 1 S U B DIVI S IO i; T HCNC E •O RT H "E T E R L Y AL ON G THE t~ORTH L I "'E ix: !..A I D lOT 3 2 o o00 FU T 0 T HE .c ~O U T ~ ~A ~A L L[L W ITH T ~E E AS T Ll E OF SA I D l O T 3 12D o0 FE E T 0 TH (II C [ So T H L ACTC RL Y P A RA LL E L W ITH T IIC 'i O RT H LI NE OF !A I D lOT 3 2 •o0J F E C T 0 T HCN CE .QR T H AL O NG TH C EA ST LI NE ,f' SAI D lOT )1 2 u o0 fL ET T O TH~ P OI NT :IF 6 (Q I ·~triCo Co TAI N I.I ~ 1t 0 71 9 o2 D S UARC FC ,T OF L A 10 'I:J io( .>~ L E S S . TH e PO I NTS WCRE L OCAT E D A S S HOw ·r HE!'L O '• ... \ '""'~ .. / i?t c.I S ~R E D LA uo U RV L YO R <cc. o . 4 5 ~2 • (/) , I • - • • • • ,~2.4-4 R-1-C Residence District. This District is composed of certain low-density single- fam ily residential areas of the City, plus certain open .1 reas where similar develo~nt appears likely to occur. ~'e regulations for this District are designed to stabilize a ~d protect the essential characteristics of the District, ::.o promote and encourage, insofar as is compatible with the i ~tensity of land use, a suitable environment for family life a~d to prohibit all activities of a general cODIIDI!rcial nature c:-:ccpt .certain Home Occupations controlled by specific limita- ::ions governing the size and extent of such non-residential .1ctivities. To these ends, permitted uses are typically single-family dwellings, religious institutions, and educa- :ional institutions, plus certain additional uses, such as ?3 rks, public buildings, community centers and ceri&ln ~~b lic facilities, which serve the residents of the District. a . Supplementary regulations. The provisions found in :~i s Zone District shall be subject to the requirements and ~t anda~ds found in 122.5, Supplementary Regulations, unless 1t herwise provided for in this Ordinance or an amendment ~e re to. b. Permitted principal uses. (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Religious institutions. (3) Educational institutions. (4) Public buildings. c. Minimum area of lot. (1) Standards for: (a) Religious institutions ..•.••• 12,000 sq . ft. (b) Educational institutions •..•. 12,000 sq. ft. (c) Public buildings ••••••••••••• 12,000 sq. ft. (2) Other permitted principal use requirements: (a) Single-family dwelling ••••••• 6,000 sq. ft. d · Minimum floor area. Minimum floor area ..•••.••.•.•.•••••.•• 850 sq. ft • I . - • • • • e . Naximtun percentage of lot coverage. l'!aximtun percentage of lot coverage ..•.•... 307. • Minimtun fr2ntagc of lot. (1} Standards for: (a) Religious institutions .••••••.•. 100 feet (b) Educational institutions •.•..... 100 feet (c) Public buildings .....•..••...... 100 f~ct (2) Other permitted principal usc requirf\mcnts: (a) Per dwelling.................... 50 feet :; . ~~imtun height of building. Principal building---2 stories .......... 25 feet h t-linimum_front ya~. (1} Standards for: (a) Religious institutions ...•...•.. (b) Educational institutions ...•...• (c) Public buildings ...•....•...•... 25 feet 25 ff\et 25 feet (2} Other permit: ted principal uae requirements: (a) Per dwelling. . . . • • • . • • • . . • • • . • . . 25 feet (l) Standards for: (a) (b) (c) Religious institutions •.••.....• 15 feet (Total 40 feet for both sides) Educational institutions •.••••.• 15 feet (Total 40 feet for both sides) Public buildings ••••.••••••••••. 15 feet (Total 40 feet for both sides) 27 I • - • • • • (2) Other permitted principal use requirements: (a) Per dwelling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 feet (Total 10 feet for both sides) ~~inimum rear yard. (l) Standards for: (a) Religious institutions .......... 25 feet (b) Educational institutions .•...... 25 feet (c) Public buildings ................ 25 feet (.:!) Other permitted principal use requirements: (a) P~r dwelling .................... 25 feet :.: ~Unimum off-street parking. (S••e Secth•n 22.5-5) (Amn'd by Ord. No. 34, Series of 1971) Ac£~!sory building and permitted accessory uses. (In addition to the following. sr.e Supplementary Regulations.) (l) Privat"e garages and carports. Private garages and carports designed or used for the storage or shelter of vehicles owned or Opt"!rated by the occupants of the principal building; however, co~rcial vehicles shall be limited t~ three- quarter (3/4) ton carrying capacity. (a) MaxUnum height ---1 story ...... 15 feet (b) MinLmum front yard ......... See Supplementary Regulations. (c) Side yard .................. t:hree (3) feet if detached and on rear one-third (1/3) of lot. (d) ~ar yard ........... . • • . . . . . . . . . 3 feet 28 • I • - • • , . .. • • • • (2) Signs. (a) On~ unlighted, unanimated sign not to exceed a total area of four (4) square feet appertaining to t·he prospective rental or sale of property on which the sign is located. Said sign shall be located not less than fifteen (15) feet from any lot line except where affixed to the building and shall not extend above the roof line. (b) Announcement signs constructed for public buildings, educational or religious insti- tutions, not to exceed eighteen (18) square feet in area. Such signs shall be set back not less than fifteen (15) feet from any lot line except where affixed to the building, and shall not extend over any property line. They shall not extrnd above the roof line. and shall not be animated. Any lighting shall be by indirect methods only . (c) One unlighted, unanimated name plate not exceeding one hundred (100) square inches in area f~r any permitted Home Occupation, provided t.hc sign is affixed to the building and ~s not C!xtend over any property line or above the roof line. (3) Home occupat.ions. Occupations cus tomarlly incident to the principal usc as a residence (not including barbers, hairdressers, cos~tol ogists, beauticians) when conducted in the same dwelling, provided that: (a) It is operated in its entirety within the dwelling unit and only by the person or persons maintaining a dwelling unit therein . (b) No assistants arc employed. (c) The hours and the manner of such use and the noises created thereby are not such as to interfere with the peace, quiet or dignity of th~ neighborhood and adjoining properties. 29 I I i' I I I . - 1 • •• • • • - (d) There shall be no advertising except as permitted herein. (e) The office or business does not have a separate outside entrance. (f) The office or business docs not utilize more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area in the dwelling unit, but in any event, not more than three hundred (300) square feet; provided, however. that this limitation does not apply to foster family care. (g) Tbe use of electric motors is limited for power, with a total limitation of three (3) horsC'power and no single unit over three-quarter (3/4) horsepower. m. Conditional uses. Provided the public interest is fu lly p~otected and the following uses are approved by the Col!IDission: (1) Usu . (a) Parks and playgrounds. (b) Nursery schools. (c) Golf courses and country clubs. provided: (1) Tbc area shall be not less than forty (40) acres. (2) Floodlights or other illumination devices shall not be used to permit night use of golf courses or of driving fields when such floodlights or illumination devices. by reason of glare or intensity, would become offensive to the surrounding residen- tial areas. (d) Electric substations, provided that if transformers are exposed, there shall be provided an enclosing wall within setback regulationa and at least eight (8) feet high. designed to protect the health, safety • and welfare of the COIIIDWlity. 30 t I . i t I I r· I . • - I ! l • I I I I • • • • • (e) Gas regulator stations . (2) Maximum height. Sec 122.5-7. (3) Min~ yards. The minimum yards for any building or structure pE'!rmitted by Conditional Use are: (a) Front yard.............. . . . . . . . . 25 feet (b) Side yard .....•.••..... 20 feet, except electric substations and gas regulator stations which may be five (5) feet. (c) Rear yard........... . • . 25 feet, except for electric substations and gas regulator stations which may be five (5) feet, if having an entrance on the alley; if such structures do not have entrance on the alley, or if there is no alley, the rear setback shall be governed by public utility casements . (4) Min~ private off-street parking. For any building or structure permitted by Conditional Use, see Supplementary Regulations. Other provisions and reguirements . (1) No structure or vehicle on the same lot with the dwelling shall be used for residence pur- poses. (2) No usc shall be permitted within the District which, by emitting an obnoxious or dangerous degree of heat, glare. odor, radiation, or fumes, or undue or excessive noise beyond any boundary line of the lot upon which the use is located, would be,:ome a nuisance to other validly existing uses in the area. 31 I I • - - • • • (3) The hoysing of not more than one (1) non-transient roo.cr or boarder in any single-family dwelling shall be permitted, provided no sign shall be displayed, and no separate cooking facilities shall be maint:lined in connection with such &~ecessory use. I . - -~~ :. ... -.... i -~~~::l~ i ~-.;.:. ! . I \ -~- i . -} _..: -~- • ,_', ----~-~--.>··_ I . . "· ... • I ;.. • • • l ' -.. I c· U -(-\ INTRODUCED AS A B~ BY COUNCIL~~N SOVERN BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. S1<2 , SERIES OF 1975 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 22.4-S AND 22.4-6 ENTITLED "R-2-A AND R-2-B RESIDENTS DIS- TRICT", OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE tORDINANCE NO. 26, SERIES 1963, AS AMENDED) WHEREIN SAID SECTIONS RELATE TO PERMITTED USES, MINIMUM LOT AREA, MINIMUM FLOOR AREA, MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF LOT COVERAGE, MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF LOTS, MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS, HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND CONDITIONAL USES. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. ·That Sections 22.4-5 and 22.4-6 of the Comprehensive · Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 26, Series 1963) are hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 22.4-5 R-2 Medium Density Residence District One of the goals of the citizens of Englewood is . to encourage a ·variety of housing to meet the needs of the · differing income levels and the varying family structures by emphasizing quality of development through the use of -... · .;.:~-, :. : • innovative and well-designed developmental procedures • This District provides essent i ally for a· transition _-;~ .froa single-family areas and medium-high density two-family areas to high density multi-family areas. The regulations -. -·- for this District are designed to stabilize and protect the essential characteri s tics of the District, to promote and en--' c Ju ~age insofar as is compatible with the intensity of land · · c s e, a suitable environment for family l i fe and to prohibit ac tivities of a general commercial nature except certain Home Occupations controlled by specific limitations governing -1 - I • \ I • • - • • I I , ··~ ~ t~ • • • • c · the size and extent of such non-residential activities. This District is protected against encroachment of general comm- ercial or industrial uses while the regulations permit dev- elopment consistent with the concentration of persons and land valuation in the area. a • ;:S;.:::u:q;.;:.:;,;;.:~~::.L,,...:..r.~=.:=:w:..;. in this Zone and standards found in 22.5, Supplementary Regulations, unless otherwise provided for. in this Ordinance or an amendment hereto. b. Permitted principal uses. ·(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Si~gle family dwelling. Two-family dwelling, with at least one party wall and under a common roof. Multi-family dwellings not exceeding 14 units per acre. Planned Development approval is required for four or more units. Religious institutions. Educational institutions. Public facilities. (Amn'd. by Ord. No. 35, Series of 1971) Day Care centers. c. Minimum area of lot. (1) Single-family dwelling •.•.•.•.••••.•••••..• 6,000 sq. ft.·· (2) Two-family dwelling ...•••.•.•...•..•••.••.. 6,000 sq. ft. (3) Each additional unit .•....•...•.•..•.•••••. 3,000 sq. ft. (Amn'd. by Ord. No. 35, Series of 1971) (4) Day Care centers ••.••.....•.••..•••.•••.••. 6,000 sq. ft.· (5) All other permitted uses .••••.••..•.•••••. 42,000 sq. ft. d •.. Minimwa floor nrea • . _.._ (1) •. (2) . • I • -~ Single~family dwelling •••••..•..• -. •••••••. ~: •. sso '~·q .. ft~::: \ e. Maximum percentage of lot cover~ge. Two or more-family dwellings: efficiency and/or one bedroom •••••••••••. 6SO sq. ft. two bedroom unit ••...•..••.•.••.••••••••. 750 sq. fL .. :: three bedroom unit ..•..•.••.••..•••••.... 950 sq. ft. . _ _. each additional bedroom .•.••......•...... 110 sq. ft ~-· .. :· Maximum percentage of lot coverage •..••...•••.••.••.•••• 30\ : (Covered parking facilities including carports and garages are not considered as lot ~overage.) -2- • - I • • • - '.' . ~ ~ . -·. ·. . . . ~:.· ... 4 ••• . -~ . ~ -~· i ./ -~~::;~~~~:: ': :-~-:;: .. :·.~~:··;": ,. ' i . }.:@: • • (· .. .( f. Miniaum useable open space. MinimUII useable open space •.. · ....••.....••.....•...••••• SO\ 40 \ of which sha!-1 be in the required front yard g. Miniaum landscaping. Miniaua landscaping .•.•...••.•..•.••...••••.•..•••• lSI h. Utilities. i. ·utilities service to buildings in new developments must be placed underground. Miniaua frontage of lot. · (1) Single family dwelling •.....••••••.••...•••• SO feet (Z) Two-family dwelling .....• ~ ....•.••••••.•...• SO feet (3) Each additional dwelling unit •••••••••..•••• 2S feet (Aan'd. by Ord. No. 35. Series of 1971) (4) Day Care centers ..•..•. ~ •...••....•••.••.•.• SO feet (S) All other permitted uses ... -.•..••••••.•••. 200 feet j. Maxiawn height of building. Principal building--2-1/Z stories •.••••••..••••• ZS ·feet . k. Miniaua front yard. All ·pe~itted principal uses .•......•••.••.•.••.• 2S feet 1. Miniaua side yard . • ; :'.. -·-r.:. . (1) ··Single family dwelling ••••.••••.••••••..••••. 3 feet ,_~:::~ . 'J',%f{--.·r <iL:( . \jJ ~:. :~ ::r:r:~m:L ~~:m;~ :~~. m;; ~~:~~; . feet ·::': . •; _ _ _ .(3) All other permitted principal uses ••...••••• lS feet _<-;- • m.-Minim1111 rear yard. All permi'ttcd principal us·~s ...•.•.•.......•.••• ~25 feet · n. Minimum off-street parking . • (See 22._5-5) (Aan'd. by Ord. No. 3A. Series of 1971) -3- • • I • - ..... • • ~ ~.~.!:·~ · .. ·.' :: .. • ·, ' ... ... • • • (· C.. o. Accessory buildings and perm i tted accessory uses. (In addition to the foll~wing, see Supplementary Regulations) ...... (1) Private garages anJ carports. Private garages and carports designed cr used for the storage or shelter of vehicles owned or operated by the occupants of the prindpal building; however, com~ercial vehicles shall be limited to three-quarter (3/4) ton carrying capacity. (a) '(b) . (c) (d) Maximum height--1·1/2 story ••••....•• lS feet Minimum front yard. see Supplementary Regulations. Side yard .........•....•.•..• ·•• • • • . . . • • 3 feet if detached and on rear one-third (1/3) of lot. Rear yard --if e~ter from front or side ................ : ..••... : . . . . . . . • • . 3 feet If entering from ~lley •....••.•....•.•. 6 feet (2) Home occupations. Occupations customarily incident to the principal use ~s a residence (not to . include barhcrs, hai~dressers, cos-• aetologi s ts, beauticians) when conducted in the same dwelling provided that: (a) I~ is operated in its entriety within the d~elling unit and only by the person or person=: m:Jin~aining a dwelling unit therein. (b) No assistants are e~ployed. (c) :.· The hours ar.d the manner of such use and the noises created thereby are not such as to .interfere ~ith the peace, quiet or . ··.·. · Cigni ty oi thf' neighborhood and adjoining .. :· '· .. ·-":'· :.~ ...... properties . · · · · '· · · ~. · ;:_ ··~<--·. . ..... - ... .... ·. :"/• .~ (d) There shall be no advertising except as permitted herein. -.~ -.. '. : (e) The office t)T bu ~iness does not have a . •cpa~ntc ~utFide entrnnce. (f) The office or bu ~intss does not utilize ~or~ than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor ·area in the dwelling unit, but in any e v ent, not more than three hundred (300) square feet; provided, however, that thi~ does not apply to foster famiJy care . I • • - · ..... ... · . . ~-. : : ;, · .. .··. • • • '"•·-----~-------~--- (· ( (g) The use of electric motors is limited for power, with a total limitation of three (3) horsepo~er .and no single ur.it over one and one-h~lf £1-1/Z) horsopow~r. p. Other provisions and requirements. (1) ... · .. : ... . .(2) (3) No structure or vehicle on the same lot with the principal dwelling shall be used for resi- dellce purpo~es . Two units •ust h~ve at least one party wall and ~ common roof. · No use shall he per~itted within the District which, by emitting an obnoxious or dangerous degree of heat, glare, ocor, radiation, or ·fumes or undue or cxce~sive noise beyond any boundary line of the lot upor. which the use ·is located. would ~ecome a nuisance to other validly existing uses in the area. Introduced, read in full and pass~d on first reading on· the 7th day of July, 1975. Publis~ed as a Bill for an _Ordinance on the lOth_ day of July, !975. Read by title and passed on final reading on ~ ":'r :· .. ·-the 4th clay of August. 1975. . ._, \ ._·_::~-~~:;;~:_}.'_:: ,--. . · --~ .· Published br ti Ue as Ordinance No. .30 ,.· .: . _ .. · :_::: .- '~ie::f:':( ~~r:·;,~. :' _,.915, on the~'th day of ••••••• 1:_ /-<;: r'::~t >; • --.·_., -···.:-'K L~-~ .. -.:~::.:~:· .. ·_·-~ · OR ' · ·--::::·· . . ~ • ·= ·.!'· •• -.. : - • -5 - • • ... . ... - · ... -... : .. : .. ..... I • - - .. r• • I~ p , .-.,;.. .. ' . ~· ... :_, ~ ·:;' ~ -~.,;. -.. · .. ·-.... ·' <. -~.· .. (~}- ·~ -:~.. ' .. ... ·' :~ ... ....... · • • . . • ''------~-------------------------- (· ( ATTEST: I • Willi a• U . .Ja~:~es ~ do hereby certify that ~he above and for e goirag is :1 true, accurate and co•plete copy of ·th~ Ordinance. passed on fin a l reading and published by title as Ord i nan c e No. ~o • Series of 1975. :. .... . . : ... _ <tl •• . · ·-. -. . I • - • ' ... • • • N & ASSOCIATES INC. WA&..TEft 0 JO..ciENSEN • January 28, 1980 Members of the Englewood City Council 3400 South Elati Englewood, Colorado 80110 Council Members: .. , .. SOUTH lltOADWAY . ltOX- PIGUWOOD. COI.OIIAOO eDIIt Tllll'HONl: 1_1.,.1-ZHZ Re: Rezoning Request by Mr. Harry Wise At the request of Mr. Wise, I am writing this letter regarding his rezoning request on the land located east of the Englewood High School Baseball Field, bounded by South Clarkson on the east and Jefferson Drive on the north. It is my understanding that the request by Mr. Wise, for rezoning in the above tract of land. from Rl to R~. has been denied by the Citv Plannina Commission and is now before the City Council for your action. As a twenty-five year resident and commercial property owner in Engle- wood, as a former principal in a real estate brokerage firm and as a fifteen year member of the Englewood Board of Education, I am familiar with this particular tract of land. In my opinion this tract is not suitable for Rl development as evidenced by the fact that, in spite of the severe shortage of Rl locations in the City of Englewood, and the long time availability of this tract for that use, development has not taken place. Possibly the lack of interest in the single family development of this land is due to its proximity to the multi-family development to the north and also the proximity to the Physical Education and Competitive Athletic use of the School District property to the west. I firmly believe that the highest and best use of the land is as a multi- family site and that the requested rezoning should be granted. This action on your part will benefit the School District and the City of Englewood. Sincerely yours, <r,(.f;~d.~ WDJ:nt I • - - • • • • - -10Unt8110ADWAY • INGLIWOOO, COLOIIADO .... ,. • lll/719-Zlto1 January 24, 1980 To ..mo. it •Y ooncem: It ia the undersigned' a opinion tbllt the ..aoant land located at appron-tly 3701 South Clarkson St., Englnood 1B not a de~ble nor acceptable Bite ~or a single ~ .. ily dwelling. The prold.mty o~ the ball ~ield, high traffic, and odd shape of the site an -o~ the principal objecti.one. Full ~rvlu ReiJI Est!Jit! Sincerely ~/1 / .--7U!.~T ROBERT E. TlDAS Real Estate Broker I • IB REAlTOR• • - A. MELIROY CORPORATION BOX 121 LITTLCTQN, CDLDIIADD 80120 Mr. Don Finley Finley & Associates 4045 South Broadway Englewood, co 80110 Dear Don: October 17, 1979 RE: VACANT LOTS AT 3700 SOU'lli CLA RKSON ZONED R 1 C After thorough investigation and consulting with the city and a soil engineer I find that the building sites are not feasible for single family dwellings. I would seriously be interested in said lots if the zoning could be changed to the aini.alum of R 2, so that two ( 2) doubles could be built on the property. Reaaona being that this property is on a busy street, next to an ugly ditch and very close to a ...U.cal building and apar~t buildings. Therefore, tbia does not warrant exoaoaical.ly the building of two ( 2) single fa.ily r•i-.ce.. If you haYe any quest.iona please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, RLS/par .. ····• • ) I . • - - • • • Englewood Downtown Development Authority January 25, 1980 To Wholll It May Concern: 3535 South Sherman Street Englewood • Colorado 80110 phone ( 303) 781-7885 Re: Berkeley/Wise Rezoning Case 126-79, Planning and Zoning hearing December 4, 1979. I was present when this request was presented to Planning and Zoning for their reco-ndation. Speaking only as a Real Estate Broker and the Executive Director of the Englewood Downtown Devel~nt Authority, but not for the Board of Directors, I wish to state for Council's consideration soae things as I see them for the future of Englewood. The day of the single faaily, detached residence in a suburban location on a 6,000 square foot piece of land 50 feet wide is fast becoaing only available to the very wealthy. Englewood is land locked and must exist upon the land within it's present boundries except fior a few scattered parcels of unincorporated land. If the "Downtown" is to beco-aore viable, the reaaining undeveloped land and especially the "close in" parcels should be raised in allowable density. This will provide housing at a aore reasonable cost, give eaployees housing that will be close to their jobs thus reducing fuel consu111ption and provide the business community with potential customers. Good quality, multiple housing, close in to the downtown area will be a valuable asset to the oom.unity as a whole. J'l'l{:ct !ou<o ''"'Y ~ ames T. Keller, II xecutive Director I • • - - ::Republic Nanonal Bani< January 23, 1980 Mr. Don D. Finley 4045 S. Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Don, • • • Nk:k L. "-tta Senior Vice President Please be advised that Republic National Bank will not consider making a real estate loan as you requested on property located in the 3700 block of S. Clarkson, Engle- wood. Sin~l~, , ·7LL/~ Nick L. Panetta Sr. Vice President NLP/bs I . . - - • • • • olu.Jm.,/, IGJJ, -L. ..t381 South ero.dway Englewood, Coloredo 80110 (303)761~ • • • TO WBCI4 IT HAY CCl'CIIlf: It ia ., opillloD that the land located at 3700 South Clarkaon ia uadeairable for ainale f .. ily reaidaacea and abould be reaoead froa the preaant a-lC . )ih_~ U Jo Cl;;_ta, Broker Llllldllark Baalty, Inc . • lB . I • • - - • • • \ • • • ARA?A:T':." .., '' :. :-;T;:; , G..:::·c:: 3334 So uth s :. "'"'an .:;t . Zngle;mo '• Colorada 795-224? January ~5 , l'1BO located J.t the So ut h~leot Corne or 0outh Clar"::>'Jn _,trrot m"' .-pffc>·~ .n :::r.:.v·•( 'l __ ,proY.imatoly 3700 SQ uth Clarks.m); an" consi lor· t"le l"')'t'"'' .. .:.n th e a 1j acent ar..,a I have ma:le the ;:'ollowing rr oomenlation : ::;ub j,..ct pro_!)crt y shoultl be alloaetl to be rezone'] fron t'le current -u.-c to the higher den s ity :t-2B vh ich 'IIO uld allow or t he buildil'l g of two -2 amily dwe llings . I believe tha t such zo ning change 'IIOuld be an enhancecent o f the area and would allow or utili zati on of subj ect p r operty t o i t s h ighest ~~d b est u sage • II • I • - • • • • • • 11351 MONTVIEW BOULEVARD AURORA , COLORADO 110010 TELEPHONE (303) 341.Q31 0 J'lt41V. ~ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~~-..6MI4 ASSOC . EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ~s.e.., ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR January 24, 1980 To Whom It Hay Concern: I have been asked to comment upon the desirability of the construction of a duplex building at the corner of Clarkson and Dry Creek. After looking over the proposed site and the surrounding homes, it would seem to me that a well-built duplex would fit in very nicely and be a definite improvement to the entire neighborhood. Further I have checked with at least one long- time resident of the immediate area and find that he is in accord with my observation. Therefore, I recommend that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals give favorable consideration to the request for a variance in the zoning requirement for that property. Thank you. Signed /~/F. -r;;;;;L, __ Colbert E. Cushing ~~ 3791 South Sherman Englewood, Colorado I • • - • • 0 0 • • • I . • • I I / - I - ( ( I - ( I ) 0 ) ) ( ) r: I ~ r: ) ( () / ( I • - I . ~-=--::~~~-~~==------------------------------------~ • - 0 c c I • - c I Berkelel(t.'*'-on ---_ ,._ 0 ) - • • • • • 1980 - 7 -(7) NEW BUSINESS 1. Accreditation-by-Contract Five-Year Plan -Hold until January 15, 1980 meeting. 2. Board Representation to Meetings of the Athletic Board of Control of Skyline League -Hold until January 15, 1980 meeting. 3. Citizens Budget Review Committee -Hold until January 15, 1980 meeting. 4. CASE/AASA Finance Conference, November 6-7 , 1 9 79-Hold until January 15, 1980 meeting . 5. SEMBCS Van ----- The Southeast Metropolitan Board of Cooperative Services Board of Directors voted on December 20, 1979 to donate a used van to the Englewood School District. Mr. Hosanna moved that the Board of Education accept the van, use it in the high school auto mechanics program for instructional value, and sell it. ROLL CALL: Boardman, Aye; Hewitt, Aye; Hosanna, Aye; Pool, Aye; Richards, Aye. Motion carried, 5-0. 6. Report of Area Vocational School Board of Directors -Hold until January 15, 1980 meeting. 7. Report of Southeast Metropolitan Board of Cooperative Services Board of Directors - Hold until January 15, 1980 meeting. B. Communications with Dorothy Romans regarding Request for Rezoning The Board discussed the matter of consideration for rezoning of a parcel of land on the southwest corner of East Jefferson Drive and South Clarkson Street from single-family residence to medium density residence , and the suggestions made i a December 6, 1979 letter from Dorothy A. Romans that the appearance and use of jf ~ school property adjacent to that land might be changed or considered for impro~-~-~ ment. During discussion it was expressed that there is a question of advisa- bility of any kind of construction on that property in view of the pending decisions and development of a detention pond for flood control in that location. Mrs. Richards moved that the Superintendent be directed to send a letter to the City Manager, with copies to Mayor Otis and Do rothy Romans, stating the Board's position and indicating that Mr. Hewitt would attend the public hearing scheduled for January 28, 1980 on behalf of the school district. ROLL CALL: Boardman, Aye; Hewitt, Aye; Hosanna, Aye; Pool, Aye; Richards, Aye. Motion carried, 5-0. OLD BUSINESS City Master Plan Discussion -Hold until January 15, 1980 meeting • • I • - • • • • • Englewood Public Schools ·-·······-·-·-·-····-·-·· ...... . 4101 SOUTH BANNOCK STRUT I ENGUWOOD , COLOAAOO 10110 I HUI'HUN£ D Ol l 1ro1 /0~0 ROSCOE l DAVIDSON . s..,.., ........ , January 11, 1980 }lr. Andy NcCown City Manager City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Andy: The matter of the application to rezone a parcel of lar.j en the southwest corner of East Jefferson Drive and So•Jc.:-: Clarkson Street from R-1-C, single-family residence to R-2, medium density residence, and the related matter o f the appearance and use of school property adjacent to that. land h~been brought to the attention of the Board of EGucation by Dorothy Romans in a letter of December 6, 1930. At the Board of Education meeting on January 8, 1980, dis- cussion was held regarding the correspondence and conversations that Dorothy and I have had regarding the Planning CoiMli"sic:m's position and the scheduled Public Hearing on the matter. The Board has asked me to advise you that they have discu s s ed the matter. They feel there is some question of the advi:;a- bility of any kind of construction on that property in v iew of the pending decisions and development of a detention po~d for flood control at that location. ~lr. Selwyn Hewitt, President of the Board, will plan to attend the public hearing on January 28, \980 on behalf of the schools . If you wish to discuss this with me, please call. Sincerely, Roscoe L. Davidson RLD:b cc: Mayor Gene Otis / Ms. D. A. Romans Members of the Board of ' ' Education • I • • - - • • • • • • Englewood Public Schools 4111 SOUTH IANIIOCK STREET I ENGLEWOOD . COLORADO 10110 /HLI.PHON£ llOl l l fol 10 ~0 ROSCOl L OAVIOSOII . s.,,_., • ...,_, January 11, 1980 :-l r. Andy HcCown City Manager City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Andy: The matter of the application to rezone a parcel of la ~~ e n the southwest corner of East Jefferson Drive a nd So •J ·. Clarkson Street from R-1-C , single-family res idence co R-2 , medium density residence, and the related mat ter o: the appearance and use of school property adjacent t o c h ac land h~been brought to the attention of the Board o f EGucation by Dorothy Romans in a letter of December 6, 1 960 . At the Board of Education meeting on January 8, 1980, d i s - cussion was held regarding the correspondence and conversat i ons t hat Doroth y and I have had regarding the Planning Comm i ss ion 's position and the scheduled Public Hearing on che matter . Tre Board has asked me to advise you that they have discussed the matter. They feel there is &oa~e question of the adv i sa- bility of any kind of construction on that property in view o f the pending decisions and development of a detention pond for flood control at that location. Hr. Selwyn Hewitt, President of the Board, will plan to attend the public hearing on January 28, 1980 on behalf of the school s . If you wish to discuss this with me, please call. Sincerely, ·-,{ ' .:.. ~ . Roscoe L. Davidson RLO:b cc: Mayor Gene Otis ./ Ms. D. A. Romans~ Members of the Board of Education 'W,E'J, /h I • • - • • • • • • DATE: December 19, 1979 TO: Dr. R.L. O.vldson FROM: Jl• Phllllpe SUBJECT: LETTER DATED DECEMBER 6 FRO"! OOROnfY ROMANS 1 do not intend this to be the position of the school district, only to convey ~ thoughts on the sub j ect, should the Board of Education respond to ~rs. Romans. Situation In a letter dated December 6, 197 , Mrs. Romans stated that propo nents of a possible rezone for the parcel of land at East Jefferson Drive and South Clarkson Street -suggested that school district "activity is said to have so adversely affected the subject aite that it il no longer desirable as a location for a single family residence." She abo asks that "the property can be better screened by landscaping or a decorative closed-face fence, or the outside storage relocated", thus making it more desirable as a site for sir.gle :amily relidenc -~. Opinion The subject site is somewhat undesirable as a single family residential site. lt is located on a busy street, Clarkson to the East, there is an unsightly city ditch to the Southwest, a big apartment complex located to the Northwest, an unaightly creek bed, asphalt parking lot, an office building on the North and a church in the cloae proximity to the Northeast. I doubt whether the district putting up a lence, landscaping the area, or putting atorage else- where would have any influence on making the area a more deairable living area. It simply is not a deairable reaidential lite because of a multitude of factor•, the least of which is the school maintenance shed. It is not a quiet street in suburbia, but rather is and, apparently, always will be a noisy, busy corner where a lot of activity prevails. An additional conflict is posed when one considers the last three (3) years of discussion the school has had with the City for the use of that area as a detention pond for flood control. For me to spend the limited funds I have to landscape or fence the maintenance shed area, with the possiblity that it would be torn out in a few years, is not very wise usa of the tax dollars I am rasponsf~le for. I urge the City to allow the development of this marginal area into multiple housing units. This would esthetically enhance the area, put the property to a better use than present, enable the City to collect additional tax dollars and possible help the declining enrollment probl .. the district is faced with. To deny puttina this property into productive U8e aa a aultiple housin& area is not in the best interest of the school diatrict, City, ta•- payera or developers. It is an unaightly, unuaed, vacaot ar... The City needs to encouraae private developers to invest in .. rainal areal, such aa thia, not try to discouraae th .. , 11 it appeara in this case. .. t:lff· E ~. 11 • I • - • • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 4 , 1979 5 A Members of the Planning Commissio n met with the Community Development staff and Assistant City Attorney DeWitt at 5:30 P . M. in Conference Room A f or a dinner/discussion session. Mr. DeWitt discussed the ramifications of a recent Court decision on the procedures followed by the Planning Commissi.on in conducting Public Hearings vs . Administrative Hearing s . The change in proce du re wa s qu est ioned by Commission members and discussed with M.r . DeWi tt. I . CALL TO ORDER, The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was calle d to order by Vice -Chairman Lath r op at 7 :15 P .M. Members present: Carson; Draper; Lathrop ; Pierson; Becker; Bilo Members absent: Also present: Wanush, Ex-officio Smith; Tanguma ; Williams Assistant Director of Planning D. A. Romans; Associate Planner Alice Fessenden ; Assistant City Attorne y DeWi t t 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, f3, should be amended to r ef lect 3460 South Broadway rather than~ South Broadway . Mr . La t hrop asked if there were further amendments to be made? Draper moved : Silo seconded: The Minutes o f November 27, 1979, be approved as amended. AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Bilo NAYS: None ABSTAIN : Pierson, Becker ABSENT : Williams, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. • • I • - • • • -2 - l ii. CEN'l'URIAN PARTNERSHIP Planned Development • • • CI\SE #27-79 Pierson moved: Bilo seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2 7-79 b e opened. AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None 1\BSENT: Williams, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. Vice-Chairman Lathrop asked the staff to make their presentation. Mr s. Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Co .. unity Development for Planning . The application before the Comaission 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 co .. ission, the staff does suggest that the Public He~ring 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 NA YS: None ABSENT: Williams, Tanguma, Smith T he motion carried. IV. BERKELEY/WISE REZONING R-1-C, Single-faaily Residence to R-2, Mediua Density Residence CASE #26-79 Mr. Draper asked to be excused f rom consideration of this case for personal reasons. Mr . Lathrop excused Mr. Draper, and M~ Draper left his chair • Pierson aoved: Bilo seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #26-79 be opened. AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAY S: None AB SENT: Williams, Draper, Tanguaa, Smith The motion carried • • I i , I l I I • - • • • • ,. • -3- Mrs . Romans stated that the matter befor e the Planning Com- mission is a request for rezoning o f property owned by Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley from R-1-C, Single-family Residenc~ to R-2, Mediua Density Residence. The legal publication for this hearing did appear in the Englewood Sentinel, t he official City Newspaper. The property was pos t ed, and Mrs . Romans sub- mitted Certification of Posting to the Secretary for the record . Mrs. Romans stated tbat 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 th e 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, Sing le-family Residence, r e quiring a minimum lot ar e a of one acr e. 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 nor t hw es t a r e multi-family and o f fices (this area is zoned R-3 ) and the property west of t h e s ite is a public us e --th e hig h s chool athle tic 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, Medium Density District, would also perait 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 f oot f rontage with 6,000 square fee t lot area. For each addi- tional 25 foot of frontage and 3,000 square feet of lot area in th e R-2 District, an additional attached unit could be con- structed . Mr s . Romans stated that this parcel of land was annexe d to the C i ty in 1946, and was zoned f or 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 tbe use itself bas not change d 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 o rie nted to coaplement Swedish Medical Center. The consulting • • I • - • • • • • • -4 - fir m 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 Dis trict 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 t he area north of Little DrY Creek was zoned R-3 . This district d oes not require a ainimum number of uni ts per development, and single-family and two-family units are permitted uses. Mrs. Romans stated that tb.ere bas been some recent development in the R-3 zone Classification, and cite d the medical complex at U.S. 285 and Clarkson, and the apartment buildings. Mrs. Romans stated that it is the posi tion of the staff that z oning must begin and end at some place , a nd 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- twee n the High Density Residence area and the single-family area to the south of East Jefferson Drive . Mrs. Roaans stated there is a 100 foot right-of-way for East Jefferson Drive and Litt le 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 J efferson Drive , so East Jefferson Drive does serve as a buffer between these "neighborhoods." The staff strongly feels that the higher dens ity residential use should not intrude into the single-family area south of Little Dry Creek and East J efferson Drive. Mrs . Romans stated that the City Council bas adopted the Comprehen- sive Plan as of December 3, 1979. The Generalized Land Use Pla n, Page 85 of the coaprehensive 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 t o 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 fi led 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 bas not been presented by the applicant that the property cannot be developed under the present zone district. The subject site is part of the sing le-family residential neighborhood south of East Jefferson Drive, and is not needed to provide a "buffer" between the sing le-family district and the high density residence district nort h of Little DrY Creek. Mrs. Romans stated that schools are typically located in residential neighborhoods and are compatible with low-density residential development • • - • I • • - • • • • • • Mr . Lathrop asked ii there were qu es tions to b e aske d 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 th e site zoned R-2 before or after the subject site was zoned R-1? Mrs . Romans stated tha t she did not have the applicable ordinances at band, but f elt the R-2 and R-3 areas were designated at approximately the same time . Mr . Criswell state d in other words, about 10 y e ars after this was zoned R-1 ? Mrs. Romans again stated that s he did not have t he 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 stat e d that t he zoning would have been R-1 . Mr. Lathrop asked if there were further questions of Mrs. Roman s? No further questions wer e asked . Mr . John A. Criswell 3780 South Broadway -was sworn in and testified that he is r- 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 p e rsons 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 configurati.on 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 foot age 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 be bad a contr a ct with the property owner to purchase this land; however, t his contract has not been agreed upon, and the applicant asked tha t the application be amended to consider only Lots 4 and 5 of S a ndra's Subdivision. Mr. Criswell stated that be 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 • • I • - • • • • • • -6 - J, 1., and 5 of Sandra's Subdivis ion . Mr . Crj swc ll cstim:Jl•d Ll.at. Lot 3 conta ined 3,200 squar e f cl, and jf t.his were to b adde d to the estLa3ted 15,500 square feet. o f Lots 4 and 5, th is would give a total of 18,000 squar e f e et or more for the applicant to work with. As the property is presently z oned , if Lots 3, 4, and 5, were under on e ownersh ip, there would be in excess of 18,000 square feet with 156 foot fr ontage, and if the structures were to be oriented t o 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 a nd 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 t hat under the present R-1-C Zone Dis trict , 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 feas ible, the developer could build thr ee sing le-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 bas 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 z oning is gra nted. The applicant is willing to bring in a Planned Develop~~ent 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 be 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 th at when the applicant came to bia to request him to handle the request for rezoning, be bad 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 t han the R-2 zone classification, and feels that the Planning Commis sion 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- t rict does provide .are 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 Developaent process with two duplexes. Construction of a four-plex does require the Planned Development process be f ollowed • Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Wise bas contracted to purchase the property subject to the zoning. It is assumed that this pro perty is within the lOo-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 • I • - • • • • • -7- b e cause the City will have to be satisfied that the c onditions of the Flood Plain District are met. Mr. Criswell stated that East Jefferson Drive is a street which extends approxiaately six blocks east and west, deadending at South Sheraan 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 o f Englewood that is z oned R-1 except for the subject property. The privately owned property abutting East Jefferson Drive is zone d R-3, High Density Resi- dence, R-2, Medium-Density Residence, or commercial . Any otber 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 o f this propert y even though it is zoned for sing le-family residence purposes. Mr. Criswell stated that the School Dis- trict bas constructed a storage shed on the property, gravel is stored, construction materials and h eavy e quipment is stored, a nd 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 teras of developaent of the neighborhood, the R-2 and R-3 · areas have been rezoned and developed since this subj ect land was zoned for R-1 developaent . Mrs. Pierson asked for comments from the staff on Mr. Criswell's c omments . Mrs. Romans stated that she bad 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 co-ission would have no input in a Planned Develop- ment in a single-family zone district; she stated that the Coa- 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 Developaent be filed. Mrs . Romans emphasized that Jefferson Drive does serve as the boundary between the R-2, Medium Density District, R-3, High Densit y District, and the R-1-C Sing le-family Residence District to the south • Mr. Criswell asked that Mr. Berkeley appear before the Co.- mission. Mr. Robert Berkeley was sworn in. Mr. Criswell questioned Mr. Berkeley, and Mr. Berkeley testified tha~ he and his wife, Gloria s. Berkeley, purchased Lots 4, 5, and 6, Sandra's Sub- • I • - ( • • • • • -8 - div ision, in 1976 . At the t.ime of the purchase of t.he pro1 rty, it was their intent to use the bouse on Lot 6 lor a pbot.ograpby studio . Mr . Criswell asked if Mr . Berkeley discussed this with the Planning Staff at the time? Mr. Berke l ey stated that he did so, and obtained the requirements be would have to meet in order to operate a portrait photography studio at this location. Mr . Berkeley stated that he placed t he property, Lots 4 and 5, on the market about one and one-hal f years ago following his deter- min<J tion that it was impractica l t o us the site for a photog r a phy studi o . Mr . Berkeley stated that be listed the property with Mr. Don Finley, and that he has been unable to get any o ther contracts on the property but the one with Mr . Wise . Mrs. Pierson stated tha t it appeared that Lot 6 has two build ing s on it; is th is correct? Mr. Berkeley stated that Lot 6 has a sing le-family residence on it, which is re nted at this time. Mr . Carson s tated that it seemed to him t hat the applicant was placing a lot of dependence on acquir ing Lot 3 . Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant is not placing dependence on the acquisition of Lot 3; if the zoning is g ranted f or Lots 4 and 5, Mr . Wise will go ahead and develo p the property. The reason he mentioned Lot 3 is that they want to buy Lot 3, and if they ar e successful in obtaining the rezoning for Lots 4 and 5, they wil l attempt to get Lot 3 rezone d 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 mak e 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 t hat he is a real es tate broker, with offices at 4045 South Broadway, Suite 100 . Mr . Fin l ey stated that he bas b een a r eal estate broker since 1972, and has speciali.zed in residential sa l es since 1972, ma inly in Englewood. Mr. Criswell asked i f Mr. Finley was fa miliar with this particular neighbor h ood? Mr. Finley stated that be bad lived at 3767 South Sherman Street from 1964 to 1973, and still retains ownership of that land. Mr. Criswell aske d 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 ; be 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 f or single-family purposes? Mr. Finley stated that he had tried to sell these lots for single-family purposes for about a year . Kr. Criswell asked if Mr. Finley was acquainted with small developers who are interested in small sites? Mr . F inley 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 be felt this site would sell very quickly whe n he listed it, but in fact, there was v e ry little response on the listing. Be stated that be contacted several small builders, • • I • - • • • • - -9- among them Mr. Roy Smith and Mr. Uphouse. They looked at this s ite, and told him they wer not inte r ested. li e s tated that he talked to Mr . Smith about the listing at some l e n g th, and was told that it is not economically feasible to develop it for single-faaily. Mr. Finley stated that be had fe lt the sites were priced below the current market, but Mr . Smith stated that it is not feasible to build a s ingle-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 tha t the School District site bas s torag e of gravel and heavy equipme nt , the area is a hig h- traffic area, and none o f this is conducive to single-fa mily residential property . Mr. Criswell asked what, in Mr. Finley's opinion, a building site for single-family development should se ll lor? Mr. Finley stated b e tw ee n $15,000 to $18,000; h e stated that nothing had sold for less than $15 ,000 in the last three years, and there were very few single-faaily building sites left in Englewood. Mr. Criswe ll asked, in light of Mr. Finley's experience in the Englewoo d market, whether he felt th is parcel of land could be sold presently at the going rate for single-faaily residential development? Mr. Finley stated that he feels that the site could not be developed economically f or that price, and that this was the concensus of the builders be talked to: they couldn't pay this rate for these lots and develop the.m for single-family use . Mr. Criswell asked wba t t he 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 t o $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 be now resides at 4333 East Peakview Avenue in Littleton. Mr. Wise stated that be 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 o f the site. Mr. Wise discussed the character of the area, noting that to the north, the zoning is f or high density residence even though the property directly across East Jefferson Drive and Little Dry Creek bas a single- family residence on it at the present tiae. 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 s ide o f South Clarkson Street, ther e is one house in Cherry • • I • - • • • • • • -10- Hills Village that can be seen from the su b ject. site. To t.he south is Lot 6, Sandra's Subdivision, which is develo ped wit h a single-f amily house owned by Mr . Berkeley and rented at t he present time . Mr . Wise stated that the stru cture is small, and in poor condition . 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 Dis tr ict. Direct l y 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 En g lewood High School mai ntenance s hed. llr . Wis e stated that th i s portion o f t he school property is used as a "dumping g round" f or anything that the school district doesn't have any use for . The ground was originally used as a parking lot and ball field, but has been used f or storage for the p ast s veral years. Mr. Wise stated that be bad taken photographs o f t he subject site and surrounding areas. These photographs were presented to the Co mmission and Mr. Wise described what each photograph depicted. Mr . Bilo noted that Mr . Wise had indicate d that one photograph was taken looking north; if this is the case , it would have s h own the single-family structure to the north of East Je fferson Drive. Mr. Wise stated that the photog raph is angled north by nort hwest. llr. Criswell pointed ou t th at this single-family bouse is the only single-faaily structure which abuts East Jefferson along its six block length; all other uses are multi- family or commercial. Mr .Criswell asked of Mr. Wise what his plans were if the re- z oning were to be granted . Mr . Wise stated that he plans to c onstruct two luxury duplexes or a four-plex. He would want to live in one unit, and rent out the other three. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr . Wise understood that the property is possibly in the Flood Plain? llr. Wise stated that be did . Mr. Criswell referred to Mr. Finley's testV.Ony regarding the construction and sale o f single-faaily homes withou t livable baseaent areas. He asked if Mr. Wise bad considered the fact t hat any baseaent areas that might be proposed for the duplexes would have to be devoted to storage and could not be used for livable space . Mr. Wise stated that be did not plan livable space in the base- ment s, but would have crawl spaces for the location of furnace e qu ipaent, etc. llr. Wise stated that he fe lt the developaent of the site would be financially feasible with four units • Mr. Criswell asked if the acquisition o f Lot 3 would make a difference in llr. Wise's plans in over-all density proposed for the site? Mr. Wise stated that it would not; he proposes t o construct only the four units. Mr . Criswell asked if Mr. Wise would accept the condition that h o wever many units might be allowed on the site by the Compre- h ensive Zoning Ordinance if the zoning were to be granted, the de velopment of the site would be liaited to four units? Would Mr. Wise submit a Planned Developaent if he determined to build two duplexes rather tban one four-plex? Mr . Wise answered in the affiraative to both questions. Mr. Bilo asked if llr. Wise would still want to acquire Lot 3 if the rezoning was to be approved? Mr. Wise stated that he • I • - • • • • • • -11- would want to build four units wheth e r he acquired Lot 3 or not . The acquisition of Lot 3 would make for a nicer d e velop- ment, a nd could possibly be used for carpor ts f or the units. He emphasized that he would hope to be able t o purchase Lot 3 if the rezoning is approved . Mr. Lathrop pointed out that all Flood Plain Regulations would have t o be met by Mr. Wise. Mrs . Be cker pointed out that there has been discussion on t he fact that there could be no livable basements in the f lood plain. She asked if Mr. Wise was planning to construct base- ments that could eventua.lly be converted into living space? Mr . Wise stated that he was considering crawl spaces, wi th City approval. Mr. Criswell eapbasized that the applicant bas "assume d " the site is in the Flood Plain. He stated that he bas talked to Mr . Rick Kaha 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 f lood plain elevations. If the site is, in fact, in the flood plain, the Flood Plain re- quirements will have to be met whatever is ccnstructed on this site . Mrs . Pierson stated that she bas r ev iewed thE criteria the Commission should consider in rezoning, such as change in character of the neighborhood, denial of use, error in original zon in g, etc. She questioned that this reque~t qualified for rezoning under the criteria the Commission mu;t consider, and questioned that the co-ission had t he authority to reco-end the rezoning. Mrs . Pierson questioned if there was another way to approach development of the site ; she stated that she fe lt this piece of property needs "some creative thinking." She asked if a Planned Development could be subaitted so that variances in the density etc., coul d be granted, but the zoning would not be changed? Mr. Criswell stated that be did not -think this possible . In a sing l e -family district, the Planned Development would have to be for single-family construction. Mr. Criswell stated that be would hope the Planning Commission members wo uld drive through this neighborhood. He point ed 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 bas been in the City and zoned for single-family development for 25 years+, and it bas not developed in this time. Kr. Criswell stated that as be understood the Planned Develo~nt Ordinance in Englewood, it will allo~ flexi- bility in setbacks and placeaent of the structure, but it does not allow for a change in density. Mr. Criswell stated that • • I • - • • • • • • -12- most cit i es have a "fr ee-standing Planned Dcv lopm nt", but the Planned De velopment in E n g l ewoo d i s only an over l ay district, and onl y "cosmetic-type " improvements can be accomplished with th is method . He stated that he did not know what e lse the ap- pli cant can do --the property cannot develop as it is prese ntly z one d . Other than committing hims e l f to a development that would have only one or two units more than is pres ent ly allowed in the R-1-C Zoning, be didn't know what e lse the applica nt could do . He pointed out that the applicant is wi lling to c ome t o t h e Planning Commi ssio n an d City Cou ncil wi tb a Planned Development so that there would be control over the development of th e four units if the rezoning is granted. Mr . Criswell stated that be is of the opinion that this property canno t, i s not, and will not b e d eve lo ped a s R-1-C . Mr . Crisw 11 mad e rc1erenc e to the single-family deve lo pment in th e neighborhood. He noted that Mr. Wise bas stated that he f eels the bouse on Lot 6, Sandra's Subdivision is "subs tandard"; he stated that h does not fee l it is substanda rd, b u t it is v r y small, and t hat the homes in the area appear t o hav e been b u ilt abou t t he t ime of World War II. Mr. Criswell emphasized that these homes cannot be duplicated on today's market. Mr . Criswell sta ted that he does not suggest chang ing the z o ne classification on those homes that are developed ; however, there are sites that wi ll not develop on today's market under today 's criteria . Mr. Criswell stated that be felt the appli cant has presented j ustification for rezoning. Mrs . Pierson asked if the City Council c ould g rant the r ezoning con ditioned upon submission o f a Planned De velopment for t h e site? Mrs . Romans stated that this has b een done in the past and cited t h e Marshall Rezoning /Planned Deve lopme nt in the 3200 b lock of South Bannock Street. Mrs . Romans stated that a Mr. Ze itlin is the owner of Lot 3, Sandra's Subdivision ; Mr . Zeit lin c ontacted the office, and stated that be did not want Lo t 3 in- clude d in the rezoning request. Following the contact f rom Mr. Zeitlin, Mrs . Romans stated that she wrote to Mr . Wise with a c opy to Mr . Criswell and suggested that this matter shoul d be resolved before the Public Hearing . Mr. Criswel l then con- tac te d the staff and asked that Lot 3 b e e lim inate d 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 recomm end that it be approved? Mrs . Romans stated that Lot 3 was not included in this application ; it was not included in the lega l publication of the Hearing, nor was i t posted . Mrs. Pierson asked if this matter could be tabled until it can be dete rmined whether or not Lot 3 would be part of this one owner- sh ip? Mrs . Romans emphasized that it still would not be a part o f 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 • • I • • - • • • • • • -13- areas th at developers have said could no t be developed as single-family that have been so deve loped, notably a t Bates and Clarkson and Bates and Emerson . Mrs. Romans stated that she is not convinced that a creative, imaginative development cannot be rea lized with a single-family use. Mr . Bilo asked if the staff felt the possibility exists that Mr. Berkeley and/or loir. Wise could come in at a later date to request rezoning of Lot 3 and Lot 6? Mrs . Romans stated that th is is possible. Mrs. Becker asked for clarifica t ion on the manner in which density is determined in the R-2 Zone District . Mrs . Romans e xplaine d the formula for de termining th d nsity. Mr . Criswell stated that it was no t his intent ion to cr ate a controversy with the mention o f Lo t 3 . He stat ed that the ap- p licant did not file an application and present plans for the Plann e d Development at this time, and would not, un ti l 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 expe nse . 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. Criswell stated that as far as Lot 3 is concerned, be 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 tt 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 t o 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 i ncre ased density, noise and other problems that would be in- herent in this proposal. He stated that hi s property abuts Lot 6, t he 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, a nd 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 J e fferson Drive form a natural boundary for the zone dis- t ricts, and that be would hate to see the higher density dis- tricts ext end beyond this natural barrier. Mr. Werner stated th at he felt this would lower property values of the single- f amily residential area extending south along Clarkson Street, and noted that Kr. Criswell had ignored the effect the rezoning might have on the reaainder of the residential properties on South Clarkson Street. Mr. Werner noted that Mr. Criswell stated all four corners of the subject site appear to be out of th e Flood Plain ; if this is the case, why could not base- • I • - • • • • • ----~~--- • -14 - m~nts b e c ons tructed wi t h livable area for si n g l -fa mi l y r ·sid e n t i a l c onstruction on the s it '? lr. Wer n r st a t d Lha t. he f elt with a "little vision", this pro perty c ould be d e - ve loped ; "past history shows that lots t hat we r f elt t o b e u nbuil dable can become a very beautiful piece o f land under t he r ight hands." He questioned why this could not be the ca s e on the subject si te . lr. Lathrop stated that he felt whether or no t a basement cou ld be constructed would d e p e nd on t.h e F lood P lain and t h e Bui lding Code. Mr. Werner agreed that the School District has "perpetrated a n c y s ore on the nei~hborhood." II sugges t d that if th e School property were to be cleaned up , th s ubj c t site mig ht be more desirab le for singl -family d ve lopme n t. Mr . Carson asked Mr. Werner if his hou se was in the F lood P lain, and if his house had a baseme nt ? 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 Villa ge , but is in the Englewood School District . Mrs. Ward stated that no one has ment ioned what effect the rezoning request would have on the s choo l. She stated that a great many of the children g oing to Floo d Middle School and to the Hi g h 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 f rom the rezoning would be a detriment t o the s a f ety of these school children. Mrs . Ward referred to the z oning map of the area, and pointed out that the school is s urrounded by single-family residential. She stated that she f lt the Commission must decide what type of neighborhood they wa nt around the school, and stated that she personally felt th at 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 o n c e the zoning boundary at Little Dry Cre ek and East Jefferson Dr ive is crossed there would be a "chipping away" of the sing le- fa mily area along South Clarkson Street . Mrs. Ward stated that s he objects to the statement by the applicant that the houses a c ross the street cannot be seen from the subject site. She s tated that it might be a little difficult when the trees are leafed out, but that for approximately seven months out of the y e ar 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 Yr. Berkeley is rented to a very nice young couple, who have made an attempt to fix • • I • - • • • • • • -15- the place up. Mrs. Ward stat d that the argume nt th e property owner cannot use the property is persuasive, but she do sn '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 argu.ent. There are some parcels of land in the City that are being developed for single-family use, and that perhaps while soae of the "aarginal" parcels have not been developed in the past, t hey will be now. Mrs. Ward urg ed the Commission me mbers to consider the zoning around the school, and asked that they "don't chip away at it." Mr . Carson asked Mrs. Ward wher she lived? Mrs . Ward stated a cross the street on the east side o f South Clarkson Street. Mr. carson asked if the bouse direct ly north of Mrs. Ward's home was in the flood plain? The property owner state d that she thinks it is, but that the hous e 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 aontbs 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 hoaes are not prohibited in Englewood, Mr. Wise does not pro- pose prefab structures. Mr. Criswell stated that h e thinks the odds of a better development would be better with more units than would be peraitted 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, Tanguaa, Saitb 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 Coaaission 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 becoae a fact. She stated that the Coaaission could • I • - • • • • • • -16- r coiiiDiend the rezoning to City ouncil, it could be granted, and "tomorrow , things could b diff r nt." She stated tha she is a lso concerned about the statem nt that they would be back to ask f or rezonin g on Lot 3; this could also mean they cou ld be back later to ask for rezoning for Lot 6 to the south of t he subject site. Mrs . Becker stated that this wo ul d be a chipping a way of the sing le-famil y reside ntial neighbo rhood in th is area, and she felt it is in the bes t interest of the City to keep the zoning as it presently stands . Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt it has been estab lished th at the zoning could be recommended to be conditioned on the submission of a Planned Developmen t application for the site, wh ich Planned Develo.-sent would r un 'll•ith the land, and not with the individual owner . Mrs . Pi erson stated that there are several reasons the rezoning should n o t be recommended, a mong them being: Lot 3 is not a par t o f t his application, wh ich would leave a strip of sing l e -family zon ing t h at is unusabl e , and makes the designa t ions o f Lots 4 and 5 spot z oning, which is unacceptable . Mrs. Pierson stated that she did not feel the applicant has met the "burden of proof "; she stated that there was no testimony tha t 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 testiaony on denial of use o f the land, but the arguments were not persuasive . The area is not contiguous t o like or compatible zoning on three sides, nor does it complet e on e City block of compatibl e zon ing . This request is not in confor~~ance with the Comprehensiv e Plan . Mrs . Pierson stated that she felt the Commission had no option but to d eny t h e rezoning request, even thou gh she felt this was a specia l instance and the developer had s om e creative idea s which the eo .. ission bad 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 Reside nce, be denied • AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NA YS: None AB SENT: Williams, Draper, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that she would agree with Mrs. Pierson th at this is a situation in which the Commission has no vehicle ava ilable t o help the developer. She suggested that possibly this is so•ething that can be gone into under the COlllprehensive Plan Goals. Mr. Bilo stated that be felt it is necessary to protect the sing le-family residential properties, and that there was no alternative but to deny the rezoning . • I • - • • • • • -17- Mr . Lathrop stated that he felt th comments made by other members o f the co-ission have taken into consideration the testimony presented . He stated that the CoiiiJili ssions bands are tied at this time . The rezoning cannot b e approved and be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lathrop stated that he knows the property do es need t o be im proved, and would hope that perhaps at a la ter date something can be done to facilitate development . Mr. Wanusb pointed out that the recomme ndation will be se nt to City Council, and that the applican t may appea l the decision of the Commission to City Council . :Mr. Lathrop called called a recess at 9:15 P.M . The meeting reconve n ed at 9:30P.M., with the following attendance: Present: Absent: Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathro p, Pierson, Becke r Tangu•a, Williams, Smith V. PUBLIC FORUJI. No one was present to address th e 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. Wanusb stated that he had nothing to bring before the Commission. V III. COMMISSION'S CHOICE . Mrs. Pierson stated that she had considered the pros and cons of administrative hearings vs . public bearings 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 memb ers. Mrs . Becker stated that she felt the presentation b y the applicant h ad been very formal, and asked if it would have been that formal bad this been an "ac:blinistrative" procedure before the co-ission rat her than a "hearing"? Mrs. Pierson questioned that the format would have been different in this instance • • I • - • • • • • • -18- Mr. Bilo aske d when the n e xt me et ing wa s scheduled? Mr. Wanus h s tate d that there is nothing on the ag e uda un til the firs L meet ing in January, unless the Commission wants to have a meet ing on December 19th . Yr . Bilo questioned if perh aps t h e Commission wanted to discuss the administrative hearing pro- ce dure at that tiae? llrs. Romans stated that there are only one or two matters that are on the tentative a genda for January 8, 1980; perhaps the Commission would want to discuss the bearing procedures at that time . Mrs. Pierson stated t hat she for one would like time to cons ider the procedures , and it was deterained that this matt e r would be put on th e ag enda for January 8th. Mr. Jaaes Keller, Executive Director of the EDDA, asked what prog ress has been aade on the revision of t h e B-1 sec tion o f the Coaprehensive Zoning Ordinance? Mrs . Romans stated that Lhe staff has been waiting for approval of the Comprehensive P l an , which approval was given by City Council at their meeting of December 3rd. llr. Ke lle r stated that he would like t o urge th e Planning co-ission to consider the revision of the B-1 District as a priority item. He stated that members of the E DDA are particularly concerned abou t u ses such as pawn shops, used clothing stores, etc. Bi lo moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Commission dir e ct the staff to coae up with a draft of the B-1 District re- visions for the meet in g of January 8, 1980. Mr. Wanush questioned if the Commission wanted to work on the rev ision of the Coaprehensive Zoning Ordinance section-by-section, or revise the entire Ordinance at one time? Discussion ensued. Me mbers of the co-ission 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 once . The vote: AYE S: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker, NAY S: None AB SENT: Williams, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. Mrs. Becke r discussed her displeasure with the mechanical voting system . Becke r moved: Pierson seconded: 1be Planning Commission reinstate the voice- vote procedUr e to be called by the Secretary. AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None AB SENT: Williaas, Tanguaa, Smith The motion carried • • I • - - • • • • • • -19- There being nothing further to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned at 9:45 P. M • I • - - • • • • • • -20- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR REC OMM ENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: December 4, 1979 SUBJECT: RECOIOIENDATION: Carson aoved: Becker seconded: Denial of Rezoning Request The Planning Commission recomaend to City Council that the rezoning of Lots 4 and 5, Sandra's Subdivision from R-1-C, Sing le-family Residence, to R-2,Medium Density Residence, be denied . AYES: ·Carson, Lathrop, Pierson, Bilo, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williaas, Draper, Tanguma, Smith The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission • • I • •